Mind your language

[Steve H]

I believe split infinitives are acceptable now ....  'To boldly go where nobody has gone before.'

They were always acceptable, within reason, to the educated. The objection to them is an illogical superstition. Fowler, Partridge and Gowers all agree, though Gowers says that they are best avoided on stylistic grounds.

[Harrowby Hall]

A similar rule was "Never end a sentence with a preposition." The justification (I was told) was that it did not happen in Latin. I recall that when I was at school there was some strange belief that Latin was the most important language of all and that its grammatical structure and syntax were exemplars for all other languages - including English. Latin sentences ended with the verb (and noun case was determined by inflection) therefore ending with a preposition was condemned.

Winston Churchill is reported to have sarcastically scrawled "This is the kind of English up with which I will not put" on one Civil Service document.

[Steve H]

A similar rule was "Never end a sentence with a preposition." The justification (I was told) was that it did not happen in Latin. I recall that when I was at school there was some strange belief that Latin was the most important language of all and that its grammatical structure and syntax were exemplars for all other languages - including English. Latin sentences ended with the verb (and noun case was determined by inflection) therefore ending with a preposition was condemned.

Winston Churchill is reported to have sarcastically scrawled "This is the kind of English up with which I will not put" on one Civil Service document.

That's also why you're not supposed to split infinitives: in Latin and most other languages, you can't, because they're a single word. However, most grammarians, past and present (Fowlers, Gower, etc) dismiss that supposed rule asa superstition.

[Harrowby Hall]

That's also why you're not supposed to split infinitives: in Latin and most other languages, you can't, because they're a single word. However, most grammarians, past and present (Fowlers, Gower, etc) dismiss that supposed rule asa superstition.

You can't say most other languages - because you don't know. There are about 6.500 languages spoken in the world today. You cannot assume that most will have single word infinitives - indeed, you cannot assume that all will have infinitives. All you can say is that, of the languages with which you are familiar, most have single word (possibly polymorphemic) infinitives. And that most of these have Latin as a significant contributor to their grammatical framework.

[Steve H]

You can't say most other languages - because you don't know. There are about 6.500 languages spoken in the world today. You cannot assume that most will have single word infinitives - indeed, you cannot assume that all will have infinitives. All you can say is that, of the languages with which you are familiar, most have single word (possibly polymorphemic) infinitives. And that most of these have Latin as a significant contributor to their grammatical framework.

You should be in the 'Extreme Pedantry' group on Facebook.

[Harrowby Hall]

And dare I say that you should learn to write with greater precision?

Indeed. I have,

[Steve H]

And dare I say that you should learn to write with greater precision?

Indeed. I have,

I'm as pedantic as they come frequently, but I must grudgingly admit that you're right.

[ad_orientem]

There's something that's bothered me for a while, but when did "terrorist attack" change to being "terror attack" in the media? To me they could mean quite different things?

[jeremyp]

You should be in the 'Extreme Pedantry' group on Facebook.

I think you'll find it's called the "extreme pedants" group.

[Steve H]

I think you'll find it's called the "extreme pedants" group.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/133309454114/

[jeremyp]

https://www.facebook.com/groups/133309454114/

Woosh!

[bluehillside Retd.]

This might be known to all already but I just came across a linguistic explanation that made me do a metaphorical face palm and an "of course it is - why didn't I think of that before?"

The word "mall" (as in shopping mall). Before their invention you could only visit one store (ie, shop) at a time, but afterwards you could visit "them all" - ie, phonetically "the mall".

I know right?   

 

[SusanDoris]

This might be known to all already but I just came across a linguistic explanation that made me do a metaphorical face palm and an "of course it is - why didn't I think of that before?"

The word "mall" (as in shopping mall). Before their invention you could only visit one store (ie, shop) at a time, but afterwards you could visit "them all" - ie, phonetically "the mall".

I know right?   

Interesting!  I used to wonder why malls were called malls! I suppose that clears up the pronunciation too - rhymes with fall. Even the Americans do not say all to rhyme with gal.

[Harrowby Hall]

So the word has nothing to do with the street in London where Brenda lives?  ... Although that is pronounced differently.

[Steve H]

Folk-etymology. It comes ultimately from Italian "maglio", mallet, which gives us the "mall" part of "Pall Mall", which was originally a game similar to croquet, and provided the name of the posh London Street. Details here.

[Robbie]

There's something that's bothered me for a while, but when did "terrorist attack" change to being "terror attack" in the media? To me they could mean quite different things?

I can't answer your question at the moment but it seems you are not alone in wondering about it.

https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/450107/what-is-the-difference-between-terrorist-attack-and-terror-attack

[ad_orientem]

I can't answer your question at the moment but it seems you are not alone in wondering about it.

https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/450107/what-is-the-difference-between-terrorist-attack-and-terror-attack

Thanks for the link. Interesting.