The Lost Art Of Writing

[Chevalier]

The split infinitive is nothing new, it has been widely used in middle English (old English is based on single word infinitives, like other Germanic languages). I don't think beeing descriptive is a problem of dictionaries regarding this matter. The question is always, are you using a certain phrasing because you don't know better, or are you using it in order to achieve a wanted effect? There's a known German language problem. It's the use of "Einzigste", this would mean onliest one, or soliest, this is apparently wrong (Einzige would be right), but it's ok to use it rhetorically. Sure, the modified uses usually creep slowly into the everyday speech, but it's a feature of living languages that they are changing constantly. I know, hearing, or even using, what seemed wrong before feels strange, but that's how it works.

 

Oh, btw. the use of the term hyperbaton is very inconsistent and there is a Latin hyperbaton as well. Most of the time hyperbaton refers to the splitting of any word, not just infinitives. I guess you already noticed the problem of the Latin language.

[DAYoung]

I am saying that most people who follow the rule both know that and know that it is insubstantial

 

This strikes me as a very important point, Beak. I'd only add that this knowledge of style isn't calculating, deliberate - it's second-nature, but not unconscious.

[KateGladstone]

<br />

<br />If you mean me: I sincerely don't understand the things I asked for clarification on.<br />

<br /><br />Notice, I wrote "appears." (I probably should have emboldened it.) I have had enough truck with you to understand that your questions are sincere and you very well may not understand something or other I've written. Beak, who expressed some exasperation and who may have been principle target of some ad hoc moderation, doesn't, I believe, have much history with you.<br /><br />In any event, my immediately previous remarks really concerned unneeded moderation of a fairly civil discussion, not your questions.<br /><br />Clear?<br />

<br /><br /><br />

 

That's clear — thanks!

[KateGladstone]

Please explain why a decision to speak differently is "trash" if it happens faster than you would have made that decision.Is it "trashy" to call a car a car instead of (as formerly) an auto? That change was quite swift: it took fewer than three generations.Is the current pronunciation of Standard English "trashy" because it is the result of some relatively rapid changes to the pronunciation of medieval English? The largest of these pronunciation changes, after all, took only a generation or two to become nigh-universal: does that rapidity mean that Shakespeare and his coevals spoke "trash" because they no longer pronounced the word "name" (for instance) as "NAH-meh"?Or if not pronunciation, but grammar, is the issue (or if Shakespeare is too long ago to matter) ... Are we trashy for saying and writing "You had better go; he has arrived; where is she going?" where Samuel Johnston and Alexander Pope and Jane Austen all would have said and written "You would better go; he is arrived; whither is she going?" Is "the house is being built" trashy because, till the early 20th century, grammar-books required "the house is building" and condemned the newer phrase as obvious redundancy and nonsense? (for its repetition of one verb in two forms)

[Mickey]

Please explain why a decision to speak differently is "trash" if it happens faster than you would have made that decision.Is it "trashy" to call a car a car instead of (as formerly) an auto? That change was quite swift: it took fewer than three generations.Is the current pronunciation of Standard English "trashy" because it is the result of some relatively rapid changes to the pronunciation of medieval English? The largest of these pronunciation changes, after all, took only a generation or two to become nigh-universal: does that rapidity mean that Shakespeare and his coevals spoke "trash" because they no longer pronounced the word "name" (for instance) as "NAH-meh"?Or if not pronunciation, but grammar, is the issue (or if Shakespeare is too long ago to matter) ... Are we trashy for saying and writing "You had better go; he has arrived; where is she going?" where Samuel Johnston and Alexander Pope and Jane Austen all would have said and written "You would better go; he is arrived; whither is she going?" Is "the house is being built" trashy because, till the early 20th century, grammar-books required "the house is building" and condemned the newer phrase as obvious redundancy and nonsense? (for its repetition of one verb in two forms)

 

There are some interesting questions here. Regarding the description of something being trashy: if expressing a thought without unnecessary syllables is elegant, padding a sentence to make it sound more significant is inelegant or, as some might say, trashy.

 

In the inelegant sentence "You had better go" "had" is either unnecessary padding or an inapt substitute for the modal auxiliary "would." "He has arrived," likewise includes an unnecessary auxiliary, whereas "He is arrived" describes a state, just as in "he is tardy" or "he is absent," The case against "the house is being built" is probably because it is passive. ("Building" in the formerly preferred form is a gerund, a noun, in this case one denoting a transitory state or incomplete process.) I agree that sanctioning the more common form is overkill.

Edited July 22, 2011 by Mickey

[DAYoung]

One of the themes here is mastery of language, i.e. cultural mastery. Precisely because it's cultural, there is no metaphysical 'right' and 'wrong' with language. But there are varying degrees of familiarity with culture. And these often go hand-in-hand with education, status, class.

 

One of Beak's points is that many educated speakers know that the 'don't split the infinitive' rule is somewhat arbitrary, but they do it anyway - it's an adoption of a certain style. They know that they can speak otherwise - and they might well do, for different audiences. But their identity is bound up with the more educated cultural markers, which they uphold.

 

I suspect this is a more general phenomenon. In Accounting for Tastes, Bennett et al. report their studies into Australian culture. In particular, the relationships between class, status and culture (e.g. art, literature, sport, leisure). They found very similar patterns to France, where the studies first began (with Pierre Bourdieu's work). Less educated respondents were unlikely to visit art galleries, read high literature, listen to Chopin, and so on. More educated respondents were more likely to do these things.

 

So far, so French.

 

But Bennett et al. found something more: Australia's higher classes also enjoyed rock n' roll, hip-hop, comics, football, hotted-up cars, and so on. What marked them was not just 'higher' culture, but mastery of culture as a whole. They were familiar with a greater range of cultural products, whereas the lower classes were narrower. The former had confidence and ease, which allowed them to fully participate in much of their own national (and international) culture. The latter excluded themselves from this, i.e. their rejection of 'high' culture was a badge of pride.

 

I suspect language is just part of this overall pattern, in Australia at least. What marks the 'trash' speakers is not simply their grammar - it's that they're unaware of their grammar, and that they might speak otherwise.

Edited July 22, 2011 by DAYoung

[KateGladstone]

If syllable-count is the desideratum, either the current standard usage ("You had better go") or its obsolescent predecessor ("You would better go") must be "trashy" compared with the shooter -- though not yet standard -- "You better go."

[KateGladstone]

If a "trashy" speaker is a person who commands only one variety of his/her native language, then is a person who commands two varieties (the standard variety and a nonstandard variety) somehow still a "trashy" speaker when choosing the nonstandard variety?

[DAYoung]

If a "trashy" speaker is a person who commands only one variety of his/her native language, then is a person who commands two varieties (the standard variety and a nonstandard variety) somehow still a "trashy" speaker when choosing the nonstandard variety?

 

I don't think so. But I wouldn't say 'trashy' anyway.

[Mickey]

If syllable-count is the desideratum, either the current standard usage ("You had better go") or its obsolescent predecessor ("You would better go") must be "trashy" compared with the shooter -- though not yet standard -- "You better go."

 

Not really. The modal auxiliary, 'would,' does impart potentially useful nuance. It's usually * excess verbiage, but in some contexts, the distinction may be justified. Consider all the following: 1) You should go. 2) You better go. 3) You would better go. And number one on the S&W hit parade... 4) Go!

 

* This is where I omitted an utterly superfluous "just."

[KateGladstone]

Since "unnecessary padding" didn't refer to excess syllables, what did it refer to?

[KateGladstone]

Since you specified "unnecessary padding," I wonder, too, what *necessary* padding would look like.

[Chevalier]

I thought those "you had better phrases" (like "should of" and other things) are youth language. I can't remember a grown up person that said something like "You had better go!". I think I missed the entry of those phrases into the everyday speech. Well, my dad used them sometimes, but he wasn't serious about it.

[Mickey]

Since you specified "unnecessary padding," I wonder, too, what *necessary* padding would look like.

 

Song lyrics, as one example, may contain padding to satisfy the needs of scansion, rhyme, and emphasis. The most artful lyrics, however, tend to have the least padding.

----------------

 

Though tightly written prose typically contains fewer syllables, clarity with compactness is the goal. If a sentence is made clearer by the addition of a word or words, the addition is justified. If not, the additions are padding. An almost perfect example of padding is "in order to," which can nearly always be replaced with "to" with no loss of clarity. As a rhetorical flourish (as in the Preamble to the Constitution), it is justifiable, but in most circumstances it is padding.

 

It is possible to be over terse.

[DAYoung]

Though tightly written prose typically contains fewer syllables, clarity with compactness is the goal. If a sentence is made clearer by the addition of a word or words, the addition is justified. If not, the additions are padding. An almost perfect example of padding is "in order to," which can nearly always be replaced with "to" with no loss of clarity. As a rhetorical flourish (as in the Preamble to the Constitution), it is justifiable, but in most circumstances it is padding.

 

Do you apply these guidelines to fiction and creative non-fiction? I'm guessing 'no', but I thought I'd ask.

[Moagy]

..........

 

One of Beak's points is that many educated speakers know that the 'don't split the infinitive' rule is somewhat arbitrary, but they do it anyway - it's an adoption of a certain style. They know that they can speak otherwise - and they might well do, for different audiences. But their identity is bound up with the more educated cultural markers, which they uphold.

 

.............................

You highlight an interesting point, and I would agree that these things can be taken as a badge of identity - and I now notice too how strongly these things can be felt. A flag to rally round! This may be the reason that people can become so heated in their defence of a certain usage: a sense of outrage sets in.

 

To add to the Split infinitive discussion, the thing that will annoy some is the interruption in the flow of meaning when the infinitive is split; you then have to wait for the verb while a description is inserted.

 

How to completely fill a pen - against - How to fill a pen compleltly. If the second of these is habitual, the first will always seem clunky, inelegant and sound like a scratch on a record, and no 'authority' or degree of use by others will change one's mind about that.

 

 

In so many ways I could not agree more - and yet... As someone who grew up with the "To Boldly Go" split infinitive of Star Trek in her ears before I knew what an infinitive was, never mind that it could be split, sometimes the split infinitive is more satisfying.

 

As we all know it should be "Boldly to go" or "To go boldly" but with the three repeats of the same vowel sound, rhythmically it sounds better with the double syllable in the middle; it flows so much more smoothly, like a sine wave. Yes, grammatically it is wrong, but rhythmically it is right... and believe me, it sticks in my craw to say it!

[Mickey]

Though tightly written prose typically contains fewer syllables, clarity with compactness is the goal. If a sentence is made clearer by the addition of a word or words, the addition is justified. If not, the additions are padding. An almost perfect example of padding is "in order to," which can nearly always be replaced with "to" with no loss of clarity. As a rhetorical flourish (as in the Preamble to the Constitution), it is justifiable, but in most circumstances it is padding.

 

Do you apply these guidelines to fiction and creative non-fiction? I'm guessing 'no', but I thought I'd ask.

 

I apply them, but not rigorously. Flabby prose is death, regardless of genre, so I write loose (capture the idea), revise terse (refine the thought), then adjust to taste and genre. My punctuation, I'll concede, is idiosyncratic.

Edited July 23, 2011 by Mickey

[Chevalier]

I think that's the point, it's always a matter of context and intention.

[DAYoung]

I apply them, but not rigorously. Flabby prose is death, regardless of genre, so I write loose (capture the idea), revise terse (refine the thought), then adjust to taste and genre. My punctuation, I'll concede, is idiosyncratic.

 

I think prose can be highly refined, without being terse. I've not checked the manuscript, but I suspect a great deal of distillation produced this:

 

Under certain circumstances there are few hours in life more agreeablethan the hour dedicated to the ceremony known as afternoon tea. Thereare circumstances in which, whether you partake of the tea or not--somepeople of course never do,--the situation is in itself delightful. Thosethat I have in mind in beginning to unfold this simple history offeredan admirable setting to an innocent pastime. The implements ofthe little feast had been disposed upon the lawn of an old Englishcountry-house, in what I should call the perfect middle of a splendidsummer afternoon. Part of the afternoon had waned, but much of it wasleft, and what was left was of the finest and rarest quality. Real duskwould not arrive for many hours; but the flood of summer light had begunto ebb, the air had grown mellow, the shadows were long upon the smooth,dense turf. They lengthened slowly, however, and the scene expressedthat sense of leisure still to come which is perhaps the chief sourceof one's enjoyment of such a scene at such an hour. From five o'clock toeight is on certain occasions a little eternity; but on such an occasionas this the interval could be only an eternity of pleasure. The personsconcerned in it were taking their pleasure quietly, and they were notof the sex which is supposed to furnish the regular votaries of theceremony I have mentioned. The shadows on the perfect lawn were straightand angular; they were the shadows of an old man sitting in a deepwicker-chair near the low table on which the tea had been served, andof two younger men strolling to and fro, in desultory talk, in front ofhim. The old man had his cup in his hand; it was an unusually large cup,of a different pattern from the rest of the set and painted in brilliantcolours. He disposed of its contents with much circumspection, holdingit for a long time close to his chin, with his face turned to the house.His companions had either finished their tea or were indifferent totheir privilege; they smoked cigarettes as they continued to stroll.One of them, from time to time, as he passed, looked with a certainattention at the elder man, who, unconscious of observation, rested hiseyes upon the rich red front of his dwelling. The house that rose beyondthe lawn was a structure to repay such consideration and was the mostcharacteristic object in the peculiarly English picture I have attemptedto sketch.

[DAYoung]

I am however inordinately peeved at new usage that destroys subtleties of meaning, for instance when I hear anticipate used to mean expect, and so on and on. No amount of hearing just how wonderfully flexible and evolutionary language is will make an atom of difference to my sense of loss, and sense of tyrannical destruction.

 

Would you agree that subtle minds create and appreciate subtleties of meaning? And that those without subtlety won't miss it?

 

If so, are you trying to protect language, strictly speaking? Or are you trying to save your compatriots from their own lack of nuance?

 

Given a great many English-speakers will continue to think, speak and write judiciously and innovatively, what is at stake?