Here's a fun poem that's floating around on the internet. It seems appropriate somehow 
:
Owed To A Spell Chequer
I halve a spelling chequer
It came with my pea sea
It plane lee marques four my revue
Miss steaks aye ken knot sea
Eye ran this poem threw it
Your sure reel glad two no
It's vary polished in it's weigh
My chequer tolled me sew
A chequer is a bless sing
It freeze yew lodes of thyme
It helps me awl stiles two reed
And aides mi when aye rime
To rite with care is quite a feet
Of witch won should be proud
And wee mussed dew the best wee can
Sew flaws are knot aloud
And now bee cause my spelling
is checked with such grate flare
Their are know faults with in my cite
Of nun eye am a wear
Each frays come posed up on my screen
Eye trussed to be a joule
The chequer poured o'er every word
To cheque sum spelling rule
That's why aye brake in two averse
My righting wants too pleas
Sow now ewe sea wye aye dew prays
Such soft wear for pea seas
:Owed To A Spell Chequer
I halve a spelling chequer
It came with my pea sea
It plane lee marques four my revue
Miss steaks aye ken knot sea
Eye ran this poem threw it
Your sure reel glad two no
It's vary polished in it's weigh
My chequer tolled me sew
A chequer is a bless sing
It freeze yew lodes of thyme
It helps me awl stiles two reed
And aides mi when aye rime
To rite with care is quite a feet
Of witch won should be proud
And wee mussed dew the best wee can
Sew flaws are knot aloud
And now bee cause my spelling
is checked with such grate flare
Their are know faults with in my cite
Of nun eye am a wear
Each frays come posed up on my screen
Eye trussed to be a joule
The chequer poured o'er every word
To cheque sum spelling rule
That's why aye brake in two averse
My righting wants too pleas
Sow now ewe sea wye aye dew prays
Such soft wear for pea seas
There's no answer to that!
In trying to demonstrate the avoidance of ending the sentence in a preposition, Churchill was mistaken. He misunderstood the use of the words 'up with' in this context: they are not used as prepositions, but as adverbs. They do not sate where the verb 'put' takes place, they qualify its meaning. 'Put up with' means 'tolerate', quite different from the word 'put' used alone. To split the words 'put up with' would change the meaning and is therefore the wrong thing to do.
Re: Boldly going where angels fear to tread...
Yes I believe that it was the classicists who set the rule.
"Boldly going..." is of course not quite the same thing, "going" being the present participle rather than the famous infinitive "to [...] go". Of course in French it is impossible to split "aller" so no problem here, well at least as far as infinitives go.
The French electrical arrangements (i.e. mains supply) viewed after a life in England are another matter altogether...
7N7
EC8010 said:
Yes I believe that it was the classicists who set the rule.
"Boldly going..." is of course not quite the same thing, "going" being the present participle rather than the famous infinitive "to [...] go". Of course in French it is impossible to split "aller" so no problem here, well at least as far as infinitives go.
The French electrical arrangements (i.e. mains supply) viewed after a life in England are another matter altogether...
7N7
In "boldly going..." "going" is a gerund rather than a present participle. Of course it's impossible to split an infinitive in French, or Italian, or Spanish since they are all Latin languages, but one can in English. The prohibition is only a question of upbringing much like the taboos on eating various meats in various cultures.
For me clarity of meaning is paramount, so whilst I dislike incorrect spelling, punctuation, or use of text speak, some of the arcane rules of formal grammar such as the split infinitive, use of "and" or "but" as the first word in sentence construction can easily be disregarded with no problem.
I found it interesting in my last job, where the workforce was split fairly evenly into those in their 20's and 30's and those 50 and above, that it was the older generation that were by far the worst with grammar and spelling.
My own boss, a man regularly called upon to communicate on matters of some political sensitivity (within the organisation, at least) often resorted to typing in all upper case. His emails generally read like they were typed by a 12 year old and it certainly didn't help the standing of our department. This was from a man in his mid fifties, I'm 30 years younger than him and I haven't been around our industry anywhere near as long as he has, yet I ended up proof reading (and re-writing) his more important emails. Neither of us have more than tech college education, go figure.
My own boss, a man regularly called upon to communicate on matters of some political sensitivity (within the organisation, at least) often resorted to typing in all upper case. His emails generally read like they were typed by a 12 year old and it certainly didn't help the standing of our department. This was from a man in his mid fifties, I'm 30 years younger than him and I haven't been around our industry anywhere near as long as he has, yet I ended up proof reading (and re-writing) his more important emails. Neither of us have more than tech college education, go figure.
Al, the split infinitive is not even a rule of formal grammar. It's just a rule laid down by a few grammarians in the 19th century, and never universally accepted. Wikipedia has a nice overview:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_infinitive
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_infinitive
barretter said:
Not necessarily.
Consider: "Where are you going?" "I am going to the shops." I read "boldly going" in this sense.
I recall a good example of a gerund from the name of a racehorse I once supported. His name was "Semper vivum" which of course translates literally as "Always living" - i.e. immortal. Regrettably his performances did not always reflect his name...
All the best
7N7
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.