5 ms·
Of course the author is playing with the very things she criticises, and other people’s linguistic peeves. Just look at how she ends the article on a split infi
by fhars 7y ago
Of course the author is playing with the very things she criticises, and other people’s linguistic peeves. Just look at how she ends the article on a split infinitive.
- ZeroGravitas 7y agoI'm not so sure. She does specifically mention that one earlier as a convention she doesn't care about or follow and does seem to wrestle with her own knowledge that the things she does care about are basically pointless, but still takes them seriously. English is so confusing you can easily read too much into it (eg. was she intentionally playing with the dual meanings of abysmal (terrible vs deep)? I don't think so, but couldn't swear to it.
- fhars 7y agoWell, she explicitly says that the question of split infinitives leaves her „nonplussed“, which I read as a deliberate play.
- arrrg 7y agoThat’s an obvious joke but it’s right in the middle of a section about things she is ok with but the generation prior to her wasn’t. It would be bad writing if she weren’t actually serious about those things.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- yongjik 7y agoTo be pedantic, if you mean this sentence: > But surely there’s a tattered nobility to valiantly fighting wars that we know we can’t win. That's not a split infinitive. It's just a regular proposition "to" attached to a gerund phrase(?) modified by "valiantly".