Subject: Re: Tautological Tendencies
From: Jim Rovira (jrovira@drew.edu)
Date: Sat May 04 2002 - 00:36:17 GMT
Please. Fowler? I have it on my shelf too, but really as more of a
historical curiosity. Usage has changed a good deal since then. You
must
have access to something more recent than that :). Strunk and White is
good,
but by itself inadequate.
But you're missing something here. Two things, really. First, I never
said
that splitting infinitives was a violation of a rule. I specifically
said it
wasn't. I just said it was considered bad form by many grammarians.
But
while I think you can justify the use of the word "better" (I didn't
agree
with Scottie about your alleged misuse of the word "better," but with
his
doubts about whether or not the post that said, "your a freak," was
really
intended as an insult -- the central question, really, that you manage
to
avoid by hiding behind a demonstration of some grammatical knowledge),
you
haven't justified the use of a split infinitive. There's no Need [sic]
to put
the word "better" between the words "to" and "split," even following the
rule
you quoted -- don't split infinitives needlessly. I think your response
to
the alleged "insult post" was a pretty good example of the _needless_
splitting of an infinitive. You could have just as easily said, "to
educate
better. . .".
Beyond all this nonsense, however, is the second thing you miss.
This is a listserve, for God's sakes, and one convention on listserves
is that
participants generally ignore the MANY, MANY ( :) -- I could multiply
the
"manys" ) misuses and abuses of the English language (I remember
Scottie's
peeve some years back was over the refusal of some to use capital
letters --
my response to him then was the same as my response to you now --
lighten up).
But even in this instance Scottie was quite different from you. I got
the
feeling back then that he had just had it up to HERE [sic] with the
number of
poorly written posts filtering into his inbox on a daily basis. You
were
doing so in response to a perceived insult -- and possibly to someone
who
doesn't speak English as their native language.
If you really cared about better educating the public about the proper
use of
the English language, I think you'd be correcting everyone's posts, no?
But then you'd really, really make yourself unpopular :).
Heh. . .we should correct everyone's posts just for one week, just to
see what
happens :), making allowances, of course, for constructions unique to
e-mail
(such as the smiley face).
Jim
Cecilia Baader wrote:
> After representing my perfectly acceptable prose as 'tautological' and
> 'dysphonic', Herr Bowman launched into the following explication of his
> reasoning:
>
> '... Since educate derives from 'e[x]': out & 'duco': I lead,
> educate already has the sense, '[to] lead out, lead forth'
> - & so hardly requires the further adornment of 'better'.
> One could scarcely 'bring forth' in a negative way. Thar,
> presumably, would be to lead backwards, i.e. 'retro ducere'
> or ... but you doubtless grasp my drift.'
>
> Your argument is inherently flawed, for it rests on the assumption that
> the 'bringing forth' cannot be negative. You forget that in my original
> statement, I indicated that it was America that needed educating and,
> judging by your relatively regular need to correct the grammar of my
> fellow Americans, one can assume that the 'bringing forth' in this country
> is somewhat less than stellar. Therefore, one needs an adjective to
> modify this bringing forth. Let us, then, examine 'better':
>
> Better, as I am certain you are aware, derives from the Old English
> 'betere', from the Sanskrit 'bhadra': excellent. This 'excellent bringing
> forth' is precisely the meaning I desired.
>
> But that isn't the end of it: Jim, who has spent his life disagreeing with
> Scottie, felt the need to not only agree but to add:
>
> ' ... "To better educate" is also a split infinitive.
> It is argued, of course, whether or not split infinitives
> are incorrect English, but many people consider them bad form.
> But I agree -- "better" seems redundant here.'
>
> Ah, Jim, Jim, Jim. Neither Fowler nor Strunk, the only grammarians worth
> noting, deny me the opportunity to split my infinitives. Rather, the rule
> is: "Do not split infinitives needlessly." And, as I have already
> explained above, this particular adverb was entirely necessary.
>
> I trust I have clarified this matter to your satisfaction.
>
> Regards,
> Cecilia.
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions!
> http://auctions.yahoo.com
> -
> * Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
> * UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Wed Mar 20 2002 - 09:44:24 GMT