Yet another pointless dialect test

[s1m0n]

Hey, that's Mpomp, not Mpoup. M-Poop Dylan is mighty disconcerting. But I guess M-Pomp is not much better.

There's no "B" or "D" in the modern Greek alphabet. Beta has become a "V" sound, Delta a voiced "Th". So ...

I think this is where I'm supposed to say, "It's all Greek to me." Ba-DUMP chaaaa.

Get your dress off!

s1m0n, you are nothing if not consistent. It's become almost.......reassuring, for lack of a better word.

I'm not the guy wearing dresses. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[Nanohedron]

...so discrete...

*preen* I do rather like to think I'm something of a creature unto myself.

Now, discreet, well...when it suits my purposes.

are you sure yer Greek?

As Greek as bourbon whisky.

[Nanohedron]

Get your dress off!

s1m0n, you are nothing if not consistent. It's become almost.......reassuring, for lack of a better word.

I'm not the guy wearing dresses. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

All the more to my point. You don't seem to care so long as it's got two legs and a skirt. God help the hairy-kneed pipe band within earshot of you.

[s1m0n]

No, the infinitive is a single word. "To" is a separate element in any construction involving an infinitive: the verb following, the infinitive itself, simply leads the verb phrase following "to." If I say "to boldly go," "to" is merely an introductory element and is not part of the infinitive. The infinitive is the single word "go" and "boldly go" is a verb phrase, a separate entity, a grammatical unit unto itself. It's actually impossible to split an infinitive in English (as it was in Latin). Just stick the adverb where it sounds best to you.

No, seriously: english is (now) an analytic or isolating language, which means that much of it's grammatic forms comes as multi-word phrases rather than single word + affix units. "Infinitive" is the name of a particular grammatic form, and in english it is one such multi-word structure. This is also why word order matters so much in English. In synthetic languages like Latin or French word order matters very little.

Gaelic, btw, is an affixing language, unusual among indo-European languages for the frequency of pre~ rather than post~ fixes (suffixes). Perhaps one of our gaelic speakers can say how fluid word order is in Irish. Suffix is the county beside Rutland.

A synthetic language, also called an inflected language, is a language which uses inflectional forms, such as affixes, as a primary means of indicating the grammatical function of the words in the language. An example of a synthetic language is Latin. The opposite of a synthetic language is an analytic language, also known as an isolating language, in which the word forms are mostly or totally fixed, and grammatical functions are indicated through the use of helper words and word order. Chinese is an example of an analytic language.
http://www.websters-online-dictionary.o ... guage.html

In practice this doesn't much matter, because the first word is always "to", so it can be readily ignored when talking shop. However, there is no form of correct english where the 'to' can be left out. In fact, that's a stereotypical feature of pidgin english. After "me Tarzan, you Jane", sentences like "I want sing" are the easiest way to create instant pidgin.

[s1m0n]

Whence the poetry, the nuance of English? "Never try to split" is unassailably correct, but its nuance is doctrinaire, its sound the sound of the hobnail boot. Which is fine, if that's the nuance you're going for (better yet for that would be the simplest, most shaveheaded form, "Never split"). Then from the other end there's that unprim, dreadlocked party child "Try to never split", yet how is it that it communicates the general idea just as effectively, without worry of misinterpretation? In this wise "correctness" or "incorrectness" seems rather silly. So its value to me is one of nuance: suggestion, cajoling, the tired but ever-ready teacher facing the quixotic reality of the task. "Try never to split" is aseptic, rubber-gloved, and smells freshly of soap; it has a stick up its pedant's backside. That is all. And that is nuance too, if one wants it.

One verb commands (never sing) contain no infinitive at all; what you're seeing is a verb in its imperitive form. In two-verb imperitives (try to sing), the second verb takes the infinitive and the 'to' isn't optional; this is why 'never to sing' is incorrect. It's a common mistake for learners.

[Nanohedron]

One verb commands (never sing) contain no infinitive at all; what you're seeing is a verb in its imperitive form. In two-verb imperitives (try to sing), the second verb takes the infinitive and the 'to' isn't optional; this is why 'never to sing' is incorrect. It's a common mistake for learners.

"The wee bird is dead, never to sing again." This is "incorrect"? If some say it is, I scoff with a great scoffing, for it is certainly a venerable and recurring form in our language.

[s1m0n]

"The wee bird is dead, never to sing again." This is "incorrect"?

It's absolutely correct. The principle verb of this sentence is "is". 'To sing' is an auxillary verb correctly in its infinitive form.

Edited: The form differs because you're switching out of the imperitive voice. "Never sing" and "try to sing" are both imperitive forms. They issue a command. The command element vanishes with 'is to sing'; the verb here indicates but doesn't command, so it takes its everyday indicative form.

[Nanohedron]

Thanks for the clarification. Still, ehh, I dunno. Rules can say that "Try never to sing" is incorrect, and thanks to your explanation I now get the reasoning behind that. But for better or worse, for me a line of reasoning is not always enough to necessarily determine the right and final word in the big picture, so I don't think I can stop actively resisting "received pronunciation" like that, which is probably a good indicator of why I never fit in with Academe. Too rebellious. But feel free to correct my usages in the future. I may even listen.

[s1m0n]

Any fluent speaker has the rules of that language's grammar embedded, and they are processed unconciously and almost entirely automatically. When we talk about grammar in the form of rules, we're describing and not legislating.

[Nanohedron]

Well! I have never had it hinted that I wasn't fluent, before. There's a first time for everything, I suppose.

[s1m0n]

What I mean is that once the names start flying and the rules get declared, people get intimidated as all hell for no good reason. Nearly everyone already knows what do; the struggle is always to define why.

I've spent a reasonable amount of time coaching adults who have returned to school. They get something back from the teacher marked up with red circles and arrows and freak out. One of the first things I tell them is that they already know this stuff. They speak it perfectly. All they need to learn to do is make their writing match their speaking. That's a whole lot easier.

[Denny]

b-b-but if I write like I talk will ya still recognize me?

[Nanohedron]

What I mean is that once the names start flying and the rules get declared, people get intimidated as all hell for no good reason. Nearly everyone already knows what do; the struggle is always to define why.

I've spent a reasonable amount of time coaching adults who have returned to school. They get something back from the teacher marked up with red circles and arrows and freak out. One of the first things I tell them is that they already know this stuff. They speak it perfectly. All they need to learn to do is make their writing match their speaking. That's a whole lot easier.

Which makes all the sense in the world. I suspect you're a good teacher.

b-b-but if I write like I talk will ya still recognize me?

Somehow I don't think you need to worry about that.

[Denny]

it's the beard, innit?

[Nanohedron]

I can hear it thru the pixels.