the finite infinitive

Not to be or to not be that is the topic in question. What does this splitting of the infinitive or its verb say about the misuse of language? It is not merely ignorance, laziness or the declining use of the English language. Rather I think the implications go much deeper. An infinitive has infinite possibilities. It is raw, uncooked, off the leaf, the seed of future use but what can we say about this change in use...perhaps it's always been so, perhaps it 's a cultural trend to be noted and expanded to other areas of life. First one notices that the verb stands alone with its negation separated from its coded form, proclaimed by the infinitive to. Not to know is very much different from to not know... the emphasis shifts from knowing to the ever expanding 'not' of the speaker. One may deduce that this shift is an example of the effect of individual speakers strengthening the negation. We hear this in the sarcastic comment to certain activities.. I'm going to Europe, NOT. Something humorous comes out of this... we're being the butt of a joke.. with NOT the punch line. Quite similarly the negation from a distance is a play on language , a divergence from it with NOT becoming an auxiliary verb itself. Verbs are morphing into nouns and other parts of speech.

Recently I heard a foreign-born speaker who actually used the infinitive correctly which amazed me.. I thought it worth mention that native speakers in the U.S. almost categorically misuse this convention. One could explore the rise and fall of the English infinitive, NOT. Why bother most will ask? People understand what's being said! BFD, split the infinitive what's the harm? Everybody knows what is meant.

The contracting of language use is implicit in this one departure from convention. Convention thus becomes unconventional. The new language, the plain English movement has played its role. Parring down adverbs and adjectives seems to make more people sound literate.

Every infinitive split from its root source becomes a different verb. Using the the opening lines as a template, one can infer that not to be is conclusive, final, ontological, uncorrupted. A thing, state of being or action is NOT... In the modern use.. it is not the verb which receives its positive or negative charge from its infinitive form. With a split infinitive, the adverb turned auxiliary verb "NOT" becomes primary.. One might as well say to not makes 'not' a verb instead of a verb marker. Nothing new, English is endlessly flexible constantly flexing its muscles, inventing new words, changing the use of others.. nouns become verbs, verbs become adjectives.

But what does this splitting of the infinitive say beyond the lack of grammatical instruction in our society? Many things! First we are a pragmatic people. If you understand my meaning, who cares if you use the proper form in any case. Second I believe that putting the 'not' directly in front of the verb adds emphasis. I don't approve, but it's happening.. Infinitives are probably not going to be in the future. I hold the first view that this one example shows a larger problem. Anyone who understands pronoun cases in English ( as simple as pronoun cases can be) will daily cringe to hear for you and I, for she and me or him and me done went there. It occurs to me that correct use of pronoun case (and there really only two which can be confused: nominative and objective) is a direct consequence of the "whole language" movement. However,as we are a litigious society, a disembodied verb pre-empted by negation as if the negation itself had become a anti-verb, alone verb-like in its popping about, makes sense.

Which brings me to pronouns cases. Some one one asked me if I could explain it in 30 minutes, I knew she meant 15, hoping for maybe 5. I said I couldn't do it and didn't. It can be done in 90 minutes with 3-4 drills and then a quiz. I didn't have the time, she didn't want to spend it... so heck with it. You see a pronoun takes a verb in 3 ways: the easiest way is the possessive, almost always the easiest and most correctly used: mine, your, her, their, ours, its, the exception being the possessive before a participle (but that's another lesson). Simple one down, two to go: Nominative pronouns I, you, he, she, we you , they- the active doers work with verbs as the doers of the verb r the be-ers of the verb. Am I sounding pretentious. Too bad.

We can tag a pronoun onto the Subject-Verb and make it an objective pronoun and here's whereit gets tricky: Lisa called her,. They saw me. I saw Lisa and her. Lisa saw her and me, The objective case pronouns : me, you, him, her, they, your (p)them are almost exclusively direct objects. What the heck is a direct object... and why does anyone care. Good point. Stop reading, if you're bored, or in text-soeak if your board.

But these are only two of the many misuses we daily hear. Verb tenses seem to perplex many people.. I seen them, I have saw them... are a few examples of uses I often hear. This is often true with verbs expressing the primary states of being... to have, to be, to do with an auxiliary such as to have. I'm sure this reflects a deeper disconnect people have with language and existence. It's so simple, so logical once one understands the basic sentence structure of English. But why is such widespread misuse spreading and why does it continue to spread (or to continue to spread)with almost alarming rates.

Here is a superficial look at several common errors one hears everyday, both on television and in society. Homophones, homonyms and words that sound alike are often improperly used... It may be a simple as hearing loss.. as in the case of a Median Strip not a Medium Strip on a highway. Also note the use of bobbed wire and rot iron. More to the point there is the confusion over Cavalry and Calvary. Christ was not crucified at Mt. Cavalry. It was Mount Calvary. Here we have sorry example of the growing decline of historical perspective that is an after-effect of the secular humanist-linguist movement. Get real Lem who even knows where Christ was crucified.

Nothing so aggravates this writer like the subject-verb disagreement and improper pronoun use one hears on the major television networks from so-called educated people. People who as journalism students should have had a basic understanding of English grammar, usage and its parts of speech and their proper use. NOT. What are journalism schools teaching, body language, politically correct terminology or libel and slander law? But it doesn't end there... I've heard things from so-called tele-journalists that worry me. One Fox commentator referred to the American flag as the stars and bars... which is what the Confederat flag was called. Recently a Fox anchor called North Korea a tenderbox... instead of tinderbox... Either the sympathies of the reporter were in the right place.. or perhaps it was an unconscious double entender. For educated people responsible for reporting, such gaffs are unacceptable. Can anyone argue that not reporting the news in conventional English is a continuing source of language misuse across society.

So who cares? Nobody! This commentator will continue studying and enjoying the use and misuse of the English language. To not do so or not to do so would be laziness which is probably the root of all our language gaffs and not to do so would be a criticism that this writer is unwilling to admit. For one who loves language, the peculiarities and variances are a source of endless complaint and often joy.

More later or NOT.

Media Matters

Media matters

Recently I've been collecting misinformation, partiality and out-right lies from various media outlets, namely television news broadcasts. Point, there are biases in news reporting. In fact I dispute that there is any way not to report according to a given point of view: the Heisenberg Effect being my reference here. But there are also errors which make for humorous commentary.

My observation of media bias finally drove me to write about things I've seen and heard. I'll begin with June 6, 2010 and CNN. On DDay I was unable to find any mention of the importance of the date in our local newspaper. No kidding, not a word! Later in the day I began watching CNN at 6 in the evening- to be honest 6:30. From 6:30 to 7:00 CNN did a piece on Black-Jewish dialogues followed by a piece on Lebron James. Perhaps I missed the tribute to DDay that CNN showed. Perhaps there wasn't one. Still, CNN should have dedicated more time to this most important day in our nation's history.

On the day that President Obama first visited Louisiana to assess the damage done by the BP oil spill, Fox News made comments that 300 workers had been hired, albeit off the street, to make the President's visit a photo-op. Asinine! The three hundred individuals on the beach were most likely Navy Seals or some other elite branch of the military. It would be ludicrous to send the President of the United States to a beach with 300 people who have had no security check. Shame on Fox for claiming that the President's visit was merely a photo-op, staged with complete strangers.

Several nights ago while watching Chris Matthews on CNBC , I was appalled. Mr. Matthews was blathering on and on about James Bond- I didn't catch the beginning of the piece. Matthews

blithely said (and I paraphrase here), "We all loved the James Bond books when we were kids. I read all of them." Now, Matthews may have been alluding to the works of Ian Fleming but his phrasing made it sound as though James Bond was the author. Shame on Matthews for disseminating what could be misconstrued as false information.

But it gets better, or worse:

Fox is not immune to idiotic comments. On Friday, July 2,2010, Doocey the younger was reporting on a huge American flag which is hung on the Brooklyn Bridge. After blathering on and on about the size of the stars (3 feet in diameter) and the stripes (five feet tall) Doocey referred to the American flag as the "Stars and Bars." No kidding- I nearly catapulted out of my seat. Just how dumb does a TV commentator have to be to mistakenly refer to the American flag as the Stars and Bars and not the Stars and Stripes. For Mr. Doocey's benefit and many others who do not know the difference, The Stars and Bars was the flag of the Confederacy.

Who are these reporters and where were they educated?

But here comes a true favorite. Recently our local television station ran a scroll regarding students from the Arts High School. The scroll said-and I got this verbatim-that the students would be going to Carnage Hall in New York. Carnage Hall! Obviously the person who wrote the scroll didn't know what carnage meant, had never heard of Andrew Carnegie and was completely oblivious to the error. By early the next morning, someone had edited the mistake.

Tonight one of the most mispronounced words in the English language caught my ear. Every time I hear this word mispronounced I want to grab the speaker and shake him. The word is cavalry and it usually incorrectly pronounced calvary. The irony of this is that most people who make this error don't know the significance of the word they are saying . A few other people with as much free time as I have will recognize that Mt. Calvary is where Jesus was crucified. In other words those who incorrectly pronounce cavalry, calvary need to be corrected and quickly, especially if they claim to be Christians. Or, perhaps they believe the calvary crucified Jesus on Mt. Cavalry.

People- the open area between two roads is not a medium- it's a median.

Finally and this one goes back to a radio broadcast about a famous rock and roll singer who was found dead of gunshot wounds in his family room. Ouch. You got to love those misplaced modifiers.

Please forgive any typos or other errors I may have made.

Lem

The Toylet and more

The all new cross between a Toyota and a Chevrolet will be coming soon to a dealership near you. It's called the Toylet. I hope readers will excuse this bit of bathroom humor but what a concept. Imagine a car that runs on poop. A car you can fill up without leaving the comfort of your driver's seat. Of course there is one tiny problem- emissions. But the Excrement Protection Agency (EPA) will certainly embrace and allow this daring new idea.

Only kidding folks.

Here's the heart of the matter. Many of you may know that years ago the state of Maryland and probably the United States had movie censorship boards which decided which films were suitable for public viewing and which weren't. Whatever happened to those boards? When were they disbanded? Has anything replaced them?

Today there doesn't seem to be any standard for films. Has anybody else noted how many films have not been rated and yet are coming to theaters near you? But the real question that confronts us is what happened to the Constitution that allowed such censorship in those days? Isn't it the same Constitution? When did it change? Who changed it? Why? Oh, I get it: it's the same Constitution only with a different interpretation? I guess it's the new and improved Constitution, upgraded for today's audiences. But is everything really new and improved? Could it be new and unimproved or old and unimproved? While you are wrapping your mind around that, have a nice day or maybe not.

ENTERTAINMENT AND LIESURE(sic)

I can spell but Fox News can't! Today, April 2, 2010, Fox News ran a scroll about the improvement in the jobs market as issued by the White House. One area which showed marked growth was (according to Fox) Entertainment and Liesure. Now was Fox making a joke of the president's comments or was this a spelling error made by the network. According to Lem- in this his first article under the new title Lem's Gems (formerly known as Lem's Corner)- Fox would do well to hire proof readers or at least people who can read and write the English language instead of filling up its air time with an endless line of pretty faces. Don't take that the wrong way. I like the faces Fox has hired but in the process, Fox is besmirching its reputation by not hiring editors and production staff who have some skills in the English language. This is the least a network that claims to be America's 'fair and balanced' network can do. By the way Fox- I'm available. I wouldn't be the first former teacher to grace the payroll at Fox, would I.

Here's a gem from the pen of Lem. Ever wonder what the advertising phrase "new and improved" means? Here you go: it means we (the manufacturers) have a new package (as in the 11.5 ounce pound of coffee) that has "improved" our (the manufacturers) profits. So that's what's new and improved.

Consider this: somewhere in this great land of ours there is a government sponsored program designed to find out whether woodpeckers get headaches from their pecking. Well, if there isn't one- there will be. Or should there be? Think of the positive benefits- we could find out what chemical in the woodpecker's brain prevents or cures its headaches. Isn't that something we could all agree is worth tax payers' money? The Entertainment and Liesure industry could sell this compound to all those who can afford to be entertained and liesurely.

I hope any and all who've read this enjoyed the humor of it. And don't forget to tune in for another episode of LEM'S GEMS.