Picard? Pfah!
This thread actually finally made me look up what the hell a split infinitive is, after wondering about it every time it’s mentioned here.
Thank you for the thoughtful comments each of you has crafted on this unimportant issue. I have enjoyed them.
Attempting to win a debate over correct usage of English without first deciding who (or what) the arbiter will be is like children trying to win a game in which the rules are made up as they go along. The contest may be fun but progress toward a final resolution is unlikely. In this case, the debate at hand is essentially a contest of presentation skills and linguistic fluidity; it’s not a contest of fact. We are not trying to decide if the earth is round, kids.
Generally speaking, English derives its “rules” from usage. The noblest reason for those rules is to promote clarity of communication–in effect, a brake to slow down evolution so that usage can be standardized enought for us all to understand what the other is saying. There is a less noble reason for Rules of English: they are a shorthand way of separating the educated from the uneducated, and by inference upon (mis)use, the bright from the dimwitted.
This thread is a good example of the less noble reason. The comments here are a contest for Being the Most Persuasive; they are not going to clarify a Fact.
Since hoi polloi are permitted–encouraged even!–to use English, the dilemma faced by anyone trying to promote Correct Usage is that the masses consistently get the Rules wrong, and unfortunately, the Rules derive from usage. Catch-22, even when Authorities try to filter out the utterly ignorant ("…floors need mopped…" for example). Get enough mass support for that one, and eventually some person in a high enough place will use it for long enough that it will drive Standard Usage and be well on its way to a Rule.
Correct English Usage is a bit like Art. It has its connoisseurs who wax eloquent as if the bases of their opinion were fact. It has experts who know its history and its authorities, and who recognize inferior work. Those same groups know deep down inside that they cannot really, a priori, tell a kindergartner’s scribble from a Picasso absent the context of the piece. Out of context, no Rule-maker would know if a snippet is Shakespeare or part of my second-grade essay.
What really separates those who have permission from (fill in your Authority here)to split infinitives from those who do not, is whether or not they know the rule, and whether or not they have a darn good Reason to violate them. Those who do not have Permission will likely continue to be taken to task by the linguistic watchdogs. Until such time, anyway, as their collective (“mis”)use drives Standard Usage and at long last, what used to be crappy English becomes The Rule.
Back to mopping my floors…
I checked with my English department at my English school. (They all have degrees from English Universities.)
I know others have said this before, but I’m just backing them up:
The ‘split infinitive’ is not a problem in English. The idea that it is wrong comes from people who think we should all use Latin rules of grammar. :rolleyes:
The same applies to the ‘rule’ that a preposition is not the right word to end a sentence with.
As Winston Churchill memorably put it “From now on, ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I will not put.”
From ‘The Guardian style guide’ (bolding mine):
‘A subeditor can do no worse disservice to the text before him and thus to the writer, the reader, and the newspaper, than to impose his or her own preferences for words, for the shape of sentences and how they link, for a pedantic insistence on grammar in all cases as it used to be taught in school; in the process destroying nuances and possibly even the flow of a piece. And I write this as a career copy and layout editor with the best part of 40 years’ service on the Guardian and who regards the skills involved in copy editing not just as desirable but essential.’
“The English-speaking world may be divided into (1) those who neither know nor care what a split infinitive is; (2) those who do not know, but care very much; (3) those who know and condemn; (4) those who know and distinguish. Those who neither know nor care are the vast majority, and are happy folk, to be envied.”
HW Fowler, Modern English Usage, 1926
It is perfectly acceptable to sensibly split infinitives, and stubbornly to resist doing so can sound awkward and make for ambiguity: “the workers are declared strongly to favour a strike” raises the question of whether the declaration, or the favouring, is strong.
George Bernard Shaw got it about right after an editor tinkered with his infinitives: “I don’t care if he is made to go quickly, or to quickly go — but go he must!”
Finally, ‘Transactional English’, which means that listeners comprehend what you say, is in common use. Local dialects, teenage fads etc are examples of this.
You should consider which audience you are speaking to, but if they understand you, there’s nothing to worry about.
Appeals to authority in an effort to support either side of an opinion are unlikely to persuade those able to make decisions independently.
BTW I don’t recall Winnie saying that, although it is frequently attributed to him.
Wow. It’s a bit disturbing to actually see a Pit thread in CCC.
Opinion which is based upon something other than evidence is hardly something to happily rejoice in. 
OP posted an assertion based upon a prescriptive rule, a rule taught to him/her by professors at his/her college. OP was shown that the assertion was based upon a “rule” that was not widely, or even commonly, accepted; indeed, it is a rule that is self-perpetuated by a small group of pedants, in the face of wide condemnation and rejection by the majority of professionals who use the language. Evidence of this was offered to the OP. The OP neither offered evidence to the contrary (beyond the simple say-so of his/her professors), nor argued a case as to why the assertion should be accepted in the face of the evidence and concensus offered to the contrary.
Now, the OP can believe what he/she wishes to believe. And it is true that belief, strongly held, will rarely be shaken by mere logic or evidence. But opinion is often swayed by offering opposing evidence and authority; that’s how our Supreme Court manages to evolve its stance on principles of the law over time, for example. As to fact, the only fact in play was the original assertion, “to occasionally split an infinitive is okay as long as correct constrution is going to badly grate on the modern readers’ ears.” Had this been offered as an opinion, rather than an assertion of fact (supporting the accusation that the headline was not correctly written), it would have been treated with somewhat less contempt, I suspect. 
“Opinion which is based upon something other than evidence is hardly something to happily rejoice in.”
If it can be decided by evidence, it’s not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of Fact.
This is a discussion of opinions that split infinitives are (in)correct usage. It isn’t a matter of Fact b/c there is no Arbiter of Correct Usage that was decided in advance of the exchanges.
I have heard the alleged Churchill quote phrased as a statement against ending sentences with a preposition (as it was above), but I have also heard it phrased as a statement against the supposed rule, such as: “The restriction on ending a sentence with a preposition is a rule up with which I will not put!”
The second sense always made more sense to me, as it utilizes the awkward “up with which I will not put” to emphasize the silliness of the supposed “rule”.
However, although I have read a lot of Churchill, and searched high and low in books and Webdom, I have never found any specific reference to indicate that Winnie actually said any such thing, in either sense. To my ear, it’s plausible that he might have, but I’ve never seen any good evidence that he did.
This statement shows an appaling lack of understanding of the meaning of the word opinion, and the meaning of the word fact. <sigh>
My opinion: Democracy is a good method of government.
Evidence to support my opinion: The results of use of democracy over time.
Does that evidence mean that Democracy is a good method of government as a matter of “fact?” Of course not. :smack:
Fact: “a piece of information presented as having objective reality” (from Merriam-Webster Online)
This thread has been an education in the lack of understanding of some basic concepts among our educated masses. :eek:
<tap tap tap> Hello? Is this thing on?
This thread may well be a discussion of opinions, but whether it should be one is another question entirely. The OP offered up an assertion that’s testable, but judging from his reliance on appealing to his English professors ( :rolleyes: ), I’m gussing that he’s not aware that there are people who, y’know, make careers out of running experiments to determine whether different aspects of language affect things like reading speed and comprehension. I don’t know offhand whether there have been any studies done specifically on split infinitives, but it wouldn’t surprise me at all if there were.
If the poster had replied that noooooo, you couldn’t possibly run a study on style, the discussion could then have gone off on a tangent on how you might come up with operational definitions of appropriate vs. inappropriate use of split infinitives (which, as DSYoungEsq and others pointed out, was the main problem in the original assertion), but Randy Seltzer ended up continuing to rely on the argumentum ad Because I said so! rhetorical device. Time-tested and often reliable it may be, but it’s not that great at opening doors for additional learning opportunities.
The name of our new guest reminded me that I kept slapping myself mentally after each post for forgetting to use one of my favorite coinages, the illiterate pedant. They are the self-anointed expects who, having latched onto a “rule” when they were small, now ride that rule to the very death. Demanding prohibitions on the most ordinary usages - ending a sentence with a preposition, splitting an infinitive, hopefully - are sure telltales that one is in their midst.
The OP therefore qualified as a illiterate pedant. Since he is no longer responding to this thread, I won’t say anything more.
Chief Pedant is more of a problem. The statements our gadfly makes are generally true, but the conclusion drawn is not.
Citing the American Heart Association on matters concerning the prevention of heart disease is an appeal to authority, but it is a sensible one. Experts working actively in the field normally are the best source of information and advice on that topic, even if absolute knowledge is not yet available.
Most people, even most English professors, even most writers, have not made a systematic study of English linguistics. However, to say that therefore no advice can be given, no authorities can be consulted, anything goes is sheer folly. Some people are better qualified to pronounce on the subject. What they say may be an opinion because there are no rules of usage but it is an informed opinion, and informed opinions are worth many times what uniformed opinions are. To say that there are only opinions and no rules also ignores the basics of the English language. It is possible to teach the standard rules of grammar as if they are rules, and the same rules will be taught to virtually everyone by virtually every teacher, no matter the location or the level. Non-standard spoken violations should be called just that: non-standard rather than ignorant.
Most people, including college graduates, do need some basic support and guidance before they can write a “proper” English sentence, let alone a full essay or other long prose piece. I don’t mind if they resort to a instruction book full of rules, one that spends little time on the infinite nuances of the language, any more than I care if people are instructed in the “rules” of the road rather than get confused by the infinite nuances of real-life driving.
I do mind if they then preach those simplified rules to me, someone who has considerably more experience and knowledge of written English. My opinion is informed; it is worth more than the average poster’s.
Good English is indeed an art. But even art has its better and worse, its critics and experts, its experienced practitioners and amateur daubers, its styles and fads and history and rebels. Art too varies in correctness according to venue. A cubist presidential portrait will never hang in the White House, though it might be the best style for another venue. Different levels of formal and casual writing are to be expected in different forums, and an inappropriate level can legitimately be criticized.
Chief Pedant, illiterate you may not be. Yet you ain’t right neither.
I thought it was more of a discussion about whether split infinitives being incorrect usage was a matter of fact or a matter of opinion.
Back mopping floors, and noticed this thing was still on…
You have clarified the difference nicely, and re-reading your own post should help you understand the difference between opinion and fact… 
More germane to the issue of split infinitives: the posts here are opinions about when and where they are properly used. Absent agreement in advance on how to arbitrate “correct” usage of English, there are no appeals to evidence that will raise that opinion to the level of Fact when competing opinions are offered. This is not because there are no facts, but because there is no agreement who or what will arbitrate Correct Usage. There are facts to support a wide variety of Arbiters…which is why it took more than one post to address the OP.
Without deciding in advance who or what the arbiter of correct usage is, one poster’s evidence will support the Educated Person’s view as “objective reality” (Fact); another, the Dictionary’s Editorial Review board; another, Clarity; another, Really Good Authors; another, Very Smart People I am Familiar With, another, the Masses–and so on.
Over the years I’ve been delighted at the passions expressed around the best language in the world (opinion, and a damn good one at that). Arguments around what is Correct are silly unless you decide in advance who the Arbiter is (assuming I am not available). I prefer the educated opinion to the ones who think “floors need mopped” is just fine, but there certainly are excellent examples of educated opinions clinging to pedantry for pedantry’s sake. If any more come up, and I have time, I will try to address them.
I’m disappointed to see pejoratives like “appalling” and “our gadfly” tossed in gratuitously, FWIW. It’s discourteous, and it does not add to the cogency of your positions. Insecurity, perhaps? If so, consider it forgiven. And I’d like to say that “Chief Pedant” is tongue in cheek, but first I’ll have to be wrong about something… 
You may need to get your eyesight checked. A search confirms that no one in this thread used the word appalling before your mention.
As for gadfly, more than one of us may play the tongue in cheek game.
I probably do need my eyes checked…I am old and nearly blind.
It was DSYoungEsq who used the word “appaling” and the quote is at the top of the post in which I am whining about it. I assumed he meant “appalling” and that it was an inadvertent typo.
I have enjoyed the exhanges here, and the level of thought. A few more of these and I might pony up the $15.
Yes, the discussion can get “lively.”
Two things you should know if you’re new here and having just been lurking.
Comments can be freely made on the posts themselves, but not on the posters. Many, many, many posts contain opinions that are appalling, at least to some or most. (And I searched for the word with both spellings, not sure how I missed it.) It is a mild term of approbation. Some negative words are needed to characterize posts because some posts deserve criticism.
Virtually every person in this country’s history who has spoken truth to those in power, from Thomas Paine to Ralph Nader to Izzy Stone, has been characterized as a gadfly. Some of these people are heroes and have desperately been needed when they appeared. Gadfly therefore has taken on many connotations beyond the simple dictionary definition.
I’m not saying that you’re a hero or that you’re speaking truth to power. You can’t be that when you’re as wrong as you’ve shown yourself to be. Nor can your understanding of English nuance be very good if you can’t recognize how these two words were being used in context. [We used to have a stick-out-tongue smiley. What happened to it? ]
Randy Seltzer has returned to post elsewhere. I hope you do as well. Nothing I would like better than to have a self-appointed pedant to beat up. 
We can have an old-off and grump-off any time you like.
[QUOTE=Exapno Mapcase]
…when you’re as wrong as you’ve shown yourself to be…I hope you do as well. Nothing I would like better than to have a self-appointed pedant to beat up…QUOTE]
Thanks!
My appointment to pedantry is well-earned; new to a given board doesn’t mean new to knowledge, obviously.
As to the “wrong” thing…you’ll have to find an impartial third party to help you out there, and have at it if you like. I’m unimpressed with a simple declaration, and anyone who really cares can read the posts for themselves. There only two central points in what I’ve posted on this topic:
- English usage doesn’t have “an” Authority. Therefore “correct” usage is opinion.
- If a thing is decidable based on evidence, it is not opinion, but Fact.
Both are obvious and unassailable facts. Calling either of them wrong or appalling is wrong and appalling (opinion). 
I suspect DSYoungEsq’s umbrage at my Fact/Opinion post was based on an assumption that I was implying all opinions are of equal weight, and therefore one can say nothing significant about how best to use English. This is ridiculous. Many opinions have so many more supporting facts that alternate opinions are held only by the weak-minded. I myself only hold the best opinions on topics (hey; why would I hold an inferior one?).
I also suspect the DSYoungEsq would not have taken issue had I not been new to the Board. Just my opinion of course…
All of these types of boards develop a cliquish quality with a negative prejudice to “outsiders,” and a sense on the part of long-term posters that they’ve earned a right to be considered a bit more erudite.
I’ve been an intermittent Cecil indulger since Med School in the 70’s. My Straight Dope paperbacks are yellowed and worn and have earned an honest place in the bathroom next to the comic books. So FWIW I’m not that new to the Dope concepts of exchange.
Anyway, back to lurking, and seeing if I can scrounge up the $15. Have at it with any last words on this topic. It’s fine to split infinitives, btw, for all the reasons mentioned above.
Evidence is not the same thing as conclusive proof. It is, in many circumstances, open to interpretation, and therefore any conclusion based on it is still an opinion, educated though it may be. Facts are based on proof; opinion may or may not be based on evidence.
This is among the best posts in the annals of the SDMB. As for this thread, it should be reprinted in English texts across the nation.
I’m getting a chuckle out of the notion that you’re telling a lawyer, of all people, that anything decidable by evidence must be a fact. Ever hear of a trial?
As for your other “fact” - English usage doesn’t have “an” Authority. Therefore “correct” usage is opinion. - it’s true, but meaningless. Only the tiniest handful of fields have an ultimate authority. About the only ones I can think of are the U.S. Supreme Court and the Pope (and their counterparts). Even they only decide a minuscule number of disputes; the rest are decided by people invoking their authority.
All fields have authority figures. That they have no final arbiter is an unfortunate reality. I don’t dispute the notion that there are fewer people able to give authoritative opinions on language usage or that usage is an art; I said so myself. Our dispute with you is that you’re saying mush and trying to carry it off as something deep and profound. Piffle.
Is this scorn because you’re new? Not on my part. You’re either right or wrong, and I’ve backed up posters I despise in those rare instances in which they are right. This Board attracts a great many people who see a topic and come in to share their expertise. They are warmly welcomed. Conversely, an even larger number come in to share opinions that are not supported by evidence. Those are savaged.
I like fighting ignorance and I’m just bitter that Cecil has the job that rightfully should be mine. Try putting in your two cents on another topic and we’ll see how you do.