miracle of miracles
was stunned yesterday reading this accurate headline, rare for its construction:
Daughter urges Okla. voters to not vote for father
most self-styled grammarians leap to their “look at me” buzzers and nearly trample one another to be the first to smooge, “forsooth, a split infinitive. oh dear.”
and they are fucked, for “split infinitive” or not, “Daughter urges Okla. voters to not vote for father” is more accurate than “Daughter urges Okla. voters not to vote for father”. that didn’t prevent at least one member of the grammarati from switching to the shit version for the anchor tag.
consider these pieces:
“i urge you not”
“she urged not the voters”
“she urged the voters not”
placing the “not” immediately after “voters” introduces the possible meaning that she didn’t urge voters to vote for her father, a completely different action (or inaction, if as a fool you require).
the correct, awkward, and unnecessary non-”split infinitive” version:
“Daughter urges Okla. voters to vote not for father”
and even “Daughter urges Okla. voters not to vote for father” (along with “Daughter urges Okla. voters to vote not for father”) is ambiguous regarding whether to not vote altogether or merely not for her father. funny. with the not-vote-altogether rendering, it emerges as a favor for her father.
rarely should fear of “grammarians” (i.e., neurotic buffoons) and their often nonsensically arbitrary rulebooks be allowed to prevent accuracy. wrong avoidance of “to not” infects most speech and writing.
July 27th, 2010 at 19:49
Bad example. It is the position of “not” between “urges” and “to vote” that causes ambiguity.
1. “Daughter NOT urges Okla. voters to vote for father”
“Not” is unambiguous here. It modifies “urges”.
2. “Daughter urges Okla. voters NOT to vote for father”
“Not” is ambiguous here. It could modify “urges” or “to vote”.
3. “Daughter urges Okla. voters to vote NOT for father”
“Not” is unambiguous here. It modifies “to vote”.
So you can split the infinitive here if you want, but it isn’t necessary since the result is the equivalent of #3.
July 27th, 2010 at 19:56
suggestion, anonymous pinhead who won’t even keep his pussy-anonymous handle straight:
read my posts thoroughly and with care before commenting. you’re a colossal serial fuckup.
update: BTW, your anonymous fucking around when commenting is likely what puts your dreck into the spam queue until i review that mess and unleash it.
July 29th, 2010 at 14:52
“the correct, awkward, and unnecessary non-”split infinitive” version: … (‘Daughter urges Okla. voters to vote not for father’) is ambiguous regarding whether to not vote altogether or merely not for her father.”
Wrong. It is as ambiguous as the split infinitive. I clearly stated they are equivalent and I gave a rationale. Plus, I said splitting the infinitive is okay.
You should read my comments more carefully.
Don’t miss that my anonymity is irrelevant.
July 29th, 2010 at 19:20
hoping your errors (>=4 in the most recent comment) are intentional.
please, allah (PBUH), let them be intentional.
July 30th, 2010 at 16:18
Only as intentional as yours.
Soo, are you the only one allowed to use fallacies?