[deleted]

[Chris Coad]

originally posted by Thor:
I don't have strong feelings about the split infinitive, but I very much agree with the professor's suggestion that if one is going to play games with the language, one had better do it from a foundation of skill and intent. And that, ultimately, is the core of my objection to the misuse of "varietal". Its misuse is almost always a result of indifference/ignorance rather than intent. If someone were to misuse the word in a playful, inventive, or clever way, I'd be much less aggravated.

Well said. One ought to know the rules before one decides to break them.

 

[Saina Nieminen]

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
We go in circles. If you think that to boldly go, with a modifier between an empty morpheme and a full one is better than to go boldly, for you the question is answered. Really, unless a split infinitive is more sonorous than an unsplit one, there is no reason to split it.

Otto keeps giving reasons why the grammatical rule against them is wrong and Latinate. No one is arguing that the rule is right and one ought to follow Latinate uses. The argument is simply whether splitting leads to better writing. Those who think it does will judge accordingly and be accordingly judged.

Ok, I think I now see what you are getting at. First of all, the Douglas Adams quote was humour - Hitchhiker's Guide stuff IIRC - not an endorsement on my part as to its beauty over an unsplit infinitive.

But I think there are instances in English where the split infinitive sounds much better: e.g. with an emphatic word: "to utterly destroy" sounds more natural than "to destroy utterly" with its shift of emphasis. Or are English speakers so indoctrinated that even in such a case, the Latinate style is preferred? What about in the oft-quoted example by Trask "she decided to gradually get rid of the teddy bears she had collected"? Here moving "gradually" would shift the meanings of what is gradual or make the sentence awkward.

And I'm not sure we actually were going around in circles but perhaps we were just talking past each other? I was focused on the grammar whereas you wanted to shift the talk to style and I read that as a grammatical view.

 

[Ian Fitzsimmons]

Really, I was just kidding about the split infinitives.

Backtracking to 'varietal' variation, since we're actually discussing this seriously, I personally admire usage based on accurate definitions. But I think basic courtesy is no less important, so that the two have to be balanced somehow.

In a non-professional setting, where no harm is threatened, it's not really very nice to correct people in public. If a person has made an error so obvious that you feel confident enough to correct him/her, then communication has been achieved via context or redundancy, and correction adds little. If your demons drive you to correct nevertheless, or if the meaning really isn't clear, a tactful request for clarification usually serves to resolve things, while gently drawing the imprecision to the writer's notice. At the extreme, a one-on-one side message to the offender could be justified.

It should be possible to steer a middle course between good usage and good manners.

(Thus endeth the sermon).

 

[Jay Miller]

originally posted by Thor:

"I could care less" drives me even battier

Agreed.

I could care less about the use of this phrase. It really annoys me though I suppose it doesn't have to.

 

[MLipton]

originally posted by Thor:
If someone were to misuse the word in a playful, inventive, or clever way, I'd be much less aggravated.

No, you'd be irritated, speaking of terms used out of ignorance [insert emoticon of choice here]

Mark Lipton

 

[Thor]

Colon, hyphen, capital p.

 

[VLM]

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:

originally posted by Otto Nieminen:
I can't say much about the social aspects of linguistic issues, but I thought that most people wouldn't care how the words are used and will simply use it how others use it. So it is a passive choice to use varietal as both noun and adjective. But in case you didn't read the last sentence of my previous post, I think it is clear what choice I made. I'm not sure I understood Jonathan's complaint: we seem to have said pretty much the same thing. I didn't understand SfJoe's and Dan McQ's points either.

Part of what I was saying is that what you call a "passive choice" is actually just a choice. Once again, you don't accede to usage or fight it, you just participate in it. One way to participate is to object to changes that you think enfeeble the language as opposed to changes that improve it. Another way is to accept whatever change others make. Either choice is participation in usage. One of them has better results, I think.

Is the Southern phrase "might could" passe simple?

 

[Jeff Grossman]

Are split infinitives something up with which we will not put?

 

[Ian Fitzsimmons]

I'd like some time to really think about that carefully.

 

[Kevin Roberts]

originally posted by Chris Coad:

not to mention Chris's pet peeve, the difference between begging the question and evading it.

If anything, "I could care less" drives me even battier than misuse of begging the question, an utterance so brainless as to mean the exact opposite of what the utterer intends.

It's hard out here for a pedant.

Also completely maddening are these "false portmonteaus" people use all the time. The one that kills me is "supposeably" which doesn't combine the meanings of supposedly and probably, it just means that the user doesn't know what the hell they're talking about.

There is a particular quirk to Iowan grammar that prevents people from using the infinitive at all, (without using the gerund) and say things like "these glasses need washed."

It is hard for a pedant.

Kevin

 

[Scott Kraft]

Stephen Fry on Language