Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 20:55:55 -0400 From: "Thomas M. Sommers" <tms2@mail.ptd.net> To: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: BSDCon East Message-ID: <38F51B1B.A37CD69A@mail.ptd.net> References: <200004122318.TAA00470@server.baldwin.cx>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
John Baldwin wrote: > > On 12-Apr-00 Rahul Siddharthan wrote: > >> > In general, split infinitives are easier to understand, if > >> > only because the adverb is directly adjacent to the verb it modifies, > >> > and it is in the ordinary English position for modifiers: before. "To > >> > boldly go" is clearer and even scans better than "Boldly to go" or "To > >> > go boldly". Fowler would agree. > >> > >> *Does* Fowler agree? Me, I doubt it! > > > > Fowler gives the following example of a desirable split infinitive: > > "Our object is to further cement trade relations". > > > > Any rearrangement would give a wrong or ambiguous meaning. > > Our object is to cement trade relations further. > > There, what's ambiguous about that? :) "It does not add to a writer's readableness if readers are pulled up now and again to wonder--Why this distortion? Ah, to be sure, a non-split die-hard." Fowler, p. 580. Fowler splits the English-speaking world into 5 groups, the first of which includes those who neither know nor care what a split infinitive is. Of this group he says: "Those who neither know nor care are the vast majority, and are a happy folk, to be envied by most of the minority classes. 'To really understand' comes readier to their lips and pens than 'really to understand'; they see no reason why they should not say it (small blame to them, seeing that reasons are not their critics' strong point), and they do say it, to the discomfort of some among us, but not to their own." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?38F51B1B.A37CD69A>