Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
"When do you next plan to be in this area?"
153 views
Skip to first unread message
Pamela
Sep 2, 2023, 3:31:47 PM9/2/23
to
Number (1) below sounds best to me. However when it is read literally,
the location of "next" creates a sentence which is not very logical.
Are (2) and (3) better?
I'm not concerned about any split infinitive.
---------
(1) When do you next plan to be in this area?
(2) When do you plan to next be in this area?
(3) When do you plan to be in this area next?
the location of "next" creates a sentence which is not very logical.
Are (2) and (3) better?
I'm not concerned about any split infinitive.
---------
(1) When do you next plan to be in this area?
(2) When do you plan to next be in this area?
(3) When do you plan to be in this area next?
bert
Sep 2, 2023, 4:37:03 PM9/2/23
to
the intended question is not about when the plan
will be made, it's about when the planned outcome
will occur. That makes both (2) and (3) wrong
when read literally, and (1) is best after all.
Mark Brader
Sep 3, 2023, 12:51:51 AM9/3/23
to
"Pamela" asks about:
If I thought about it I'd use 2, and 3 is also correct.
--
Mark Brader "It's okay for us to love our country,
Toronto but we ought to spend most of our time
m...@vex.net making our country lovable." -- Andy Rooney
> (1) When do you next plan to be in this area?
> (2) When do you plan to next be in this area?
> (3) When do you plan to be in this area next?
1 is technically wrong but is the sort of thing people actually say.
> (2) When do you plan to next be in this area?
> (3) When do you plan to be in this area next?
If I thought about it I'd use 2, and 3 is also correct.
--
Mark Brader "It's okay for us to love our country,
Toronto but we ought to spend most of our time
m...@vex.net making our country lovable." -- Andy Rooney
Bertel Lund Hansen
Sep 3, 2023, 2:27:09 AM9/3/23
to
bert wrote:
>> (1) When do you next plan to be in this area?
>>
>> (2) When do you plan to next be in this area?
>>
>> (3) When do you plan to be in this area next?
>
> Agreed that at first (1) seems illogical. However,
> the intended question is not about when the plan
> will be made, it's about when the planned outcome
> will occur. That makes both (2) and (3) wrong
> when read literally,
But that is not how they will be read. Compare with this totally normal
>> (1) When do you next plan to be in this area?
>>
>> (2) When do you plan to next be in this area?
>>
>> (3) When do you plan to be in this area next?
>
> Agreed that at first (1) seems illogical. However,
> the intended question is not about when the plan
> will be made, it's about when the planned outcome
> will occur. That makes both (2) and (3) wrong
> when read literally,
construction (in both Danish and English and probably many other
languages as well):
If anyone is interested, you can find
the papers on the table.
which means that there are no papers if nobody is interested.
--
Bertel, Denmark
Ross Clark
Sep 3, 2023, 7:08:56 AM9/3/23
to
(2) is perfectly understandable, and wouldn't be any worse if you
avoided splitting the infinitive:
(2a) When to you plan next to be in this area?
The hypallage in (1) reminds me of the way negatives slip about in
things like:
He can't seem to sit still.
They don't want to answer that question.
Mark Brader
Sep 3, 2023, 4:03:48 PM9/3/23
to
Bertel Lund Hansen:
For another example, see the first line of "The Mikado" by Gilbert
and Sullivan.
--
Mark Brader "I already checked, and there are 2147483647
Toronto natural numbers (I made a simple Java program
m...@vex.net to count them)." -- Risto Lankinen
My text in this article is in the public domain.
> Compare with this totally normal construction (in both Danish and
> English and probably many other languages as well):
>
> If anyone is interested, you can find
> the papers on the table.
>
> which means that there are no papers if nobody is interested.
No, only that there *might* be no papers in that case.
> English and probably many other languages as well):
>
> If anyone is interested, you can find
> the papers on the table.
>
> which means that there are no papers if nobody is interested.
For another example, see the first line of "The Mikado" by Gilbert
and Sullivan.
--
Mark Brader "I already checked, and there are 2147483647
Toronto natural numbers (I made a simple Java program
m...@vex.net to count them)." -- Risto Lankinen
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Mark Brader
Sep 3, 2023, 4:11:21 PM9/3/23
to
"Pamela":
--
Mark Brader | "But [he] had already established his own reputation
Toronto | as someone who wrote poetry that mentioned the el."
m...@vex.net | --Al Kriman
> > (1) When do you next plan to be in this area?
> > (2) When do you plan to next be in this area?
> > (3) When do you plan to be in this area next?
Ross Clark:
> > (2) When do you plan to next be in this area?
> > (3) When do you plan to be in this area next?
> (1) and (3) are fine.
> (2) is perfectly understandable, and wouldn't be any worse if you
> avoided splitting the infinitive:
>
> (2a) When to you plan next to be in this area?
No, "next" modifies "be", not "to" or "plan". This version is wrong.
> (2) is perfectly understandable, and wouldn't be any worse if you
> avoided splitting the infinitive:
>
> (2a) When to you plan next to be in this area?
--
Mark Brader | "But [he] had already established his own reputation
Toronto | as someone who wrote poetry that mentioned the el."
m...@vex.net | --Al Kriman
Ross Clark
Sep 3, 2023, 4:27:20 PM9/3/23
to
On 4/09/2023 8:11 a.m., Mark Brader wrote:
> "Pamela":
>>> (1) When do you next plan to be in this area?
>>> (2) When do you plan to next be in this area?
>>> (3) When do you plan to be in this area next?
>
> Ross Clark:
>> (1) and (3) are fine.
>> (2) is perfectly understandable, and wouldn't be any worse if you
>> avoided splitting the infinitive:
>>
>> (2a) When to you plan next to be in this area?
>
> No, "next" modifies "be", not "to" or "plan". This version is wrong.
>
So why do you consider (3) correct, given that "next" does not modify
> "Pamela":
>>> (1) When do you next plan to be in this area?
>>> (2) When do you plan to next be in this area?
>>> (3) When do you plan to be in this area next?
>
> Ross Clark:
>> (1) and (3) are fine.
>> (2) is perfectly understandable, and wouldn't be any worse if you
>> avoided splitting the infinitive:
>>
>> (2a) When to you plan next to be in this area?
>
> No, "next" modifies "be", not "to" or "plan". This version is wrong.
>
"area"?
Lionel Edwards
Sep 3, 2023, 6:15:14 PM9/3/23
to
(4) When do you plan to be next in this area?
Mark Brader
Sep 3, 2023, 11:39:34 PM9/3/23
to
"Pamela":
>>>> (1) When do you next plan to be in this area?
>>>> (2) When do you plan to next be in this area?
>>>> (3) When do you plan to be in this area next?
Ross Clark:
>>> (1) and (3) are fine.
>>> (2) is perfectly understandable, and wouldn't be any worse if you
>>> avoided splitting the infinitive:
>>>
>>> (2a) When to you plan next to be in this area?
Mark Brader:
>>>> (1) When do you next plan to be in this area?
>>>> (2) When do you plan to next be in this area?
>>>> (3) When do you plan to be in this area next?
Ross Clark:
>>> (1) and (3) are fine.
>>> (2) is perfectly understandable, and wouldn't be any worse if you
>>> avoided splitting the infinitive:
>>>
>>> (2a) When to you plan next to be in this area?
>> No, "next" modifies "be", not "to" or "plan". This version is wrong.
Ross Clark:
> So why do you consider (3) correct, given that "next" does not modify
> "area"?
In 3 it modifies "be in this area".
> "area"?
--
Mark Brader | "It never occurred to me that a living person could be
Toronto | used as a blowtorch, but we admit human beings are a
m...@vex.net | bit special, don't we?" --Hal Clement: STILL RIVER
Hibou
Sep 4, 2023, 1:23:19 AM9/4/23
to
'plan' here is 'intend'.
When do you {next intend} to be in this area?
<https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/plan> BrE sense 8.
Hibou
Sep 4, 2023, 2:58:06 AM9/4/23
to
Le 04/09/2023 à 06:23, Hibou a écrit :
>
> It's (1) for me too. I don't think it's illogical, since the sense of
> 'plan' here is 'intend'.
>
> When do you {next intend} to be in this area?
Better:
>
> It's (1) for me too. I don't think it's illogical, since the sense of
> 'plan' here is 'intend'.
>
> When do you {next intend} to be in this area?
Ross Clark
Sep 4, 2023, 6:32:38 AM9/4/23
to
On 4/09/2023 3:39 p.m., Mark Brader wrote:
> "Pamela":
>>>>> (1) When do you next plan to be in this area?
>>>>> (2) When do you plan to next be in this area?
>>>>> (3) When do you plan to be in this area next?
>
> Ross Clark:
>>>> (1) and (3) are fine.
>>>> (2) is perfectly understandable, and wouldn't be any worse if you
>>>> avoided splitting the infinitive:
>>>>
>>>> (2a) When to you plan next to be in this area?
>
> Mark Brader:
>>> No, "next" modifies "be", not "to" or "plan". This version is wrong.
>
> Ross Clark:
>> So why do you consider (3) correct, given that "next" does not modify
>> "area"?
>
> In 3 it modifies "be in this area".
>
And likewise, in (2a), "next" modifies "to be in this area".
> "Pamela":
>>>>> (1) When do you next plan to be in this area?
>>>>> (2) When do you plan to next be in this area?
>>>>> (3) When do you plan to be in this area next?
>
> Ross Clark:
>>>> (1) and (3) are fine.
>>>> (2) is perfectly understandable, and wouldn't be any worse if you
>>>> avoided splitting the infinitive:
>>>>
>>>> (2a) When to you plan next to be in this area?
>
> Mark Brader:
>>> No, "next" modifies "be", not "to" or "plan". This version is wrong.
>
> Ross Clark:
>> So why do you consider (3) correct, given that "next" does not modify
>> "area"?
>
> In 3 it modifies "be in this area".
>
Why do you consider that wrong?
Ross Clark
Sep 4, 2023, 6:34:48 AM9/4/23
to
by inviting the reading "be next", as in "Who's next?".
Ross Clark
Sep 4, 2023, 6:39:35 AM9/4/23
to
when the plan will be. Your version has exactly the same "problem" as
the original.
Hibou
Sep 4, 2023, 8:31:59 AM9/4/23
to
all seem all right to me:
When will you be in this area?
When do you intend to be in this area?
When do you next intend to be in this area?
(The 'when' applies to being in the area, of course.)
Bebercito
Sep 4, 2023, 8:39:18 AM9/4/23
to
to answer that question" can hardly be thought of as natural phrasing unless
e.g. it comes in response to "What do they want to do?" and marking an
opposition to answering the question is a significant act in itself.
occam
Sep 4, 2023, 10:32:52 AM9/4/23
to
4) When next do you plan to be in this area?
Peter T. Daniels
Sep 4, 2023, 10:54:14 AM9/4/23
to
On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 1:23:19 AM UTC-4, Hibou wrote:
> Le 02/09/2023 à 20:31, Pamela a écrit :
> > Number (1) below sounds best to me. However when it is read literally,
> > the location of "next" creates a sentence which is not very logical.
> > Are (2) and (3) better?
> > I'm not concerned about any split infinitive.
> > ---------
> > (1) When do you next plan to be in this area?
> > (2) When do you plan to next be in this area?
> > (3) When do you plan to be in this area next?
>
> It's (1) for me too. I don't think it's illogical, since the sense of
> 'plan' here is 'intend'.
>
> When do you {next intend} to be in this area?
Predicting state of mind rather than predicting presence in the area?
> Le 02/09/2023 à 20:31, Pamela a écrit :
> > Number (1) below sounds best to me. However when it is read literally,
> > the location of "next" creates a sentence which is not very logical.
> > Are (2) and (3) better?
> > I'm not concerned about any split infinitive.
> > ---------
> > (1) When do you next plan to be in this area?
> > (2) When do you plan to next be in this area?
> > (3) When do you plan to be in this area next?
>
> It's (1) for me too. I don't think it's illogical, since the sense of
> 'plan' here is 'intend'.
>
> When do you {next intend} to be in this area?
I think not.
(3) is best, (2) is a fussy version of (3).
Peter T. Daniels
Sep 4, 2023, 10:59:15 AM9/4/23
to
You might just possibly get away with _saying_ it with a long, long pause
before "not." The answer to the question is "They want to not answer the
question."
Like Pamela, I don't care that you can't split an infinitive in Latin. Or French.
Peter T. Daniels
Sep 4, 2023, 11:00:31 AM9/4/23
to
On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 10:32:52 AM UTC-4, occam wrote:
> [NOTE: I have not read any of the intermediate posts. Ignore at will.]
>
> 4) When next do you plan to be in this area?
GACK!!!!! Is that a sentence you could actually utter?
> [NOTE: I have not read any of the intermediate posts. Ignore at will.]
>
> 4) When next do you plan to be in this area?
Bebercito
Sep 4, 2023, 7:31:30 PM9/4/23
to
Le lundi 4 septembre 2023 à 16:59:15 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 8:39:18 AM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> > Le dimanche 3 septembre 2023 à 13:08:56 UTC+2, Ross Clark a écrit :
>
> > > They don't want to answer that question.
> >
> > The negative-raising is less clear in the second sentence, as "They want not
> > to anhttps://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=I+want+not+to%2C+I+want+to+not&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3swer that question" can hardly be thought of as natural phrasing unless
> On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 8:39:18 AM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> > Le dimanche 3 septembre 2023 à 13:08:56 UTC+2, Ross Clark a écrit :
>
> > > They don't want to answer that question.
> >
> > The negative-raising is less clear in the second sentence, as "They want not
> > e.g. it comes in response to "What do they want to do?" and marking an
> > opposition to answering the question is a significant act in itself.
> No, it is not a possible sentence of English no matter what the context.
>
> You might just possibly get away with _saying_ it with a long, long pause
> before "not." The answer to the question is "They want to not answer the
> question."
That's not so clear, apparently:
> > opposition to answering the question is a significant act in itself.
> No, it is not a possible sentence of English no matter what the context.
>
> You might just possibly get away with _saying_ it with a long, long pause
> before "not." The answer to the question is "They want to not answer the
> question."
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=want+not+to%2Cwant+to+not&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3
>
> Like Pamela, I don't care that you can't split an infinitive in Latin. Or French.
good reason as there are no infinitive markers equivalent to "to" in those
languages.
Ross Clark
Sep 4, 2023, 8:59:38 PM9/4/23
to
time-adverb "next" occurs immediately before the verb "plan" (or
"intend" in your version). But the question is not about the time of the
planning/intending, but about the time of the being (in the area).
I don't see it as a real problem. English often separates modifiers from
their closest logical/semantic connection. (See my examples with negatives.)
My point to you was that "plan" and "intend" are such similar verbs that
replacing one with the other doesn't alter the situation.
S K
Sep 4, 2023, 9:28:23 PM9/4/23
to
Mark Brader
Sep 5, 2023, 12:33:08 AM9/5/23
to
Ross Clark:
--
Mark Brader | "The race is not always to the swift,
Toronto | nor the battle to the strong --
m...@vex.net | but that is the way to bet it." --Damon Runyon
> And likewise, in (2a), "next" modifies "to be in this area".
> Why do you consider that wrong?
Never mind, I choose not to pursue this further.
> Why do you consider that wrong?
--
Mark Brader | "The race is not always to the swift,
Toronto | nor the battle to the strong --
m...@vex.net | but that is the way to bet it." --Damon Runyon
Hibou
Sep 5, 2023, 1:26:28 AM9/5/23
to
I prefer 'intend' here, since its primary sense is to have in mind,
whereas the primary sense of the verb 'plan' is to make a plan. I think
it makes things a wee bit clearer.
Peter T. Daniels
Sep 5, 2023, 9:41:15 AM9/5/23
to
On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 7:31:30 PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> Le lundi 4 septembre 2023 à 16:59:15 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 8:39:18 AM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> > > Le dimanche 3 septembre 2023 à 13:08:56 UTC+2, Ross Clark a écrit :
> > > > They don't want to answer that question.
> > > The negative-raising is less clear in the second sentence, as "They want not
> > > to anhttps://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=I+want+not+to%2C+I+want+to+not&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3swer that question" can hardly be thought of as natural phrasing unless
> > > e.g. it comes in response to "What do they want to do?" and marking an
> > > opposition to answering the question is a significant act in itself.
> > No, it is not a possible sentence of English no matter what the context.
> > You might just possibly get away with _saying_ it with a long, long pause
> > before "not." The answer to the question is "They want to not answer the
> > question."
>
> That's not so clear, apparently:
>
> https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=want+not+to%2Cwant+to+not&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3
Did you bother looking at any of the examples?
> Le lundi 4 septembre 2023 à 16:59:15 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 8:39:18 AM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> > > Le dimanche 3 septembre 2023 à 13:08:56 UTC+2, Ross Clark a écrit :
> > > > They don't want to answer that question.
> > > The negative-raising is less clear in the second sentence, as "They want not
> > > to anhttps://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=I+want+not+to%2C+I+want+to+not&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3swer that question" can hardly be thought of as natural phrasing unless
> > > e.g. it comes in response to "What do they want to do?" and marking an
> > > opposition to answering the question is a significant act in itself.
> > No, it is not a possible sentence of English no matter what the context.
> > You might just possibly get away with _saying_ it with a long, long pause
> > before "not." The answer to the question is "They want to not answer the
> > question."
>
> That's not so clear, apparently:
>
> https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=want+not+to%2Cwant+to+not&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3
(Did you notice that below the graph are links that show you examples
from short time-frames?)
There is a huge difference between not wanting to do something
and wanting to not do something. (Maybe you can't make it so neatly
in French, so it's alien to you.)
> > Like Pamela, I don't care that you can't split an infinitive in Latin. Or French.
>
> ? The very notion of split infinitive doesn't exist in Latin and French, and for
> good reason as there are no infinitive markers equivalent to "to" in those
> languages.
INFINITIVE" IN ENGLISH: because it could not be done in Latin. (They
rightly didn't give a damn about French. I just threw that in for your
benefit.)
bozo de niro
Sep 5, 2023, 11:13:56 AM9/5/23
to
Pamela, bubala, I wasn't planning to be here at all — but for you, a week from Tuesday.
Bebercito
Sep 5, 2023, 12:25:13 PM9/5/23
to
Le mardi 5 septembre 2023 à 15:41:15 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 7:31:30 PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> > Le lundi 4 septembre 2023 à 16:59:15 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > > On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 8:39:18 AM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> > > > Le dimanche 3 septembre 2023 à 13:08:56 UTC+2, Ross Clark a écrit :
>
> > > > > They don't want to answer that question.
> > > > The negative-raising is less clear in the second sentence, as "They want not
> > > > to anhttps://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=I+want+not+to%2C+I+want+to+not&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3swer that question" can hardly be thought of as natural phrasing unless
> > > > e.g. it comes in response to "What do they want to do?" and marking an
> > > > opposition to answering the question is a significant act in itself.
> > > No, it is not a possible sentence of English no matter what the context.
> > > You might just possibly get away with _saying_ it with a long, long pause
> > > before "not." The answer to the question is "They want to not answer the
> > > question."
> >
> > That's not so clear, apparently:
> >
> > https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=want+not+to%2Cwant+to+not&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3
> Did you bother looking at any of the examples?
>
> (Did you notice that below the graph are links that show you examples
> from short time-frames?)
No I didn't, and there are no links to examples.
> On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 7:31:30 PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> > Le lundi 4 septembre 2023 à 16:59:15 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > > On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 8:39:18 AM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> > > > Le dimanche 3 septembre 2023 à 13:08:56 UTC+2, Ross Clark a écrit :
>
> > > > > They don't want to answer that question.
> > > > The negative-raising is less clear in the second sentence, as "They want not
> > > > to anhttps://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=I+want+not+to%2C+I+want+to+not&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3swer that question" can hardly be thought of as natural phrasing unless
> > > > e.g. it comes in response to "What do they want to do?" and marking an
> > > > opposition to answering the question is a significant act in itself.
> > > No, it is not a possible sentence of English no matter what the context.
> > > You might just possibly get away with _saying_ it with a long, long pause
> > > before "not." The answer to the question is "They want to not answer the
> > > question."
> >
> > That's not so clear, apparently:
> >
> > https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=want+not+to%2Cwant+to+not&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3
> Did you bother looking at any of the examples?
>
> (Did you notice that below the graph are links that show you examples
> from short time-frames?)
However, doing separate ngrams for AmE and BrE shows there's a clear
Pondian difference, with "want not to" much more common in BrE than
in AmE and still as common as "want to not" in BrE.
>
> There is a huge difference between not wanting to do something
> and wanting to not do something.
"want not to", which obviously should be parsed as (want) (not to do sthg)
rather than (want not) (to do sthg).
> (Maybe you can't make it so neatly in French, so it's alien to you.)
> > > Like Pamela, I don't care that you can't split an infinitive in Latin. Or French.
> >
> > ? The very notion of split infinitive doesn't exist in Latin and French, and for
> > good reason as there are no infinitive markers equivalent to "to" in those
> > languages.
> THAT IS THE ONLY REASON EVER GIVEN FOR NOT "SPLITTING AN
> INFINITIVE" IN ENGLISH: because it could not be done in Latin.
> (They
> rightly didn't give a damn about French. I just threw that in for your
> benefit.)
particularly reflect what you meant.
lar3ryca
Sep 5, 2023, 1:02:36 PM9/5/23
to
I have noticed recently, people using the phrase 'intend on' with the
same meaning as 'intend to'.
Grinds my gears, it does.
--
In hindsight, I realized I could see into the future.
Which is kind of like having premonitions of flashbacks.
~ Steven Wright
Rich Ulrich
Sep 5, 2023, 1:13:48 PM9/5/23
to
On Tue, 5 Sep 2023 06:41:11 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
<petert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 7:31:30?PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
>> Le lundi 4 septembre 2023 à 16:59:15 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
Or, if the Romans were inventive enough to come up with
some construction like abso-damn-lutely, they never left it
for us to find.
--
Rich Ulrich
<petert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 7:31:30?PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
>> Le lundi 4 septembre 2023 à 16:59:15 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
some construction like abso-damn-lutely, they never left it
for us to find.
--
Rich Ulrich
Peter T. Daniels
Sep 5, 2023, 5:06:45 PM9/5/23
to
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 12:25:13 PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> Le mardi 5 septembre 2023 à 15:41:15 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 7:31:30 PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> > > Le lundi 4 septembre 2023 à 16:59:15 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > > > On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 8:39:18 AM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> > > > > Le dimanche 3 septembre 2023 à 13:08:56 UTC+2, Ross Clark a écrit :
> >
> > > > > > They don't want to answer that question.
> > > > > The negative-raising is less clear in the second sentence, as "They want not
> > > > > to anhttps://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=I+want+not+to%2C+I+want+to+not&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3swer that question" can hardly be thought of as natural phrasing unless
> > > > > e.g. it comes in response to "What do they want to do?" and marking an
> > > > > opposition to answering the question is a significant act in itself.
> > > > No, it is not a possible sentence of English no matter what the context.
> > > > You might just possibly get away with _saying_ it with a long, long pause
> > > > before "not." The answer to the question is "They want to not answer the
> > > > question."
> > >
> > > That's not so clear, apparently:
> > >
> > > https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=want+not+to%2Cwant+to+not&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3
> > Did you bother looking at any of the examples?
> >
> > (Did you notice that below the graph are links that show you examples
> > from short time-frames?)
>
> No I didn't, and there are no links to examples.
French Google is different from American Google?
> Le mardi 5 septembre 2023 à 15:41:15 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 7:31:30 PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> > > Le lundi 4 septembre 2023 à 16:59:15 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > > > On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 8:39:18 AM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> > > > > Le dimanche 3 septembre 2023 à 13:08:56 UTC+2, Ross Clark a écrit :
> >
> > > > > > They don't want to answer that question.
> > > > > The negative-raising is less clear in the second sentence, as "They want not
> > > > > to anhttps://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=I+want+not+to%2C+I+want+to+not&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3swer that question" can hardly be thought of as natural phrasing unless
> > > > > e.g. it comes in response to "What do they want to do?" and marking an
> > > > > opposition to answering the question is a significant act in itself.
> > > > No, it is not a possible sentence of English no matter what the context.
> > > > You might just possibly get away with _saying_ it with a long, long pause
> > > > before "not." The answer to the question is "They want to not answer the
> > > > question."
> > >
> > > That's not so clear, apparently:
> > >
> > > https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=want+not+to%2Cwant+to+not&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3
> > Did you bother looking at any of the examples?
> >
> > (Did you notice that below the graph are links that show you examples
> > from short time-frames?)
>
> No I didn't, and there are no links to examples.
> However, doing separate ngrams for AmE and BrE shows there's a clear
> Pondian difference, with "want not to" much more common in BrE than
> in AmE and still as common as "want to not" in BrE.
> > There is a huge difference between not wanting to do something
> > and wanting to not do something.
>
> Not wanting to do something is rendered as "don't want to do sthg" - not as
> "want not to", which obviously should be parsed as (want) (not to do sthg)
> rather than (want not) (to do sthg).
> > (Maybe you can't make it so neatly in French, so it's alien to you.)
>
> No.
>
> > > > Like Pamela, I don't care that you can't split an infinitive in Latin. Or French.
> > > ? The very notion of split infinitive doesn't exist in Latin and French, and for
> > > good reason as there are no infinitive markers equivalent to "to" in those
> > > languages.
> > THAT IS THE ONLY REASON EVER GIVEN FOR NOT "SPLITTING AN
> > INFINITIVE" IN ENGLISH: because it could not be done in Latin.
>
> I really doubt that.
you might encounter, doesn't count.)
> > (They
> > rightly didn't give a damn about French. I just threw that in for your
> > benefit.)
>
> "I don't care that you can't split an infinitive in Latin. Or French" doesn't
> particularly reflect what you meant.
if you want to become familiar with the nuances.
Peter T. Daniels
Sep 5, 2023, 5:08:38 PM9/5/23
to
Bebercito
Sep 5, 2023, 6:55:05 PM9/5/23
to
common in poetry. An example from Ovid's /Metamorphoses/ is "circum
virum dant" (they surround the man) for "circumdant virum", where "circumdant"
is normally a 'one-piece' word.
>
> --
> Rich Ulrich
Bebercito
Sep 5, 2023, 8:22:51 PM9/5/23
to
something and wanting to not do something" in context (at that stage of the
discussion), if not to suggest that "want not to do sthg" meant "not wanting to
do sthg"?
> >
> > No.
> >
> > > > > Like Pamela, I don't care that you can't split an infinitive in Latin. Or French.
> > > > ? The very notion of split infinitive doesn't exist in Latin and French, and for
> > > > good reason as there are no infinitive markers equivalent to "to" in those
> > > > languages.
> > > THAT IS THE ONLY REASON EVER GIVEN FOR NOT "SPLITTING AN
> > > INFINITIVE" IN ENGLISH: because it could not be done in Latin.
> >
> > I really doubt that.
> Then find someone giving an actual reason. ("For euphony," which
> you might encounter, doesn't count.)
---
In Old English specifically, 'to' infinitives were even marked for dative case,
reflecting the preposition+noun origin of the form. In the history of English,
case-licensing of the subject by a 'to' infinitive became possible because 'to'
lost its prepositional status while the infinitive retained its nominal feature.
https://ling.sprachwiss.uni-konstanz.de/pages/proj/sfb471/abstracts.pdf
---
Therefore, the "actual reason" *I* would give is that if "to + verb (as noun)"
represented dative, it becomes easy to understand why "to" couldn't be
separated from the (initially nominal form of the) verb, as "to" is 'conceptually'
indissociable from the noun that follows it in dative.
The above seems much more cogent than your reference to Latin and French.
> > > (They
> > > rightly didn't give a damn about French. I just threw that in for your
> > > benefit.)
> >
> > "I don't care that you can't split an infinitive in Latin. Or French" doesn't
> > particularly reflect what you meant.
> You really need to be immersed in an English-speaking community
> if you want to become familiar with the nuances.
stated your premise of "THAT IS THE ONLY REASON EVER GIVEN FOR NOT
"SPLITTING AN INFINITIVE" IN ENGLISH: because it could not be done in
Latin" - the more so since your premise was wrong.
Jerry Friedman
Sep 5, 2023, 10:49:49 PM9/5/23
to
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 6:22:51 PM UTC-6, Bebercito wrote:
> Le mardi 5 septembre 2023 à 23:06:45 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 12:25:13 PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> > > Le mardi 5 septembre 2023 à 15:41:15 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > > > On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 7:31:30 PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> > > > > Le lundi 4 septembre 2023 à 16:59:15 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
...
> Le mardi 5 septembre 2023 à 23:06:45 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 12:25:13 PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> > > Le mardi 5 septembre 2023 à 15:41:15 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > > > On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 7:31:30 PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> > > > > Le lundi 4 septembre 2023 à 16:59:15 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > > > > > Like Pamela, I don't care that you can't split an infinitive in Latin. Or French.
> > > > > ? The very notion of split infinitive doesn't exist in Latin and French, and for
> > > > > good reason as there are no infinitive markers equivalent to "to" in those
> > > > > languages.
> > > > THAT IS THE ONLY REASON EVER GIVEN FOR NOT "SPLITTING AN
> > > > INFINITIVE" IN ENGLISH: because it could not be done in Latin.
> > >
> > > I really doubt that.
> > Then find someone giving an actual reason. ("For euphony," which
> > you might encounter, doesn't count.)
> Let's start with the origin of the to-infinitive particle:
>
> ---
> In Old English specifically, 'to' infinitives were even marked for dative case,
> reflecting the preposition+noun origin of the form. In the history of English,
> case-licensing of the subject by a 'to' infinitive became possible because 'to'
> lost its prepositional status while the infinitive retained its nominal feature.
>
> https://ling.sprachwiss.uni-konstanz.de/pages/proj/sfb471/abstracts.pdf
> ---
>
> Therefore, the "actual reason" *I* would give is that if "to + verb (as noun)"
> represented dative, it becomes easy to understand why "to" couldn't be
> separated from the (initially nominal form of the) verb, as "to" is 'conceptually'
> indissociable from the noun that follows it in dative.
>
> The above seems much more cogent than your reference to Latin and French.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_infinitive
(which I worked on in the olden days). You may want to skip the sections on "Types"
and "History of the term".
> > > > (They
> > > > rightly didn't give a damn about French. I just threw that in for your
> > > > benefit.)
> > >
> > > "I don't care that you can't split an infinitive in Latin. Or French" doesn't
> > > particularly reflect what you meant.
> > You really need to be immersed in an English-speaking community
> > if you want to become familiar with the nuances.
> This is not about nuances. Your post was incomprehensible as you hadn't
> stated your premise of "THAT IS THE ONLY REASON EVER GIVEN FOR NOT
> "SPLITTING AN INFINITIVE" IN ENGLISH: because it could not be done in
> Latin" - the more so since your premise was wrong.
same false statement. I should really check whether later editions have
improved.
--
Jerry Friedman
Bebercito
Sep 6, 2023, 3:19:21 AM9/6/23
to
history of the split infinitive, but only confirms the fact that originally "to + verbal
noun" was a 'unit' representing dative - and _that IMO is the reason why there was
great reluctance to separate the particle from the verb in the first place_ (my point
to PTD).
Athel Cornish-Bowden
Sep 6, 2023, 5:08:39 AM9/6/23
to
the 3rd, which is not by Fowler).
> I should really check whether later editions have
> improved.
--
in England until 1987.
Jerry Friedman
Sep 6, 2023, 9:43:04 AM9/6/23
to
was /given/ back then. Some people have given reasons after the
split infinitive reappeared, "in the second place", and the lack of
analogous constructions in Latin, French, and German is among them.
> > See
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_infinitive
...
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter T. Daniels
Sep 6, 2023, 11:05:57 AM9/6/23
to
> Latin had it, of course, and it was even
> common in poetry. An example from Ovid's /Metamorphoses/ is "circum
> virum dant" (they surround the man) for "circumdant virum", where "circumdant"
> is normally a 'one-piece' word.
Infinitives don't have prefixes. You can't split them in Latin.
Peter T. Daniels
Sep 6, 2023, 11:10:29 AM9/6/23
to
> > > No.
> > > > > > Like Pamela, I don't care that you can't split an infinitive in Latin. Or French.
> > > > > ? The very notion of split infinitive doesn't exist in Latin and French, and for
> > > > > good reason as there are no infinitive markers equivalent to "to" in those
> > > > > languages.
> > > > THAT IS THE ONLY REASON EVER GIVEN FOR NOT "SPLITTING AN
> > > > INFINITIVE" IN ENGLISH: because it could not be done in Latin.
> > > I really doubt that.
> > Then find someone giving an actual reason. ("For euphony," which
> > you might encounter, doesn't count.)
>
> Let's start with the origin of the to-infinitive particle:
> ---
> In Old English specifically, 'to' infinitives were even marked for dative case,
> reflecting the preposition+noun origin of the form. In the history of English,
> case-licensing of the subject by a 'to' infinitive became possible because 'to'
> lost its prepositional status while the infinitive retained its nominal feature.
>
> https://ling.sprachwiss.uni-konstanz.de/pages/proj/sfb471/abstracts.pdf
> ---
>
> Therefore, the "actual reason" *I* would give is that if "to + verb (as noun)"
> represented dative, it becomes easy to understand why "to" couldn't be
> separated from the (initially nominal form of the) verb, as "to" is 'conceptually'
> indissociable from the noun that follows it in dative.
>
> The above seems much more cogent than your reference to Latin and French.
invented the "rule"?
Of course not.
> > > > (They
> > > > rightly didn't give a damn about French. I just threw that in for your
> > > > benefit.)
> > > "I don't care that you can't split an infinitive in Latin. Or French" doesn't
> > > particularly reflect what you meant.
>
> > You really need to be immersed in an English-speaking community
> > if you want to become familiar with the nuances.
>
> This is not about nuances. Your post was incomprehensible as you hadn't
> stated your premise of "THAT IS THE ONLY REASON EVER GIVEN FOR NOT
> "SPLITTING AN INFINITIVE" IN ENGLISH: because it could not be done in
> Latin" - the more so since your premise was wrong.
a prefix and a base. How is that like an infinitive?
Peter T. Daniels
Sep 6, 2023, 11:46:25 AM9/6/23
to
recognizxed as such (not the term, but the unity).
Raymond Chandler's fulmination is great! Just yesterday, I read
his sole attempt at a comic story ("The Trouble with Pearls"), where
the humor lies mostly in the contrast between the first-person narration,
which is in Chandler's regular voice, and his very stilted reported speech
(which the other characters comment on). (Also, no one gets deaded.)
I'll go back and check whether he has any ludicrously unsplit infinitives
in the dialogue -- and/or uses any in the narration.
> (which I worked on in the olden days). You may want to skip the sections on "Types"
> and "History of the term".
>
> > > > > (They
> > > > > rightly didn't give a damn about French. I just threw that in for your
> > > > > benefit.)
> > > > "I don't care that you can't split an infinitive in Latin. Or French" doesn't
> > > > particularly reflect what you meant.
> > > You really need to be immersed in an English-speaking community
> > > if you want to become familiar with the nuances.
> > This is not about nuances. Your post was incomprehensible as you hadn't
> > stated your premise of "THAT IS THE ONLY REASON EVER GIVEN FOR NOT
> > "SPLITTING AN INFINITIVE" IN ENGLISH: because it could not be done in
> > Latin" - the more so since your premise was wrong.
>
> He has the consolation that well-known usage authorities have made the
> same false statement. I should really check whether later editions have
> improved.
bearing on the splittability of an infinitive in Latin, are you? He didn't
even try something like "port togam are" which no one came up with
to mean 'to toga-wear'.
Oh, you mean that no prescriptivist ever made the argument.
(Then where did all the denials come from?)
Peter T. Daniels
Sep 6, 2023, 11:49:29 AM9/6/23
to
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 3:19:21 AM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
[replying to Jerry]
who invented the rule (starting with Alford, it seems) had no knowledge
whatsoever of Old English?
[replying to Jerry]
> No. I had seen the Wiki article, which is indeed very interesting as regards the
> history of the split infinitive, but only confirms the fact that originally "to + verbal
> noun" was a 'unit' representing dative - and _that IMO is the reason why there was
> great reluctance to separate the particle from the verb in the first place_ (my point
> to PTD).
Does saying it again make it any less true that the 19th-century prescriptivists
> history of the split infinitive, but only confirms the fact that originally "to + verbal
> noun" was a 'unit' representing dative - and _that IMO is the reason why there was
> great reluctance to separate the particle from the verb in the first place_ (my point
> to PTD).
who invented the rule (starting with Alford, it seems) had no knowledge
whatsoever of Old English?
Bebercito
Sep 6, 2023, 12:00:54 PM9/6/23
to
English, that reason was gradually lost sight of - and as of now, who even
knows that the "to" particle of an infinitive once represented dative?
(Apparently, not "even" ptd.)
> Some people have given reasons after the
> split infinitive reappeared, "in the second place", and the lack of
> analogous constructions in Latin, French, and German is among them.
anywhere. That confirms that one often looks very far (in the wrong direction)
for what's actually close at hand.
Bebercito
Sep 6, 2023, 12:23:25 PM9/6/23
to
Le mercredi 6 septembre 2023 à 17:05:57 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 6:55:05 PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> > Le mardi 5 septembre 2023 à 19:13:48 UTC+2, Rich Ulrich a écrit :
> > > On Tue, 5 Sep 2023 06:41:11 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> > > <petert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 7:31:30?PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
>
> > > >> ? The very notion of split infinitive doesn't exist in Latin and French, and for
> > > >> good reason as there are no infinitive markers equivalent to "to" in those
> > > >> languages.
> > > >THAT IS THE ONLY REASON EVER GIVEN FOR NOT "SPLITTING AN
> > > >INFINITIVE" IN ENGLISH: because it could not be done in Latin. (They
> > > >rightly didn't give a damn about French. I just threw that in for your
> > > >benefit.)
> > > Or, if the Romans were inventive enough to come up with
> > > some construction like abso-damn-lutely, they never left it
> > > for us to find.
> >
> > The construction is called tmesis.
> USED TO BE. In the modern world, it's called infixing.
No, the terms designate two different devices, with "tmesis" referring
> On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 6:55:05 PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> > Le mardi 5 septembre 2023 à 19:13:48 UTC+2, Rich Ulrich a écrit :
> > > On Tue, 5 Sep 2023 06:41:11 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> > > <petert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 7:31:30?PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
>
> > > >> ? The very notion of split infinitive doesn't exist in Latin and French, and for
> > > >> good reason as there are no infinitive markers equivalent to "to" in those
> > > >> languages.
> > > >THAT IS THE ONLY REASON EVER GIVEN FOR NOT "SPLITTING AN
> > > >INFINITIVE" IN ENGLISH: because it could not be done in Latin. (They
> > > >rightly didn't give a damn about French. I just threw that in for your
> > > >benefit.)
> > > Or, if the Romans were inventive enough to come up with
> > > some construction like abso-damn-lutely, they never left it
> > > for us to find.
> >
> > The construction is called tmesis.
> USED TO BE. In the modern world, it's called infixing.
to the insertion of a full word (e.g. "abso-damn-lutely") and "infixing"
the insertion of just an affix in the middle of a word (e.g. "edumacation").
> > Latin had it, of course, and it was even
> "even"? How "common" is it in prose?
> > common in poetry. An example from Ovid's /Metamorphoses/ is "circum
> > virum dant" (they surround the man) for "circumdant virum", where "circumdant"
> > is normally a 'one-piece' word.
> Hardly the same. "abso-" is not a prefix.
>
> Infinitives don't have prefixes.
> You can't split them in Latin.
Bebercito
Sep 6, 2023, 12:26:27 PM9/6/23
to
> > > > No.
> > > > > > > Like Pamela, I don't care that you can't split an infinitive in Latin. Or French.
> > > > > > ? The very notion of split infinitive doesn't exist in Latin and French, and for
> > > > > > good reason as there are no infinitive markers equivalent to "to" in those
> > > > > > languages.
> > > > > THAT IS THE ONLY REASON EVER GIVEN FOR NOT "SPLITTING AN
> > > > > INFINITIVE" IN ENGLISH: because it could not be done in Latin.
> > > > I really doubt that.
> > > Then find someone giving an actual reason. ("For euphony," which
> > > you might encounter, doesn't count.)
> >
> > Let's start with the origin of the to-infinitive particle:
> "Let's not and say we did."
> > ---
> > In Old English specifically, 'to' infinitives were even marked for dative case,
> > reflecting the preposition+noun origin of the form. In the history of English,
> > case-licensing of the subject by a 'to' infinitive became possible because 'to'
> > lost its prepositional status while the infinitive retained its nominal feature.
> >
> > https://ling.sprachwiss.uni-konstanz.de/pages/proj/sfb471/abstracts.pdf
> > ---
> >
> > Therefore, the "actual reason" *I* would give is that if "to + verb (as noun)"
> > represented dative, it becomes easy to understand why "to" couldn't be
> > separated from the (initially nominal form of the) verb, as "to" is 'conceptually'
> > indissociable from the noun that follows it in dative.
> >
> > The above seems much more cogent than your reference to Latin and French.
> Was that "actual reason" known to the very first prescriptivist who
> invented the "rule"?
>
> Of course not.
> > > > > (They
> > > > > rightly didn't give a damn about French. I just threw that in for your
> > > > > benefit.)
> > > > "I don't care that you can't split an infinitive in Latin. Or French" doesn't
> > > > particularly reflect what you meant.
> >
> > > You really need to be immersed in an English-speaking community
> > > if you want to become familiar with the nuances.
> >
> > This is not about nuances. Your post was incomprehensible as you hadn't
> > stated your premise of "THAT IS THE ONLY REASON EVER GIVEN FOR NOT
> > "SPLITTING AN INFINITIVE" IN ENGLISH: because it could not be done in
> > Latin" - the more so since your premise was wrong.
> You found an example in Latin poetry of a word being inserted between
> a prefix and a base.
> How is that like an infinitive?
Jerry Friedman
Sep 6, 2023, 1:38:24 PM9/6/23
to
> > Some people have given reasons after the
> > split infinitive reappeared, "in the second place", and the lack of
> > analogous constructions in Latin, French, and German is among them.
> True, and I'm surprised that "my" reason does not even seem to be mentioned
> anywhere. That confirms that one often looks very far (in the wrong direction)
> for what's actually close at hand.
argument based on other languages was the only one given by prescriptivists
to justify forbidding split infinitives. (In fact it's one of the arguments, but not
the only one. None of them are good, if you ask me.)
If he'd been talking about the reason Old English didn't have split infinitives,
he's have written something different.
> > > > See
> > > >
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_infinitive
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter T. Daniels
Sep 6, 2023, 3:55:22 PM9/6/23
to
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 12:00:54 PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> Le mercredi 6 septembre 2023 à 15:43:04 UTC+2, Jerry Friedman a écrit :
> > That may have been the actual reason in the first place, but no reason
> > was /given/ back then.
>
> Probably because it was obvious. But as declensions disappeared from
> English, that reason was gradually lost sight of - and as of now, who even
> knows that the "to" particle of an infinitive once represented dative?
> (Apparently, not "even" ptd.)
Have your senses left you entirely?
> Le mercredi 6 septembre 2023 à 15:43:04 UTC+2, Jerry Friedman a écrit :
> > That may have been the actual reason in the first place, but no reason
> > was /given/ back then.
>
> Probably because it was obvious. But as declensions disappeared from
> English, that reason was gradually lost sight of - and as of now, who even
> knows that the "to" particle of an infinitive once represented dative?
> (Apparently, not "even" ptd.)
When did "declensions disappear"?
When was Alford?
When was the grammar of Old English investigated?
> > Some people have given reasons after the
> > split infinitive reappeared, "in the second place", and the lack of
> > analogous constructions in Latin, French, and German is among them.
>
> True, and I'm surprised that "my" reason does not even seem to be mentioned
> anywhere. That confirms that one often looks very far (in the wrong direction)
> for what's actually close at hand.
Peter T. Daniels
Sep 6, 2023, 4:20:41 PM9/6/23
to
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 12:23:25 PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> Le mercredi 6 septembre 2023 à 17:05:57 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 6:55:05 PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> > > Le mardi 5 septembre 2023 à 19:13:48 UTC+2, Rich Ulrich a écrit :
> > > > On Tue, 5 Sep 2023 06:41:11 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> > > > <petert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 7:31:30?PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> >
> > > > >> ? The very notion of split infinitive doesn't exist in Latin and French, and for
> > > > >> good reason as there are no infinitive markers equivalent to "to" in those
> > > > >> languages.
> > > > >THAT IS THE ONLY REASON EVER GIVEN FOR NOT "SPLITTING AN
> > > > >INFINITIVE" IN ENGLISH: because it could not be done in Latin. (They
> > > > >rightly didn't give a damn about French. I just threw that in for your
> > > > >benefit.)
> > > > Or, if the Romans were inventive enough to come up with
> > > > some construction like abso-damn-lutely, they never left it
> > > > for us to find.
> > >
> > > The construction is called tmesis.
> > USED TO BE. In the modern world, it's called infixing.
> No, the terms designate two different devices, with "tmesis" referring
> to the insertion of a full word (e.g. "abso-damn-lutely") and "infixing"
> the insertion of just an affix in the middle of a word (e.g. "edumacation").
Bullshit. I don't know where you got "edumacation," but it does not
> Le mercredi 6 septembre 2023 à 17:05:57 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 6:55:05 PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> > > Le mardi 5 septembre 2023 à 19:13:48 UTC+2, Rich Ulrich a écrit :
> > > > On Tue, 5 Sep 2023 06:41:11 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> > > > <petert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 7:31:30?PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> >
> > > > >> ? The very notion of split infinitive doesn't exist in Latin and French, and for
> > > > >> good reason as there are no infinitive markers equivalent to "to" in those
> > > > >> languages.
> > > > >THAT IS THE ONLY REASON EVER GIVEN FOR NOT "SPLITTING AN
> > > > >INFINITIVE" IN ENGLISH: because it could not be done in Latin. (They
> > > > >rightly didn't give a damn about French. I just threw that in for your
> > > > >benefit.)
> > > > Or, if the Romans were inventive enough to come up with
> > > > some construction like abso-damn-lutely, they never left it
> > > > for us to find.
> > >
> > > The construction is called tmesis.
> > USED TO BE. In the modern world, it's called infixing.
> No, the terms designate two different devices, with "tmesis" referring
> to the insertion of a full word (e.g. "abso-damn-lutely") and "infixing"
> the insertion of just an affix in the middle of a word (e.g. "edumacation").
involve an affix. It may be a phonological something-or-othyer.
Jim McCawley explored the question thoroughly in an article
published under the name of Quang Phuc Dong, an alleged North
Korean linguist who specialized in the soft underbelly of English.
Unfortunately Mufwene et al. chose not to include those items
in the bibliography in his memorial volume, and John Lawler
didn't list any in his *Language* obituary.
> > > Latin had it, of course, and it was even
> > "even"? How "common" is it in prose?
>
> How common is it in English prose?
(The placement of the insert is phonologically, not morphologically,
determined.)
> > > common in poetry. An example from Ovid's /Metamorphoses/ is "circum
> > > virum dant" (they surround the man) for "circumdant virum", where "circumdant"
> > > is normally a 'one-piece' word.
> > Hardly the same. "abso-" is not a prefix.
>
> That's not the point. See a definition of "tmesis".
to describe the phenomenon in question.
> > Infinitives don't have prefixes.
>
> ??? Yes they do.
> > You can't split them in Latin.
>
> Non sequitur.
Peter T. Daniels
Sep 6, 2023, 4:36:15 PM9/6/23
to
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 11:46:25 AM UTC-4, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > The story is more complicated than you may think. See
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_infinitive
>
> > The story is more complicated than you may think. See
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_infinitive
>
> Raymond Chandler's fulmination is great! Just yesterday, I read
> his sole attempt at a comic story ("The Trouble with Pearls"), where
> the humor lies mostly in the contrast between the first-person narration,
> which is in Chandler's regular voice, and his very stilted reported speech
> (which the other characters comment on). (Also, no one gets deaded.)
> I'll go back and check whether he has any ludicrously unsplit infinitives
> in the dialogue -- and/or uses any in the narration.
Sorry, "Pearls Are a Nuisance" ("Trouble Is My Business" is the next
> his sole attempt at a comic story ("The Trouble with Pearls"), where
> the humor lies mostly in the contrast between the first-person narration,
> which is in Chandler's regular voice, and his very stilted reported speech
> (which the other characters comment on). (Also, no one gets deaded.)
> I'll go back and check whether he has any ludicrously unsplit infinitives
> in the dialogue -- and/or uses any in the narration.
story in the book.)
Well, I found one in his dialog:
"The pearls are only fake pearls, so we should very easily be able to
come to an agreement."
No modified infinitives in the narration.
"
Peter T. Daniels
Sep 6, 2023, 4:39:03 PM9/6/23
to
https://linguapress.com/grammar/points/split-infinitives.htm
Paul Wolff
Sep 6, 2023, 5:32:15 PM9/6/23
to
On Wed, 6 Sep 2023, at 12:55:18, Peter T. Daniels posted:
>
>When was Alford?
That's a great question. His ideas were fascinating, ground-breaking,
and even armour-piercing. Late twentieth century is a fair answer.
<https://www.wiltshiretimes.co.uk/news/19127052.obituary-dr-sidney-alford
-whose-inventions-helped-save-many-lives/>
--
Paul W
>
>When was Alford?
That's a great question. His ideas were fascinating, ground-breaking,
and even armour-piercing. Late twentieth century is a fair answer.
<https://www.wiltshiretimes.co.uk/news/19127052.obituary-dr-sidney-alford
-whose-inventions-helped-save-many-lives/>
--
Paul W
Bebercito
Sep 6, 2023, 8:23:19 PM9/6/23
to
---
English
English has almost no true infixes (as opposed to tmesis), and those it does have are marginal. A few are heard in colloquial speech, and a few more are found in technical terminology.
Chemistry
Chemical nomenclature includes the infixes ⟨pe⟩, signifying complete hydrogenation (from piperidine), and ⟨et⟩ (from ethyl), signifying the ethyl radical C2H5. Thus from the existing word picoline is derived pipecoline, and from lutidine is derived lupetidine; from phenidine and xanthoxylin are derived phenetidine and xanthoxyletin.
Colloquialisms
None of the following are recognized in standard English.
The infix ⟨iz⟩ or ⟨izn⟩ is characteristic of hip-hop slang, for example hizouse for house and shiznit for shit. Infixes also occur in some language games.
The ⟨ma⟩ infix, whose location in the word is described in Yu (2004), gives a word an ironic pseudo-sophistication, as in sophistimacated, saxomaphone, and *edumacation*. This exists as a slang phenomenon.
*The use of 'expletive infixes' such as fucking and bloody, _which are words rather than affixes_, is known as tmesis.*
<Emphasis mine.>
https://static.hlt.bme.hu/semantics/external/pages/glossza/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infix.html
---
thus making the discussion impossible.
Hibou
Sep 7, 2023, 4:19:34 AM9/7/23
to
Le 05/09/2023 à 01:59, Ross Clark a écrit :
> On 5/09/2023 12:31 a.m., Hibou wrote:
>> Le 04/09/2023 à 11:39, Ross Clark a écrit :
>>> On 4/09/2023 5:23 p.m., Hibou wrote:
>>>> Le 02/09/2023 à 20:31, Pamela a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>> Number (1) below sounds best to me. However when it is read literally,
>>>>> the location of "next" creates a sentence which is not very logical.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are (2) and (3) better?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not concerned about any split infinitive.
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------
>>>>>
>>>>> (1) When do you next plan to be in this area?
>>>>>
>>>>> (2) When do you plan to next be in this area?
>>>>>
>>>>> (3) When do you plan to be in this area next?
>>>>
>>>> It's (1) for me too. I don't think it's illogical, since the sense
>>>> of 'plan' here is 'intend'.
>>>>
>>>> When do you {next intend} to be in this area?
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/plan> BrE
>>>> sense 8.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, it's not a question about when the intention will be, any more
>>> than when the plan will be. Your version has exactly the same
>>> "problem" as the original.
>>
>> Can you explain the problem? For the moment, I can't see it, since
>> these all seem all right to me:
>>
>> (4) When will you be in this area?
> On 5/09/2023 12:31 a.m., Hibou wrote:
>> Le 04/09/2023 à 11:39, Ross Clark a écrit :
>>> On 4/09/2023 5:23 p.m., Hibou wrote:
>>>> Le 02/09/2023 à 20:31, Pamela a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>> Number (1) below sounds best to me. However when it is read literally,
>>>>> the location of "next" creates a sentence which is not very logical.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are (2) and (3) better?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not concerned about any split infinitive.
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------
>>>>>
>>>>> (1) When do you next plan to be in this area?
>>>>>
>>>>> (2) When do you plan to next be in this area?
>>>>>
>>>>> (3) When do you plan to be in this area next?
>>>>
>>>> It's (1) for me too. I don't think it's illogical, since the sense
>>>> of 'plan' here is 'intend'.
>>>>
>>>> When do you {next intend} to be in this area?
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/plan> BrE
>>>> sense 8.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, it's not a question about when the intention will be, any more
>>> than when the plan will be. Your version has exactly the same
>>> "problem" as the original.
>>
>> Can you explain the problem? For the moment, I can't see it, since
>> these all seem all right to me:
>>
>> (5) When do you intend to be in this area?
>> (6) When do you next intend to be in this area?
>>
>> (The 'when' applies to being in the area, of course.)
>
> The "problem" (what the OP meant by "not very logical") is that the
> time-adverb "next" occurs immediately before the verb "plan" (or
> "intend" in your version). But the question is not about the time of the
> planning/intending, but about the time of the being (in the area).
>
> I don't see it as a real problem. English often separates modifiers from
> their closest logical/semantic connection. (See my examples with
> negatives.) [...]
>> (The 'when' applies to being in the area, of course.)
>
> The "problem" (what the OP meant by "not very logical") is that the
> time-adverb "next" occurs immediately before the verb "plan" (or
> "intend" in your version). But the question is not about the time of the
> planning/intending, but about the time of the being (in the area).
>
> I don't see it as a real problem. English often separates modifiers from
> their closest logical/semantic connection. (See my examples with
I suppose the question is, why is (6) above (and reproduced below)
acceptable to me and others who've commented, while drawing such fire
from logicians?
>> (6) When do you next intend to be in this area?
I think the answer lies in the 'do', which anchors the intention in the
present: when do you intend...?
If the question were about an intention arrived at in the future, then
the (unreasonable) question would be, when will you intend...?
In this interpretation, the 'next' cannot apply to 'intend' and must
apply to 'be in this area'.
I think this is one of those cases where native speakers express what
they want to say neatly, and with a pleasing rhythm that the
alternatives lack, while leaving grammarians bobbing in their wake.
Ross Clark
Sep 7, 2023, 6:52:25 AM9/7/23
to
here. Linguists accept (as a matter of principle) what native speakers
say. Their interest is not in telling them they shouldn't say it, but in
figuring out under what conditions they will detach an element like
"next" or "not" from its logical stablemates and place it somewhere else.
S K
Sep 7, 2023, 7:28:09 AM9/7/23
to
Peter T. Daniels
Sep 7, 2023, 9:42:22 AM9/7/23
to
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 5:32:15 PM UTC-4, Paul Wolff wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Sep 2023, at 12:55:18, Peter T. Daniels posted:
> >When was Alford?
>
> That's a great question. His ideas were fascinating, ground-breaking,
> and even armour-piercing. Late twentieth century is a fair answer.
The question was rhetorical, since the article cited takes his analysis
> On Wed, 6 Sep 2023, at 12:55:18, Peter T. Daniels posted:
> >When was Alford?
>
> That's a great question. His ideas were fascinating, ground-breaking,
> and even armour-piercing. Late twentieth century is a fair answer.
s the basis for its discussion: 1834.
> <https://www.wiltshiretimes.co.uk/news/19127052.obituary-dr-sidney-alford
> -whose-inventions-helped-save-many-lives/>
Presumably one of them wasn't objection to the split infinitive.
Peter T. Daniels
Sep 7, 2023, 9:52:36 AM9/7/23
to
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 4:19:34 AM UTC-4, Hibou wrote:
> I suppose the question is, why is (6) above (and reproduced below)
> acceptable to me and others who've commented, while drawing such fire
> from logicians?
Language ain't logical.
> I suppose the question is, why is (6) above (and reproduced below)
> acceptable to me and others who've commented, while drawing such fire
> from logicians?
> >> (6) When do you next intend to be in this area?
want to go" for 'I want to not go', generalized -- more in BrE than
in AmE -- to modifiers other than negatives.
> I think the answer lies in the 'do', which anchors the intention in the
> present: when do you intend...?
Scolding parent to child: "When did you intend to tell me that
you took the car without permission and dented the fender?"
"Past" verb for future sense.
> If the question were about an intention arrived at in the future, then
> the (unreasonable) question would be, when will you intend...?
> In this interpretation, the 'next' cannot apply to 'intend' and must
> apply to 'be in this area'.
sentence has been interpreted. That tiny bit of inefficiency
suggests that the construction might get superseded within
a generation or so.
> I think this is one of those cases where native speakers express what
> they want to say neatly, and with a pleasing rhythm that the
> alternatives lack, while leaving grammarians bobbing in their wake.
patterns. You may still be thinking of logicians.
Peter T. Daniels
Sep 7, 2023, 9:55:17 AM9/7/23
to
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 7:28:09 AM UTC-4, S K wrote:
> Linguists were woke way before the term became popular,
The Skippy troll (in a comment that has nothing to do with
> Linguists were woke way before the term became popular,
what it was appended to) actually speaks the truth for once.
The Linguistic Society of America for many years has chosen
its annual meeting site taking into account the politics of the
locations being considered.
Pamela
Sep 9, 2023, 8:01:44 AM9/9/23
to
On 23:15 3 Sep 2023, Lionel Edwards said:
> On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 8:31:47 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:
>> Number (1) below sounds best to me. However when it is read literally,
>> the location of "next" creates a sentence which is not very logical.
>>
>> Are (2) and (3) better?
>>
>> I'm not concerned about any split infinitive.
>>
>> ---------
>>
>> (1) When do you next plan to be in this area?
>>
>> (2) When do you plan to next be in this area?
>>
>> (3) When do you plan to be in this area next?
>
> Why did you miss out (4)?
>
> (4) When do you plan to be next in this area?
Wouldn't that be better as follows:
(4) When do you plan to next be in this area?
> On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 8:31:47 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:
>> Number (1) below sounds best to me. However when it is read literally,
>> the location of "next" creates a sentence which is not very logical.
>>
>> Are (2) and (3) better?
>>
>> I'm not concerned about any split infinitive.
>>
>> ---------
>>
>> (1) When do you next plan to be in this area?
>>
>> (2) When do you plan to next be in this area?
>>
>
> Why did you miss out (4)?
>
> (4) When do you plan to be next in this area?
Wouldn't that be better as follows:
(4) When do you plan to next be in this area?
0 new messages