And then, there are those who use "to" in place of "too" while criticizing others grammar. (Sorry, I couldn't resist).
Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Walkden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Mike Johnston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 4:03 AM Subject: Re: OT: Obnoxious Sonofabitch Copyeditor > Hi, > > Thursday, January 23, 2003, 12:58:33 AM, you wrote: > > > You do know why American split infinities, don't you? It's because Fowler* > > actually approved of the practice--he thought it was pedantic to disallow it > > categorically. We promptly stopped teaching grammar in grammar schools and > > have been happily splitting our infinitives ever since. > > the particularly annoying thing about the way Americans do it, and > it's catching on here to, is that they seem to do it at every > opportunity. Whenever there's an adverb somewhere within the same > region of the cosmos as an infinitive, you just have to incorrectly > shove (!) it right in there. It's like there's some sort of black hole > in between the 'to' and the verb sucking those adverbs in. Sometimes > it makes no difference to the meaning, but the position of the adverb > with respect to the verb can alter the sense of the phrase very > significantly, yet in US English it seems to be almost mandatory to > split the infinitive. > > On the other hand, some UK English writers go through great circumlocutions > to avoid it, and end up with horribly clumsy sentences where the meaning is > lost simply because all you notice is the effort they've gone to not to split > the thing. Or should I say 'gone to to not split...' <g>. > > Another really annoying thing is the tendency to use "quote marks" > inappropriately (as here) and for emphasis. Example: Win a "free" > holiday! > > --- > > Bob >
