Interesting note: The "split infinitive" rule you spoke against was originally introduced in the Early Modern English era (I forget when) in an attempt to make English more like Latin, the "proper" language. That rule was pulled directly from Latin (with single word infinitives) with no thought whatsoever to English as its own language.
In other words, it's not even a rule of English at all, and no native speaker will grow up with that rule in their internal grammar without "education."
@chipmunx i restrained myself as i thought i'd bore you... :) normal infinitives in latin are one word (and so can't be split), eg 'portare' to carry. but ones with two parts like 'portatus esse' (to have been carried) exist, can easily be split up to different ends of the sentence, and often are. there are three sorts that have two parts: the perfect passive, the future passive and the future active. so it's not even true to say that you can't split an infinitive in latin
@MissInformati0n Interesting, I didn't think those particular forms in their entirety were considered infinitives, I'd always thought they were considered an infinitive + participle pair, sort of like Spanish's "haber sido" and English's "to be going" and other similar phrases.
@chipmunx well yes i guess it just depends how you want to label it, whether as a single unit or as its components. but the phrase as a whole does act in the same way as an infinitive. some common combinations, such as 'futurus esse' (to be going to be/about to be), were used so much that they condensed into a single word ('fore'). perfect passive ones, for instance, actually reflect the normal 'finite' verb form (cf portatus esse 'to have been carried' and portatus est 'he/she/it was carried').
Bah, real Grammar Nazis hold Beowulf to be the Gold Standard of English and worry about case marking and grammatical gender, not greengrocers apostrophe's.
If you go to a classical music video, everybody speaks with perfect grammar.
Conclusion:
People who like classical music are smart
Kinjutsuu 1 month ago
I have never seen so many people use proper grammar. O.O Just look at the comments! It's a good thing. :D
CloudedThinkers3792 2 months ago
@MissInformati0n @chipmunx
An earnest, informative, nonaggressive, discussion on the Internet. Will wonders never cease?
Sovairu 4 months ago 2
Prescriptivism: 0. Contemporary descriptive linguistics for the win!
twiens1 9 months ago 4
Interesting note: The "split infinitive" rule you spoke against was originally introduced in the Early Modern English era (I forget when) in an attempt to make English more like Latin, the "proper" language. That rule was pulled directly from Latin (with single word infinitives) with no thought whatsoever to English as its own language.
In other words, it's not even a rule of English at all, and no native speaker will grow up with that rule in their internal grammar without "education."
chipmunx 11 months ago
@chipmunx ...and interestingly it is in fact possible to split infinitives in latin...
MissInformati0n 8 months ago
@MissInformati0n No kidding? I'd like to hear more!
chipmunx 8 months ago
@chipmunx i restrained myself as i thought i'd bore you... :) normal infinitives in latin are one word (and so can't be split), eg 'portare' to carry. but ones with two parts like 'portatus esse' (to have been carried) exist, can easily be split up to different ends of the sentence, and often are. there are three sorts that have two parts: the perfect passive, the future passive and the future active. so it's not even true to say that you can't split an infinitive in latin
MissInformati0n 8 months ago
@MissInformati0n Interesting, I didn't think those particular forms in their entirety were considered infinitives, I'd always thought they were considered an infinitive + participle pair, sort of like Spanish's "haber sido" and English's "to be going" and other similar phrases.
chipmunx 8 months ago
@chipmunx well yes i guess it just depends how you want to label it, whether as a single unit or as its components. but the phrase as a whole does act in the same way as an infinitive. some common combinations, such as 'futurus esse' (to be going to be/about to be), were used so much that they condensed into a single word ('fore'). perfect passive ones, for instance, actually reflect the normal 'finite' verb form (cf portatus esse 'to have been carried' and portatus est 'he/she/it was carried').
MissInformati0n 8 months ago
@MissInformati0n Ahhh, I think I see what you mean now. Cool!
chipmunx 8 months ago
fuk owf
ACxii 1 year ago
I love correcting people on facebook, I am the ultimate Grammar Nazi :)
extrapreneur 1 year ago
the language is fine the way it is no need to change!
AgentRiku101 1 year ago
I love both Internet culture and linguistics, good job!
vaguelyhumanoid 1 year ago
I do believe you have summed everything beautifully write here... I mean right here... I mean, to here be... ah fuck it
SuperPigeonMaster 1 year ago
Bah, real Grammar Nazis hold Beowulf to be the Gold Standard of English and worry about case marking and grammatical gender, not greengrocers apostrophe's.
CommieDogg 1 year ago
@CommieDogg 'greengrocers' apostrophes'
nottinoob 1 year ago
gr8 johb aLEX;btw this is mikie XD
kush8978 3 years ago