On 06 Dec 2003, "Ariaan"
<thisisagenuineaddresssopleaseomittheobvioustoreplyNOOOSPAM@hotmail.com>
screwed up his face, groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following
message in news:5XjAb.22969$H84.512513@zonnet-reader-1:
> Mekkala wrote:
> >snip<
>>
>> What it really comes down to is the beauty of a phrase. A split
>> infinitive, in a language like English which allows such a construct,
>> can lend a certain beauty and concise impact to a phrase, without
>> compromising the meaning of it.
>>
>> A linguist like Ariaan, who probably has never published a book in
>> his life, might get screaming and blue in the face when he sees split
>> infinitives, despite the fact that a number of the most respected
>> authors in the history of mankind used it freely, but I'd compare him
>> to many of today's classical musicians -- so desperately married to
>> rules, form, complexity, that any kind of artistic beauty flies miles
>> over their heads.
>
>
>
> ROFL
>
> Hit a nerve there, did I? :-)
Well, let me start by apologizing, as I think I overreacted -- as partial
vindication, I *am* in the process of quitting smoking and so I tend to be
a bit touchy...
Hit a nerve? Yeah. I meet a lot of people who go to school, learn certain
rules for which there are no hard-and-fast reasons other than tradition,
and mindlessly assume that said rules are fundamental principles of the
universe and that anything which violates them is, by definition,
worthless. Many (but by no means all) classical musicians, for example,
tend to adopt that attitude.
> 1. Would it lend my statements more credibility if I were published?
Yes, it would. That's not because becoming published makes you inherently
more knowledgeable, but because in general, the bad writers do not get
published. That means that the fact of being published indicates that you
are very likely not a bad writer -- although reading your work(s), if
possible, is a better way to determine that.
> 2. Are you published?
I am not. I intend to be, if possible, but I need to finish what I'm
currently working on before I can (try to) have it published.
> 3. If so, did that make people lend more credibility to your
> statements?
N/A
> 4. Did it make them more true?
If I were published, and that fact lent me more credibility, then no, it
would not make my statements any more true. However, it would indicate
that I am more likely to know what I'm talking about than a person who is
not published, since at least some of the idiots are filtered out by that
process.
> 5. When did I speak out against the use of split infinitives?
> 6. How can you compare me to anyone when you don't even know me?
> 7. I'm desperately married to rules now, am I?
> 8. Artistic beauty is beyond me???
I think these are pointless to address, as I've already pointed out that I
over-reacted and you've made it clear that you are not "desperately married
to rules". :)
> Heh, you must be a very gifted judge of character, to extract all this
> info on me from only one post. But I forgive you, because the tone of
> my response to Mike Ruskai might have been a tad patronising. Mea
> culpa. Also, I misunderstood his example of the German 'hungrig
> essen', although that didn't make my example of 'abseilen' less true.
> That is a German infinitive which can be split.
>
> For your information, I *am* about to be published, albeit not as the
> author of the book, but merely as the lowly translator. ;-) Does that
> count?
Sure, why not :) And congratulations.
> Although my statements apparently lack all credibility so far, due to
> my not being published yet and all, :-) for what it's worth, I fully
> agree with you that the beauty of a phrase comes before grammatical
> rules and conventions. Having said that, I also think that phrases
> which tend to be held as beautiful and even poetic -generally because
> of the choice of words and sentence rhythm- are usually not
> linguistially incorrect in that they do not go against hard grammar
> rules; at the most do they fall into the category of exceptions to
> said rules.
Granted; but then, most "hard" grammar rules -- and rules of style, which
are not always the same thing -- are rules for good reason. Certain rules,
however, are based mainly on tradition and can be bent or even broken when
necessary or desirable. The split-infinitive rule is one of these, IMHO.
> And even when they don't, the very fact that they are
> thought of as beautiful should tell us that our set of linguistic
> rules is probably too limited and should be expanded with some new
> rules capturing the aforementioned phrases. But defining such rules
> will probably pose serious problems; making 'exceptions' is far
> easier. :-)
>
> To address the Star Trek example:
>
>> rephrase the following to retain the dramatic impact of the phrase,
>> yet remove the split infinitive:
>
> Impossible, of course.
>
>> "To boldly go where no man has gone before..."
>>
>> Proper usage, according to you at least, would be:
>
> No no, I never said that. Read my response to Mike Ruskai carefully. I
> misunderstood him and intended to correct what I thought was an
> incorrect example or reasoning. I am not against splitting infinitives
> in English.
>
>> "Boldly to go where no man has gone before..."
>> or
>> "To go boldly where no man has gone before..."
>
> Nah, those two ruin the whole sentence rhythm
>
>> or
>> "To go where no man has gone before boldly..."
>
> Ditto
>
>>
>> None of these strike one as the original did.
>
> Absolutely true
>
> Rhythm and connotation are everything.
I find I agree with you much more than I imagined I would :)
To be entirely honest, it was not so much you who "hit a nerve" as it was
"Dr." Gastrich, for whom I have precisely zero respect (and my apologies to
you if you disagree and are offended). It hurt my pride a bit to have our
friend Gastrich imply that the rest of us are dumb shits and you are the
linguist who'll whip us back into shape. My post was directed mostly at
him, in a "well, I say your linguist doesn't know what the hell he's
talking about" kind of thing.
But then, maybe that just goes to show that my ego is a bit oversensitive
:)
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"Atheism is ... the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
--Emmett F. Fields
|
|