New Here --Suspended from MAD for Arguing with DCP- Question

[_moksha]

So Shades, what's the deal with colons and semicolons anyway? Is the latter a partial obstruction or a complete blockage? I ask because I feel that the deft hands of a doctor are needed to address the impact of this sticky question.

[_asbestosman]

If you know any German, you would know that Shades' construction is correct in German, and it is also acceptable in English.

I know Dutch which is kinda in between German and English, but I can't think of any contructions that end with to. Rather it seems to me that the English phrase "have to" has nothing to do with infinitives but rather "have to" is a synonym for "must".

By the way, the web translated Shades' sentence as:
"Ich trage stolz den Titel Grammatiknazi, wenn ich absolut muß."

It ends with the German word for must. Same with Dutch.

[_Runtu]

If you know any German, you would know that Shades' construction is correct in German, and it is also acceptable in English.

I know Dutch which is kinda in between German and English, but I can't think of any contructions that end with to. Rather it seems to me that the English phrase "have to" has nothing to do with infinitives but rather "have to" is a synonym for "must".

By the way, the web translated Shades' sentence as:
"Ich trage stolz den Titel Grammatiknazi, wenn ich absolut muß."

It ends with the German word for must. Same with Dutch.

I stand corrected. "Have to" is idiomatic English. Either way, it's not technically incorrect unless you're anal retentive.

[_rcrocket]

They's a difference between intentionally abusing the rules of grammar for purposes of poetic license, and not. My style guides which drive me, as well as the professional editors I employ to edit my work, nix split infinitives as poor and ignorant usage.

See http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/ ... nfinitives.

[_barrelomonkeys]

I would like everyone to assume that I always use poetic license when I write. :)

[_Runtu]

They's a difference between intentionally abusing the rules of grammar for purposes of poetic license, and not. My style guides which drive me, as well as the professional editors I employ to edit my work, nix split infinitives as poor and ignorant usage.

See http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/ ... nfinitives.

Did you even read the guidelines?

Split infinitives are frequently [but not always] poor style, but they are not strictly bad grammar. In the example above, to avoid the split infinitive would result either in weakness (to go boldly) or over-formality (boldly to go): either would ruin the rhythmic force and rhetorical pattern of the original. It is probably good practice to avoid split infinitives in formal writing, but clumsy attempts to avoid them simply by shuffling adverbs about can create far worse sentences.

[_harmony]

Did you report Selek to the mods? I know he's been warned before. He seems to be one of the more inflammatory posters on MAD. I think toning it down would greatly benefit them. Making things personal tends to benefit no one in the long run in my opinion. To be fair, and I think you'd agree, you did a little egging on yourself. It doesn't excuse selek or anyone else, sometimes I've made things personal as well, but I digress. You've given a little as well, perhaps not as much to warrant a banning though, where selek is not also dinged in a similar way. After selek [wrongfully] said you would go to hell, the mods told him to cut it out. At that point he didn't apologize, but he said he'd stop addressing the personal issues. But after that you asked him several times to explain how why he thought you would be going to hell, you wanted to keep the fight going, so to speak, did you not? You demanded an apology at that point, quoting general authorities, etc. You still wanted selek to admit he was rude, or wrong, etc. This is after he had posted in response to several other people, so you knew he was around and just ignoring you and that likely ticked you off a little. Wade Englund tried to keep you in the thread at this point by inviting you to address his posts. You and juliann exchanged some barbs. You insisted on some points without referencing your source (this is a rule on that board). You were saying individual advice from a Bishop represents "the Church's" position, I and others disagree. DCP kindly answered your question several times, then he got tired of repeating himself and said "goodbye."

You were then reported to the mods for failing to cite a reference for your assertion. [Note selek and other somewhat inflammatory posters provide references.]

You then provided a reference, which actually agreed with the premise of both parties: that members should consult Bishops as well as scholars and books, etc. on matters troubling them. This source didn't say, however, that the Bishop's council is the law of the Church in regards to historical matters. Additionally, you provided SD with the information she needed, it was a great quote you found. I bookmarked it.

Then you made things personal again, putting words in DCP's mouth, thus the suspension.

I don't think it warranted more than a warning, but that's just me.

Check that, there was a post a few more down which the mods completely erased, saying it contained a direct personal attack. What did you say there?

Exchanging barbs with Juliann on MAD is suicide. MAD mods erasing complete posts is common practice. And last but not least, expecting substance out of Daniel, let alone kindness as you posit, is an exercise in futility. He simply has none to spare (kindness or substance). Now if you could actually discuss the thread in question, complete with the applicable conversation (for those of us who cannot view MAD), we could actually come to some sort of determination. But alas, I doubt it will happen. You are, after all, a MADite.

[_cksalmon]

They's a difference between intentionally abusing the rules of grammar for purposes of poetic license, and not. My style guides which drive me, as well as the professional editors I employ to edit my work, nix split infinitives as poor and ignorant usage.

See http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/ ... nfinitives.

Did you even read the guidelines?

Split infinitives are frequently [but not always] poor style, but they are not strictly bad grammar. In the example above, to avoid the split infinitive would result either in weakness (to go boldly) or over-formality (boldly to go): either would ruin the rhythmic force and rhetorical pattern of the original. It is probably good practice to avoid split infinitives in formal writing, but clumsy attempts to avoid them simply by shuffling adverbs about can create far worse sentences.

Split infinitives, like dangling prepositions, are aberrancies up with which I will not put.

[_moksha]

Which is correct: 'a person was laid on the table' or 'a person was lain on the table'?

[_Runtu]

Which is correct: 'a person was laid on the table' or 'a person was lain on the table'?

It depends. Actually, scratch that. The second is never right.