torturing BTQ

Jerry Friedman · 23 Jul 2009, 20:10 · from 2009-July.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: jerry_friedman at yahoo.com (Jerry Friedman)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 13:10:16 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: (urth) torturing BTQ
Message-ID: <458020.50246.qm at web50709.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

--- On Thu, 7/23/09, James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com> wrote:

...

> I'm categorizing this so-called
> error with the Split Infinitive rule
> (http://www.newdream.net/~scully/toelw/Lowth.htm).
...

Speaking of pet peeves, that article hit one of mine.
Lowth's grammar book never mentions split infinitives.
Yes, I read the whole book looking for that.  Everything
I know about split infinitives (and some things other
people know) is at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_infinitive

On the subject of ending sentences with prepositions, I
quoted at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Lowth

what Lowth actually said, which isn't exactly what Scott E.
Kapel's article (linked to above) might lead you to think.
(If you can read the gray on black.)

I'd say BTQ is what Bryan Garner calls "skunked".
Whichever sense you use it in, people will misunderstand
or criticize you.  When it's used to mean a logical
fallacy, I don't remember seeing it with the question in
apposition.

Jerry Friedman

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net