Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
to illegally examine
12 views
Skip to first unread message
navi
Feb 5, 2012, 4:09:19 AM2/5/12
to
Are these sentences both correct:
1-They decided to illegally examine the contents of the man's
briefcase.
2-They decided to examine the contents of the man's briefcase
illegally.
I think they mean different things.
"1" is telling us that examining the contents of the man's briefcase
was illegal but they decided to do it.
On the other hand "2" is telling us that they examined the contents of
the briefcase in an illegal manner. (There were also legal manners of
doing it, but they did it in an illegal manner.)
Am I correct?
Gratefully,
Navi.
1-They decided to illegally examine the contents of the man's
briefcase.
2-They decided to examine the contents of the man's briefcase
illegally.
I think they mean different things.
"1" is telling us that examining the contents of the man's briefcase
was illegal but they decided to do it.
On the other hand "2" is telling us that they examined the contents of
the briefcase in an illegal manner. (There were also legal manners of
doing it, but they did it in an illegal manner.)
Am I correct?
Gratefully,
Navi.
bert
Feb 5, 2012, 9:34:03 AM2/5/12
to
On Sunday, February 5, 2012 9:09:19 AM UTC, navi wrote:
> 1-They decided to illegally examine the contents of the man's
> briefcase.
> 2-They decided to examine the contents of the man's briefcase
> illegally.
1. is (pedantically speaking) a grammatical error,
> 1-They decided to illegally examine the contents of the man's
> briefcase.
> 2-They decided to examine the contents of the man's briefcase
> illegally.
because "to examine" is an infinitive, and it is
by tradition bad grammar to split it.
2. is open to the misconstruction that you suggest.
"They illegally decided to ..." could scarcely be
misconstrued as an illegal decision to do something
otherwise legal, so I think it's okay.
"They decided to make an illegal examination ..."
gets around the problem another way.
--
Marius Hancu
Feb 5, 2012, 9:41:56 AM2/5/12
to
> Are these sentences both correct:
>
> 1-They decided to illegally examine the contents of the man's
> briefcase.
> 2-They decided to examine the contents of the man's briefcase
> illegally.
Criminals never think of doing something "illegally."
They might think of doing it in a "clever way."
Marius Hancu
Mark Brader
Feb 7, 2012, 2:06:10 AM2/7/12
to
"Navi":
> and it is by tradition bad grammar to split it.
This tradition is mistaken.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "Computers may be very, very fast,
m...@vex.net | but they aren't very, very smart."
-- after Steve Summit
> > 1-They decided to illegally examine the contents of the man's
> > briefcase.
> > 2-They decided to examine the contents of the man's briefcase
> > illegally.
"Bert":
> > briefcase.
> > 2-They decided to examine the contents of the man's briefcase
> > illegally.
> 1. is (pedantically speaking) a grammatical error,
> because "to examine" is an infinitive,
No, it isn't.
> because "to examine" is an infinitive,
> and it is by tradition bad grammar to split it.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "Computers may be very, very fast,
m...@vex.net | but they aren't very, very smart."
-- after Steve Summit
Snidely
Feb 7, 2012, 2:45:10 AM2/7/12
to
Marius Hancu <marius...@gmail.com> scribbled something like ...
The sample sentences could both be used in a context where "they" are
police, customs agents, the FBI, the Secret Service, ATF, Mounties,
officers of the 82nd Highland Regiment, etc.
An alternative wording might be, "They decided to open the brief case for
an illegal examination."
Or, "They decided to examine the briefcase without legal authority to do
so."
But 2 might be, "They went about deciding illegally, when they considered
whether to examine the briefcase."
/dps
police, customs agents, the FBI, the Secret Service, ATF, Mounties,
officers of the 82nd Highland Regiment, etc.
An alternative wording might be, "They decided to open the brief case for
an illegal examination."
Or, "They decided to examine the briefcase without legal authority to do
so."
But 2 might be, "They went about deciding illegally, when they considered
whether to examine the briefcase."
/dps
Mike Lyle
Feb 7, 2012, 5:17:37 PM2/7/12
to
On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 01:06:10 -0600, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
>"Navi":
>> > 1-They decided to illegally examine the contents of the man's
>> > briefcase.
>> > 2-They decided to examine the contents of the man's briefcase
>> > illegally.
>
>"Bert":
>> 1. is (pedantically speaking) a grammatical error,
>> because "to examine" is an infinitive,
>
>No, it isn't.
>
>> and it is by tradition bad grammar to split it.
>
>This tradition is mistaken.
Bert, it's not actually bad _grammar_, but in the most careful English
>"Navi":
>> > 1-They decided to illegally examine the contents of the man's
>> > briefcase.
>> > 2-They decided to examine the contents of the man's briefcase
>> > illegally.
>
>"Bert":
>> 1. is (pedantically speaking) a grammatical error,
>> because "to examine" is an infinitive,
>
>No, it isn't.
>
>> and it is by tradition bad grammar to split it.
>
>This tradition is mistaken.
it is sometimes bad _style_ because it can be ambiguous. In some
quarters its deprecation turned into a prohibition, but that's never
been accepted by the "best" writers on either side of either of the
oceans.
What we do find is that many users of American English prefer the
"split" form even in cases where I find it uncomfortable - I've noted
that it can be one of the diagnostic features which separate
American-style and British-style writing.
--
Mike.
Mark Brader
Feb 7, 2012, 5:38:18 PM2/7/12
to
"Navi":
>>>> 1-They decided to illegally examine the contents of the man's
>>>> briefcase.
>>>> 2-They decided to examine the contents of the man's briefcase
>>>> illegally.
"Bert":
>>> 1. is (pedantically speaking) a grammatical error,
>>> because "to examine" is an infinitive,
>>>> 1-They decided to illegally examine the contents of the man's
>>>> briefcase.
>>>> 2-They decided to examine the contents of the man's briefcase
>>>> illegally.
"Bert":
>>> 1. is (pedantically speaking) a grammatical error,
>>> because "to examine" is an infinitive,
>>> and it is by tradition bad grammar to split it.
Mark Brader:
>> This tradition is mistaken.
Mike Lyle:
> Bert, it's not actually bad _grammar_, but in the most careful English
> it is sometimes bad _style_ because it can be ambiguous...
This claim surprises me, because I'd say it's exactly backwards.
It's examples like 2 that can be ambiguous: it's not clear exactly
how much of the sentence "illegally" is meant to modify. What was
illegal, the examination, or the decision, or the way of reaching
a decision, or what? Typically, as here, this does not have much
effect on the overall meaning; but that's not always true.
In 1, on the other hand, it's perfectly clear: "illegally" modifies
"examine", so it's the examination that was illegal.
--
Mark Brader "Actually, $150, to an educational institution,
Toronto turns out to be about the same as a lower amount."
m...@vex.net -- Mark Horton
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Mike Lyle
Feb 8, 2012, 4:45:48 PM2/8/12
to
On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:38:18 -0600, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
>"Navi":
>>>>> 1-They decided to illegally examine the contents of the man's
>>>>> briefcase.
>>>>> 2-They decided to examine the contents of the man's briefcase
>>>>> illegally.
>
>"Bert":
>>>> 1. is (pedantically speaking) a grammatical error,
>>>> because "to examine" is an infinitive,
>>>> and it is by tradition bad grammar to split it.
>
>Mark Brader:
>>> This tradition is mistaken.
>
>Mike Lyle:
>> Bert, it's not actually bad _grammar_, but in the most careful English
>> it is sometimes bad _style_ because it can be ambiguous...
>
>This claim surprises me, because I'd say it's exactly backwards.
>It's examples like 2 that can be ambiguous: it's not clear exactly
>how much of the sentence "illegally" is meant to modify. What was
>illegal, the examination, or the decision, or the way of reaching
>a decision, or what? Typically, as here, this does not have much
>effect on the overall meaning; but that's not always true.
>
>In 1, on the other hand, it's perfectly clear: "illegally" modifies
>"examine", so it's the examination that was illegal.
Yes, you're right. Not at all sure precisely what was happening in my
>"Navi":
>>>>> 1-They decided to illegally examine the contents of the man's
>>>>> briefcase.
>>>>> 2-They decided to examine the contents of the man's briefcase
>>>>> illegally.
>
>"Bert":
>>>> 1. is (pedantically speaking) a grammatical error,
>>>> because "to examine" is an infinitive,
>>>> and it is by tradition bad grammar to split it.
>
>Mark Brader:
>>> This tradition is mistaken.
>
>Mike Lyle:
>> Bert, it's not actually bad _grammar_, but in the most careful English
>> it is sometimes bad _style_ because it can be ambiguous...
>
>This claim surprises me, because I'd say it's exactly backwards.
>It's examples like 2 that can be ambiguous: it's not clear exactly
>how much of the sentence "illegally" is meant to modify. What was
>illegal, the examination, or the decision, or the way of reaching
>a decision, or what? Typically, as here, this does not have much
>effect on the overall meaning; but that's not always true.
>
>In 1, on the other hand, it's perfectly clear: "illegally" modifies
>"examine", so it's the examination that was illegal.
mind at that point, though I did want to soften what seemed your
rather abrupt dismissal of Bert's comment. What I actually believe is
that the adverb should never be placed mechanically, and that the
spurious "split infinitive" rule is misleading.
--
Mike.
navi
Feb 9, 2012, 9:16:29 AM2/9/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thank you all.
Indeed I was thinking of a law-enforcing group.
The usefulness of the split infinitive would perhaps become clearer in
these examples:
a-He decided to kindly open the door.
b-He decided to open the door kindly.
Leslie Danks
Feb 9, 2012, 9:51:42 AM2/9/12
to
He kindly decided to open the door.
--
Les
(BrE)
Mike Lyle
Feb 9, 2012, 6:49:41 PM2/9/12
to
brutally.
--
Mike.
navi
Feb 9, 2012, 8:06:49 PM2/9/12
to
On Feb 9, 3:49 pm, Mike Lyle <mike_lyle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Thank you Leslie and Mike.
You are right. My examples were not good. How about
A-I asked him to kindly get out of my way.
You are right. My examples were not good. How about
A-I asked him to kindly get out of my way.
Leslie Danks
Feb 10, 2012, 3:52:35 AM2/10/12
to
get out of my way" (kindly goes with asking). The expression "kindly get
out of my way" uses "kindly" with sarcastic overtones and actually means
"get out of my way, damn you", or similar. The words spoken might be
"Would you be so kind as to move your disgusting body along the bus so
that I can get on".
--
Les
(BrE)
Peter Brooks
Feb 10, 2012, 4:21:16 AM2/10/12
to
other day - an official command was couched as 'we ask you kindly to
do X'. It wasn't clear whether they meant that they were hoping for
you to be kind in doing X for them, or if they believed that they were
making the request in a kindly manner. How they thought a recorded
voice was a kindly manner, if that was their intention, wasn't very
clear to me.
Andrew B.
Feb 10, 2012, 5:00:01 AM2/10/12
to
exactly the one I've seen in old grammar books as an example of when
you should split the infinitive, as it's the clearest way to show that
what I said was "Kindly get out of my way".
(Checking the book, its example is "In an angry tone the speaker asked
the hecklers to kindly refrain from interrupting him".)
0 new messages