Threaded Order Chronological Order
| re: Quick point: just on the grammar... | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 03:43 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Quick point: just on the grammar... - BroadwayTonyJ 01:28 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
|
|
|
| ****I'm pretty sure "willing for a dentist to be drilling" is not proper.**** I don't see anything wrong with that particular part of the lyric. What error do you perceive? However, this thread has pointed out to me that there are actually THREE grammatical errors in the one sentence "I'd be equally as willing for a dentist to be drilling than to ever let a woman in my life." And the three errors are: 1. "equally as" is redundant; "equally willing" would be correct. 2. "than to" is incorrect; "as to" would be correct 3. "to ever let" is incorrect, because it's a split infinitive; "ever to let" would be correct |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: Quick point: just on the grammar... | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 04:41 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Quick point: just on the grammar... - Michael_Portantiere 03:43 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
|
|
|
| It's a very awkward sentence to which my high school English teacher would have surely objected. The phrase "to let a woman in" should actually be "to let a woman into". The phrase "willing for a dentist to be drilling" makes absolutely no sense. An individual can not be "willing for" a dentist to do anything -- one can be "willing to have" or "willing to let" a dentist do something like drill or pull a tooth. I think the best way to have a grammatically correct sentence is to rephrase it like this: "I'd be equally willing to have a dentist drill than to let a woman into my life" or "I'd be equally willing to let a dentist drill than to have a woman in my life." Years ago, an ATC poster tried to rewrite Lerner's lyric. What he came up with was so stilted, it made Lerner's grammatical error much preferable. |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: Quick point: just on the grammar... | |
| Last Edit: Michael_Portantiere 11:13 am EDT 04/02/21 | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 11:07 am EDT 04/02/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Quick point: just on the grammar... - BroadwayTonyJ 04:41 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
|
|
|
| ***The phrase "to let a woman in" should actually be "to let a woman into".**** Yes, and I hate to say it, but doesn't this mean that "When Mabel Comes in the Room" is also incorrect? :-( ***The phrase "willing for a dentist to be drilling" makes absolutely no sense. An individual can not be "willing for" a dentist to do anything -- one can be "willing to have" or "willing to let" a dentist do something like drill or pull a tooth. I think the best way to have a grammatically correct sentence is to rephrase it like this: "I'd be equally willing to have a dentist drill than to let a woman into my life" or "I'd be equally willing to let a dentist drill than to have a woman in my life."**** Well, forgive me, but I think the correct forms would be, "I'd be equally willing to have a dentist drill AS to let a woman into my life" or "I'd be equally willing to let a dentist drill AS to have a woman in my life." At any rate, adding your identification of two more errors in that sentence, that would bring the number to five (5) errors in one line: 1. "equally as willing" is redundant, it should be "equally willing." 2. "willing for" should be "willing to," as you noted (assuming you're right that "willing for" is indeed incorrect; I'm not sure about that one) 3. 'than to" should be "as to" 4. "than to ever let" should be "as ever to let" 5. "....let a woman in my life" should be "....let a woman into my life." |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Quick point: just on the grammar... | |
| Posted by: Quicheo 07:52 pm EDT 04/02/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Quick point: just on the grammar... - Michael_Portantiere 11:07 am EDT 04/02/21 | |
|
|
|
| Come + in vs. come + into "Won't you come in?" is a perfectly usual and correct sentence. You would never say "Won't you come into?" "She comes in, I go out" is also correct. You'd never say, "She comes into, I go out." Also we'd say, "Let the dog in", "Don't let a draft in", "Don't come in the kitchen until I finish the cake." So, letting a woman in anywhere, even a non-literal location such as "a life" is just fine. That said, if one wants to be very specific, "When Mabel Comes in the Room" has a double meaning that "When Mabel Comes into the Room" does not, wicked though one of the former's meanings may be. And to further belabor my point stated elsewhere--it is always okay to split an infinitive. It is a matter of preference and style, not grammar. Injunctions against it, as mentioned before, come from a overzealous appreciation for Latin where infinitives are single words. The non-rule against ending sentences with prepositions comes from this era and enthusiasm as well. And lucky us that it essentially stopped there as English is hard enough to master without also having to follow all the Latin rules. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Quick point: just on the grammar... | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 10:13 pm EDT 04/02/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Quick point: just on the grammar... - Quicheo 07:52 pm EDT 04/02/21 | |
|
|
|
| ***"Won't you come in?" is a perfectly usual and correct sentence. You would never say "Won't you come into?"**** True enough, BUT....I think "Won't you come in" is correct when the sentence doesn't continue with "the room," whereas "Won't you come into...." is correct when the sentence DOES continue with those other two words. Of course, in that particular case, no one would ever say "Won't you come into the room?" because it would sound ridiculous to specify what's obvious. But, to me, "You came into our home and changed everything" sounds right, whereas "You came in our home and changed everything" certainly does not. ***"When Mabel Comes in the Room" has a double meaning that "When Mabel Comes into the Room" does not, wicked though one of the former's meanings may be.**** Are you joking, or are you seriously suggesting that Jerry Herman had that other meaning in mind and intended the audience to grasp it????? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Quick point: just on the grammar... | |
| Posted by: Quicheo 12:22 am EDT 04/03/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Quick point: just on the grammar... - Michael_Portantiere 10:13 pm EDT 04/02/21 | |
|
|
|
| I am joking. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Quick point: just on the grammar... | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 01:27 pm EDT 04/03/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Quick point: just on the grammar... - Quicheo 12:22 am EDT 04/03/21 | |
|
|
|
| :-) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Quick point: just on the grammar... Pirini Scleroso | |
| Posted by: blue70 09:15 pm EDT 04/02/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Quick point: just on the grammar... - Quicheo 07:52 pm EDT 04/02/21 | |
|
|
|
| This discussion of the phrase "Come in" reminds me of the SCTV sketch with Andrea Martin and Catherine O'Hara Pirini Scleroso - English for Beginners (link). Of course, there's also SCTV's version of My Fair Lady starring Pirini Scleroso (link). |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Quick point: just on the grammar... | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 08:38 pm EDT 04/02/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Quick point: just on the grammar... - Quicheo 07:52 pm EDT 04/02/21 | |
|
|
|
| "Come in" is fine because "in" is being used as an adverb, not a preposition. You can say "He is in the room", but if there is motion toward something and the preposition is followed by an object, it has to be "into": "Let her into my life". "Let her in my life" is grammatically incorrect. The sentence "Don't come in the kitchen until I finish the cake" is not correct, although most people would probably say it that way as a shortcut. It should be "Don't come into the kitchen." I think it's a mistake to start down the "correcting grammar" path to the extent we are doing it here. Most people when they are speaking, take shortcuts and don't speak the way they would write something. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Quick point: just on the grammar... | |
| Last Edit: Quicheo 09:08 pm EDT 04/02/21 | |
| Posted by: Quicheo 08:59 pm EDT 04/02/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Quick point: just on the grammar... - BroadwayTonyJ 08:38 pm EDT 04/02/21 | |
|
|
|
| I certainly agree with your second paragraph! And my only additional argument with the first is that the line "let a woman in my life" does not necessarily mean movement. It can mean "inside" his life, like in his soup, in his fridge, in his bed, or in his head. But as you say, spoken language is the point here and plenty of folk, especially in a moment of exasperation, speak in a less meticulous way. Thank you for your instructive correction of my argument, though. I appreciate your knowledge. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Quick point: just on the grammar... | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 10:21 pm EDT 04/02/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Quick point: just on the grammar... - Quicheo 08:59 pm EDT 04/02/21 | |
|
|
|
| ****"let a woman in my life" does not necessarily mean movement. It can mean "inside" his life, like in his soup, in his fridge, in his bed, or in his head.**** Your phrasing confuses me, especially what you wrote about movement. Of course, Higgins means he will never allow a woman to have a place in his life -- i.e., to be inside it. Anyway, bottom line, "I shall never let a woman into my life" or "I shall never have a woman in life" both sound and read as correct to me, whereas "I shall never let a woman in my life" does not. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Quick point: just on the grammar... | |
| Posted by: Quicheo 12:21 am EDT 04/03/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Quick point: just on the grammar... - Michael_Portantiere 10:21 pm EDT 04/02/21 | |
|
|
|
| My response was to the immediate poster above mine that spoke of "into" needing to be used if there was a sense of motion, something moving into something else. And as we all seem to agree, different things spoken or sung sound right to the ear that may not be grammatically perfect. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Quick point: just on the grammar... | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 01:25 pm EDT 04/03/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Quick point: just on the grammar... - Quicheo 12:21 am EDT 04/03/21 | |
|
|
|
| "Different things spoken or sung sound right to the ear that may not be grammatically perfect." Agreed 100 percent. But if Higgins is supposed to be such a stickler for perfect speech, both in terms of pronunciation AND grammar, then he of all people should not make the dozen or more grammatical errors that are present in the lyrics of MY FAIR LADY. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Quick point: just on the grammar... | |
| Posted by: Quicheo 02:53 pm EDT 04/03/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Quick point: just on the grammar... - Michael_Portantiere 01:25 pm EDT 04/03/21 | |
|
|
|
| Really? Does Higgins seem to you to be an internally consistent, free from hypocrisy, self-possessed fellow? Is there not more than a hint of suggestion that he may hold others to a higher standard than he holds himself? Are we not all guilty of the same to greater or lesser degrees? Is this not part of the appeal of this and many other shows, to provide a mirror to our own humanity, grammatical errors and all? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Quick point: just on the grammar... | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 03:49 pm EDT 04/03/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Quick point: just on the grammar... - Quicheo 02:53 pm EDT 04/03/21 | |
|
|
|
| "Does Higgins seem to you to be an internally consistent, free from hypocrisy, self-possessed fellow? Is there not more than a hint of suggestion that he may hold others to a higher standard than he holds himself? Are we not all guilty of the same to greater or lesser degrees? Is this not part of the appeal of this and many other shows, to provide a mirror to our own humanity, grammatical errors and all?" I think your interpretation is 100 percent valid, even though I don't personally agree with it. Regardless, although of course I can't say for sure what was in Lerner's head, I strongly doubt that he intentionally had Higgins make SO MANY grammatical errors in the lyrics of MY FAIR LADY as a way of purposely pointing out that Higgins may hold others to a higher standard than he holds himself. That's a very charitable interpretation on your part, and I think you're giving Lerner too much credit. I suspect the truth is that Lerner himself was extremely sloppy in regard to correct grammar and usage, presumably because he never learned and/or never digested many of the rules -- and that includes rules that I would hope ALL of us can agree on, such as "If I were..." (correct) rather than "If I was..." (incorrect), along with the debatable ones, such as the one about split infinitives. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| If you mean "A Hymn to Him," it's not Lerner's fault | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 10:15 pm EDT 04/03/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Quick point: just on the grammar... - Michael_Portantiere 03:49 pm EDT 04/03/21 | |
|
|
|
| "and that includes rules that I would hope ALL of us can agree on, such as 'If I were...' (correct) rather than 'If I was...' (incorrect),," In the published script and published score, it is consistently "were" where it should be. Harrison gets one of them wrong on both the OBCR and the OLCR, and Ian Richardson gets all of them wrong. They both also start with "What in all of Heaven can have prompted her to go?" instead of "What in all of Heaven could have prompted her to go?" |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: If you mean "A Hymn to Him," it's not Lerner's fault | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 11:39 pm EDT 04/03/21 | |
| In reply to: If you mean "A Hymn to Him," it's not Lerner's fault - AlanScott 10:15 pm EDT 04/03/21 | |
|
|
|
| Interesting, thanks! | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: If you mean "A Hymn to Him," it's not Lerner's fault | |
| Posted by: Quicheo 10:13 pm EDT 04/04/21 | |
| In reply to: re: If you mean "A Hymn to Him," it's not Lerner's fault - Michael_Portantiere 11:39 pm EDT 04/03/21 | |
|
|
|
| Sidebar again: The writers on Cheers and Frasier consistently had a similar problem--Kelsey Grammer's background and education were not as grammar-intensive as his character's and that, coupled with the actor's preference for little rehearsal, led to some whoppers to deal with in the editing suite. Thank you, Alan, for that information. It add another dimension to this discussion. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think the ideal correction would be . . . | |
| Posted by: keikekaze 04:16 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Quick point: just on the grammar... - Michael_Portantiere 03:43 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
|
|
|
| "I'd be every bit as willing for a dentist to be drilling as to ever let a woman in my life." This solves the redundancy and the as/than problem without altering the rhyme, the rhythm, or the meaning. The split infinitive, to me, is inconsequential--everybody does it from time to time--even grammarians--in agitated speech as opposed to careful writing. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think the ideal correction would be . . . | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 11:10 am EDT 04/02/21 | |
| In reply to: re: I think the ideal correction would be . . . - keikekaze 04:16 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
|
|
|
| "I'd be every bit as willing for a dentist to be drilling as to ever let a woman in my life." This solves the redundancy and the as/than problem without altering the rhyme, the rhythm, or the meaning. The split infinitive, to me, is inconsequential--everybody does it from time to time--even grammarians--in agitated speech as opposed to careful writing. Believe it or not, I once came up with that same correction of the lyrics, and I do agree if it's a good job if one doesn't mind the split infinitive. (Another poster here would still object to "willing for," but I'm not entirely sure that's an error.) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think the ideal correction would be . . . | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 08:35 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
| In reply to: re: I think the ideal correction would be . . . - keikekaze 04:16 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
|
|
|
| I love the flow of your revised lyric. Are there different grammatical rules for lyrics as opposed to prose? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think the ideal correction would be . . . | |
| Posted by: keikekaze 08:49 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
| In reply to: re: I think the ideal correction would be . . . - BroadwayTonyJ 08:35 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
|
|
|
| Are there different grammatical rules for lyrics as opposed to prose? Oh, I don't think there are really any grammatical rules for writing lyrics, or we wouldn't have such fine songs as "Is You Is Or Is You Ain't My Baby?" and many others along those lines. I quoted one E.Y. Harburg lyric in the "songs about spring" thread yesterday that is--deliberately--a grammatical train wreck, but a delightful lyric all the same. It all depends on the character who's supposed to be singing. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think the ideal correction would be . . . | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 11:49 am EDT 04/02/21 | |
| In reply to: re: I think the ideal correction would be . . . - keikekaze 08:49 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
|
|
|
| "Oh, I don't think there are really any grammatical rules for writing lyrics." I think there are, or should be, in cases where we would expect that the character singing the lyrics in question (if the song is from a show) would/should express himself/herself/themself according to rules of correct grammar and usage, but of course, not in other cases -- to cite only one example among a great many, Tony's songs in THE MOST HAPPY FELLA. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think the ideal correction would be . . . | |
| Posted by: Billhaven 12:09 pm EDT 04/02/21 | |
| In reply to: re: I think the ideal correction would be . . . - Michael_Portantiere 11:49 am EDT 04/02/21 | |
|
|
|
| But we are talking about writing for the theater, not for a master's thesis or a legal brief. Songs have to be make theatrical sense. Singers have to be able to sing them. If the lyrics can not be understood or do not flow easily off the tongue then they are useless. I feel badly that instead of appreciating the wit and elegance of these songs you are obsessed by a split infinitive. Shelley Winter's shoes. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think the ideal correction would be . . . | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 12:21 pm EDT 04/02/21 | |
| In reply to: re: I think the ideal correction would be . . . - Billhaven 12:09 pm EDT 04/02/21 | |
|
|
|
| "But we are talking about writing for the theater, not for a master's thesis or a legal brief. Songs have to be make theatrical sense. Singers have to be able to sing them. If the lyrics can not be understood or do not flow easily off the tongue then they are useless." I honestly can't understand why you see this as a choice between the two. Why shouldn't Alan Jay Lerner have been expected to write lyrics that were grammatically correct and would ALSO be very singable, would "flow easily," and would "make theatrical sense," when most other lyricists who are held in esteem were perfectly capable of doing so? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think the ideal correction would be . . . | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 07:54 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
| In reply to: re: I think the ideal correction would be . . . - keikekaze 04:16 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
|
|
|
| I think that adjusted lyric is the same as one I posted years ago. As for splitting infinitives, there is no reason for grammarians not to do it in careful writing. The basic rule is: It's best not to do it, except when it's better if you do. This goes back to at least as long ago as the first edition (1926) of Fowler's A Dictionary of Modern English Usage (a book so famous and so widely used that Thurber wrote a long multi-chapter parody of it). I'm surprised that people here think that there is any hard-and-fast rule against splitting infinitives. The Thurber parody is one of the funniest things I've ever read. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think the ideal correction would be . . . | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 11:52 am EDT 04/02/21 | |
| In reply to: re: I think the ideal correction would be . . . - AlanScott 07:54 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
|
|
|
| "As for splitting infinitives, there is no reason for grammarians not to do it in careful writing. The basic rule is: It's best not to do it, except when it's better if you do." So, in other words, it's a matter of opinion :-) And I suppose different people might have different opinions as to whether "to ever let" is better phrasing than "ever to let," or if they are equivalent. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think the ideal correction would be . . . | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 06:33 am EDT 04/03/21 | |
| In reply to: re: I think the ideal correction would be . . . - Michael_Portantiere 11:52 am EDT 04/02/21 | |
|
|
|
| Pretty much everything is a matter of opinion when it comes to writing. Or perhaps that should be: When it comes to writing, pretty much everything is a matter of opinion. Or: When it comes to writing, everything is pretty much a matter of opinion. Still, anyone who thinks that "ever to let a woman in my life" is better than "to ever let a woman in my life" is someone whose writing I probably don't want to read. :) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think the ideal correction would be . . . | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 01:40 pm EDT 04/03/21 | |
| In reply to: re: I think the ideal correction would be . . . - AlanScott 06:33 am EDT 04/03/21 | |
|
|
|
| ***Still, anyone who thinks that "ever to let a woman in my life" is better than "to ever let a woman in my life" is someone whose writing I probably don't want to read. :)*** Really? "than ever to let a woman in my life" doesn't sound at all awkward to me, whereas I think attempts to avoid using prepositions at the ends of sentences often sound INCREDIBLY awkward. So that's a "rule" I never pay attention to :-) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think the ideal correction would be . . . | |
| Posted by: pagates 01:12 pm EDT 04/02/21 | |
| In reply to: re: I think the ideal correction would be . . . - Michael_Portantiere 11:52 am EDT 04/02/21 | |
|
|
|
| Another question that occurs to me in all this is what differences might there be between English (British) grammar in 1912/13 and 1955/56 and 2021. I trust the relevant rules and expectations for grammar would be those that were current in Edwardian England. I don't pretend to know what they were, but I venture that they have been changes. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Various thoughts and quotes, including a quote from Shaw on split infinitives | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 08:03 am EDT 04/03/21 | |
| In reply to: re: I think the ideal correction would be . . . - pagates 01:12 pm EDT 04/02/21 | |
|
|
|
| In the New York Times of August 18, 1929, there was an article titled “The Split Infinitive Again Finds Support.” From the article: “[S]ince about 1919 it has ceased to be a crime to split infinitives. Dr. Frank H. Vizetelly, lexicographer, indicates as much, and he is warmly seconded by Dr. H. W. Fowler, editor of the New Oxford Dictionary.” Later in the article: “Writers of current literature increasingly violate the old rule that, perhaps more than any other, made composition stilted and tended to discourage the spread of learning.” As I mentioned in a reply to keikekaze, Fowler in his A Dictionary of Modern English Usage, first published in 1926, spent several pages writing about why the blanket prohibition against split infinitives was pretty silly. I never read it till last night, and I was surprised to find that it was very funny. Fowler knew how to make fun of people. Split infinitives can be found in Chaucer, Shakespeare, Byron, Hardy, Keats, Twain, Matthew Arnold and I’m sure plenty of other major English-language writers before Shaw. In fact, I found a few articles from the early 1900s mocking academic strictures on what is supposed to be unacceptable in good writing, with the prohibition on split infinitives being among the targets. But Shaw was an iconoclast, and he created another iconoclast in Higgins. While Higgins certainly would have been very knowledgeable about what was considered good grammar and what was not, he might well have found some of the rules silly and not worth following. Indeed, I found a number of articles and books in which a letter that Shaw is said to have written in 1907 to the London Times was quoted. I wish I could have found proof that I considered definitive that the quote was for real, but I did find it quoted by some well-respected writers. Attesting most of all to the likely authenticity of the quote, the Times itself published a letter in 1992 in which Shaw's letter was quoted. I presume that if the widely quoted letter was bogus, someone at the Times would have picked up on it. Here is what Shaw (it seems) wrote: “There is a busybody on your staff who devotes a lot of his time to chasing split infinitives. Every good literary craftsman splits his infinitives when the sense demands it. I call for the immediate dismissal of this pedant. It is of no consequence whether he decides to go quickly or quickly to go or to quickly go. The important thing is that he should go at once.” If the letter is not authentic, it should be. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Thank you. This is excellent. nm | |
| Posted by: Quicheo 11:13 am EDT 04/03/21 | |
| In reply to: Various thoughts and quotes, including a quote from Shaw on split infinitives - AlanScott 08:03 am EDT 04/03/21 | |
|
|
|
| See? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Various thoughts and quotes, including a quote from Shaw on split infinitives | |
| Posted by: pagates 08:32 am EDT 04/03/21 | |
| In reply to: Various thoughts and quotes, including a quote from Shaw on split infinitives - AlanScott 08:03 am EDT 04/03/21 | |
|
|
|
| Amazing research! And outstanding information and analysis. Many thanks. The quotation is brilliant. I too hope it’s authentic. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Various thoughts and quotes, including a quote from Shaw on split infinitives | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 01:34 pm EDT 04/03/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Various thoughts and quotes, including a quote from Shaw on split infinitives - pagates 08:32 am EDT 04/03/21 | |
|
|
|
| I also hope the quote is authentic, and it makes a lot of sense. The rule against split infinitives is not one that I personally subscribe to, but I will say that, to me, if split infinitives are acceptable some of the time "for the sense of the phrase," I don't understand why they aren't acceptable all of the time. That said, I suppose a split infinitive would look and sound clearly wrong if one were to add SEVERAL words in the split -- for example, if instead of "to ever let a woman in my life," Lerner had written "to ever, under any circumstances, let a woman in my life." :-) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Various thoughts and quotes, including a quote from Shaw on split infinitives | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 03:51 am EDT 04/05/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Various thoughts and quotes, including a quote from Shaw on split infinitives - Michael_Portantiere 01:34 pm EDT 04/03/21 | |
|
|
|
| Some experts who think the prohibition is silly and invalid might say something like this: There is no prohibition on using split infinitives but neither is it especially desirable. Sometimes splitting infinitives can lead to a sentence that lacks clarity or is clumsy (or both). Sometimes not splitting infinitives can lead to a sentence that lacks clarity or is clumsy (or both). There is always the option of recasting but sometimes that leads to something verbose and unnecessarily complicated. If the best solution is to split, then split, but usually it is not the best option. I just basically summarized what Fowler writes in his last section discussing split infinitives. At the link you can find the whole entry on split infinitives. There are those who say something like this: Avoid splitting infinitives because if you split there will be people who think you’re ignorant or careless. That seems a bit silly, but if, say, you’re writing a cover letter for a job or submitting an article to someone who doesn’t already know your writing, it’s probably good advice. I admit to not being sure why even some grammar experts who say that it is fine to split infinitives if that will give you the best sentence also say that as a general rule it is also best to avoid splitting. I think the reason may be because most of the time not splitting gives you a better sentence but I’m not 100-percent sure that’s the reason. I certainly understand the reasoning that you should avoid it because people will think you’re ignorant or careless. |
|
| Link | Fowler on split infinitives |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: I think the ideal correction would be . . . | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 02:34 pm EDT 04/02/21 | |
| In reply to: re: I think the ideal correction would be . . . - pagates 01:12 pm EDT 04/02/21 | |
|
|
|
| ***Another question that occurs to me in all this is what differences might there be between English (British) grammar in 1912/13 and 1955/56 and 2021. I trust the relevant rules and expectations for grammar would be those that were current in Edwardian England. I don't pretend to know what they were, but I venture that they have been changes.*** Excellent point! |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think the ideal correction would be . . . | |
| Posted by: pagates 10:31 am EDT 04/03/21 | |
| In reply to: re: I think the ideal correction would be . . . - Michael_Portantiere 02:34 pm EDT 04/02/21 | |
|
|
|
| Thank you for your excellent original post! It has stimulated an outstanding, thoughtful, instructive, and uncommonly enjoyable thread about a musical I have long held as one of the giants of the century, if evidenced only by this conversation it prompted. I saw it first as the movie in ’64 (I grew up in the hinterlands), and not onstage until 2011 (in a respectable summer stock production). But it was in seeing the most recent LCT production - three times - that I was able fully to appreciate (or to fully appreciate) its richness and wit, its depth and its power, its highs and its lows. I loved all three viewings, but was most deeply moved by the two I saw with Benanti and Haden-Paton (with changes in supporting cast). It's great to be reminded of them all. I will say that while the movie has great charm, it never reached me the way the stage production did. Possibly because of my age difference on viewings, but I prefer to think that the “life” of a stage production offers emotional depth that a movie musical rarely - if ever - achieves. The fixedness and gloss of film is valuable in many ways, but live art engages the whole person more fully and complexly. I suppose that’s why it has devotees like us on this board and thread. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think the ideal correction would be . . . | |
| Posted by: keikekaze 08:54 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
| In reply to: re: I think the ideal correction would be . . . - AlanScott 07:54 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
|
|
|
| I wish I still had my Fowler--I used to enjoy reading it just for the fun of it. Unfortunately I lost it somewhere in one of my too many changes of address. (My creditors were always just on the verge of catching uo with me! ; ) ) I'm not familiar with the Thurber parody, so I'll have to look it up--thanks for the tip that it exists! | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think the ideal correction would be . . . | |
| Posted by: GrumpyMorningBoy 07:51 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
| In reply to: re: I think the ideal correction would be . . . - keikekaze 04:16 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
|
|
|
| This message board is so freaking arcane sometimes and I totally love it. I'm so glad we're here instead of on Reddit. And that's a terrific rewrite, keikekaze. - GMB |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think the ideal correction would be . . . | |
| Posted by: keikekaze 08:58 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
| In reply to: re: I think the ideal correction would be . . . - GrumpyMorningBoy 07:51 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
|
|
|
| Thanks, GMB! | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.116596 seconds.