Comments on: Context

By: pj

pj — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 11:45:32 +0000

Updates have been made, in reply to this (yes, sorry, Deb, thin-skinned and unnecessarily defensive) post, and comments are now open on the Language Log entry in question, by the way, if anyone really wants to take it up there.

By: Splitting hairs « Mighty Red Pen

Splitting hairs « Mighty Red Pen — Wed, 28 May 2008 22:32:03 +0000

[…] Log post got the party started (read the comments, too) and then check out the post on the blog Punctuality Rules! that kept it going all night long. And at times like this, I like to conclude with the sage words […]

By: Shira

Shira — Thu, 08 May 2008 20:51:27 +0000

It’s an interesting thing… at least to me. I came here because of this post. Actually, I came by it the long way, from http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/mcintyre/blog/2008/05/splittists.html

… where this tempest in a teapot is further discussed.

So, are you too thin-skinned. Yup. You have set out here to point at examples of unclear usage and outright errors in the writing of people who aren’t usually in a position to defend themselves. That makes it really easy to take pot shots at your errors. I could do that, but I refuse.

Why? Because holding up the efforts of other people for your readers to criticize is NOT being too “nicely magnanimous,” as far as I can tell. If you want to be magnanimous, I suggest you find some people with actual difficulties with the language — difficulties that are holding them back from some of their goals — and help them improve.

THAT would be an interesting topic for a blog…

By: tim

tim — Tue, 06 May 2008 07:02:40 +0000

Too magnanimous. Advice about writing should only be given by people who write for readers who may choose whether to read their output or not. Academics have a captive audience. Ignore the man.

By: --Deb

--Deb — Mon, 05 May 2008 03:01:28 +0000

My main objection was that he based that entire post on a minor clause in a sentence in a book review. He wasn’t criticizing the review, but implying that I hadn’t read the book very carefully. Had he used my actual post on split infinitives as the springboard, that would have been fair. If he had disagreed with the actual review, that would have been fair as well. It was the tangental quality of his response that irked, like a driving instructor criticizing that your car is red rather than giving you his opinion on your K-turn…. (grin)

By: Andrew Carnie

Andrew Carnie — Sun, 04 May 2008 16:59:50 +0000

Geoff Pullum may be mean, but he knows what he’s talking about. He’s the author of the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, and a professor of Syntax at the University of Edinburgh. His book is worth a read, and is a far better grammatical description of English than S&W.

By: --Deb

--Deb — Sat, 03 May 2008 20:34:54 +0000

Actually, MY post was old (October 2007), but HIS was written the other day, 4/30/08.

It’s still frustrating, but I’m letting this go now… (grin)

By: J

Sat, 03 May 2008 04:16:53 +0000

I agree with Melissa, that he took one bit and misinterpreted it.

The fact that the post has been around awhile might be the reason for comments to be closed. I close mine after a few days, not because I don’t want good comments, but because spam appears on things that are OLD, and freak me out.

J’s last blog post..The Life Before Her Eyes

By: Melissa Donovan

Melissa Donovan — Fri, 02 May 2008 21:52:45 +0000

Sorry, after taking a second look it appears that blog has been around awhile, which only makes the closed comments even worse.

Melissa Donovan’s last blog post..The Free-Lance Muse

By: Melissa Donovan

Melissa Donovan — Fri, 02 May 2008 21:49:23 +0000

I would just blow it off but let’s take a closer look.

First of all, the blogger behind Language Log posted a negative review and closed the comments, which means he is not open to receiving feedback or allowing others to voice their opinion on the matter. This is poor showmanship.

Secondly, he’s wrong and you are right. In his fourth paragraph he blatantly contradicts his interpretation of Strunk & White:

the construction [split infinitives] should be avoided unless the writer wishes to place unusual stress on the adverb

So the rule, according to Strunk and White, is to avoid split infinitives but they do grant exceptions. I think then, that you are more correct in claiming that Strunk and White say “don’t split an infinitive.” While the Language Log guy has a point in that S&W demonstrate how this rule may be “violated” (and that quote is from S&W), when discussing grammar, I think it’s perfectly valid to emphasize the rules rather than the exceptions.

Deb, you are obviously stressing the rules while this guy is using the exceptions to try and discredit you. It’s not working.

Never mind that he took one minor line from your post and used it to go off on a tirade. No Deb, you are definitely not in the wrong here. Language Log looks pretty new. Let’s hope he learns.

Melissa Donovan’s last blog post..The Free-Lance Muse