|
|
Post by Little Jack Horner on Sept 3, 2018 23:51:30 GMT
September in the UK has begun with wonderfully warm weather. I have returned from a holiday in South Africa where the evenings and nights were decidedly chilly but how does one start a thread with nothing more exciting than that? Well, Larry Page and Sergey Brin formally incorporated their company, Google, on 4th September 1998, exactly twenty years ago today. How can it be possible that an institution on which we have come to depend so much is so young?
|
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Sept 4, 2018 0:10:33 GMT
LJH: Thanks for starting the September thread. I was tempted to do so last evening, but thought I should give it a little more time. Do you mean to tell me that the evil Google and I share a birthday? Glad I didn't know that sooner: it might have spoiled my party at the weekend.
A far more famous birthday happens tomorrow, the 5th: Farrokh Bulsara a.k.a. Freddie Mercury, 5 September 1946 – 24 November 1991.
|
|
|
|
Post by Twoddle on Sept 4, 2018 8:15:18 GMT
Happy Birthday, Verbivore!
|
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Sept 4, 2018 8:28:31 GMT
Happy Birthday, Verbivore! Thanks, Twod :-) Sixty-nine today (and no, that's not a sexual position!) – beginning of my 70th year. I assume I'm alive because I'm still annoying people. |
|
|
|
Post by Trevor on Sept 4, 2018 9:05:40 GMT
Sixty-nine today (and no, that's not a sexual position!) Ah, but it can be. And what a way to celebrate. |
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Sept 4, 2018 12:01:24 GMT
Sixty-nine today (and no, that's not a sexual position!) Ah, but it can be. And what a way to celebrate.  |
|
|
|
Post by Little Jack Horner on Sept 7, 2018 11:33:35 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Sept 7, 2018 13:53:12 GMT
Yes, but is lodestar a true clue to the author's identity or is it a red herring planted to throw investigators off the scent? One would really need access to the unedited original, too, before drawing conclusions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Twoddle on Sept 7, 2018 14:50:53 GMT
Just so I'm clear on this, if Trump leaves, Pence takes over?
I can't seem to find an emoji of someone jumping from a frying pan into a fire.
|
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Sept 12, 2018 9:30:16 GMT
To fill the void, here's a post I made on another (non-language-related) forum today, in response to the comment by a poster: "... thank you so much for not splitting the infinative".
Response from yours truly:
Or even the infinitive. :-)
The argument against splitting infinitives is, like so many other "rules" of grammar, specious. Most "rules" of English grammar were devised in the 19th century by amateur grammarians who believed English should follow the conventions of Latin (in which infinitives cannot be split because they are single-word units, not at all like English's two-part infinitives with their prefix to), and ill-trained school teachers. Many of those "rules" are not only plainly wrong but silly. Each language has its own conventions, and to impose the conventions of one tongue upon another is not only futile but grossly misguided.
Language is for communication, and the primary aim of a writer / speaker should be to communicate most effectively. If the most effective word arrangement "breaks the rules", so be it; that is to be preferred over dull or less effective structure.
As a professional editor, I have no issue with splitting infinitives when to do so creates a desirable effect – as in the example "to boldly go". "To go boldly ... " just doesn't have the same impact. (That doesn't mean I go out of my way to split those pesky word-pairs that make up infinitives, but I'll happily split when the practice gives better effect to my ideas.)
While it is indeed a good thing for writers to understand the conventions (not "rules"), a good writer knows when, and how, to contravene the conventions for effect.
Knowing the conventions or "rules" is certainly a bonus for a writer, but knowing how to flout them effectively is an even bigger bonus.
For authority far greater than mine, refer to Sir Ernest Gowers, 1880–1966 (The Complete Plain Words); HW Fowler, 1858–1933 & FG Fowler, 1871–1918 (The King's English and A Dictionary of Modern English Usage) – HWF was the original editor-in-charge of compiling the Oxford English Dictionary; EH Partridge, 1894–1979 (Usage and Abusage); or W Cobbett, 1763–1835 (A Grammar of the English Language) – arguably five of English's greatest "authorities" on lexicon, grammar, style, and usage – who all debunk the split-infinitive "rule" (along with many other supposed "rules"). For users of American English [the poster I responded to is from the US], I refer them to The Elements of Style by W Strunk, 1869–1946, and EB White, 1899–1985, wherein lies the statement: "The split infinitive is another trick of rhetoric in which the ear must be quicker than the handbook. Some infinitives seem to improve on being split."
Those seven esteemed mavens also debunk the schoolteacher nonsense over never ending a sentence with a preposition and, similarly, never beginning one with a conjunction.
Style and effect are tools worth at least as much as schoolmarm "rules" that have no basis in anything other than their formulators' preferences.
Am I a language prescriptivist or descriptivist? A bit of both – it depends on author, audience, context, register ... . :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by Little Jack Horner on Sept 12, 2018 13:59:17 GMT
I have asked this question before and don’t recall having been given the answer. What is the evidence for this statement? Most "rules" of English grammar were devised in the 19th century by amateur grammarians who believed English should follow the conventions of Latin. I can state with, I think, equal authority that most “rules" of English grammar were devised in the 19th century by grammarians who believed English should follow the conventions of the traditional English of educated persons.
|
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Sept 15, 2018 11:20:32 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Sept 15, 2018 11:44:59 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Sept 15, 2018 13:43:10 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Sept 19, 2018 23:11:33 GMT
|
|
