Things That Make Me Lose All Respect for A Person, No. 1 In a Series

[4thofeleven]

Claiming that a split infinitive is improper English.

Alright, look. We all want to come across as intelligent. And, as we all know, one of the best ways to appear to be an arrogant prick knowledgeable is to correct other people’s grammar. The problem is when people take it upon themselves to ‘correct’ perfectly acceptable sentences, based only on a poorly remembered awareness of non-existent rules.

English has always used split infinitives. They’re a common aspect of the language. No, I don’t care if some grammar textbook from the nineteenth century insists the construction is unacceptable; while it might have been less common in the past, the construction has always been part of the language. Chaucer used them, Shakespeare used them. They’re fine.

What, you don’t like the descriptivism anarchy of accepting any grammar as long as it’s in common use? Well this isn’t a debatable or borderline case; split infinitives have been around as long as English; they’ve been in common use in both speech and print for more than two centuries. It’s far too late to remove them now, even if there was a valid reason to do so - and no, "It doesn't work that way in Latin" isn't a valid reason for imposing rules on English.

And if you’re still determined to correct people’s grammar, learn something about the language as it’s actually used before you start, yes?

Comments

[kycoo.livejournal.com]

Thank you.

[sunnyskywalker]

Latin =/= English, yes. I submit that the split infinitive is actually a way of forming new compound verbs sometimes - eg, "to not want" is a different verb than "to want." (And say, aren't these separate verbs in Latin? We're just doing it our own way.)

I'll have to track down the essay where the author argues that using "they" as a singular pronoun has also makes sense. For instance, if you don't actually know how many people are involved ("If anyone calls, tell them..." could involve zero, one, or more than one people), it signifies an indefinite number of people - which a singular pronoun wouldn't do half as well, being limited to one and only one referent as it is.

[4thofeleven.livejournal.com]

Yes! - people complaining about using They as the third person gender indeterminate pronoun is another item on my list of annoyances. Admittedly, I'd be less irritated if these people were arguing for a revival of the Middle English 'ou' as a replacement, but they're generally just arguing against 'political correctness' in using anything but 'He'... *rolls eyes*

[sunnyskywalker]

I didn't know ME had that handy pronoun! Now let's see if I can convince everyone to start using it... I suspect ou will protest.

grammar nazis. Grrr.

[(Anonymous)]

You're right - it IS grammatically correct. Afterall, isn't it in the opening like to Star Trek??
I think the debate (and the reason for the OCD-like impulse to correct it that some grammar nazis may express) is that it is considered 'grammatically disruptive'. It interrupts the expected flow of the sentence, separating two words that naturally 'go' together. The result is more impact to the statement, but some feel that it's superfluous and detracts from the feel / sound of the sentence.
Essentially, it just rubs them the wrong way. Kinda like fingernails down a blackboard. Harmless and a completely legitimate passtime (especially in public places) but for some people it just gives 'em the irrits.