{
  "export": {
    "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/5475",
    "note": "Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright in each message remains with the person who wrote it.  Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact.",
    "addresses": "obscured as 'user at host'"
  },
  "archive": "urth",
  "thread": {
    "id": 5475,
    "subject": "Urth Digest, Vol 59, Issue 24",
    "messages": 3,
    "voices": 3,
    "first": "2009-07-30T21:25:13+00:00",
    "last": "2009-07-31T02:47:19+00:00"
  },
  "messages": [
    {
      "message_id": "<ccc836b60907301425u3b44ca9cxefcc02f58eaa85c1@mail.gmail.com>",
      "from": {
        "name": "Robin Dunn",
        "address": "bigbadgerjohnny at gmail.com"
      },
      "date": "2009-07-30T21:25:13+00:00",
      "subject": "(urth) Urth Digest, Vol 59, Issue 24",
      "in_reply_to": null,
      "reply_link": null,
      "blocks": [
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "The wikipedia article sites a number of sources, as in this 1:\n\n^ Walsh, Bill (2000). Contemporary Books. ed. Lapsing into a comma : a\ncurmudgeon?s guide to the many things that can go wrong in print and\nhow to avoid them. Lincolnwood, Illinois: Contemporary Books. pp.\n112?113. ISBN 0809225352.\n\n\nin this article:\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_infinitive#cite_note-Walsh112-1\n\n\nI too learned that 19th century grammarians introduced the skepticism\nregarding the split infinitive.  To my mind, it's not unlike the large\nnumber of words lifted directly from Latin and deposited in the\nEnglish vocabulary in the 16th and 17th centuries as part of the\nEnlightenment's fascination with the ancient world.  Anything Latinate\nhad to be better than anything Anglo-Saxon.\n\nThe same can be said for words of French origin - as the language of\nthe ruling class in England, it's words were seen as higher culture\nand therefore more preferable to the Anglo-Saxon roots.\n\nAs a usage question, that's exactly what it comes down to:  how do\npeople actually speak and write?\n\nOur rules are like laws, they change over time, and rules are made to\nbe broken.\n\nTo my mind, if a split infinitive severely hampers a sentence's\nclarity, it should be rewritten.  Otherwise it's 100% kosher.\n\nThem's my two cents.\n\n-Robin Dunn"
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 1,
          "text": "On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 2:11 PM, <urth-request at lists.urth.net> wrote:\nSend Urth mailing list submissions to\n? ? ? ?urth at lists.urth.net\n\nTo subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit\n? ? ? ?http://lists.urth.net/listinfo.cgi/urth-urth.net\nor, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to\n? ? ? ?urth-request at lists.urth.net\n\nYou can reach the person managing the list at\n? ? ? ?urth-owner at lists.urth.net\n\nWhen replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific\nthan \"Re: Contents of Urth digest...\"\n\n\nToday's Topics:\n\n? 1. Re: ?OT: split infinitive [was Re: torturing BTQ] (Milton Jackson)\n\n\n----------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nMessage: 1\nDate: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 19:29:02 -0400\nFrom: Milton Jackson <miltonwjackson at gmail.com>\nSubject: Re: (urth) OT: split infinitive [was Re: torturing BTQ]"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "message_id": "<200907302305.30076.ddjones@riddlemaster.org>",
      "from": {
        "name": "Daniel D Jones",
        "address": "ddjones at riddlemaster.org"
      },
      "date": "2009-07-30T23:05:30+00:00",
      "subject": "(urth) Urth Digest, Vol 59, Issue 24",
      "in_reply_to": "<ccc836b60907301425u3b44ca9cxefcc02f58eaa85c1@mail.gmail.com>",
      "reply_link": "header",
      "blocks": [
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 1,
          "text": "On Thursday 30 July 2009 21:25:13 Robin Dunn wrote:\nOur rules are like laws, they change over time, and rules are made to\nbe broken.\n\nTo my mind, if a split infinitive severely hampers a sentence's\nclarity, it should be rewritten.  Otherwise it's 100% kosher.\n\nThem's my two cents."
        },
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "I must disagree.  Split infinitives are something up with which I will not put.\n\n\nDan\n\n\nPS:  :-)"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "message_id": "<Pine.LNX.4.64.0907311246170.26329@orpheus.qimr.edu.au>",
      "from": {
        "name": "David Duffy",
        "address": "david.duffy at qimr.edu.au"
      },
      "date": "2009-07-31T02:47:19+00:00",
      "subject": "(urth) Urth Digest, Vol 59, Issue 24",
      "in_reply_to": "<ccc836b60907301425u3b44ca9cxefcc02f58eaa85c1@mail.gmail.com>",
      "reply_link": "header",
      "blocks": [
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 1,
          "text": "On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Robin Dunn wrote:\nTo my mind, if a split infinitive severely hampers a sentence's\nclarity, it should be rewritten.  Otherwise it's 100% kosher."
        },
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "to boldly split..."
        }
      ]
    }
  ]
}