tobold.org

correct • elegant • free

△ uk.misc △

◅ Smacking Handbrakes

grammar ▻

grammar

In article <87un55$f40$1@ftel.ftel.co.uk>,
Ian G Batten  <I.G.Batten@batten.eu.org> wrote:
>that English is Latin --- that's one word (I don't know enough Latin to
>give an example)

    amare - to love
    stare - to stand

(OK, so I can't remember anything beyond the first conjugation.  So
shoot me.)  If these don't rattle your box, how about French?

    aimer - to love
    oublier - to forget

Or Spanish?

    amar - to love
    tener - to have

As it happens, German has single-word infinitives, too, but since it's
not a Romantic language, it's less relevant.

>                                             This argument is, of
>course, utter bollocks.

The argument is bollocks, and there is nothing wrong with "to boldly
go".  However, I'm inclined to agree with Fowler that if you introduce
a large separation between the two parts, it becomes ugly.  Sainsbury's
shampoo used to contain whatever it was "to gently but thoroughly
cleanse the hair", which is pushing it a bit in my opinion.  It
gets really silly when there is a list of infinitives, and only a
single "to".  For example, "this company aims to: i) ensure consumer
satisfaction with our products; ii) nurture and develop human resources;
iii) make a big fat profit".  Still, the split infinitives are probably
the least of your problems there...

Tim.
--
Tim Goodwin   | "If you don't know what closures are, you probably don't
Leicester, UK | want to know what closures are." -- Larry Wall

Original headers:

From: tjg@star.le.ac.uk (Tim Goodwin)
Newsgroups: uk.misc
Subject: Re: grammar (was: carol vordermann has badly sold out..)
Date: 10 Feb 2000 17:56:47 -0000
Message-ID: <87uu5l$m9j$1@ltpcg.star.le.ac.uk>
References: <87ku8u$9j6$1@uranium.btinternet.com> <g9aiOFRQlyFpNm0hF98KebP9t8Pt@4ax.com> <38A2D78D.8541E77F@here.com> <87un55$f40$1@ftel.ftel.co.uk>

△ uk.misc △

◅ Smacking Handbrakes

grammar ▻