Split infinitives and apostrophe abuse

[Quattrocento]

I'm not sure whether to post this in AIBU, site stuff or pedants' corner, but here goes:

I move that all thread titles that contain apostrophe abuse and or split infinitives should automatically be deleted.

While leaving the mispelt ones standing?

nowt wrong with split infinitives, it's good English, just not good Latin.

Would you like me to suggest where your motion can boldly go?

Oh you think mispelt ones should be included? Okay then, mispelt ones as well.

Whats a split infinitive? (I know I should know)

I dunno. Id think a rule like that, might get in the way of some good exchanges. If u know wot I mean.

to strongly disagree
to boldly go

Arghhh, it hurt my fingers typing those, I'll have you know.

In which case, & I may be wrong, should your OP not read '...should be automatically...'?

I concur, but would like the addition

"unless started by a foreigner, because how many of you English posters can converse like that in a different language? Ey?"

OK understand this is painful Quat, but I still don't get it, why are those wrong? (I learnt to write in the early 80's when spelling wasn't important and grammer wasn't taught at all)

They're not wrong - it's a stylistic thing. As morocco said, it would be wrong if we were writing in Latin, but in English the general consensus is that it's a matter of preference as opposed to being correct either way.

Apostrophe abuse is something up with which I will not put. But no-one can tell me that 'To go boldly where no man has gone before' sounds as - well, bold, as 'To boldly go...' . Its a phrase that has entered the language because it sounds right - the unsplit version is weak and unmemorable.

Wonderstuff - grammarians used to insist that you shouldn't split infinitives in English because it would be Bad Form to do something that is impossible in Latin.

So you should write 'to go boldly', not 'to boldy go' in an attempt to make English grammar conform to the rules of Latin.

This is toss. Just happens to be that the rules were being codified at a time when the whole public school ethos thing was very strong, yer aristocracy had a pash on Ancient Greece and Rome and thought everything Latin/Greek was superior to English (and tended to bring home half of the relics of Ancient Greece from their gap years).

However, it still makes me feel uncomfortable - just because avoiding the split was accepted practice for so long splitting now just feels wrong. I blame my parents (darn grammar school education).

I dislike split infinitives but won't move for their deletion.

Abusers of apostrophes should be set lines with the correct version.

Incorrect spelling - tricky, it could always be a type which happens to the best of us!

Unless started by a foreigner? Only when the French start extending the same courtesy to me, although someone did try to correct my (incidentally correct) use of the COD the other day thus proving not even native speakers are always right.

I have no issues with split infinitives. Mostly because I don't understand why it should be wrong in English to split an infinitive. I like the freedom of word order that we enjoy.

I'm still waiting for a response on "should automatically be"

should be automatically sounds better too

That's not an infintive though, is it?

Infintive = to X

should automatically be deleted - the adverb is applied to the conditional verb 'should' meaning that what should happen is the deletion of threads and it should happen automatically
should be automatically deleted - this doesn't make gramnmatical sense - it's not what should happen automatically or referring to the speed of deletion unless you're using automatically as an adjective
should be deleted automatically - adverb is applied to 'deleted' implying automatically not manually

The compound verb here is "be deleted" - passive form.

We should automatically delete incorrect threads.
We should delete incorrect thread automatically.
Incorrect threads should automatically be deleted.
Incorrect threads should be deleted automatically.

Sometimes split infinitives give more feel to the phrase, imo. It depends on whether the splitting word is an extra descriptor of the verb - to be automatically deleted, puts more emphasis on the automaticness of the deletion, whereas automatically to be deleted doesn't really. I think.

Apostrophe abuse should be stamped on, hard.

Mis-spellings should also be trodden on, less hard because of typos and dyslexia. (love the irony of the fact that misspelled was spelled wrong above )

Txt spk titles should be instantly deleted, though.

am loving this thread

GrimmaTheNome/The FallenMadonna I am with you on this issue.

There is a bit of a war over this issue in the Beta household. DW insists on going through all my letters and emails before I send them and takes out all the split infinitives. Makes writing look stilted rather than free and expressive. Drives me bonkers, as it just does not look right. When I feel rebellious I put a few back into emails and just click SEND .

After 20 years of her corrections I still would not know what a split infinitive is if it hit me in the face.

thumwitch - there was a delicious irony in 'mispelt'.

I don't mind split infinitives, they add something to the style.
There is no excuse for apostrophe abuse.
And unless you've got a wind-up computer which is as big as a lorry, you've also presumably got a spell-check button.
Can we add text talk and lol-talk and huggy-hunny talk?

'should automatically be'
tee hee

Split infinitives are a stylistic choice. English allows it. Microsoft Word doesn't have a problem with it in the grammar check so it MUST be OK.

Apostrophes more painful. Perhaps poster could volunteer to proofread all posts before they go online on the understanding she only adjusts apostrophes.

at the idea that Microsoft is an expert on English grammar.