Negarse en redondo

irmamar · #51 October 30, 2009, 01:37 AM

Well, Poli is American and he doesn't use it either. Well, I must admit that I was wrong (although I was so sure!

). I'll try to remember "again and again"

Poli, no te preocupes, he entendido el chiste

Thanks everybody

Perikles · #52 October 30, 2009, 02:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brute

Make often means construct (a thing),and do usually means to perform (an action). An interesting problem. A native English speaker never seems to get it wrong, but without knowing why.

Strange isn't it? Everyone would say:

Whenever I do my homework, I always make mistakes.

No English person would get that wrong. Why is that?

Perikles · #53 October 30, 2009, 02:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pjt33

En el BNC (British National Corpus, 100 millones de palabras) occure dos veces, pero en ningúna de las dos tiene el sentido de "una y otra vez":.

Many thanks for the pointer - I didn't know this facility existed.

pjt33 · #54 October 30, 2009, 04:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perikles

Strange isn't it? Everyone would say:

Whenever I do my homework, I always make mistakes.

No English person would get that wrong. Why is that?

Because children are descriptivists rather than prescriptivists.

There's an online portal for the BNC and COCA (plus a Spanish corpus which I haven't really used yet) at http://corpus.byu.edu/

Perikles · #55 October 30, 2009, 04:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pjt33

Because children are descriptivists rather than prescriptivists.

Well, let's hope that the intelligent ones grow out of it.

Cloudgazer · #56 November 02, 2009, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perikles

I know I am in the minority here, but anybody learning British English should know that splitting the infinitive is not regarded as very good. (The infinitive in English is two words, and splitting the infinitive is to put an adverb between them, such as to categorically refuse). To me, this sounds terrible, and I would say to refuse categorically.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hermit

hi perikles - i couldn't agree more, technically, on split infinitives.
i learned english grammar in the U.S., and recall clearly many teachers
making reference to "colloquially acceptable" usage and "correct English".
i always kept that in mind when writing essays in the high school/college years.

good advice - hermit

I always get a kick out of this topic.

1a. Never to split an infinitive is the way to communicate properly in English.
1b. To never split an infinitive is the way to properly communicate in English.

2a. Not to split an infinitive is the way to communicate correctly in English.
2b. To not split an infinitive is the way to correctly communicate in English.

To my AE ear, at least, examples 1b and 2b sound less stilted. But, as each example illustrates, the idea of "not splitting" infinitives as proper practice is, I dare say, clearly communicated.

Imagine that!

Rebuttal of "split infinitives are incorrect", Part 1

The "issue" of the split infinitive is a die-hard favorite of many raised on prescriptivism. While people may provide supporting quotes from "authorities" on whether or not splitting infinitives is "allowed," linguistic analysis approaches this topic in a scientific manner.

As a starting point, I'd like to reference an introductory linguistic analysis of English, Huddleston and Pullum's A Student's Introduction to English Grammar (SIEG), Cambridge University Press, 2005. (Huddleston and Pullum also co-authored The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, 2002.) Both authors are aware of the vagaries of prescriptivism with respect to grammar and address many ideas propagated by it, including the notion of ‘split infinitive’.

On page 206 of the SIEG, we have this prescriptive grammar note:

“There are still some prescriptive grammar books that warn against what they call the ‘split infinitive’. They mean the construction illustrated in to really succeed, where an adjunct (really) comes between to and the verb. (The term ‘split infinitive’ is misleading, since English doesn’t have an infinitive form of the verb in the way that, say, French does.) To succeed is not a verb; it’s two words, the subordinator to and the verb succeed. There is no rule of grammar requiring them to be adjacent. Phrases like to really succeed have been in use for hundreds of years. Most usage manuals now recognise this, and also recognise that in some cases placing the adjunct between to and the verb is stylistically preferable to other orderings.”

As to the claim that constructions like these sound odd and, by extension, aren’t natural or good practice in communication, I’ll cite another reference, the Cambridge Grammar of English (CGE) by Carter and McCarthy. In section 84, The Notion of Standard Spoken Grammar, the CGE addresses some claims about how English “should” function and how it actually does.

“The term ‘standard grammar’ is most typically associated with written language, and is usually considered to be characteristic of the recurrent usage of adult, educated native speakers of a language. Standard grammar ideally reveals no particular regional bias. Thus ‘Standard British English’ grammar consists of items and forms that are found in the written usage of adult educated native speakers from Wales, Scotland and England and those Northern Irish users who consider themselves part of the British English speech community. The typical sources of evidence for standard usage are literary texts, quality journalism, academic and professional writing, etc. Standard grammar is given the status of the official record of educated usage by being written down in grammar books and taught in schools and universities. Spoken transcripts often have frequent occurrences of items and structures considered incorrect according to the norms of standard written English. However, many such forms are frequently and routinely used by adult, educated native speakers. Examples of such structures are split infinitives (e.g. We decided to immediately sell it), double negation (e.g. He won’t be late I don’t think, as compared to I don’t think he will be late) . . . singular nouns after plural measurement expressions (e.g. He’s about six foot tall), the use of contracted forms such as gonna (going to), wanna (want to), and so on.

Standard spoken English grammar will therefore be different from standard written English grammar in many respects if we consider ‘standard’ to be a description of the recurrent spoken usage of adult native speakers. What may be considered ‘non-standard’ in writing may well be ‘standard’ in speech.”

Thus the CGE (based on in-depth analysis of the English spoken and written corpora) points out that adult, educated native speakers of English routinely and naturally express themselves in ways that are readily understandable but diverge from the prescriptivists’ rules for “proper” communication.

Cloudgazer · #57 November 02, 2009, 01:05 PM

Rebuttal of "split infinitives are incorrect", Part 2

As to the stance that split infinitives are always wrong in writing even if we use them in speech, I’ll quote some discussion and examples from Chapter 14 of Championship Writing: 50 Ways to Improve Your Writing by Paula LaRocque as a counterpoint to this argument. (Paula’s book brings clarity to this topic outside the linguistics approach.)

From Chapter 14,

“Here's another commonly held but mistaken notion: It's wrong to split infinitives. In the 1800s, Latin was the model for good writing, and wordsmiths tried to make English conform to Latin. The attempt was impractical where infinitives were concerned because the infinitive in Latin is one word and cannot be split. On the other hand, we occasionally must split the infinitive in English. The most we can say about split infinitives - and it should be enough to keep us from splitting them willy nilly - is that they're often awkward and unattractive. But they're not wrong.

Nothing about a split infinitive makes it desirable in itself.

But, as H. W. Fowler writes, it is preferable to real ambiguity or patent artificiality. We should feel perfectly free to split an infinitive when the unsplit version is clumsy or unclear. "We wanted to immediately leave for the airport" splits an infinitive and is the worse for it. But try unsplitting the following sentences, and see the resulting distortion, error or ambiguity that results:

"Administrators expect profits to more than triple this year."

"The committee plans to legally ban frank disclosures."

"We hope to strongly protest advancing the proposal."

Those examples make it clear that a split infinitive is sometimes not only permissible, but necessary. While the notion that split infinitives are wrong has wide currency, another language myth seems perpetuated chiefly by the journalistic community. That's the odd and insupportable practice of unsplitting perfectly clear and natural split compound verbs (should probably go, will never be). Like the split infinitive, the split verb phrase is not an error. Good writers and speakers split them all the time.”

I’ll end my current criticism of prescriptivism and the topic of ‘split’ infinitives by bringing in a quote from H. W. Fowler in his A Dictionary of Modern English Usage, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1926. Mr. Fowler eloquently puts, in my view, an end to the stiff claim that "splitting infinitives is always wrong and improper" with the following commentary.

Take it away, Mr. Fowler!

"The English-speaking world may be divided into (1) those who neither know nor care what a split infinitive is; (2) those who do not know, but care very much; (3) those who know and condemn; (4) those who know and approve; and (5) those who know and distinguish.

1. 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.

2. To the second class, those who do not know but do care, who would as soon be caught putting their knives in their mouths as splitting an infinitive but have only hazy notions of what constitutes that deplorable breach of etiquette, this article is chiefly addressed. These people betray by their practice that their aversion to the split infinitive springs not from instinctive good taste, but from tame acceptance of the misinterpreted opinion of others; for they will subject their sentences to the queerest distortions, all to escape imaginary split infinitives. ‘To really understand’ is a s.i.; ‘to really be understood’ is a s.i.; ‘to be really understood’ is not one; the havoc that is played with much well-intentioned writing by failure to grasp that distinction is incredible. Those upon whom the fear of infinitive-splitting sits heavy should remember that to give conclusive evidence, by distortions, of misconceiving the nature of the s.i. is far more damaging to their literary pretensions than an actual lapse could be; for it exhibits them as deaf to the normal rhythm of English sentences. No sensitive ear can fail to be shocked if the following examples are read aloud, by the strangeness of the indicated adverbs. Why on earth, the reader wonders, is that word out of its place? He will find, on looking through again, that each has been turned out of a similar position, viz between the word be and a passive participle. Reflection will assure him that the cause of dislocation is always the same — all these writers have sacrificed the run of their sentences to the delusion that ‘to be really understood’ is a split infinitive. It is not; and the straitest non-splitter of us all can with a clear conscience restore each of the adverbs to its rightful place: He was proposed at the last moment as a candidate likely generally to be accepted. / When the record of this campaign comes dispassionately to be written, and in just perspective, it will be found that … / New principles will have boldly to be adopted if the Scottish case is to be met. / This is a very serious matter, which dearly ought further to be inquired into. / The Headmaster of a public school possesses very great powers, which ought most carefully and considerately to be exercised. / The time to get this revaluation put through is when the amount paid by the State to the localities is very largely to be increased.

3. The above writers are bogy-haunted creatures who for fear of splitting an infinitive abstain from doing something quite different, i.e. dividing be from its complement by an adverb; see further under POSITION OF ADVERBS. Those who presumably do know what split infinitives are, and condemn them, are not so easily identified, since they include all who neither commit the sin nor flounder about in saving themselves from it — all who combine a reasonable dexterity with acceptance of conventional rules But when the dexterity is lacking disaster follows. 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! That is the mental dialogue occasioned by each of the adverbs in the examples below. It is of no avail merely to fling oneself desperately out of temptation; one must so do it that no traces of the struggle remain. Sentences must if necessary be thoroughly remodelled instead of having a word lifted from its original place and dumped elsewhere: What alternative can be found which the Pope has not condemned, and which will make it possible to organise legally public worship ? / It will, when better understood, tend firmly to establish relations between Capital and Labour. / Both Germany and England have done ill in not combining to forbid flatly hostilities. / Every effort must be made to increase adequately professional knowledge and attainments. / We have had to shorten somewhat Lord D——'s letter. / The kind of sincerity which enables an author to move powerfully the heart would ... / Safeguards should be provided to prevent effectually cosmopolitan financiers from manipulating these reserves.

4. Just as those who know and condemn the s.i. include many who are not recognisable, since only the clumsier performers give positive proof of resistance to temptation, so too those who know and approve are not distinguishable with certainty. When a man splits an infinitive, he may be doing it unconsciously as a member of our class 1, or he may be deliberately rejecting the trammels of convention and announcing that he means to do as he will with his own infinitives. But, as the following examples are from newspapers of high repute, and high newspaper tradition is strong against splitting, it is perhaps fair to assume that each specimen is a manifesto of independence: It will be found possible to considerably improve the present wages of the miners without jeopardizing the interests of capital. / Always providing that the Imperialists do not feel strong enough to decisively assert their power in the revolted provinces. / But even so, he seems to still be allowed to speak at Unionist demonstrations. / It is the intention of the Minister of Transport to substantially increase all present rates by means of a general percentage. / The men in many of the largest districts are declared to strongly favour a strike if the minimum wage is not conceded.

It should be noticed that in these the separating adverb could have been placed outside the infinitive with little or in most cases no damage to the sentence-rhythm (considerably after miners, decisively after power, still with clear gain after be, substantially after rates, and strongly at some loss after strike), so that protest seems a safe diagnosis.

5. The attitude of those who know and distinguish is something like this: We admit that separation of to from its infinitive is not in itself desirable, and we shall not gratuitously say either 'to mortally wound' or 'to mortally be wounded', but we are not foolish enough to confuse the latter with 'to be mortally wounded', which is blameless English nor 'to just have heard' with 'to have just heard', which is also blameless. We maintain, however, that a real s.i., though not desirable in itself, is preferable to either of two things, to real ambiguity, and to patent artificiality. For the first, we will rather write 'Our object is to further cement trade relations' than, by correcting into 'Our object is further to cement ...', leave it doubtful whether an additional object or additional cementing is the point. And for the second, we take it that such reminders of a tyrannous convention as 'in not combining to forbid flatly hostilities' are far more abnormal than the abnormality they evade. We will split infinitives sooner than be ambiguous or artificial; more than that, we will freely admit that sufficient recasting will get rid of any s.i. without involving either of those faults, and yet reserve to ourselves the right of deciding in each case whether recasting is worth while. Let us take an example: 'In these circumstances, the Commission, judging from the evidence taken in London, has been feeling its way to modifications intended to better equip successful candidates for careers in India and at the same time to meet reasonable Indian demands.' To better equip ? We refuse 'better to equip' as a shouted reminder of the tyranny; we refuse 'to equip better' as ambiguous (better an adjective?); we regard 'to equip successful candidates better' as lacking compactness, as possibly tolerable from an anti-splitter, but not good enough for us. What then of recasting? 'intended to make successful candidates fitter for' is the best we can do if the exact sense is to be kept, it takes some thought to arrive at the correction; was the game worth the candle?

After this inconclusive discussion, in which, however, the author's opinion has perhaps been allowed to appear with indecent plainness, readers may like to settle the following question for themselves. 'The greatest difficulty about assessing the economic achievements of the Soviet Union is that its spokesmen try absurdly to exaggerate them; in consequence the visitor may tend badly to underrate them.' Has dread of the s.i. led the writer to attach his adverbs to the wrong verbs, and would he not have done better to boldly split both infinitives, since he cannot put the adverbs after them without spoiling his rhythm? Or are we to give him the benefit of the doubt, and suppose that he really meant absurdly to qualify try and badly to qualify tend?

It is perhaps hardly fair that this article should have quoted no split infinitives except such as, being reasonably supposed (as in 4) to be deliberate, are likely to be favourable specimens. Let it therefore conclude with one borrowed from a reviewer, to whose description of it no exception need be taken: 'A book ... of which the purpose is thus — with a deafening split infinitive — stated by its author: "Its main idea is to historically, even while events are maturing, and divinely — from the Divine point of view — impeach the European system of Church and States".' "

(Sorry for lack of formatting in the final quoted material. It was challenging enough to present it like this.)

Peace,