> >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

Well, yeah.

-Eric Sleator
Thu 7 Nov A.D. 2002