If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(io9)   If you want proof that the British are the ultimate grammar nazis, this 1871 Treaty hinged on Americans agreeing not to farking split infinitives   (io9.com) divider line 31
    More: Amusing, linguistic prescription, Americans, treaty, context-free grammar  
•       •       •

3005 clicks; posted to Geek » on 15 Dec 2013 at 8:04 AM (39 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



31 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-12-15 08:08:56 AM
That's the sort of arrant nonsense up with I shall no longer put.
 
2013-12-15 08:30:31 AM
Splitters!
 
2013-12-15 08:43:10 AM
Caught sayof?
 
2013-12-15 08:44:12 AM
What a load of bs. They settled the Alabama claims to prevent the USA from seizing it's Caribbean colonies.
 
2013-12-15 08:52:43 AM
Well done, Subby.

Control of grammar is used by most as an attempt to clearly record thought. By others, grammar is used as a "high stakes" assessment, an assessment designed to exclude the majority forcefully.

The latter group is made up of powerless nitwits.
 
2013-12-15 08:52:58 AM
I find this difficult to entirely believe. To stupidly ignore national interests something so petty just seems silly. I am going to have to quietly research this some more.
 
2013-12-15 09:09:52 AM

whistleridge: I find this difficult to entirely believe. To stupidly ignore national interests something so petty just seems silly. I am going to have to quietly research this some more.


It doesn't take a genius to clearly see what you did there.
 
2013-12-15 09:16:04 AM
Subby, I think you need to learn how to correctly spell "if" before you write any more headlines.  It's a two letter word.
 
2013-12-15 09:25:15 AM
i had to quickly scan the article and I may have missed the point.Can someone help me out by explaining it; becuse i want to clearly understand it. Its important to correctly use grammer and speling in posts.
 
2013-12-15 09:30:19 AM
I you want proof two damit
 
2013-12-15 09:36:55 AM
To be or not to be, that was the question.
 
2013-12-15 09:46:58 AM
Two infinitives and beyond!
 
2013-12-15 10:04:25 AM
American legal documents and grammar don't have a great track record. The 2nd amendment, anyone?
 
2013-12-15 10:27:04 AM
I you?
 
2013-12-15 10:47:22 AM
Pity modern parlance has dropped this bunching of linguistic panties.
 
2013-12-15 10:48:04 AM

r1niceboy: American legal documents and grammar don't have a great track record. The 2nd amendment, anyone?


And the National Electrical Code.
 
2013-12-15 10:50:59 AM

r1niceboy: American legal documents and grammar don't have a great track record. The 2nd amendment, anyone?


What do you have against an ablative absolute?
 
2013-12-15 11:16:04 AM
To go boldly.
 
2013-12-15 11:35:30 AM
Too bad they don't comprehend the difference between standing in a line (queue) and standing ON a line.
 
2013-12-15 11:53:28 AM
That would depend on the interpreters understanding that that the ablative absolute means the two are joined, each begetting the other. It's a typical Latin device used because the didn't have the word 'because.' However, we have readers who see the militia statement as an extension of the arms freedom, neglecting to cede that one right exists because of the need for the former. Grammatically correct, the 2nd amendment's interpretation has since become to be understood on that sentence being an introduction and and operative.

The grammar is fine, except in the minds of most current readers.
 
2013-12-15 11:54:19 AM
To boldly go where no grammar nazi has gone before.
 
2013-12-15 12:16:44 PM

r1niceboy: That would depend on the interpreters understanding that that the ablative absolute means the two are joined, each begetting the other. It's a typical Latin device used because the didn't have the word 'because.' However, we have readers who see the militia statement as an extension of the arms freedom, neglecting to cede that one right exists because of the need for the former. Grammatically correct, the 2nd amendment's interpretation has since become to be understood on that sentence being an introduction and and operative.

The grammar is fine, except in the minds of most current readers.


While it's grammatically, historically, and logically correct, your analysis will be ignored. You've seen the flaming hoops they jump through in order to falsely claim that well regulated does not, in fact, mean well regulated.
 
2013-12-15 12:30:11 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: r1niceboy: That would depend on the interpreters understanding that that the ablative absolute means the two are joined, each begetting the other. It's a typical Latin device used because the didn't have the word 'because.' However, we have readers who see the militia statement as an extension of the arms freedom, neglecting to cede that one right exists because of the need for the former. Grammatically correct, the 2nd amendment's interpretation has since become to be understood on that sentence being an introduction and and operative.

The grammar is fine, except in the minds of most current readers.

While it's grammatically, historically, and logically correct, your analysis will be ignored. You've seen the flaming hoops they jump through in order to falsely claim that well regulated does not, in fact, mean well regulated.


or regulated at all.
 
2013-12-15 12:57:41 PM

r1niceboy: demaL-demaL-yeH: r1niceboy: That would depend on the interpreters understanding that that the ablative absolute means the two are joined, each begetting the other. It's a typical Latin device used because the didn't have the word 'because.' However, we have readers who see the militia statement as an extension of the arms freedom, neglecting to cede that one right exists because of the need for the former. Grammatically correct, the 2nd amendment's interpretation has since become to be understood on that sentence being an introduction and and operative.

The grammar is fine, except in the minds of most current readers.

While it's grammatically, historically, and logically correct, your analysis will be ignored. You've seen the flaming hoops they jump through in order to falsely claim that well regulated does not, in fact, mean well regulated.

or regulated at all.


I considered and rejected writing, "does not, in fact, mean, well, regulated."
I'm regretting that decision.
 
2013-12-15 02:45:28 PM
Dear subby, Nazis did not exist in 18whatever. Love, listernine.
 
2013-12-15 03:01:30 PM
i105.photobucket.com
 
2013-12-15 03:44:39 PM
THIS IS WHY I LOVE AMERICA. SUCK IT BRITS.
 
2013-12-15 05:01:05 PM
Harping on split infinitives is one of the most annoying types of conservative behavior.  I don't mean political necessarily, but it's just a way to make cool sentences and people get their panties in such a bunch over anything new
 
2013-12-15 11:12:00 PM
You know who else was a Nazi?
 
2013-12-16 02:50:32 AM
As someone who (all Bill Clinton-esque) has sat looking at legislation trying to clarify the meaning of words like "that" and "with" (seriously) I kind of feel them.
 
2013-12-16 12:14:38 PM

gozar_the_destroyer: r1niceboy: American legal documents and grammar don't have a great track record. The 2nd amendment, anyone?

And the National Electrical Code.


The NEC was written as a bet, to see how many people they could get to tear out their own eyes.
 
Displayed 31 of 31 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report