She had to first complete Step A. -- She did it by first completing Step A.

[henh...@gmail.com]

split in·fin·i·tive [split inˈfinədiv]
NOUN
a construction consisting of an infinitive with an adverb or other word inserted between to and the verb,
------e.g.------ she seems to really like it.


Are there ppl who complain about (object to) the following [by ADV. verbing] , too ?
(is there a name for this construction?)

She had to first complete Step A.
She did it by first completing Step A.


She had to quickly complete Step A.
She did it by quickly completing Step A.

[Hibou]

Le 15/11/2022 à 01:53, henh...@gmail.com a écrit :
>
> split in·fin·i·tive [split inˈfinədiv]
> NOUN
> a construction consisting of an infinitive with an adverb or other word inserted between to and the verb,
> ------e.g.------ she seems to really like it.
>
>
> Are there ppl who complain about (object to) the following [by ADV. verbing] , too ?
> (is there a name for this construction?)

ppl = people?

> She had to first complete Step A.
> She did it by first completing Step A.
>
>
> She had to quickly complete Step A.
> She did it by quickly completing Step A.

I'm not aware of any objections to this construction (adverb +
present-participle), and would happily use it.

I'd also happily say, "She had first to complete Step A."

[Hibou]

Le 15/11/2022 à 08:41, Hibou a écrit :
>
> I'm not aware of any objections to this construction (adverb +
> present-participle), and would happily use it.
>
> I'd also happily say, "She had first to complete Step A."

Or indeed, "She had to complete Step A first" - depending on the
emphasis I wanted.

[henh...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 12:41:54 AM UTC-8, Hibou wrote:
> Le 15/11/2022 à 01:53, henh...@gmail.com a écrit :
> >
> > split in·fin·i·tive [split inˈfinədiv]
> > NOUN
> > a construction consisting of an infinitive with an adverb or other word inserted between to and the verb,
> > ------e.g.------ she seems to really like it.
> >
> >
> > Are there ppl who complain about (object to) the following [by ADV. verbing] , too ?
> > (is there a name for this construction?)
> ppl = people?

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ppl

> > She had to first complete Step A.
> > She did it by first completing Step A.
> >
> >
> > She had to quickly complete Step A.
> > She did it by quickly completing Step A.
> I'm not aware of any objections to this construction (adverb +
> present-participle), and would happily use it.
>
> I'd also happily say, "She had first to complete Step A."

i was asking... Do you think the two (constructions) are similar ?


https://style.mla.org/split-infinitives/

>>> Why do we want to avoid split infinitives?

---------- ........... Writers are often taught to avoid splitting infinitives—that is, to avoid placing a term, usually an adverb, between to and the verb: to boldly go. But words should always be arranged in a way that makes the meaning of a sentence clear.

Take the following example:

The repair service arrived quickly to fix the problem.
The repair service arrived to quickly fix the problem.


She liked to read thoughtfully translated books.
She liked to thoughtfully read translated books.

[Hibou]

Le 15/11/2022 à 17:12, henh...@gmail.com a écrit :
> On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 12:41:54 AM UTC-8, Hibou wrote:
>
> https://style.mla.org/split-infinitives/
>
>>>> Why do we want to avoid split infinitives?
>
> ---------- ........... Writers are often taught to avoid splitting infinitives—that is, to avoid placing a term, usually an adverb, between to and the verb: to boldly go.

Star Trek always comes up in discussions of split infinitives. To my
mind, 'boldly' is bolder if it's before the infinitive:

Its five-year mission: boldly to go where....

> But words should always be arranged in a way that makes the meaning of a sentence clear.

Yes (except in politics and public relations, obviously).

> Take the following example:
>
> The repair service arrived quickly to fix the problem.
> The repair service arrived to quickly fix the problem.
>
> She liked to read thoughtfully translated books.
> She liked to thoughtfully read translated books.

The repair service arrived quickly, and fixed the problem.
The repair service arrived, and quickly fixed the problem.

She liked to read thoughtfully-translated books.
She liked to read translated books thoughtfully.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Wednesday, November 16, 2022 at 1:46:05 AM UTC-5, Hibou wrote:
> Le 15/11/2022 à 17:12, henh...@gmail.com a écrit :
> > On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 12:41:54 AM UTC-8, Hibou wrote:

> > https://style.mla.org/split-infinitives/
> >>>> Why do we want to avoid split infinitives?
> >
> > ---------- ........... Writers are often taught to avoid splitting infinitives—that is, to avoid placing a term, usually an adverb, between to and the verb: to boldly go.

Does it think there's something wrong with that?

No, in fact it does not.

> Star Trek always comes up in discussions of split infinitives. To my
> mind, 'boldly' is bolder if it's before the infinitive:
>
> Its five-year mission: boldly to go where....

Yuck. Is your native language Latin?

The ONLY reason you were told to not split infinitives is that
it can't be done in Latin. It's perfectly natural in Germanic.

> > But words should always be arranged in a way that makes the meaning of a sentence clear.
> Yes (except in politics and public relations, obviously).
> > Take the following example:
> >
> > The repair service arrived quickly to fix the problem.
> > The repair service arrived to quickly fix the problem.
> >
> > She liked to read thoughtfully translated books.
> > She liked to thoughtfully read translated books.
>
> The repair service arrived quickly, and fixed the problem.
> The repair service arrived, and quickly fixed the problem.

The "to" sentences convey 'for the purpose of'. These two don't.

> She liked to read thoughtfully-translated books.
> She liked to read translated books thoughtfully.

This one is an improvement.

[Hibou]

Le 16/11/2022 à 13:59, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> On Wednesday, November 16, 2022 at 1:46:05 AM UTC-5, Hibou wrote:
>>
>> Star Trek always comes up in discussions of split infinitives. To my
>> mind, 'boldly' is bolder if it's before the infinitive:
>>
>> Its five-year mission: boldly to go where....
>
> Yuck. Is your native language Latin?

Yuck?

> The ONLY reason you were told to not split infinitives is that

> it can't be done in Latin. It's perfectly natural in Germanic. [...]

Is that what I was told? Were you there? I don't remember you, and I
don't remember being told that it had to do with Latin.

"... I believe that a split infinitive is never necessary - well hardly
ever - in order to achieve clarity, ease, and naturalness; and if that
is so it is much better not to split, because of the offence which a
split may cause to those readers who, rightly or wrongly, think that a
split infinitive is a sure sign of illiteracy" - Gowers, 'The Complete
Plain Words'.

Just so.

In an earlier edition: "... the official has no choice but to conform;
for his readers will almost certainly attribute departures from [the
rule] to ignorance of it, and so, being moved to disdain of the writer,
will not be /affected precisely as he wishes/."

Absolutely. Disdain, yes, absolutely.

Since you seem to relish split infinitives, you will probably enjoy
tucking into this one, quoted by Fowler:

"Its main idea is to historically, even while events are maturing, and
divinely - from the divine point of view - impeach the European system
of Church and States."

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Saturday, November 19, 2022 at 2:08:09 AM UTC-5, Hibou wrote:
> Le 16/11/2022 à 13:59, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > On Wednesday, November 16, 2022 at 1:46:05 AM UTC-5, Hibou wrote:

> >> Star Trek always comes up in discussions of split infinitives. To my
> >> mind, 'boldly' is bolder if it's before the infinitive:
> >> Its five-year mission: boldly to go where....
> > Yuck. Is your native language Latin?
>
> Yuck?
>
> > The ONLY reason you were told to not split infinitives is that
> > it can't be done in Latin. It's perfectly natural in Germanic. [...]
>
> Is that what I was told? Were you there?

You were told to not split infinitives. If you had not been told
that, there would have been no reason for you to think there
was any reason not to. ("Because I said so.")

> I don't remember you, and I
> don't remember being told that it had to do with Latin.

Of course not. Miss Fidditch had no idea of any reason for the
ridiculous prohibition, only that she had been taught it by her
teacher.

> "... I believe that a split infinitive is never necessary - well hardly
> ever - in order to achieve clarity, ease, and naturalness; and if that
> is so it is much better not to split, because of the offence which a
> split may cause to those readers who, rightly or wrongly, think that a
> split infinitive is a sure sign of illiteracy" - Gowers, 'The Complete
> Plain Words'.
>
> Just so.

That is, "Because I said so," Examples have been given in this
thread in which the natural Germanic syntax is superior to the
imposed Latin syntax.

> In an earlier edition: "... the official has no choice but to conform;
> for his readers will almost certainly attribute departures from [the
> rule] to ignorance of it, and so, being moved to disdain of the writer,
> will not be /affected precisely as he wishes/."
>
> Absolutely. Disdain, yes, absolutely.

And what is the source of that disdain? "Because I said so,"

> Since you seem to relish split infinitives, you will probably enjoy
> tucking into this one, quoted by Fowler:
>
> "Its main idea is to historically, even while events are maturing, and
> divinely - from the divine point of view - impeach the European system
> of Church and States."

Fowler was addressing journalists and politicians, who may have
rarely had the opportunity to reread what they had scribbled out.

[Jerry Friedman]

On Saturday, November 19, 2022 at 12:08:09 AM UTC-7, Hibou wrote:
> Le 16/11/2022 à 13:59, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > On Wednesday, November 16, 2022 at 1:46:05 AM UTC-5, Hibou wrote:
> >>
> >> Star Trek always comes up in discussions of split infinitives. To my
> >> mind, 'boldly' is bolder if it's before the infinitive:
> >>
> >> Its five-year mission: boldly to go where....
> >
> > Yuck. Is your native language Latin?
> Yuck?
> > The ONLY reason you were told to not split infinitives is that
> > it can't be done in Latin. It's perfectly natural in Germanic. [...]
>
> Is that what I was told? Were you there? I don't remember you, and I
> don't remember being told that it had to do with Latin.

PTD is a bit confused about the history, which you can see at the
Wikipedia article. (I contributed a lot to that.)

> "... I believe that a split infinitive is never necessary - well hardly
> ever - in order to achieve clarity, ease, and naturalness; and if that
> is so it is much better not to split, because of the offence which a
> split may cause to those readers who, rightly or wrongly, think that a
> split infinitive is a sure sign of illiteracy" - Gowers, 'The Complete
> Plain Words'.
>
> Just so.

When was that, sixty or seventy years ago?

> In an earlier edition: "... the official has no choice but to conform;
> for his readers will almost certainly attribute departures from [the
> rule] to ignorance of it, and so, being moved to disdain of the writer,
> will not be /affected precisely as he wishes/."
>
> Absolutely. Disdain, yes, absolutely.

And when was that?

I suspect that people who disdain writers for splitting infinitives are
now greatly outnumbered by people who attribute constructions like
"boldly to go" to ignorance of the disappearance of the rule, and those
people are greatly outnumbered by those who have never heard that
there was such a rule and think that a construction like "boldly to go"
is pointlessly weird.

There are exceptions. As I approach retirement age, I still prefer
"not to" and "never to" in most situations, though I don't consider
"to not" and "to never" ungrammatical. But I think even that
preference is disappearing among younger people.

> Since you seem to relish split infinitives, you will probably enjoy
> tucking into this one, quoted by Fowler:
>
> "Its main idea is to historically, even while events are maturing, and
> divinely - from the divine point of view - impeach the European system
> of Church and States."

The problem with that isn't that what is split is a to+infinitve. It would
also be awkward to write, "We must historically, even while events are

maturing, and divinely - from the divine point of view - impeach the

European system of Church and States." The "heavy" component
should sink to the end of the sentence.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Saturday, November 19, 2022 at 10:23:43 AM UTC-5, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On Saturday, November 19, 2022 at 12:08:09 AM UTC-7, Hibou wrote:
> > Le 16/11/2022 à 13:59, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :

> > > The ONLY reason you were told to not split infinitives is that
> > > it can't be done in Latin. It's perfectly natural in Germanic. [...]
> > Is that what I was told? Were you there? I don't remember you, and I
> > don't remember being told that it had to do with Latin.
>
> PTD is a bit confused about the history, which you can see at the
> Wikipedia article. (I contributed a lot to that.)

It says "However, the argument from the classical languages may be a
straw man argument, as the most important critics of the split infinitive
never used it." Nor is any other "argument" cited from any of them, except
that "people we consider good writers don't do it."

No hint of why they don't do it.

So it's the only available "argument"!

[CDB]

On 11/19/2022 10:23 AM, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> Hibou wrote:

[Gowers: earnest but yucky]

Yeah, or the phrase. "To go boldly where no one has gone before".

I spelled "no one" as two words because someone told me to.

[Hibou]

Le 19/11/2022 à 15:23, Jerry Friedman a écrit :
> On Saturday, November 19, 2022 at 12:08:09 AM UTC-7, Hibou wrote:
>> Le 16/11/2022 à 13:59, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
>>> On Wednesday, November 16, 2022 at 1:46:05 AM UTC-5, Hibou wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Its five-year mission: boldly to go where....
>>>
>>> Yuck. Is your native language Latin?
>>
>> Yuck?
>>
>>> The ONLY reason you were told to not split infinitives is that
>>> it can't be done in Latin. It's perfectly natural in Germanic. [...]
>>
>> Is that what I was told? Were you there? I don't remember you, and I
>> don't remember being told that it had to do with Latin.
>
> PTD is a bit confused about the history, which you can see at the
> Wikipedia article. (I contributed a lot to that.)

He's certainly confused about my history. I was taught next to no
grammar at school, being a victim of a teaching fashion whose official
title was, I think, "just let the little darlings express themselves".
It's quite possible that split infinitives were not mentioned at all. In
any event, I have no recollection of them.

For the record, I have never argued that we should do things just
because the Romans did them (not even installing underfloor central
heating). On occasion I've argued the opposite.

>> "... I believe that a split infinitive is never necessary - well hardly
>> ever - in order to achieve clarity, ease, and naturalness; and if that
>> is so it is much better not to split, because of the offence which a
>> split may cause to those readers who, rightly or wrongly, think that a
>> split infinitive is a sure sign of illiteracy" - Gowers, 'The Complete
>> Plain Words'.
>>
>> Just so.
>

> When was that, sixty or seventy years ago? [...]

Forty-nine years ago - so quite recently in the 700 years of the
language's history.

> I suspect that people who disdain writers for splitting infinitives are
> now greatly outnumbered by people who attribute constructions like
> "boldly to go" to ignorance of the disappearance of the rule, and those
> people are greatly outnumbered by those who have never heard that
> there was such a rule and think that a construction like "boldly to go"

> is pointlessly weird. [...]

It may indeed be a question of milieu. I have often been pleasantly
surprised to find classic English being spoken behind closed doors in
the leafier parts of town, in the better parts of academia and the Civil
Service. It is spoken quietly, of course, and elsewhere is drowned out
by the media and others aping linguistic fashion.

>> "Its main idea is to historically, even while events are maturing, and
>> divinely - from the divine point of view - impeach the European system
>> of Church and States."
>
> The problem with that isn't that what is split is a to+infinitve. It would
> also be awkward to write, "We must historically, even while events are
> maturing, and divinely - from the divine point of view - impeach the
> European system of Church and States." The "heavy" component
> should sink to the end of the sentence.

It's badly written, yes. I think even splitters would find that split
infinitive unacceptable - and not for any reason to do with Latin, but
on aesthetic grounds - i.e. taste, preference, and judgement - which are
unarguable.

Let's go back to Star Trek. The first word of a phrase has special
power, which is why "boldly to go" is better than "to boldly go" or "to
go boldly". If I understand Peter's "Yuck!" correctly, his dialect does
not admit "boldly to go", which is a limitation and a shame.

Split infinitives usually contain adverbs, which good writers try to
strike out where they can. I think that's what I'd do in this case: "Its
five-year mission: to go where no man has gone before." One bold stroke,
and both the braggadocio and the split infinitive disappear.

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On Mon, 21 Nov 2022 08:18:56 +0000
Hibou <h...@b.ou> wrote:

[]

>
> Let's go back to Star Trek. The first word of a phrase has special
> power, which is why "boldly to go" is better than "to boldly go" or "to
> go boldly". If I understand Peter's "Yuck!" correctly, his dialect does
> not admit "boldly to go", which is a limitation and a shame.
>
> Split infinitives usually contain adverbs, which good writers try to
> strike out where they can. I think that's what I'd do in this case: "Its
> five-year mission: to go where no man has gone before." One bold stroke,
> and both the braggadocio and the split infinitive disappear.
>

Yeahbut they were /Bold/. It was important. (Except quite often they'd
come home for a refit, escort a diplomat, visit a spacestation, archeology
dig or mining outpost, i.e. Somewhere Man Had Clearly Been Before).

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

[Hibou]

Good point.

Kenneth Horne was often /bold/ too, according to Julian and Sandy (it
must all be in the intonation). And I think going where no man has gone
before entails the idea without it needing to be made explicit.

In any case - touchstone follows - it would be a curious way for the
Admiralty to frame its orders to one of HM's ships.

[Hibou]

Le 21/11/2022 à 10:07, Stefan Ram a écrit :
> Hibou writes: The first word of a phrase has special
>> power,
>
> Some say that, in English, the power of the first word is no match
> for that of the last! Please allow me to quote from the Web:
>
> |Near the end of the play Macbeth, a messenger comes out near
> |the battlefield and announces this news to the Scottish king:
> |"The Queen, my Lord, is dead."
> |
> |Now consider this: Shakespeare did not have to write the line
> |that way. He could have settled on a different word order:
> |"My Lord, the Queen is dead." Or "The Queen is dead, my Lord."
> |In my opinion, the Bard wrote the best version of the line because
> |he placed the least important word (Lord) in the middle,
> |put the more important word (Queen) at the beginning, and
> |put the most important word (dead) at the end.
> |Right next to the full stop. A hot spot.
> |
> quoted from a site of the World-Wide Web.
>
> English allows only so much variation of the word order,
> and a sentence must be correct. So by meaning (and sometimes
> stress in spoken English) importance can be given to words
> independent of their position in a sentence.

I didn't say the first word has all the power, or even most of it; and
by deferring the key word to the end, one forces one's audience to
listen to the end. (It doesn't do to abuse their patience.)

On the other hand, "/Now/ is the winter of our discontent made glorious
summer by this son of York" is a splendid way to start a play.

[Paul Wolff]

On Mon, 21 Nov 2022, at 08:18:56, Hibou posted:

>It may indeed be a question of milieu. I have often been pleasantly
>surprised to find classic English being spoken behind closed doors in
>the leafier parts of town, in the better parts of academia and the
>Civil Service. It is spoken quietly, of course, and elsewhere is
>drowned out by the media and others aping linguistic fashion.

I'd have written "by the mass media" there, to distinguish from the
usual speech media, the atmospheric gases. But mainly because I like to
ride that hobby-horse anyway, when I can.
--
Paul

[Paul Wolff]

On Mon, 21 Nov 2022, at 10:17:56, Hibou posted:

...with a most excellent pun to grab their attention in the pit.
--
Paul

[Jerry Friedman]

That's the natural order for me.

> I spelled "no one" as two words because someone told me to.

Maybe you'll spell it differently after noone.

--
Jerry Friedman

[CDB]

On 11/21/2022 10:13 AM, Jerry Friedman wrote:

He would probably want a capital.

[Mack A. Damia]

On 21 Nov 2022 11:29:21 GMT, r...@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram)
wrote:

>Hibou <h...@b.ou> writes:
>>On the other hand, "/Now/ is the winter of our discontent made glorious
>>summer by this son of York" is a splendid way to start a play.
>

> Yes.
>
> I guess, one could even force the "boldly" to go to the end.
>
> For example, one can find:
>
>|Miss Deane nodded, complacently.
>"The Looking Glass" (1921, 1922) - John D. Beresford (UK) (1873/1947)

There was a popular TV series in the U.S. that ran from 1955 to 1960.

"The Millionaire" was about a benefactor who would give away one
million dollars to somebody, and the story was about how that person
would use the money. The benefactor remained annonymous, but viewers
knew he was:

"John Beresford Tipton".

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Monday, November 21, 2022 at 3:19:01 AM UTC-5, Hibou wrote:
> Le 19/11/2022 à 15:23, Jerry Friedman a écrit :
> > On Saturday, November 19, 2022 at 12:08:09 AM UTC-7, Hibou wrote:
> >> Le 16/11/2022 à 13:59, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> >>> On Wednesday, November 16, 2022 at 1:46:05 AM UTC-5, Hibou wrote:

> >>>> Its five-year mission: boldly to go where....
> >>> Yuck. Is your native language Latin?
> >> Yuck?
> >>> The ONLY reason you were told to not split infinitives is that
> >>> it can't be done in Latin. It's perfectly natural in Germanic. [...]
> >> Is that what I was told? Were you there? I don't remember you, and I
> >> don't remember being told that it had to do with Latin.
> > PTD is a bit confused about the history, which you can see at the
> > Wikipedia article. (I contributed a lot to that.)
>
> He's certainly confused about my history. I was taught next to no
> grammar at school, being a victim of a teaching fashion whose official
> title was, I think, "just let the little darlings express themselves".
> It's quite possible that split infinitives were not mentioned at all. In
> any event, I have no recollection of them.

I didn't say you were "taught" that, I said you were "told" that. You
could certainly be told to or not to do things elsewhere than in a
classroom. Including by a book you might have picked up for your
own edification.

> For the record, I have never argued that we should do things just
> because the Romans did them (not even installing underfloor central
> heating). On occasion I've argued the opposite.

Why do you object to splitting infinitives?

> >> "... I believe that a split infinitive is never necessary - well hardly
> >> ever - in order to achieve clarity, ease, and naturalness; and if that
> >> is so it is much better not to split, because of the offence which a
> >> split may cause to those readers who, rightly or wrongly, think that a
> >> split infinitive is a sure sign of illiteracy" - Gowers, 'The Complete
> >> Plain Words'.
> >> Just so.
> > When was that, sixty or seventy years ago? [...]
>
> Forty-nine years ago - so quite recently in the 700 years of the
> language's history.
>
> > I suspect that people who disdain writers for splitting infinitives are
> > now greatly outnumbered by people who attribute constructions like
> > "boldly to go" to ignorance of the disappearance of the rule, and those
> > people are greatly outnumbered by those who have never heard that
> > there was such a rule and think that a construction like "boldly to go"
> > is pointlessly weird. [...]
>
> It may indeed be a question of milieu. I have often been pleasantly
> surprised to find classic English being spoken behind closed doors in
> the leafier parts of town, in the better parts of academia and the Civil
> Service. It is spoken quietly, of course, and elsewhere is drowned out
> by the media and others aping linguistic fashion.

What is "classic English"?

People who talk like a book?

> >> "Its main idea is to historically, even while events are maturing, and
> >> divinely - from the divine point of view - impeach the European system
> >> of Church and States."
> > The problem with that isn't that what is split is a to+infinitve. It would
> > also be awkward to write, "We must historically, even while events are
> > maturing, and divinely - from the divine point of view - impeach the
> > European system of Church and States." The "heavy" component
> > should sink to the end of the sentence.
>
> It's badly written, yes. I think even splitters would find that split
> infinitive unacceptable - and not for any reason to do with Latin, but
> on aesthetic grounds - i.e. taste, preference, and judgement - which are
> unarguable.

I.e., it was a lousy example to cite in the "split infinitive" context.

> Let's go back to Star Trek. The first word of a phrase has special
> power,

Rhetoricians of English would tell you that the _last_ word is the
most "powerful" (to use your term).

> which is why "boldly to go" is better than "to boldly go" or "to
> go boldly". If I understand Peter's "Yuck!" correctly, his dialect does
> not admit "boldly to go", which is a limitation and a shame.

Nothing to do with "dialects" "admitting" things. Just a visceral
reaction to a horrible "solution" of a nonexistent "problem."

> Split infinitives usually contain adverbs, which good writers try to
> strike out where they can.

Good grief.

> I think that's what I'd do in this case: "Its
> five-year mission: to go where no man has gone before." One bold stroke,
> and both the braggadocio and the split infinitive disappear.

So your explorers can go timidly, or rashly, or imperialistically?

[Peter T. Daniels]

You don't want two stressed syllables banging against each other
like that.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Watching it in syndication as a kid, I understood his name to be

John Behrs Vertipten.

I didn't realize that the recipient in each episode was a pretty big star.

[Mack A. Damia]

On Mon, 21 Nov 2022 08:56:23 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

>On Monday, November 21, 2022 at 11:20:48 AM UTC-5, Mack A. Damia wrote:
>> On 21 Nov 2022 11:29:21 GMT, r...@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram)
>> wrote:
>
>> >"The Looking Glass" (1921, 1922) - John D. Beresford (UK) (1873/1947)
>>
>> There was a popular TV series in the U.S. that ran from 1955 to 1960.
>>
>> "The Millionaire" was about a benefactor who would give away one
>> million dollars to somebody, and the story was about how that person
>> would use the money. The benefactor remained annonymous, but viewers
>> knew he was:
>>
>> "John Beresford Tipton".
>
>Watching it in syndication as a kid, I understood his name to be
>
>John Behrs Vertipten.

One question on Google in the "People also ask":

Who is John bears for Tipton?

>I didn't realize that the recipient in each episode was a pretty big star.

Long list of directors and actors. I recognize a quite few including
Betty White and William Fawcett (Fred) from the Lucy Show.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047758/fullcredits

[Peter T. Daniels]

William Frawley was Fred Mertz on *I Love Lucy*, and then he was
the uncle on *My Three Sons*. When he died, the job of old-guy on
that show was given to William Demarest. Frawley may have already
been gone by the time of *The Lucy Show*, but her foil on all three
of her post-Arnaz series was Gale Gordon. (Who before then had
been the second Mr. Wilson on *Dennis the Menace*, and before
that he was on *Our Miss Brooks*.)

> https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047758/fullcredits

[Mack A. Damia]

On Mon, 21 Nov 2022 09:49:39 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Never watched The Lucy Show, and it was the only name I could think of
at the moment. I read somewhere that Frawley and Vivian Vance (Ethel)
did not get along very well.

I remember the other shows that you mentioned. I was a fan of "My
Little Margie". Adolescent crush on Gale Storm. 1952 - 1955, and
that means I must have watched the programs in syndication in the mid
to late 1950s.

My Little Margie is in the public domain while I Love Lucy is still
under copyright.

[lar3ryca]

I was a fan of The Mickey Mouse Club when I was about 12. Mainly to
watch Annette Funicello.

I think Dave Barry said it best.

"Annette had a major impact on many of us male Baby Boomers, especially
the part where she came marching out wearing a T-shirt with her name
printed on it, and some of the letters were considerably closer to the
camera than others. If you get our drift."

--
Greek cows say "μ"

[Peter T. Daniels]

That's definitely part of the legend.

> I remember the other shows that you mentioned. I was a fan of "My
> Little Margie". Adolescent crush on Gale Storm. 1952 - 1955, and
> that means I must have watched the programs in syndication in the mid
> to late 1950s.

I saw it both under that name and as "The Gale Storm Show," Her dad
in the series was Shirley Temple's father-figure (wasn't she usually an
orphan?) in several of her movies, and that was a bit of cognitive
dissonance. And her sidekick was ZaSu Pitts.

Also "The Ann Sothern Show," which in first-run was *Private Secretary*.
Her boss there was Don Porter -- whom many years later I saw on
Broadway in *Plaza Suite*, with, I think, Peggy Cass -- probably toward
the end of the original run. Can't say who the original cast was.

> My Little Margie is in the public domain while I Love Lucy is still
> under copyright.

That's a tricky thing. *It's a Wonderful Life* got shown a hundred times
every week, which is what made it a "classic," because they simply
forgot to renew the copyright, but now it's been reasserted so it has
one network outing a year.

[lar3ryca]

A capital idea, C!


--
If the grass looks greener on the other side of the fence,
you bet the water bill is higher there too!

[Mack A. Damia]

On Mon, 21 Nov 2022 11:37:53 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

I remember the show with Gale Storm and ZaSu Pitts. It didn't impress
me as much as "My Little Margie". The silent film star, Charles
Farrell, played her father, "Vern", I think, and in a couple of
episodes he gave his errant daughter a spanking. He really let her
have it, too. Apparently, Farrell also spanked her for showing up
late one day to shoot scenes. Days of socially-acceptable kink.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uyrc3qHkpWo
(Jump to the 35 second mark. Maybe she was padded)

Pitts was a silent film star, too.

>Also "The Ann Sothern Show," which in first-run was *Private Secretary*.
>Her boss there was Don Porter -- whom many years later I saw on
>Broadway in *Plaza Suite*, with, I think, Peggy Cass -- probably toward
>the end of the original run. Can't say who the original cast was.

George C. Scott and Maureen Stapleton, I think, replaced by Porter
and Cass.

>> My Little Margie is in the public domain while I Love Lucy is still
>> under copyright.
>
>That's a tricky thing. *It's a Wonderful Life* got shown a hundred times
>every week, which is what made it a "classic," because they simply
>forgot to renew the copyright, but now it's been reasserted so it has
>one network outing a year.

Interesting how they got around it. Hints of legal corruption.

"But the copyright-saga continued in 1993. While Republic Pictures had
failed to renew copyright over the film in 1974, they still retained
rights to the original story, “The Greatest Gift,” and also purchased
rights to the film’s music. Relying on the recent Supreme Court case
Stewart v. Abend, 495 U.S. 207 (1990), RE: "Rear Window"**, Republic
Pictures notified all television networks to stop playing It’s a
Wonderful Life without the payment of royalties. Republic Pictures
then entered into an exclusive licensing arrangement with NBC, where
It’s a Wonderful Life can be seen twice a year."

**
https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/summaries/stewart-abend-1990.pdf?loclr=blogcop

[Mack A. Damia]

Yup! She was the stuff of dreams and fantasies. Died prematurely, I
think.

I watched The Mickey Mouse Club. About the only thing I can remember
is a serial about the Hardy Boys. Fifteen minute episodes. Were
there other serials?

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Monday, November 21, 2022 at 3:49:57 PM UTC-5, Mack A. Damia wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2022 11:37:53 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >On Monday, November 21, 2022 at 1:15:05 PM UTC-5, Mack A. Damia wrote:

> >> I remember the other shows that you mentioned. I was a fan of "My
> >> Little Margie". Adolescent crush on Gale Storm. 1952 - 1955, and
> >> that means I must have watched the programs in syndication in the mid
> >> to late 1950s.
> >I saw it both under that name and as "The Gale Storm Show," Her dad
> >in the series was Shirley Temple's father-figure (wasn't she usually an
> >orphan?) in several of her movies, and that was a bit of cognitive
> >dissonance. And her sidekick was ZaSu Pitts.
>
> I remember the show with Gale Storm and ZaSu Pitts. It didn't impress
> me as much as "My Little Margie". The silent film star, Charles
> Farrell, played her father, "Vern", I think, and in a couple of
> episodes he gave his errant daughter a spanking. He really let her
> have it, too. Apparently, Farrell also spanked her for showing up
> late one day to shoot scenes. Days of socially-acceptable kink.

Right -- I forgot they were two different series. The one with Charlie
Farrell (and his colleague/boss) had a grandmotherly type with an
absolutely filthy mouth -- somehow years later I saw a stray episode
and realized how much I must have missed when I was first watching it.

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uyrc3qHkpWo
> (Jump to the 35 second mark. Maybe she was padded)

You're such a perv. I think he's not actually making contact.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Not really, but she had a serious degenerative disease and was
active in fund-raising, including holiday TV appearances.

> I watched The Mickey Mouse Club. About the only thing I can remember
> is a serial about the Hardy Boys. Fifteen minute episodes. Were
> there other serials?

I didn't like it at all, except for those film shorts. Was Spin & Marty
also from there?

OTOH I loved *Walt Disney's Wonderful World of Color*, which was
an hour on Sunday nights. (Opposite Ed Sullivan?) I still remember
bits of the first episode (which was never rerun) -- it included playing
with color, which even looked good in B&W, and a long segment
about the Golden Section!

[Mack A. Damia]

On Mon, 21 Nov 2022 14:24:26 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

I don't recall the name.

>OTOH I loved *Walt Disney's Wonderful World of Color*, which was
>an hour on Sunday nights. (Opposite Ed Sullivan?) I still remember
>bits of the first episode (which was never rerun) -- it included playing
>with color, which even looked good in B&W, and a long segment
>about the Golden Section!

I think it was on at 7:30 pm on a Sunday night on the East Coast.

Wasn't the Steve Allen Show on at the same time as Ed Sullivan?

[Mack A. Damia]

On Mon, 21 Nov 2022 14:23:39 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

In those days, it was socially acceptable and often portrayed in
films; Pauline Goddard was a favorite spankee. It started to disappear
in U.S. films after the 1960s, but Maureen O'Hara complained about
bruises on her ass after John Wayne spanked her in "McClintock",
speaking of pervs. Both directors and film stars wanted realism. Ever
see "Maītresse" (1975) with Gerard Depardieu?

Some factions of the Religious Right recommend it for naughty wives in
this day and age.

[Hibou]

Le 21/11/2022 à 16:50, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> On Monday, November 21, 2022 at 3:19:01 AM UTC-5, Hibou wrote:

>> [...]

>> Split infinitives usually contain adverbs, which good writers try to
>> strike out where they can.
>
> Good grief.
>
>> I think that's what I'd do in this case: "Its
>> five-year mission: to go where no man has gone before." One bold stroke,
>> and both the braggadocio and the split infinitive disappear.
>
> So your explorers can go timidly, or rashly, or imperialistically?

Don't be silly. I was and remain fond of the original Star Trek (somehow
I never took to the later versions), but it's clearly about Americans
scampering about the Universe, sorting out aliens' problems. They were
never going to go timidly.

[Peter Moylan]

I agree that the sentence in question is greatly improved by deleting
"boldly".

"Delete excess words" has been a valuable rule in my own writing, even
if I don't always remember to follow it. (Initially I wrote "delete
excess verbiage" there, but then I realised that I had a redundant
redundancy.) The worst culprits usually turn out to be adverbs. After
those have been pruned, I get to see that some proportion of the
adjectives can also usefully be given the chop.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

[Peter T. Daniels]

The names came to me last night. After some 60 years. The old lady
with the doubles entendres was Mrs. Odets; Vern Albright worked for
Honeywell and Todd. Mr. Honeywell was a regular, Mr. Todd was never
seen.

> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uyrc3qHkpWo
> >> (Jump to the 35 second mark. Maybe she was padded)
> >You're such a perv. I think he's not actually making contact.
>
> In those days, it was socially acceptable and often portrayed in
> films; Pauline Goddard was a favorite spankee. It started to disappear

As Jon Lovitz used to say, "Acting!" One of the things you learn
in acting class is how to make it look like you're hitting someone
without actually doing so.

> in U.S. films after the 1960s, but Maureen O'Hara complained about
> bruises on her ass after John Wayne spanked her in "McClintock",

Did anyone ever accuse him of acting?

> speaking of pervs. Both directors and film stars wanted realism. Ever
> see "Maītresse" (1975) with Gerard Depardieu?

Nope.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Tuesday, November 22, 2022 at 6:01:08 AM UTC-5, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 22/11/22 17:41, Hibou wrote:
> > Le 21/11/2022 à 16:50, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> >> On Monday, November 21, 2022 at 3:19:01 AM UTC-5, Hibou wrote:

> >>> [...] Split infinitives usually contain adverbs, which good
> >>> writers try to strike out where they can.
> >> Good grief.
> >>> I think that's what I'd do in this case: "Its five-year mission:
> >>> to go where no man has gone before." One bold stroke, and both
> >>> the braggadocio and the split infinitive disappear.
> >> So your explorers can go timidly, or rashly, or imperialistically?
> > Don't be silly. I was and remain fond of the original Star Trek
> > (somehow I never took to the later versions), but it's clearly about
> > Americans scampering about the Universe, sorting out aliens'
> > problems. They were never going to go timidly.

And they need to assert themselves.

Captain Picard has a French name and a British actor. You sure
he's American?

> I agree that the sentence in question is greatly improved by deleting
> "boldly".
>
> "Delete excess words" has been a valuable rule in my own writing, even
> if I don't always remember to follow it. (Initially I wrote "delete
> excess verbiage" there, but then I realised that I had a redundant
> redundancy.) The worst culprits usually turn out to be adverbs. After
> those have been pruned, I get to see that some proportion of the
> adjectives can also usefully be given the chop.

After I finish writing an article I search "very" and almost always
delete each one.

[Mack A. Damia]

On Tue, 22 Nov 2022 07:14:43 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

If you bother to read some accounts of violence portrayed in films,
you will discover that some of it is real. Some actors who have their
faces slapped, for instance, tell the slapper to do it.

Found this:

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2016/04/when-hollywood-featured-spankings-of-adult-women.html

>> in U.S. films after the 1960s, but Maureen O'Hara complained about
>> bruises on her ass after John Wayne spanked her in "McClintock",
>
>Did anyone ever accuse him of acting?

Don't be silly.

>> speaking of pervs. Both directors and film stars wanted realism. Ever

>> see "Ma?tresse" (1975) with Gerard Depardieu?
>
>Nope.

It may be titillating, but it is "violence", and I don't approve of
it. Nowhere, and that includes schools.

You called me a "perv", and that's okay. I know the truth: Society
is perverted. Check out the sex and violence that is everywhere.

[Jerry Friedman]

On Monday, November 21, 2022 at 1:19:01 AM UTC-7, Hibou wrote:
> Le 19/11/2022 à 15:23, Jerry Friedman a écrit :
> > On Saturday, November 19, 2022 at 12:08:09 AM UTC-7, Hibou wrote:
> >> Le 16/11/2022 à 13:59, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> >>> On Wednesday, November 16, 2022 at 1:46:05 AM UTC-5, Hibou wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Its five-year mission: boldly to go where....
> >>>
> >>> Yuck. Is your native language Latin?

...

> >> "... I believe that a split infinitive is never necessary - well hardly
> >> ever - in order to achieve clarity, ease, and naturalness; and if that
> >> is so it is much better not to split, because of the offence which a
> >> split may cause to those readers who, rightly or wrongly, think that a
> >> split infinitive is a sure sign of illiteracy" - Gowers, 'The Complete
> >> Plain Words'.
> >>
> >> Just so.
> >
> > When was that, sixty or seventy years ago? [...]
>
> Forty-nine years ago - so quite recently in the 700 years of the
> language's history.

So maybe more Bruce Fraser than Gowers? Not that it matters.

Nor does the length of the language's history matter. According to
the Wikipedia article, Gowers changed his view of "backlog" between
1951 and 1954.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Complete_Plain_Words#ABC_of_Plain_Words,_1951

What does matter Gowers-Fraser's argument is how many readers there
are who think a split infinitive is a sign of illiteracy. I realize that avoiding
split infinitives lasted longer in Britain than in North America, but I
strongly suspect, without data, that there are very few people over there
who still object.

> > I suspect that people who disdain writers for splitting infinitives are
> > now greatly outnumbered by people who attribute constructions like
> > "boldly to go" to ignorance of the disappearance of the rule, and those
> > people are greatly outnumbered by those who have never heard that
> > there was such a rule and think that a construction like "boldly to go"

> > is pointlessly weird. [...]
>
> It may indeed be a question of milieu. I have often been pleasantly
> surprised to find classic English being spoken behind closed doors in
> the leafier parts of town, in the better parts of academia and the Civil
> Service. It is spoken quietly, of course, and elsewhere is drowned out
> by the media and others aping linguistic fashion.

...

Splitting and refusing to split are equally fashions.

> Let's go back to Star Trek. The first word of a phrase has special

> power, which is why "boldly to go" is better than "to boldly go" or "to

> go boldly". If I understand Peter's "Yuck!" correctly, his dialect does
> not admit "boldly to go", which is a limitation and a shame.

You seem to have switched sides. If your dialect doesn't admit "to
boldly go", that too is a limitation and a shame.

> Split infinitives usually contain adverbs, which good writers try to

> strike out where they can. I think that's what I'd do in this case: "Its

> five-year mission: to go where no man has gone before." One bold stroke,
> and both the braggadocio and the split infinitive disappear.

I agree that that's an improvement.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Sam Plusnet]

On 22-Nov-22 6:41, Hibou wrote:
> Le 21/11/2022 à 16:50, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
>> On Monday, November 21, 2022 at 3:19:01 AM UTC-5, Hibou wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> Split infinitives usually contain adverbs, which good writers try to
>>> strike out where they can.
>>
>> Good grief.
>>
>>> I think that's what I'd do in this case: "Its
>>> five-year mission: to go where no man has gone before." One bold stroke,
>>> and both the braggadocio and the split infinitive disappear.
>>
>> So your explorers can go timidly, or rashly, or imperialistically?

Horses for courses.

>
> Don't be silly. I was and remain fond of the original Star Trek (somehow
> I never took to the later versions), but it's clearly about Americans
> scampering about the Universe, sorting out aliens' problems. They were
> never going to go timidly.

If they are going to be "bold" in all and every situation, then they
deserve every bad thing that happens to them (unlike the poor
unfortunates they encounter).
Only an idiot takes a 'one size fits all' approach to a whole series of
wildly different situations.

--
Sam Plusnet

[Mack A. Damia]

On Tue, 22 Nov 2022 07:14:43 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Check out Imdb (Trivia) for the boxing films such as "Raging Bull"
(1980) with De Niro. That was some genuine boxing.

"Rocky" (1976), too. "Sylvester Stallone and Carl Weathers suffered
injuries during the shooting of the final fight: Stallone suffered
bruised ribs, and Weathers suffered a damaged nose, the opposite
injuries of what their characters had." (Imdb)

[Hibou]

Le 22/11/2022 à 16:03, Jerry Friedman a écrit :
> On Monday, November 21, 2022 at 1:19:01 AM UTC-7, Hibou wrote:

>> [...]

> What does matter Gowers-Fraser's argument is how many readers there
> are who think a split infinitive is a sign of illiteracy. I realize that avoiding
> split infinitives lasted longer in Britain than in North America, but I
> strongly suspect, without data, that there are very few people over there
> who still object.

It's but one sample and not rigorous, but if I run Google Ngram Viewer
on "to quickly go" and "quickly to go", then the split infinitive has
been more current than the unsplit in AmE since about 1970, and was
almost twice as frequent in 2019. In BrE, "to quickly go" started to
rise in about 1980, and in 2019 was about as frequent as "quickly to go".

<https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=to+quickly+go%2Cquickly+to+go&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=28&smoothing=3>

<https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=to+quickly+go%2Cquickly+to+go&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=29&smoothing=3>

It may be that people who do not split keep quiet about it, having grown
tired of being jumped upon, of being accused of being slaves to Latin
grammar.

> Splitting and refusing to split are equally fashions.

Well, that's a point of view. Apparently non-splitters have included
Shakespeare, Spenser, Dryden, Pope, and the authors of the KJV
(Wikipedia), so if not splitting is a fashion, it's a long-lasting one.

>> Let's go back to Star Trek. The first word of a phrase has special
>> power, which is why "boldly to go" is better than "to boldly go" or "to
>> go boldly". If I understand Peter's "Yuck!" correctly, his dialect does
>> not admit "boldly to go", which is a limitation and a shame.
>
> You seem to have switched sides. If your dialect doesn't admit "to
> boldly go", that too is a limitation and a shame.

Interesting point. I think if Shakespeare (who apparently used only one
or two) and the authors of the KJV (who used none) could get by without
split infinitives, it can't be much of a limitation.

My remark was in any case tongue in cheek. Peter was not judging "boldly
to go" on its merits as a construct; his "Yuck!" was about supposed
enslavement to the Romans.

>> Split infinitives usually contain adverbs, which good writers try to
>> strike out where they can. I think that's what I'd do in this case: "Its
>> five-year mission: to go where no man has gone before." One bold stroke,
>> and both the braggadocio and the split infinitive disappear.
>
> I agree that that's an improvement.

Thanks.

[Jerry Friedman]

On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 1:22:37 AM UTC-7, Hibou wrote:
> Le 22/11/2022 à 16:03, Jerry Friedman a écrit :
> > On Monday, November 21, 2022 at 1:19:01 AM UTC-7, Hibou wrote:
> >> [...]
> > What does matter Gowers-Fraser's argument is how many readers there
> > are who think a split infinitive is a sign of illiteracy. I realize that avoiding
> > split infinitives lasted longer in Britain than in North America, but I
> > strongly suspect, without data, that there are very few people over there
> > who still object.

> It's but one sample and not rigorous, but if I run Google Ngram Viewer
> on "to quickly go" and "quickly to go", then the split infinitive has
> been more current than the unsplit in AmE since about 1970, and was
> almost twice as frequent in 2019. In BrE, "to quickly go" started to
> rise in about 1980, and in 2019 was about as frequent as "quickly to go".
>
> <https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=to+quickly+go%2Cquickly+to+go&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=28&smoothing=3>
>
> <https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=to+quickly+go%2Cquickly+to+go&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=29&smoothing=3>

As you say, it's not rigorous, and the main lack of rigor I see is that "quickly
to go" can appear in other constructions. Looking at GB instances of
"quickly to go" from this century and apparently from the UK, I see discussions
of the split infinitive and reprints of /The Secret Garden/ ("He came back to
the house and up to my room, where I was dressing quickly to go to Mr.
Ffolliott.”) After a couple pages of that, I got to books where I couldn't see
the context, and I gave up.

Some results from GloWbE, which is from Web pages, often not edited text:

to [ADV] try: US 558, GB 408 (different meaning for GB)

to [ADV] want: US 212, GB 191

to [ADV] run: US 300, GB 216

to [ADV] think: US 790, GB 584

The American and British corpora are both about 2 billion words. I think
that's a good hint that split infinitives are more common in America, but
not by much.

> It may be that people who do not split keep quiet about it, having grown
> tired of being jumped upon, of being accused of being slaves to Latin
> grammar.

That's exactly the reason, mutatis mutandis, that Gowers and Fraser gave
to avoid splitting.

> > Splitting and refusing to split are equally fashions.

> Well, that's a point of view. Apparently non-splitters have included
> Shakespeare, Spenser, Dryden, Pope, and the authors of the KJV
> (Wikipedia), so if not splitting is a fashion, it's a long-lasting one.

Wikipedia also gives an impressive list of splitters, beginning in the
18th century, so that's also a long-lasting fashion.

> >> Let's go back to Star Trek. The first word of a phrase has special
> >> power, which is why "boldly to go" is better than "to boldly go" or "to
> >> go boldly". If I understand Peter's "Yuck!" correctly, his dialect does
> >> not admit "boldly to go", which is a limitation and a shame.
> >
> > You seem to have switched sides. If your dialect doesn't admit "to
> > boldly go", that too is a limitation and a shame.

> Interesting point. I think if Shakespeare (who apparently used only one
> or two) and the authors of the KJV (who used none) could get by without
> split infinitives, it can't be much of a limitation.

Plenty of people get by without "boldly to go", and it's less of a limitation
because you have to avoid it when the attachment of the adverb is
ambiguous ("He learned quickly to go by a different route"), which I don't
think can happen with split infinitives.

> My remark was in any case tongue in cheek. Peter was not judging "boldly
> to go" on its merits as a construct; his "Yuck!" was about supposed
> enslavement to the Romans.

...

I wouldn't count on that. Esthetically, I find "boldly to go" pretty yucky.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Peter T. Daniels]

Well duh.

The vast majority of movies are not vicious boxing movies.

And most boxing movies do not result in injuries.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 3:22:37 AM UTC-5, Hibou wrote:

> It may be that people who do not split keep quiet about it, having grown
> tired of being jumped upon, of being accused of being slaves to Latin
> grammar.

Did anyone around here do that?

I begin to get the impression that you're not too good at reading-
comprehension.

The ONLY justifications for "not splitting" that have been given
are "writers I like don't do it" (no hint of why they don't do it) and
"it can't be done in Latin," which supposedly began to surface
only in the 19th century.

Recall that the most admired writers of the 18th century, such
as Johnson and Gibbon, were intentionally imitating the rhetorical
style they had learned from Cicero. Who, you will also recall, wrote
in and on Latin.

No one EVER suggested that YOU were taught to not split
infinitives BECAUSE you can't do it in Latin.

> > You seem to have switched sides. If your dialect doesn't admit "to
> > boldly go", that too is a limitation and a shame.
>
> Interesting point. I think if Shakespeare (who apparently used only one
> or two) and the authors of the KJV (who used none) could get by without
> split infinitives, it can't be much of a limitation.

Have you checked how many unsplit ones they used?

> My remark was in any case tongue in cheek. Peter was not judging "boldly
> to go" on its merits as a construct; his "Yuck!" was about supposed
> enslavement to the Romans.

Don't invent asininities.

My entire comment was "Yuck. Is your native language Latin?
The ONLY reason you were told to not split infinitives is that
it can't be done in Latin. It's perfectly natural in Germanic."

[Mack A. Damia]

On Wed, 23 Nov 2022 08:06:44 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

As usual, you miss the point.

Acting isn't just "pretending".

[lar3ryca]

Mark Twain said it best. "Eschew verbosity"

--
Animals are nature's way of keeping meat fresh.

[Mack A. Damia]

On Wed, 23 Nov 2022 15:25:29 -0600, lar3ryca <la...@invalid.ca> wrote:

>On 2022-11-22 05:00, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> On 22/11/22 17:41, Hibou wrote:

>>> Le 21/11/2022 ą 16:50, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
>>>> On Monday, November 21, 2022 at 3:19:01 AM UTC-5, Hibou wrote:
>>>>> [...] Split infinitives usually contain adverbs, which good
>>>>> writers try to strike out where they can.
>>>>
>>>> Good grief.
>>>>
>>>>> I think that's what I'd do in this case: "Its five-year mission:
>>>>> to go where no man has gone before." One bold stroke, and both
>>>>> the braggadocio and the split infinitive disappear.
>>>>
>>>> So your explorers can go timidly, or rashly, or imperialistically?
>>>
>>> Don't be silly. I was and remain fond of the original Star Trek
>>> (somehow I never took to the later versions), but it's clearly about
>>> Americans scampering about the Universe, sorting out aliens'
>>> problems. They were never going to go timidly.
>>
>> I agree that the sentence in question is greatly improved by deleting
>> "boldly".
>>
>> "Delete excess words" has been a valuable rule in my own writing, even
>> if I don't always remember to follow it. (Initially I wrote "delete
>> excess verbiage" there, but then I realised that I had a redundant
>> redundancy.) The worst culprits usually turn out to be adverbs. After
>> those have been pruned, I get to see that some proportion of the
>> adjectives can also usefully be given the chop.
>
>Mark Twain said it best. "Eschew verbosity"

It is commonly believed that Thomas Jefferson said:

"The most valuable of all talents is that of never using two words
when one will do."

But there doesn't seem to be any evidence that he did say it.

[Snidely]

Peter Moylan noted that:

> On 22/11/22 17:41, Hibou wrote:
>> Le 21/11/2022 à 16:50, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
>>> On Monday, November 21, 2022 at 3:19:01 AM UTC-5, Hibou wrote:
>>>> [...] Split infinitives usually contain adverbs, which good
>>>> writers try to strike out where they can.
>>>
>>> Good grief.
>>>
>>>> I think that's what I'd do in this case: "Its five-year mission:
>>>> to go where no man has gone before." One bold stroke, and both
>>>> the braggadocio and the split infinitive disappear.
>>>
>>> So your explorers can go timidly, or rashly, or imperialistically?
>>
>> Don't be silly. I was and remain fond of the original Star Trek
>> (somehow I never took to the later versions), but it's clearly about
>> Americans scampering about the Universe, sorting out aliens'
>> problems. They were never going to go timidly.
>
> I agree that the sentence in question is greatly improved by deleting
> "boldly".

I disagree.

> "Delete excess words" has been a valuable rule in my own writing,

But it isn't really excess, it is emphasis and characterization.

Boldly implies more than just routine sentry rounds or a routine police
beat.

/dps

--
"Maintaining a really good conspiracy requires far more intelligent
application, by a large number of people, than the world can readily
supply."

Sam Plusnet

[Snidely]

Lo, on the 11/23/2022, Snidely did proclaim ...

> Peter Moylan noted that:
>> On 22/11/22 17:41, Hibou wrote:
>>> Le 21/11/2022 à 16:50, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
>>>> On Monday, November 21, 2022 at 3:19:01 AM UTC-5, Hibou wrote:
>>>>> [...] Split infinitives usually contain adverbs, which good
>>>>> writers try to strike out where they can.
>>>>
>>>> Good grief.
>>>>
>>>>> I think that's what I'd do in this case: "Its five-year mission:
>>>>> to go where no man has gone before." One bold stroke, and both
>>>>> the braggadocio and the split infinitive disappear.
>>>>
>>>> So your explorers can go timidly, or rashly, or imperialistically?
>>>
>>> Don't be silly. I was and remain fond of the original Star Trek
>>> (somehow I never took to the later versions), but it's clearly about
>>> Americans scampering about the Universe, sorting out aliens'
>>> problems. They were never going to go timidly.
>>
>> I agree that the sentence in question is greatly improved by deleting
>> "boldly".
>
> I disagree.
>
>> "Delete excess words" has been a valuable rule in my own writing,
>
> But it isn't really excess, it is emphasis and characterization.
>
> Boldly implies more than just routine sentry rounds or a routine police beat.

And of course, it is Exciting!

-d

--
There's nothing inherently wrong with Big Data. What matters, as it
does for Arnold Lund in California or Richard Rothman in Baltimore, are
the questions -- old and new, good and bad -- this newest tool lets us
ask. (R. Lerhman, CSMonitor.com)

[Hibou]

Le 23/11/2022 à 15:31, Jerry Friedman a écrit :
> On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 1:22:37 AM UTC-7, Hibou wrote:
>> Le 22/11/2022 à 16:03, Jerry Friedman a écrit :

>>> [...]

>>> You seem to have switched sides. If your dialect doesn't admit "to
>>> boldly go", that too is a limitation and a shame.
>>
>> Interesting point. I think if Shakespeare (who apparently used only one
>> or two) and the authors of the KJV (who used none) could get by without
>> split infinitives, it can't be much of a limitation.
>
> Plenty of people get by without "boldly to go",

But do they produce the greatest works in the language? Could they write
anything to rival "I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is
not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the
wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of
skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all"?

> and it's less of a limitation
> because you have to avoid it when the attachment of the adverb is
> ambiguous ("He learned quickly to go by a different route"), which I don't
> think can happen with split infinitives.

I don't produce great works myself, but I do aim to think about each
word I write, to pay attention to possible ambiguity and the placement
of adverbs - and to whether they're needed (I wish I were better at
this). As I've said, my own solution to the Star Trek problem is to omit
'boldly' altogether. Not splitting is a habitual part of this thinking;
I don't find it a limitation or a burden - in fact I relish it, as a
step on the road to mastery.

Splitters ought to think, too. How many words can one stuff into an
infinitive one has prised open? Some seem to see this as a competitive
sport. Non-splitters, on the other hand, can use as many qualifiers as
they like, provided the result is neat and clear.

He had to write thoughtfully and carefully to his mother.

He had to thoughtfully and carefully write to his mother. (Yuck.)

Do you limit how many words you put into an infinitive? Is there a point
at which you become a non-splitter?

>> My remark was in any case tongue in cheek. Peter was not judging "boldly
>> to go" on its merits as a construct; his "Yuck!" was about supposed
>> enslavement to the Romans.
> ...
>
> I wouldn't count on that.

He said: "Yuck. Is your native language Latin?" (on the 16th at 13.59
UTC). That seems clear enough to me.

> Esthetically, I find "boldly to go" pretty yucky.

I think we'll have to put that down to Pondian or other differences in
dialect. There are plenty of American usages that I find 'yucky',
including split infinitives - usages that snag my attention and distract
it from the author's or speaker's message.

This is dialect fulfilling what is perhaps its main function, to
distinguish 'us' from 'them'.

And such sensitivity may be an unfortunate by-product of paying
attention to language. Blitheness has its good side, and I sometimes
wonder if it isn't the saner choice.

[Jerry Friedman]

On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 1:07:27 AM UTC-7, Hibou wrote:
> Le 23/11/2022 à 15:31, Jerry Friedman a écrit :
> > On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 1:22:37 AM UTC-7, Hibou wrote:
> >> Le 22/11/2022 à 16:03, Jerry Friedman a écrit :
> >>> [...]
> >>> You seem to have switched sides. If your dialect doesn't admit "to
> >>> boldly go", that too is a limitation and a shame.
> >>
> >> Interesting point. I think if Shakespeare (who apparently used only one
> >> or two) and the authors of the KJV (who used none) could get by without
> >> split infinitives, it can't be much of a limitation.
> >
> > Plenty of people get by without "boldly to go",

> But do they produce the greatest works in the language? Could they write
> anything to rival "I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is
> not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the
> wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of
> skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all"?

That's a matter of taste. If you like the language of that time, you might
also like Donne, who split infinitives (according to the Wikipedia article).

Speaking of "time and chance happeneth", if you take the King James
Bible as a model, would you write "And so was also James, and John, the
sons of Zebedee, which were partners with Simon" (Luke 5:10)?

> > and it's less of a limitation
> > because you have to avoid it when the attachment of the adverb is
> > ambiguous ("He learned quickly to go by a different route"), which I don't
> > think can happen with split infinitives.

> I don't produce great works myself, but I do aim to think about each
> word I write, to pay attention to possible ambiguity and the placement
> of adverbs - and to whether they're needed (I wish I were better at
> this). As I've said, my own solution to the Star Trek problem is to omit
> 'boldly' altogether. Not splitting is a habitual part of this thinking;
> I don't find it a limitation or a burden - in fact I relish it, as a
> step on the road to mastery.

I think your mastery would be greater if you included split infinitives
among your possible constructions.

> Splitters ought to think, too. How many words can one stuff into an
> infinitive one has prised open? Some seem to see this as a competitive
> sport. Non-splitters, on the other hand, can use as many qualifiers as
> they like, provided the result is neat and clear.
>
> He had to write thoughtfully and carefully to his mother.
>
> He had to thoughtfully and carefully write to his mother. (Yuck.)
>
> Do you limit how many words you put into an infinitive? Is there a point
> at which you become a non-splitter?

...

Along the lines of what I said before, a long phrase modifying a verb doesn't
usually go before the verb, whether or not it might otherwise go between "to"
and an infinitive.

> > Esthetically, I find "boldly to go" pretty yucky.

> I think we'll have to put that down to Pondian or other differences in
> dialect. There are plenty of American usages that I find 'yucky',
> including split infinitives - usages that snag my attention and distract
> it from the author's or speaker's message.
>
> This is dialect fulfilling what is perhaps its main function, to
> distinguish 'us' from 'them'.
>
> And such sensitivity may be an unfortunate by-product of paying
> attention to language. Blitheness has its good side, and I sometimes
> wonder if it isn't the saner choice.

Well, I will admit to considerable conservatism in my language,
which may go with my gray hairs. But at least there are reasons to
pay attention to one's clarity.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 10:21:02 PM UTC-5, snide...@gmail.com wrote:
> Peter Moylan noted that:
> > On 22/11/22 17:41, Hibou wrote:

> >> Don't be silly. I was and remain fond of the original Star Trek
> >> (somehow I never took to the later versions), but it's clearly about
> >> Americans scampering about the Universe, sorting out aliens'
> >> problems. They were never going to go timidly.
> > I agree that the sentence in question is greatly improved by deleting
> > "boldly".
>
> I disagree.
>
> > "Delete excess words" has been a valuable rule in my own writing,
>
> But it isn't really excess, it is emphasis and characterization.
>
> Boldly implies more than just routine sentry rounds or a routine police
> beat.

The last few weeks, I've been watching the occasional episode of
OST (was that what it's supposed to be called?). Gene Roddenberry
was a 13-year-old boy. He was also involved in TNG, and there the
stories aren't much better. (They shrink the credits after DS9 so I
don't know if he was still involved by then, No, not worth googling.)

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 3:07:27 AM UTC-5, Hibou wrote:

> Splitters ought to think, too. How many words can one stuff into an
> infinitive one has prised open? Some seem to see this as a competitive
> sport. Non-splitters, on the other hand, can use as many qualifiers as
> they like, provided the result is neat and clear.

What _are_ you talking about? Still harping on that non-example
given well upthread?

> He had to write thoughtfully and carefully to his mother.
>
> He had to thoughtfully and carefully write to his mother. (Yuck.)

Where did you see that?

> Do you limit how many words you put into an infinitive? Is there a point
> at which you become a non-splitter?

As E. B. White would probably say, use exactly as many words as are needed.

> >> My remark was in any case tongue in cheek. Peter was not judging "boldly
> >> to go" on its merits as a construct; his "Yuck!" was about supposed
> >> enslavement to the Romans.

> > I wouldn't count on that.
>
> He said: "Yuck. Is your native language Latin?" (on the 16th at 13.59
> UTC). That seems clear enough to me.

You probably should have read the sentence that followed it.

Which I already requoted for you.

> > Esthetically, I find "boldly to go" pretty yucky.
>
> I think we'll have to put that down to Pondian or other differences in
> dialect. There are plenty of American usages that I find 'yucky',
> including split infinitives - usages that snag my attention and distract
> it from the author's or speaker's message.

On what basis do you call using a proper Germanic construction
an Americanism?

> This is dialect fulfilling what is perhaps its main function, to
> distinguish 'us' from 'them'.

Please learn some historical linguistics. "Dialect" has no "function."
It is the inevitable outcome when a speech community splits and
the members of the resulting communities are not in continuous
intimate contact.

> And such sensitivity may be an unfortunate by-product of paying
> attention to language. Blitheness has its good side, and I sometimes
> wonder if it isn't the saner choice.

Hail to thee, then. Wert ever a bird?

[Hibou]

Le 24/11/2022 à 16:09, Jerry Friedman a écrit :
> On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 1:07:27 AM UTC-7, Hibou wrote:
>> Le 23/11/2022 à 15:31, Jerry Friedman a écrit :
>>>
>>> Plenty of people get by without "boldly to go",
>>
>> But do they produce the greatest works in the language? Could they write
>> anything to rival "I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is
>> not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the
>> wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of
>> skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all"?
>
> That's a matter of taste. If you like the language of that time, you might
> also like Donne, who split infinitives (according to the Wikipedia article).
>
> Speaking of "time and chance happeneth", if you take the King James
> Bible as a model, would you write "And so was also James, and John, the
> sons of Zebedee, which were partners with Simon" (Luke 5:10)?

No, I would not write that. It's not that I particularly like the
language of that time, nor do I wish to ape it; it's that admire neat
expression. Truths¹ are often neatly expressed in the KJV and in
Shakespeare's plays, which is why we so often borrow from them.

What seems to us now to be oddness of phrasing helps in these cases. It
makes insight seem profounder.

____
¹I mean human truths. I'm not religious.

>> I don't produce great works myself, but I do aim to think about each
>> word I write, to pay attention to possible ambiguity and the placement
>> of adverbs - and to whether they're needed (I wish I were better at
>> this). As I've said, my own solution to the Star Trek problem is to omit
>> 'boldly' altogether. Not splitting is a habitual part of this thinking;
>> I don't find it a limitation or a burden - in fact I relish it, as a
>> step on the road to mastery.
>
> I think your mastery would be greater if you included split infinitives
> among your possible constructions.

Well, my dislike of them is not the same as having an absolute rule. The
criterion is: how will my reader perceive this? It is possible, though
unlikely, that I might use one sometime.

>> Splitters ought to think, too. How many words can one stuff into an
>> infinitive one has prised open? Some seem to see this as a competitive
>> sport. Non-splitters, on the other hand, can use as many qualifiers as
>> they like, provided the result is neat and clear.
>>
>> He had to write thoughtfully and carefully to his mother.
>>
>> He had to thoughtfully and carefully write to his mother. (Yuck.)
>>
>> Do you limit how many words you put into an infinitive? Is there a point
>> at which you become a non-splitter?
> ...
>
> Along the lines of what I said before, a long phrase modifying a verb doesn't
> usually go before the verb, whether or not it might otherwise go between "to"
> and an infinitive.

Agreed, but there I was talking about split infinitives in general.

>>> Esthetically, I find "boldly to go" pretty yucky.
>>
>> I think we'll have to put that down to Pondian or other differences in
>> dialect. There are plenty of American usages that I find 'yucky',
>> including split infinitives - usages that snag my attention and distract
>> it from the author's or speaker's message.
>>
>> This is dialect fulfilling what is perhaps its main function, to
>> distinguish 'us' from 'them'.
>>
>> And such sensitivity may be an unfortunate by-product of paying
>> attention to language. Blitheness has its good side, and I sometimes
>> wonder if it isn't the saner choice.
>
> Well, I will admit to considerable conservatism in my language,
> which may go with my gray hairs. But at least there are reasons to
> pay attention to one's clarity.

Yes; it's the way I've chosen.

Grey hairs often bring wisdom, such as learning why older men wear hats
(it's a messy business putting sun cream on a thinning pate).

As to conservatism, it can be both good and bad - in vocabulary, for
instance. We need new terms for new things (global warming, influencer,
jabbed..., energy poverty perhaps), but must we rush to say 'call out'
instead of 'criticise'?

Yes, conservatism. I'm half for it.