h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Language is a living tool that responds and adapts to the way it is used. Whilst not wanting to sound like an apolgist for MS and its shonky business ethics, their apps are only designed to serve the needs of their customers, by and large businesses... and the default settings have to be set somewhere.

If you buy a complete system off the shelf, it's up to you and your reseller to decide what level of customisation you get (and pay for) before it gets to your door. If you install the sofware yourself, it's your job.

Whatsmore, it's really simple!

If you're using MS Word, go to Tools / Options / Spelling and Grammar / WRITING STYLE, here you get the following options
Casual, Standard, Formal, Technical OR Custom

Also via Tools / Options / Spelling and Grammar / SETTINGS, here there are about 25 tick boxes to tailor your to your needs

six7's

When a phrase such as 'which is on the table' is not enclosed by commas, this applies to that entity in particular (there *must* be another box somewhere in the room). Technically, it is called a restrictive relative clause. (The label is helpful if only because you can google for more info with it. I'm sure you know about how you can use inverted commas there )

When enclosed in commas the information 'which is on the table' is not used to contrast, i.e. there aren't any other boxes in the room. This is then called a non-restrictive relative clause, as it is not used for contrast. (Couldn't linguists use contrastive vs non-contrastive? I hear you ask. No, because being logical only confuses people ). Hope this helps.

Hmm. Much discussion of split infinitives and adverbs during my recent absence. Is this a completely futile discussion, I wonder?

Jack Naples, in both your examples, I would say there is absolutely no ambiguity in option 4 and that means exactly what you want it to mean. In the first example, that's exactly what I would say. Strangely, though, I wouldn't use that form in the latter case, it is really stilted and seems like the wrong place for the adverb. I've sat here for a while trying to decide what I would have said and why. I can answer the former: "They did not understand him completely". Somehow my internal parser avoids "failed to understand" in that example: perhaps for the very reason you offer it as an example. But I can't explain it and will have to think on it further. "They failed to undertand him", but "They did not understand him completely". Anyone?

I'm sure I've left some intervening posts unanswered, for which I apologise, but I have quite a backlog of e-mail to read.

Yes, but Plaguesville, you have to admit that it's a nice distinction you're drawing here. What's more, I'm sure you use the notional plural in some cases. Would you say 'The five pounds, they are on the table'?

Meanwhile, with the World Cup coming up, my Italian friend will no doubt tell me that England is going to lose to Argentina. I will berate him, saying, 'No, it's "England *are* going to lose"'. Well, you never know, they might manage a draw...

First of all a thank you to everybody, for stretching my brain like this. It's been in neutral for too long.

Hold on there, Manolan. 'It means what you want it to mean'. When you say it, absolutely. If "They failed to understand what he meant completely" is spoken, there are two meanings depending on whether you give 'meant' (meaning A in post 4152) or 'completely' (B) main sentence stress. The point is, I'm talking about written ambiguities, which are much more troublesome, for example when it comes to written law. If you receive that sentence in a written document, you do not know which meaning was intended.

I can see how this might seem contrived. This is a big problem with examples in linguistics. Please try to be charitable is all I can say.

I still think I would interpret the written word as you said you intended in your original post. I think the change in emphasis in the spoken word is actually disguising poor usage. This is one of those cases where lax usage creeps in and then actually causes more confusion than the original! Can't think of any other grammatical ones at the moment, but a favourite of mine is use of the word "disinterested". This originally meant "impartial", but has become more or less synonymous with "uninterested" in common parlance, to the extent that recent dictionaries list it as such (as a secondary meaning, thank goodness). I tend to use it in the original sense, but need to know my audience before I do.

I suppose the problem with dis/un-interested isn't strictly a matter of the meaning of the prefix used, but the double meaning of the word 'interest', with one meaning being the common one (fascinated, entertained, etc), and the other being the sense of having a personal or financial interest in some matter or other.
Once enough people abandon the latter usage in everyday language, it is easy for the dis/un distinction to become blurred.

We seem to have wandered off the track a little. Whether sentence 4 is ambiguous or just has meaning B (in 4152), sentence 1 is the only one of those five that unambiguously has meaning A. As was originally intended, this gives some credence to arguments in favour of splitting the infinitive.

Potholer said <>

Aren't those two meanings more or less the same? [The latter has connotations of 'vested interest', I suppose, but they still seem similar to me.] What about the return you receive on an investment; what's that called?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

The first kind of interest (mental interest) is the most commonly used form, and is very closely connected with the word 'interestED'.

Concerning financial or emotional interest, if we mean to convey that we have some kind of stake in company X, we would say 'I have an interest in company X', not 'I am interested in company X'. Given the former, one could assume the latter, but not vice-versa.

Usage in the verb form, even in financial contexts 'Can I interest you in buying some shares' also seems to be broadly indicative of mental interest.

But an interested party is one with a financial interest. (While an interesting party has ).

Not *necessarily* financial.

Since it's still the title of the thread, in which circumstances would you split the infinitive?

a) whenever
b) in casual conversation only
c) only when it looks/feels right
d) by mistake in hasty writing
e) never (except possibly in my example above)

May I add:

f) to make a point in a h2g2 thread about anti split infinitive tyranny

?

Just to say, this is fascinating! Keep it up, if they'd managed to get this levelof example / discussion going whilst i was at school i might have paid attention!

Ictoan learning all the time - and yes, I am managing to keep up with the conversation, so coming here must be having an effect!

But if you add f) that means you split infinitives less than never. Is that what you want? I'm kind of c) by the way - I'll use them casually, but tend to avoid them in formal writing (it distracts people - they fulminate and then you've lost them).

Watching TV last night, I was reminded of a phrase that always struck me as sounding wrong :
"Teams, you have 3 hours remaining"
but I'm unsure why it sounds funny.

However, "there are 3 hours remaining" sounds fine, as do all, the combinations of
"(you have/there are) 3 hours (left/to go/until the end of the contest)",
so I can't see why 'have...remaining' jars.

I wouldn't file it under 'wrong', but it's definitely odd. I think it's to do with the -ing form. It seems stranded somehow, and it's hard to know what its function is. It's adjectival, presumably - perhaps the problem is that it sounds odd after the noun.
Some other examples:
Team, you have one member missing.
You have no time remaining.
With the first, you can put the -ing form before the noun. That's not true for 'You have 3 remaining hours', is it?

Try the American version (steal) of the program aforementioned. They would want to weld a split infinitive if they found one.

Just for the hell of it, I think I'd add (g) which is "never, not even in the example given"!