Comments on: What’s Wrong With This Headline? http://grammarsource.com/2007/07/24/whats-wrong-with-this-headline/ Bring your curiosity and your questions and let's figure out our weird language Sat, 10 Jan 2009 01:03:41 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5 By: grammarblogger http://grammarsource.com/2007/07/24/whats-wrong-with-this-headline/#comment-283 grammarblogger Fri, 27 Jul 2007 17:11:34 +0000 http://grammarsucks.com/whats-wrong-with-this-headline.htm#comment-283 To not disagree (not tell me that says the same thing as "not to disagree"), these two comments track how abuse becomes accepted use through time. To not disagree (not tell me that says the same thing as “not to disagree”), these two comments track how abuse becomes accepted use through time.

]]> By: Timothy Hadley http://grammarsource.com/2007/07/24/whats-wrong-with-this-headline/#comment-282 Timothy Hadley Wed, 25 Jul 2007 17:31:12 +0000 http://grammarsucks.com/whats-wrong-with-this-headline.htm#comment-282 Sorry, but I respectfully disagree. First, the "split infinitive" rule is not really a "rule" at all, and never was. It is not incorrect to split infinitives, and has been. But more to the point, is it really correct to say that in English, we are told "NOT to do x" rather than " to NOT do x"? Some examples: Mom told me not to eat any more candy. Mom told me to not eat any more candy. The prisoners were warned not to touch the fence. The prisoners were warned to not touch the fence. Is there really any difference between the two sentences in meaning or semantic impact? In fact, in some ways, one could argue that the "to NOT do x" example has more immediacy because it more closely mimics what an actual speaker would say ("Do not touch the fence!"). Rather than being a matter of correct vs. incorrect, is this not really an issue of usage, and therefore, in the final analysis, a matter of opinion? At any rate, one should form an opinion about these matters without regard to the non-issue of the split infinitive, which is not now, and never has been, a matter of importance in English usage. Sorry, but I respectfully disagree. First, the “split infinitive” rule is not really a “rule” at all, and never was. It is not incorrect to split infinitives, and has been.

But more to the point, is it really correct to say that in English, we are told “NOT to do x” rather than ” to NOT do x”?

Some examples:

Mom told me not to eat any more candy.
Mom told me to not eat any more candy.

The prisoners were warned not to touch the fence.
The prisoners were warned to not touch the fence.

Is there really any difference between the two sentences in meaning or semantic impact? In fact, in some ways, one could argue that the “to NOT do x” example has more immediacy because it more closely mimics what an actual speaker would say (”Do not touch the fence!”).

Rather than being a matter of correct vs. incorrect, is this not really an issue of usage, and therefore, in the final analysis, a matter of opinion?

At any rate, one should form an opinion about these matters without regard to the non-issue of the split infinitive, which is not now, and never has been, a matter of importance in English usage.

]]> By: Bill, Curmudgeon http://grammarsource.com/2007/07/24/whats-wrong-with-this-headline/#comment-284 Bill, Curmudgeon Wed, 25 Jul 2007 00:58:48 +0000 http://grammarsucks.com/whats-wrong-with-this-headline.htm#comment-284 OED records usage, nothing else. Thus the role of a dictionary. That aside--the "rule" of not splitting the infinitive comes from 19th century hypercorrection of English because the infinitive in Latin cannot be split. Latin infinitives are formed with a single word (two words in English). So, the copper-outers (interesting word that) are allowing English speakers to speak English, while you are denying English speakers to speak Latin. So be it. I will no longer speak Latin. That's what I love about grammar hypercorrectionists: "though to most ears it makes perfect sense," is discounted because Julius Caesar wouldn't have said it. "to not go" is not laziness. It is clarity. OED records usage, nothing else. Thus the role of a dictionary. That aside–the “rule” of not splitting the infinitive comes from 19th century hypercorrection of English because the infinitive in Latin cannot be split. Latin infinitives are formed with a single word (two words in English). So, the copper-outers (interesting word that) are allowing English speakers to speak English, while you are denying English speakers to speak Latin. So be it. I will no longer speak Latin.

That’s what I love about grammar hypercorrectionists: “though to most ears it makes perfect sense,” is discounted because Julius Caesar wouldn’t have said it.

“to not go” is not laziness. It is clarity.

]]>