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.
