I am constantly reminded (not always politely) that they invented the language; therefore they must know how it should be spoken properly. (This from people who think this character: H is "an haitch.") Well, to the citizens of my host country, I offer this friendly reminder: There is more than one dialect of the language and no one is more or less "proper."
Forsooth! Woodst we to speak the original English, we'd all be speaking a language long-since dead! Get over it! We speak different versions of the same language. It's the same language with regional varieties. Hell! Even in your little island, you cannot agree from one end to the other how to speak the language.
What set me on this tirade today?
I was recently wound-up by a colleague on the style of my writing, speach and grammar. My colloquialisms and grammar were the target of the discussion. Just the next day while visiting a museum, I was once again berated for using a split infinitive. Not once, twice!
While I have found no support for the colloquial usage that I as told was "wrong" (I'm still researching that one), I have plenty of support for my grammar style. I maintain that there is nothing wrong with split infinitives!
Every style guide and grammar guide I can find tell me there is nothing wrong with this practice. Here is a discussion from Dictionary.com:
Split Infinitive
–noun Grammar.
an expression in which there is a word or phrase, esp. an adverb or adverbial phrase, between to and its accompanying verb form in an infinitive, as in to readily understand.
________________________________________
[Origin: 1895–1900 ]
—Usage Note: The “rule” against placing a word, especially an adverb, between to and the verb in an English infinitive (To really learn a language, you have to stay in a place where it is spoken) is based on an analogy with Latin, in which infinitives are only one word and hence cannot be “split.”
The modeling of English style on Latin has in the past often been considered the epitome of good writing; the injunction against splitting the English infinitive is an example of the misguided application of this notion. Criticism of the split infinitive was especially strong in 19th-century usage guides. Nothing in the history of the infinitive in English, however, supports the so-called rule, and in many sentences, as in the example above, the only natural place for the modifying adverb is between to and the verb (To really learn …).
Many modern speakers and writers depend on their ear for a natural sentence rather than on an arbitrary rule. Writers who ordinarily prefer not to split an infinitive will occasionally do so, to avoid awkward or stilted language.
Okay, I can hear it now… "That's an American dictionary." Fair enough.
The Oxford English Dictionary agrees:
What is a split infinitive, and why should I avoid using one?
This is a split infinitive:
To boldly go where no man has gone before!
The infinitive is to go, and it has been 'split' by the adverb boldly. Split infinitives have been the cause of much controversy among teachers and grammarians, but the notion that they are ungrammatical is simply a myth: in his famous book Modern English Usage, Henry Fowler listed them among 'superstitions'!
Split infinitives are frequently poor style, but they are not strictly bad grammar. In the example above, to avoid the split infinitive would result either in weakness (to go boldly) or over-formality (boldly to go): either would ruin the rhythmic force and rhetorical pattern of the original. It is probably good practice to avoid split infinitives in formal writing, but clumsy attempts to avoid them simply by shuffling adverbs about can create far worse sentences.
When you come to America, I promise not to correct your usage of the name "zed" for the letter zee. If you'll just stop correcting me here!
I hope that wherever you are today, you have a day you can say is lovely!
Don Bergquist - 10 April 2007 - Thames Ditton, Surrey, UK
2 comments:
I think the next language lesion will be why a preposition is not always the wrong word to end a sentence with!
Editor's Note:
di·a·lect [dahy-uh-lekt]
–noun
1. Linguistics. a variety of a language that is distinguished from other varieties of the same language by features of phonology, grammar, and vocabulary, and by its use by a group of speakers who are set off from others geographically or socially.
2. a provincial, rural, or socially distinct variety of a language that differs from the standard language, esp. when considered as substandard.
3. a special variety of a language: The literary dialect is usually taken as the standard language.
4. a language considered as one of a group that have a common ancestor: Persian, Latin, and English are Indo-European dialects.
5. jargon or cant.
--------------------------------------------------
[Origin: 1545–55; < L dialectus < Gk diálektos discourse, language, dialect, equiv. to dialég(esthai) to converse (dia- dia- + légein to speak) + -tos v. adj. suffix]
—Synonyms 2. idiom, patois. See language.
Post a Comment