|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 111 responses total. |
flem
|
|
response 70 of 111:
| 
Jul 3 16:53 UTC 2003 |
I think w.r.t. the canonical Star Trek example that the case can be made that
it should be evaluated as poetry, because of the context. Or, if poetry is
too strong a term, at least rhetoric.
Still, as either poetry or rhetoric, it scrapes the bottom of the "mediocre"
end of the spectrum IMO. :)
I think that part of my opposition to split infinitives comes from the idea
of considering grammar as, well, a grammar, in the computer science sense.
Without being too rigorous, I think it's a good idea not to use an adverb in
any situation where using an expanded adverb phrase would be bad. If the
canonical example in question were something like "to with clear eye and
undiminished courage go...", I think most people would agree that that is more
awkward than, say, "to go with clear eye and undiminished courage...".
Or whatever. :)
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 71 of 111:
|
Jul 3 18:23 UTC 2003 |
I agree that's more awkward... but I still don't see a good case for the
general rule against split infinitives. (I won't claim that the Star Trek
line is great writing, either, but it scans better to my ear than the
alternatives do.)
|
janc
|
|
response 72 of 111:
|
Jul 3 22:31 UTC 2003 |
I think it's a terrible example. It's too familiar. It sounds most
natural the way you most often hear it. Big surprise. Proves nothing
one way or the other.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 73 of 111:
|
Jul 4 02:35 UTC 2003 |
Most of the so-called "rules of grammar" seem to actually be guidelines for
people with a tin ear. Most people with a good sense of rhetoric and style
can get on just fine without them. But for those who wouldn't know a good
sentence if it up and bit them, following the "rules" is a way to avoid some
of the worst pitfalls.
(I think the worst example of this is the "rule" against using the passive
voice. Good writers use the passive voice from time to time. But since some
bad writers use it _constantly,_ English teachers have started telling their
students not to use it at all. The one about split infinitives doesn't bother
me as much, but it strikes me as a similarly fake rule, made to stop people
from coming up with atrocities like flem's in #70.)
|
jazz
|
|
response 74 of 111:
|
Jul 4 04:52 UTC 2003 |
Well, it's a set of informal rules. Most native English speakers (and
several non-natives, including our own beloved Mynxcat) know them
instinctually. But it's handy when you're pointing out why something doesn't
work, or editing a difficult piece, to know what the rules are and how to use
them.
|
pvn
|
|
response 75 of 111:
|
Jul 4 06:59 UTC 2003 |
Yeah, but. Is grammar the ruler of expression or is it nothing more
than a tool to aid in expression. I am thinking I recall a situation of
english speaking not boss who's actors fun of made who angry exclaimed
"you may think I don't know fuck, but I know fuck all!". Understood him
I did.
|
md
|
|
response 76 of 111:
|
Jul 4 16:25 UTC 2003 |
Most grammars merely describe how people used the language back when
the grammarian was learning it, with the addition of a few of the
grammarian's pet peeves -- an error somebody once caught him in that
he's been brooding over and consequently wants to convert into a quasi-
correct or exceptionally correct usage. But there are no objective
standards to refer to, only a faded snapshot of an active process. To
those who learned it forty years before, it will sound lax and vulgar;
to those who learn it forty years later, it will sound pompous and old-
fashioned.
|
klg
|
|
response 77 of 111:
|
Jul 4 16:34 UTC 2003 |
re: "#73 (orinoco): ... But for those who wouldn't know a good
sentence if it up and bit them, following the "rules" is a way to avoid
some of the worst pitfalls. (I think the worst example of this is the
"rule" against using the passive voice. Good writers use the passive
voice from time to time. But since some bad writers use it constantly,_
English teachers have started telling their students not to use it at
all. The one about split infinitives doesn't bother me as much, but it
strikes me as a similarly fake rule, made to stop people from coming up
with atrocities like flem's in #70.)
According to our spouse, grammar is not taught in elementary school. So
by the time the students reach the upper grades, I suspect teachers are
now "giving up" on the whole concept of proper word usage. She
constantly is telling us about the grammar errors made by the younger
teachers. We would bet that if we asked those teachers what passive
voice or split infitives, they'd stare at us like a deer caught in a
car's headlights.
|
pvn
|
|
response 78 of 111:
|
Jul 5 07:55 UTC 2003 |
What is passive vice?
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 79 of 111:
|
Jul 5 10:03 UTC 2003 |
That's a good question. In the active voice, the author/subject is
the subjective pronoun, I believe (coming before the verb). You
use "I" a lot. In the passive voice, the author/subject is the
objective pronoun-- using lots of "me's" (it occured to me, it dawned
upon my mind). The narrator seems to be acted upon by inanimate
concepts. I realize this is a poor explanation, but this is best how
I remember it.
|
i
|
|
response 80 of 111:
|
Jul 5 11:25 UTC 2003 |
Active voice: "We f*cked up"
Passive voice: "Mistakes were made by us" (The "by us" is often dropped...)
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 81 of 111:
|
Jul 5 14:39 UTC 2003 |
Re #78: You just lie there.
|
jazz
|
|
response 82 of 111:
|
Jul 5 14:58 UTC 2003 |
Re #75:
Sometimes I can understand people when they break the rules of grammar
for the way they're speaking, sometimes I can't. Someone could speak fluent
dancehall ragga, and I'd probably be left going, "uhmmmm what?"
|
russ
|
|
response 83 of 111:
|
Jul 5 19:28 UTC 2003 |
Passive vice: Bookies stuff gambling winnings in your pocket as
you're walking down the street minding your own business.
|
pvn
|
|
response 84 of 111:
|
Jul 6 04:49 UTC 2003 |
I should be so lucky.
|
keesan
|
|
response 85 of 111:
|
Jul 6 06:11 UTC 2003 |
From a book of house plans -
Windows are inadequate in number and insufficient in size.
This elegant design blends high vogue with a restful character.
A flexible interior enjoys modern space that welcomes sunlight.
Come home to spectacular views and livability.
majestic curb appeal
A taste of Europe is reflected..
This sensational design is sweetly luxurious....
an unrestrained floor plan
rich with reminiscent detailing
The combination of stacked stone, brick and siding [sic] add [sic] warmth
Kitchen and dining spaces lack windows and imagination
There is no focal point to draw one's eye as they approach the home.
open planning offers an aura (!) of spaciousness
Walls of windows provide a front row seat to enjoy nature's bounty....
If you can't write, sell houses.
|
pvn
|
|
response 86 of 111:
|
Jul 6 06:19 UTC 2003 |
Probably more money in it right about now.
|
keesan
|
|
response 87 of 111:
|
Jul 7 06:23 UTC 2003 |
Can anyone rewrite all these sentences to be both grammatical and meaningful?
For instace 'a feeling of spaciousness'.
|
gull
|
|
response 88 of 111:
|
Jul 7 13:32 UTC 2003 |
Grammer rules always make me feel stupid. (Err, sorry. Passive voice,
there. I guess I mean, "I always feel stupid when people bring up
grammar rules." Better?) I know I violate them all the time but I can
never keep track of all of them.
|
jazz
|
|
response 89 of 111:
|
Jul 7 13:37 UTC 2003 |
The passive voice is legitimate, as far as I know, but it does bring
up a good point. The two sentences have different meanings - either a is
acting on b, or is acting on a. The first sentence implies grammar rules or
grammarians make you feel a certain way, the second implies that you choose
to feel a certain way because of grammar nazis. Oddly, I kind of feel like
one now ... :?
|
md
|
|
response 90 of 111:
|
Jul 7 15:28 UTC 2003 |
[There is no passive verb in "Grammer rules always make me feel
stupid."]
Passives become a problem mainly when people use them to hide
responsibility. Constructions like "I was told..." and "The decision
was made..." are commonplace in corporations and government. They've
become so automatic now that they don't infallibly tell you the speaker
is a weasel anymore. Consider it possible, though, especially if you
ask "Who told you?" or "Who made the decision?" and don't get an answer.
|
jazz
|
|
response 91 of 111:
|
Jul 7 15:30 UTC 2003 |
Syntactic deletions and nominalizations are fun.
Like the sentence "The enterprise infrastructure was leveraged to good
end." It means absolutely nothing.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 92 of 111:
|
Jul 7 15:46 UTC 2003 |
Sure it does. It means the business was improved.
|
gull
|
|
response 93 of 111:
|
Jul 7 15:47 UTC 2003 |
Re #90: Argh. There, you see the problem? I don't even understand the
rules...no matter how many times "active voice" and "passive voice" are
explained to me, I can't reliably tell them apart. I guess it's a good
thing I'm not trying to make a career out of writing. I worry that I
seem less intelligent to other people because of this kind of thing.
Re #91: I run into a lot of sentences like that in job postings. HR
people also love to take technical terms they vaguely understand and
apply them to human situations, like this comment I found in an actual
posting: "Must be able to work well in an interrupt-driven environment."
|
rcurl
|
|
response 94 of 111:
|
Jul 7 16:00 UTC 2003 |
If they want computer expertise, they should say so.
|