Fowler split infinitive quote.
Jeffrey Goldberg
I am looking for the exact text and citable reference for a quote from
Fowler's "Modern English Usage" (any edition) about split infinitives.
The text as I recall it was something like:
With respect to the split infinitive the people can be divided into
four categories: Those who don't know and don't care, those who know
and don't care, those who know and care, and those who don't know and
care a great deal.
I will track the group for a while, but I'd prefer responses by email (use
the Reply-To address) as well as posted. Sorry for posting only a query
and not contributing to this group, especially if this is a FAQ of some
sort. To atone for my sins, I will respond helpfully and politly to
newbie questions in groups were I am more competent to do so.
Thanks,
-j
--
Jeffrey Goldberg +44 (0)1234 750 111 x 2826
Cranfield Computer Centre FAX 751 814
J.Gol...@Cranfield.ac.uk http://WWW.Cranfield.ac.uk/public/cc/cc047/
Relativism is the triumph of authority over truth, convention over justice.
Note: Cranfield.ac.uk will be off the air from 30 Dec 1999 to 2 January
This is due to expected power failures on site see
http://www.markgold.freeserve.co.uk/cranfield.html for more information
Lars Eighner
In our last episode <H3Va4.13084$mv4.4...@news.rdc1.nj.home.com>,
the lovely and talented "Jack Gavin" <jackgavi...@home.com>
broadcast on alt.usage.english:
|From Fowlers 2 (Revised and edited by Sir Ernest Gowers)
|
|split infinitive. The English-speaking world may be divided into (1) those
|who neither know nor care what a split infinitie is; (2) those who do not
|know, but care very much; (3) those who know and condemn; (4) those who
|know and approve; and (5) those who know and distinguish.
|
|[...followed by over two pages of continued discussion in small type, about
|23 column-inches, which I am loath to transcribe. He apparently falls into
|category 5.]
Including (somewhere) my favorite: More people disapprove of a
split infinitive than know what one is.
--
Lars Eighner 700 Hearn #101 Austin TX 78703 eig...@io.com
(512) 474-1920 (FAX answers 6th ring) http://www.io.com/%7Eeighner/
bookstore: http://www.io.com/%7Eeighner/bookstore/
Lesser artists borrow. Great artists steal.
Martin Ambuhl
Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:
>
> I have no access to a library for a few days, so I'm posting this here.
> I am looking for the exact text and citable reference for a quote from
> Fowler's "Modern English Usage" (any edition) about split infinitives.
>
> The text as I recall it was something like:
>
> With respect to the split infinitive the people can be divided into
> four categories: Those who don't know and don't care, those who know
> and don't care, those who know and care, and those who don't know and
> care a great deal.
This phrase is not in the article on split infinitives (25) of the
King's English (1911).
I don't have a copy of the 1926 1st edition of MEU. It is possible that
it only has four categories, but the count is 5 in
Fowler, H.W. (rev. Sir Ernest Gowers), A Distionary of Modern English
Usage, 2nd Ed. (Oxford, 1965) p.579
"The English-speaking world may be divided into (1) those who neither
know nor care what a split infinitive is; (2) those who do no know, but
care very much; (3) those who know and condemn; (4) those who know and
approve; and (5) those who know and distinguish."
Burchfield removed this in his 1996 3rd edition.
--
Martin Ambuhl mam...@earthlink.net
What one knows is, in youth, of little moment; they know enough who
know how to learn. - Henry Adams
A thick skin is a gift from God. - Konrad Adenauer
__________________________________________________________
Fight spam now!
Get your free anti-spam service: http://www.brightmail.com
Schainbaum, Robert
>
> I have no access to a library for a few days, so I'm posting this here.
> I am looking for the exact text and citable reference for a quote from
> Fowler's "Modern English Usage" (any edition) about split infinitives.
>
> The text as I recall it was something like:
>
> With respect to the split infinitive the people can be divided into
> four categories: Those who don't know and don't care, those who know
> and don't care, those who know and care, and those who don't know and
> care a great deal.
>
> the Reply-To address) as well as posted. Sorry for posting only a query
> and not contributing to this group, especially if this is a FAQ of some
> sort. To atone for my sins, I will respond helpfully and politly to
> newbie questions in groups were I am more competent to do so.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -j
>
Your question relates to whether a group of people who
concern themselves with Fowler agree with Fowler. I used to
know and used not to care. Now I do care. I used to think
that Fowler was the last word, now I don't. Can't say
exactly when the changeover happened, but it happened in a
period when the burden of reading and writing in my life had
greatly increased.
/r
Jack Gavin
Jeffrey Goldberg wrote in message ...
>I have no access to a library for a few days, so I'm posting this here.
>I am looking for the exact text and citable reference for a quote from
>Fowler's "Modern English Usage" (any edition) about split infinitives.
>
>The text as I recall it was something like:
>
> With respect to the split infinitive the people can be divided into
> four categories: Those who don't know and don't care, those who know
> and don't care, those who know and care, and those who don't know and
> care a great deal.
>
>I will track the group for a while, but I'd prefer responses by email (use
>the Reply-To address) as well as posted. Sorry for posting only a query
>and not contributing to this group, especially if this is a FAQ of some
>sort. To atone for my sins, I will respond helpfully and politly to
>newbie questions in groups were I am more competent to do so.
>
>Thanks,
>
split infinitive. The English-speaking world may be divided into (1) those
who neither know nor care what a split infinitie is; (2) those who do not
know, but care very much; (3) those who know and condemn; (4) those who
know and approve; and (5) those who know and distinguish.
[...followed by over two pages of continued discussion in small type, about
23 column-inches, which I am loath to transcribe. He apparently falls into
category 5.]
--
Jack Gavin
MarvL
http://public.logica.com/~stepneys/cyc/s/split.htm has what you're looking
for or it's a near miss.
Here's a nice quote, from Churchill, about dangling participles, whatever
they are.
http://www.winstonchurchill.org/bonmots.htm#"Up with"
--
MCSE Magnet Website Ma...@marvl.com MCT
http://www.epiclearning.com/instructors/
Jeffrey Goldberg <J.Gol...@Cranfield.ac.uk> wrote
Ralph Jones
>
> From Fowlers 2 (Revised and edited by Sir Ernest Gowers)
>
> split infinitive. The English-speaking world may be divided into (1) those
> who neither know nor care what a split infinitie is; (2) those who do not
> know, but care very much; (3) those who know and condemn; (4) those who
> know and approve; and (5) those who know and distinguish.
>
> [...followed by over two pages of continued discussion in small type, about
> 23 column-inches, which I am loath to transcribe. He apparently falls into
> category 5.]
Isn't that rule about split infinitives an attempt to apply rules for
Latin and/or Greek to English? I'm sure that I ran across that thought
in this group.
But really; if infinitives were meant to not be split, they would
consist of one word, wouldn't they? We would then lose nuances that can
occur with a split ("I really want to study" vs. "I want to really
study".)
And if infinitives consisted of one word, they would probably still be
split, but we wouldn't call them 'split infinitives', we'd call such an
occurence 'tmesis'.
I had to craft that last sentence to avoid a plural. Can someone tell me
the plural of 'tmesis'?
--
A pedant, in case you don't know it,
Corrects the words of a poet.
- rmj
http://www.hal-pc.org/~rmjones [Opinions and suggestions welcome]
Martin Ambuhl
Ralph Jones wrote:
> And if infinitives consisted of one word, they would probably still be
> split, but we wouldn't call them 'split infinitives', we'd call such an
> occurence 'tmesis'.
>
> I had to craft that last sentence to avoid a plural. Can someone tell me
> the plural of 'tmesis'?
tmeses
It follows the normal rules for words obviously imported from Greek
which have note been subjected to vulgar "English" plural formation.
(Tmesis, for the great unwashed, is the separation of the elements of a
compound word by the interpostion of other words. You will note that
there is a problem with the application in the quoted text. It is
un-bloody-likely that you will find tmesis in formal English writing.)
Jack Gavin
>
>
>Ralph Jones wrote:
>
>> And if infinitives consisted of one word, they would probably still be
>> split, but we wouldn't call them 'split infinitives', we'd call such an
>> occurence 'tmesis'.
>>
>> I had to craft that last sentence to avoid a plural. Can someone tell me
>> the plural of 'tmesis'?
>
>tmeses
>It follows the normal rules for words obviously imported from Greek
>which have note been subjected to vulgar "English" plural formation.
>
>(Tmesis, for the great unwashed, is the separation of the elements of a
>compound word by the interpostion of other words. You will note that
>there is a problem with the application in the quoted text. It is
>un-bloody-likely that you will find tmesis in formal English writing.)
>
--
Jack Gavin
Skitt
STEAM GENE <stea...@aol.comOpFoot> wrote in message
news:20000104222824...@ng-fw1.aol.com...
> << They DO consist of one word. The "to" isn't part of the infinitive, and
> doesn't always precede it. In "I can run," the final word is an
> infinitive.
> >>
>
>
> The "to" is what makes it an infinitive. In the above example, the verb
is
> "run" with the helping verb "can."
Sigh.
--
Skitt (on Florida's Space Coast) http://i.am/skitt/
... information is gushing toward your brain like a fire hose aimed
at a teacup. -- Dogbert
STEAM GENE
doesn't always precede it. In "I can run," the final word is an
infinitive.
>>
The "to" is what makes it an infinitive. In the above example, the verb is
"run" with the helping verb "can."
Gene
ABV61-1043.001.HCB
<A HREF="http://www.tckworld.com/opfoot">http://www.tckworld.com/opfoot</A>
P&D Schultz
>
> << They DO consist of one word. The "to" isn't part of the infinitive, and
> doesn't always precede it. In "I can run," the final word is an
> infinitive.
> >>
>
> The "to" is what makes it an infinitive. In the above example, the verb is
> "run" with the helping verb "can."
Wrong. "To" often marks an infinitive, but not always. The thing that
makes a verb an infinitive is lack of finiteness (no tense, no mood, no
inflexion). The verb "run" in that sentence *is* an infinitive.
//P. Schultz
R J Valentine
So is "to have run" an infinitive?
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:rj+t...@clark.net>
Aaron J. Dinkin
wrote:
> Wrong. "To" often marks an infinitive, but not always. The thing that
> makes a verb an infinitive is lack of finiteness (no tense, no mood, no
> inflexion). The verb "run" in that sentence *is* an infinitive.
That's necessary but not sufficient (except for "no inflexion"). There are
plenty of nonfinite verb forms that aren't the infinitive: participles,
gerunds, and the like, and there are plenty of languages in which the
infinitive is marked with an inflection. So what is it exactly that makes
one form the "infinitive"?
-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom
Aaron J. Dinkin
<r...@clark.net> wrote:
> P&D Schultz <schu...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> ] STEAM GENE wrote:
> ]>
> ]> << They DO consist of one word. The "to" isn't part of the infinitive, and
> ]> doesn't always precede it. In "I can run," the final word is an
> ]> infinitive.
> ]> >>
> ]>
> ]> The "to" is what makes it an infinitive. In the above example, the verb is
> ]> "run" with the helping verb "can."
> ]
> ] Wrong. "To" often marks an infinitive, but not always. The thing that
> ] makes a verb an infinitive is lack of finiteness (no tense, no mood, no
> ] inflexion). The verb "run" in that sentence *is* an infinitive.
>
> So is "to have run" an infinitive?
No, "have run" is an infinitive. "To" just marks it.
P&D Schultz
>
> In article <387312D4...@erols.com>, P&D Schultz <schu...@erols.com>
> wrote:
>
> > makes a verb an infinitive is lack of finiteness (no tense, no mood, no
> > inflexion). The verb "run" in that sentence *is* an infinitive.
>
> plenty of nonfinite verb forms that aren't the infinitive: participles,
> gerunds, and the like, and there are plenty of languages in which the
> infinitive is marked with an inflection. So what is it exactly that makes
> one form the "infinitive"?
My grammar book says there are two classes of non-finite verbals
("verbals" includes real verbs, and also other forms like participles
and gerunds which do verb-type work, like taking direct objects, etc.).
They are (1) infinitives (which are proper verbs), and (2)
participles/gerunds.
I think the distinction is that infinitives function as verbs in the
sentence, while the other verbals are normally plugged into other
functions (like adjective- or noun phrases).
But none of them are finite. So, you're right, "infinitive" is not the
best choice of a name for what it's used for. Maybe it's the Romans'
fault?
//P. Schultz
Stan Brown
(STEAM GENE) wrote in alt.usage.english:
>> They DO consist of one word. The "to" isn't part of the infinitive, and
>>doesn't always precede it. In "I can run," the final word is an
>>infinitive.
[quoting edited to standard form, though the previous article
did not attribute the above words]
>The "to" is what makes it an infinitive. In the above example, the verb is
>"run" with the helping verb "can."
Then why isn't it "He can runs"? Seems to me "run" in "X can run"
has to be an infinitive since it does not agree with the subject
in number or person.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
http://www.mindspring.com/~brahms/
My reply address is correct as is. The courtesy of providing a correct
reply address is more important to me than time spent deleting spam.
Aaron J. Dinkin
wrote:
> "Aaron J. Dinkin" wrote:
> >
> > In article <387312D4...@erols.com>, P&D Schultz <schu...@erols.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Wrong. "To" often marks an infinitive, but not always. The thing that
> > > makes a verb an infinitive is lack of finiteness (no tense, no mood, no
> > > inflexion). The verb "run" in that sentence *is* an infinitive.
> >
> > That's necessary but not sufficient (except for "no inflexion"). There are
> > plenty of nonfinite verb forms that aren't the infinitive: participles,
> > gerunds, and the like, and there are plenty of languages in which the
> > infinitive is marked with an inflection. So what is it exactly that makes
> > one form the "infinitive"?
<snip>
> I think the distinction is that infinitives function as verbs in the
> sentence, while the other verbals are normally plugged into other
> functions (like adjective- or noun phrases).
What do you mean by "function as verbs in the sentence"? In "I can do
anything better than you," is "do" functioning as a verb in the sentence?
If so, what about "done" in "I have done anything better than you"? It
seems to me that in those two sentences "do" and "done" are functioning in
the exact same way. In "I don't want to get married at all," is "get"
functioning as a verb in the sentence? What about "go" in "I know where to
go"?
P&D Schultz
In my opinion, the answer to all of those questions is "yes".
The non-verb functions I was referring to are things like "Chopping
cotton was the only skill she had", in which the first two words are a
noun phrase, and are subject of the sentence, even though the second
word is the direct object of the first word, a gerund.
But come to think of it, the "to+infinitive" form can be used in a
gerund slot. To err is human.
//P. Schultz