>I don't really undestand why people think that
>some arbitrary form is automatically correct no
>matter what most people say, because the
>fundamental definition of any language *is*
>common usage, and I don't see how an
>ethereal "rightness" takes precedence over that.

Well, some people just enjoy rules. :-)

My take on the whole thing is that I'm fine with throwing out stupid rules that have no basis in logic or reality--such as the split infinitive rule. The ONLY reason English has a "do not split infinitives" rule is like you said--one day a bunch of stuffy people got together and said "English should be like Latin" and since Latin has single-word infinitives, you *can't* split them. So these people decided English infinitives should be equally inseperable, even though it *is* possible (and sometimes the much preferred construction--take note of perhaps the most famous split infinitive in the language, "To boldly go where no man has gone before") to split an English infinitive.

However, I firmly support "arbitrary" decisions that have roots in logic and word meaning. For instance, I can't *stand* "I could care less" no matter how much popular usage has made it "correct". WHAT YOU MEAN IS NOT WHAT THOSE WORDS ARE SAYING AND IF YOU THOUGHT ABOUT IT FOR MORE THAN A SECOND YOU'D REALIZE THAT!! Grrr. Also, the whole double negative making a positive thing. That is *also* a construct brought over from Latin. Before that time, the more you used a negative, the more negative the sentence became. So "Don't not do that!" meant "I really really do not want you to do that!" and not "Do that!" But this to me is an issue of what the words mean and the logic of the meaning, not a completely arbitrary decision somebody made. If you look at what the words mean and logic it out, "Don't not do that" MEANS "Do that" no matter what anybody says.

-- Dave