Discussion:
do something useful like clean your room
(too old to reply)
Yurui Liu
2019-11-10 02:32:14 UTC
Permalink
Hi,

Is "clean" correct in the following?

Why don't you do something useful like clean your room?

What is its part of speech?

I'd appreciate your help.
Jerry Friedman
2019-11-10 02:45:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yurui Liu
Hi,
Is "clean" correct in the following?
Why don't you do something useful like clean your room?
What is its part of speech?
It's common informal speech, at least in my American experience.
"Clean" is a verb, probably a bare infinitive.

It's not academic grammar, though. People who speak that way while
annoyed with their children might say "Why don't you do something
useful, such as cleaning your room?"
--
Jerry Friedman
Yurui Liu
2019-11-10 02:53:11 UTC
Permalink
Jerry Friedman於 2019年11月10日星期日 UTC+8上午10時45分31秒寫道:
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Yurui Liu
Hi,
Is "clean" correct in the following?
Why don't you do something useful like clean your room?
What is its part of speech?
It's common informal speech, at least in my American experience.
"Clean" is a verb, probably a bare infinitive.
Thank you. What is the part of speech of "like" there?
Post by Jerry Friedman
It's not academic grammar, though. People who speak that way while
annoyed with their children might say "Why don't you do something
useful, such as cleaning your room?"
--
Jerry Friedman
Jerry Friedman
2019-11-10 14:33:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yurui Liu
Jerry Friedman於 2019年11月10日星期日 UTC+8上午10時45分31秒寫道:
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Yurui Liu
Hi,
Is "clean" correct in the following?
Why don't you do something useful like clean your room?
What is its part of speech?
It's common informal speech, at least in my American experience.
"Clean" is a verb, probably a bare infinitive.
Thank you. What is the part of speech of "like" there?
An obvious analysis is that it's a preposition, in which case "clean
your room" is an anomalous noun phrase (which is why the example isn't
allowed in academic grammar). Maybe there are other approaches.
Post by Yurui Liu
Post by Jerry Friedman
It's not academic grammar, though. People who speak that way while
annoyed with their children might say "Why don't you do something
useful, such as cleaning your room?"
--
Jerry Friedman
Rich Ulrich
2019-11-10 07:36:37 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 9 Nov 2019 19:45:26 -0700, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Yurui Liu
Hi,
Is "clean" correct in the following?
Why don't you do something useful like clean your room?
What is its part of speech
It's common informal speech, at least in my American experience.
"Clean" is a verb, probably a bare infinitive.
It's not academic grammar, though. People who speak that way while
annoyed with their children might say "Why don't you do something
useful, such as cleaning your room?"
I think I parse it the same as if it were the first item
in a list of complete phrases.

like: Clean your room; mow the lawn; take out
the dog.

"Like" could be neatly replaced by "For example"
if there were a period after "useful."

Why don't you do something useful. For example,
clean your room.

If "like" is replaced by "such as", does "such as"
function as a conjunction? "Part of speech" seems
inappropriate for these "connectors", to my small
knowledge.
--
Rich Ulrich
Yurui Liu
2019-11-10 08:19:54 UTC
Permalink
Rich Ulrich於 2019年11月10日星期日 UTC+8下午3時36分44秒寫道:
Post by Rich Ulrich
On Sat, 9 Nov 2019 19:45:26 -0700, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Yurui Liu
Hi,
Is "clean" correct in the following?
Why don't you do something useful like clean your room?
What is its part of speech
It's common informal speech, at least in my American experience.
"Clean" is a verb, probably a bare infinitive.
It's not academic grammar, though. People who speak that way while
annoyed with their children might say "Why don't you do something
useful, such as cleaning your room?"
I think I parse it the same as if it were the first item
in a list of complete phrases.
like: Clean your room; mow the lawn; take out
the dog.
"Like" could be neatly replaced by "For example"
if there were a period after "useful."
Why don't you do something useful. For example,
clean your room.
If "like" is replaced by "such as", does "such as"
function as a conjunction? "Part of speech" seems
inappropriate for these "connectors", to my small
knowledge.
Is the following use of "clean" correct, when the main clause describes
a past event?

John did many useful things in the house, for example, clean his room.
Post by Rich Ulrich
--
Rich Ulrich
Peter Moylan
2019-11-10 10:22:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yurui Liu
Is the following use of "clean" correct, when the main clause
describes a past event?
John did many useful things in the house, for example, clean his room.
In a technical sense it's a borderline case. Some people will find it
correct and some won't. In any case, though, it's an awkward way to say
it. The minimal rewording I can find to make it more natural is:

John did many useful things in the house; cleaning his room, for example.

(Not that I would call that especially useful. Cleaning his own room is
only for his own benefit. Still, he should get credit for it if John is
a child.)
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Lewis
2019-11-10 15:17:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
(Not that I would call that especially useful. Cleaning his own room is
only for his own benefit.
Not according to any parent I knew. Or know.
--
Psychic convention cancelled due to unforeseen problems.
Peter T. Daniels
2019-11-10 19:53:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yurui Liu
Is the following use of "clean" correct, when the main clause describes
a past event?
John did many useful things in the house, for example, clean his room.
"Cleaning" would be better. Parallel with "things."
RH Draney
2019-11-10 20:42:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yurui Liu
Is the following use of "clean" correct, when the main clause describes
a past event?
John did many useful things in the house, for example, clean his room.
"Cleaning" would be better. Parallel with "things."
"Cleaned" would be better. Parallel with "did".

....r
Peter T. Daniels
2019-11-10 21:17:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by RH Draney
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yurui Liu
Is the following use of "clean" correct, when the main clause describes
a past event?
John did many useful things in the house, for example, clean his room.
"Cleaning" would be better. Parallel with "things."
"Cleaned" would be better. Parallel with "did".
That would be better with a new "he."
Eric Walker
2019-11-10 12:53:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yurui Liu
Hi,
Is "clean" correct in the following?
Why don't you do something useful like clean your room?
"Like" can only compare things with things--"Jane's house is like
John's"; it cannot compare a thing with an action. Thus, what follows
"like" in the given sentence wants the gerund form after it:

"Why don't you do something useful like cleaning your room?"

There, the gerund "cleaning" is properly likened to the noun "something".
Post by Yurui Liu
What is its part of speech?
It's a preposition.

(Incidentally, the sentence would benefit from a comma: "Why don't you do
something useful, like cleaning your room?")
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
Jerry Friedman
2019-11-10 14:29:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Walker
Post by Yurui Liu
Hi,
Is "clean" correct in the following?
Why don't you do something useful like clean your room?
"Like" can only compare things with things--"Jane's house is like
John's"; it cannot compare a thing with an action. Thus, what follows
"Why don't you do something useful like cleaning your room?"
There, the gerund "cleaning" is properly likened to the noun "something".
Post by Yurui Liu
What is its part of speech?
It's a preposition.
(Incidentally, the sentence would benefit from a comma: "Why don't you do
something useful, like cleaning your room?")
I'm astonished that you accept "like" here, since cleaning the room is
prominent among the suggested activities.
--
Jerry Friedman
Eric Walker
2019-11-11 11:40:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Eric Walker
Post by Yurui Liu
Hi,
Is "clean" correct in the following?
Why don't you do something useful like clean your room?
"Like" can only compare things with things--"Jane's house is like
John's"; it cannot compare a thing with an action. Thus, what follows
"Why don't you do something useful like cleaning your room?"
There, the gerund "cleaning" is properly likened to the noun
"something".
Post by Yurui Liu
What is its part of speech?
It's a preposition.
(Incidentally, the sentence would benefit from a comma: "Why don't you
do something useful, like cleaning your room?")
I'm astonished that you accept "like" here, since cleaning the room is
prominent among the suggested activities.
Hm? As I said, with the gerundial form, the sentence is saying that noun1
is "like" noun2, which seems unexceptionable. What am I misunderstanding
about your surprise?

Would anything be odd or wrong about something along these lines:
"Travelling by ship is like being in jail, but with the added possibility
of drowning."
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
Jerry Friedman
2019-11-11 22:23:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Walker
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Eric Walker
Post by Yurui Liu
Hi,
Is "clean" correct in the following?
Why don't you do something useful like clean your room?
"Like" can only compare things with things--"Jane's house is like
John's"; it cannot compare a thing with an action. Thus, what follows
"Why don't you do something useful like cleaning your room?"
There, the gerund "cleaning" is properly likened to the noun "something".
Post by Yurui Liu
What is its part of speech?
It's a preposition.
(Incidentally, the sentence would benefit from a comma: "Why don't you
do something useful, like cleaning your room?")
I'm astonished that you accept "like" here, since cleaning the room is
prominent among the suggested activities.
Hm? As I said, with the gerundial form, the sentence is saying that noun1
is "like" noun2, which seems unexceptionable. What am I misunderstanding
about your surprise?
I feel sure you've said here that a thing is not like itself, so
one shouldn't use "A is like B" when A includes B. However, I can't
find it in Google Groups, so maybe I made that up.
Post by Eric Walker
"Travelling by ship is like being in jail, but with the added possibility
of drowning."
Nothing odd or wrong. But hey, a chance to look up a quotation.
"No man will be a sailor who has contrivance enough to get himself
into a jail; for being in a ship is being in a jail, with the chance
of being drowned."

--Dr. Johnson
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter T. Daniels
2019-11-10 19:55:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Walker
Post by Yurui Liu
Is "clean" correct in the following?
Why don't you do something useful like clean your room?
"Like" can only compare things with things--
Where do you _get_ these absurd pronouncements?
Post by Eric Walker
"Jane's house is like
John's"; it cannot compare a thing with an action. Thus, what follows
"Why don't you do something useful like cleaning your room?"
There, the gerund "cleaning" is properly likened to the noun "something".
Post by Yurui Liu
What is its part of speech?
It's a preposition.
(Incidentally, the sentence would benefit from a comma: "Why don't you do
something useful, like cleaning your room?")
Different interpretations.
Mark Brader
2019-11-10 22:54:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Walker
Post by Yurui Liu
Is "clean" correct in the following?
Why don't you do something useful like clean your room?
"Like" can only compare things with things--"Jane's house is like
John's"; it cannot compare a thing with an action...
"Why don't you do something useful like cleaning your room?"
There, the gerund "cleaning" is properly likened to the noun "something".
I think the reason the original is such a common informal usage is
that "Why don't you do something useful?", although cast as a question,
may have the force of an imperative. So "clean your room", another
imperative, serves as a valid example of doing something useful.

Yes, imperatives don't normally serve as the object of a preposition
like "like". Normally, as Eric says, you need a gerund there. But
English is flexible; it finds a way to make things work.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "... people are *always* doing stuff ...
***@vex.net that I wish were typos" --Marcy Thompson

My text in this article is in the public domain.
David Kleinecke
2019-11-11 00:48:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Eric Walker
Post by Yurui Liu
Is "clean" correct in the following?
Why don't you do something useful like clean your room?
"Like" can only compare things with things--"Jane's house is like
John's"; it cannot compare a thing with an action...
"Why don't you do something useful like cleaning your room?"
There, the gerund "cleaning" is properly likened to the noun "something".
I think the reason the original is such a common informal usage is
that "Why don't you do something useful?", although cast as a question,
may have the force of an imperative. So "clean your room", another
imperative, serves as a valid example of doing something useful.
Yes, imperatives don't normally serve as the object of a preposition
like "like". Normally, as Eric says, you need a gerund there. But
English is flexible; it finds a way to make things work.
I think "clean your room" must include an infinitive
Why don't you do something useful like [to] clean your room?"
"to clean you room" is a well known type of noun phrase. But
this, of course, is not proper English today but it have been
once-upon-a-time.

So I conclude "like SIMPLE-VERB ..." is an idiom via an infinitive
phrase no longer used.
Lewis
2019-11-11 01:59:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Eric Walker
Post by Yurui Liu
Is "clean" correct in the following?
Why don't you do something useful like clean your room?
"Like" can only compare things with things--"Jane's house is like
John's"; it cannot compare a thing with an action...
"Why don't you do something useful like cleaning your room?"
There, the gerund "cleaning" is properly likened to the noun "something".
I think the reason the original is such a common informal usage is
that "Why don't you do something useful?", although cast as a question,
may have the force of an imperative. So "clean your room", another
imperative, serves as a valid example of doing something useful.
Yes, imperatives don't normally serve as the object of a preposition
like "like". Normally, as Eric says, you need a gerund there. But
English is flexible; it finds a way to make things work.
I think "clean your room" must include an infinitive
Why don't you do something useful like [to] clean your room?"
"to clean you room" is a well known type of noun phrase. But
this, of course, is not proper English today but it have been
once-upon-a-time.
You think? The idea of the "bare infinitive" is, as far as I know, one of
those "English should be like the perfect language, Latin, in all
possible ways" ideal of the 19th century schoolmaster. I don't think it
has any relevance to any English that was ever spoken.
Post by David Kleinecke
So I conclude "like SIMPLE-VERB ..." is an idiom via an infinitive
phrase no longer used.
You have some example of archaic uses with the "full" infinitive in
English?
--
"Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time."
David Kleinecke
2019-11-11 04:26:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Eric Walker
Post by Yurui Liu
Is "clean" correct in the following?
Why don't you do something useful like clean your room?
"Like" can only compare things with things--"Jane's house is like
John's"; it cannot compare a thing with an action...
"Why don't you do something useful like cleaning your room?"
There, the gerund "cleaning" is properly likened to the noun "something".
I think the reason the original is such a common informal usage is
that "Why don't you do something useful?", although cast as a question,
may have the force of an imperative. So "clean your room", another
imperative, serves as a valid example of doing something useful.
Yes, imperatives don't normally serve as the object of a preposition
like "like". Normally, as Eric says, you need a gerund there. But
English is flexible; it finds a way to make things work.
I think "clean your room" must include an infinitive
Why don't you do something useful like [to] clean your room?"
"to clean you room" is a well known type of noun phrase. But
this, of course, is not proper English today but it have been
once-upon-a-time.
You think? The idea of the "bare infinitive" is, as far as I know, one of
those "English should be like the perfect language, Latin, in all
possible ways" ideal of the 19th century schoolmaster. I don't think it
has any relevance to any English that was ever spoken.
Post by David Kleinecke
So I conclude "like SIMPLE-VERB ..." is an idiom via an infinitive
phrase no longer used.
You have some example of archaic uses with the "full" infinitive in
English?
The most obvious use of the bare infinitive is the imperative.

A more syntactic use is with "make"
They made John give the book back
They forced John to give the book back

The "to" prepost behaves like a modal auxiliary
They believe John to have been being watched by the FBI
Lewis
2019-11-11 14:29:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Lewis
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Eric Walker
Post by Yurui Liu
Is "clean" correct in the following?
Why don't you do something useful like clean your room?
"Like" can only compare things with things--"Jane's house is like
John's"; it cannot compare a thing with an action...
"Why don't you do something useful like cleaning your room?"
There, the gerund "cleaning" is properly likened to the noun "something".
I think the reason the original is such a common informal usage is
that "Why don't you do something useful?", although cast as a question,
may have the force of an imperative. So "clean your room", another
imperative, serves as a valid example of doing something useful.
Yes, imperatives don't normally serve as the object of a preposition
like "like". Normally, as Eric says, you need a gerund there. But
English is flexible; it finds a way to make things work.
I think "clean your room" must include an infinitive
Why don't you do something useful like [to] clean your room?"
"to clean you room" is a well known type of noun phrase. But
this, of course, is not proper English today but it have been
once-upon-a-time.
You think? The idea of the "bare infinitive" is, as far as I know, one of
those "English should be like the perfect language, Latin, in all
possible ways" ideal of the 19th century schoolmaster. I don't think it
has any relevance to any English that was ever spoken.
Post by David Kleinecke
So I conclude "like SIMPLE-VERB ..." is an idiom via an infinitive
phrase no longer used.
You have some example of archaic uses with the "full" infinitive in
English?
The most obvious use of the bare infinitive is the imperative.
A more syntactic use is with "make"
They made John give the book back
They forced John to give the book back
The "to" prepost behaves like a modal auxiliary
Seems very much like some Latinophile decided "See, English DOES have a
proper infinitive just like Latin!" as opposed to 'to' being an auxiliary
for the imperative form of the verb.

The fascination with Latin has poisoned English grammar.
--
Greedo didn't shoot first, motherfucker!
Jerry Friedman
2019-11-11 15:32:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Eric Walker
Post by Yurui Liu
Is "clean" correct in the following?
Why don't you do something useful like clean your room?
"Like" can only compare things with things--"Jane's house is like
John's"; it cannot compare a thing with an action...
"Why don't you do something useful like cleaning your room?"
There, the gerund "cleaning" is properly likened to the noun "something".
I think the reason the original is such a common informal usage is
that "Why don't you do something useful?", although cast as a question,
may have the force of an imperative. So "clean your room", another
imperative, serves as a valid example of doing something useful.
Yes, imperatives don't normally serve as the object of a preposition
like "like". Normally, as Eric says, you need a gerund there. But
English is flexible; it finds a way to make things work.
I think "clean your room" must include an infinitive
Why don't you do something useful like [to] clean your room?"
"to clean you room" is a well known type of noun phrase. But
this, of course, is not proper English today but it have been
once-upon-a-time.
You think? The idea of the "bare infinitive" is, as far as I know, one of
those "English should be like the perfect language, Latin, in all
possible ways" ideal of the 19th century schoolmaster. I don't think it
has any relevance to any English that was ever spoken.
...

Are you objecting to all uses of "infinitive" in describing English, or
just to "bare infinitive"?
--
Jerry Friedman
Lewis
2019-11-11 17:52:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Lewis
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Eric Walker
Post by Yurui Liu
Is "clean" correct in the following?
Why don't you do something useful like clean your room?
"Like" can only compare things with things--"Jane's house is like
John's"; it cannot compare a thing with an action...
"Why don't you do something useful like cleaning your room?"
There, the gerund "cleaning" is properly likened to the noun "something".
I think the reason the original is such a common informal usage is
that "Why don't you do something useful?", although cast as a question,
may have the force of an imperative. So "clean your room", another
imperative, serves as a valid example of doing something useful.
Yes, imperatives don't normally serve as the object of a preposition
like "like". Normally, as Eric says, you need a gerund there. But
English is flexible; it finds a way to make things work.
I think "clean your room" must include an infinitive
Why don't you do something useful like [to] clean your room?"
"to clean you room" is a well known type of noun phrase. But
this, of course, is not proper English today but it have been
once-upon-a-time.
You think? The idea of the "bare infinitive" is, as far as I know, one of
those "English should be like the perfect language, Latin, in all
possible ways" ideal of the 19th century schoolmaster. I don't think it
has any relevance to any English that was ever spoken.
...
Are you objecting to all uses of "infinitive" in describing English, or
just to "bare infinitive"?
The latter. English certainly has an infinitive form, but not in the
same sense that Latin does with a few exceptions. Instead of saying
"See, English is like Latin, the perfect language" it would be more
accurate to say that English shares a few features with Latin which may
have come from Latin and may not have (There may be people who know
this, I'm not saying it is necessarily unknown).
--
At 20:43 the dome of St. Elvis Cathedral shattered... and the Devil
walked the earth again. He'd never really left.
Jerry Friedman
2019-11-11 22:28:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Lewis
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Eric Walker
Post by Yurui Liu
Is "clean" correct in the following?
Why don't you do something useful like clean your room?
"Like" can only compare things with things--"Jane's house is like
John's"; it cannot compare a thing with an action...
"Why don't you do something useful like cleaning your room?"
There, the gerund "cleaning" is properly likened to the noun "something".
I think the reason the original is such a common informal usage is
that "Why don't you do something useful?", although cast as a question,
may have the force of an imperative. So "clean your room", another
imperative, serves as a valid example of doing something useful.
Yes, imperatives don't normally serve as the object of a preposition
like "like". Normally, as Eric says, you need a gerund there. But
English is flexible; it finds a way to make things work.
I think "clean your room" must include an infinitive
Why don't you do something useful like [to] clean your room?"
"to clean you room" is a well known type of noun phrase. But
this, of course, is not proper English today but it have been
once-upon-a-time.
You think? The idea of the "bare infinitive" is, as far as I know, one of
those "English should be like the perfect language, Latin, in all
possible ways" ideal of the 19th century schoolmaster. I don't think it
has any relevance to any English that was ever spoken.
...
Are you objecting to all uses of "infinitive" in describing English, or
just to "bare infinitive"?
The latter. English certainly has an infinitive form, but not in the
same sense that Latin does with a few exceptions.
What are the things you'd call infinitives in English? I'm hoping to
argue that the "bare infinitive" is a lot like whatever they are.
Post by Lewis
Instead of saying
"See, English is like Latin, the perfect language" it would be more
accurate to say that English shares a few features with Latin which may
have come from Latin and may not have (There may be people who know
this, I'm not saying it is necessarily unknown).
Almost no modern grammarians think Latin is the perfect language
or want to demonstrate that English is like it, as far as I know.
--
Jerry Friedman
Lewis
2019-11-12 05:21:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Lewis
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Lewis
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Eric Walker
Post by Yurui Liu
Is "clean" correct in the following?
Why don't you do something useful like clean your room?
"Like" can only compare things with things--"Jane's house is like
John's"; it cannot compare a thing with an action...
"Why don't you do something useful like cleaning your room?"
There, the gerund "cleaning" is properly likened to the noun "something".
I think the reason the original is such a common informal usage is
that "Why don't you do something useful?", although cast as a question,
may have the force of an imperative. So "clean your room", another
imperative, serves as a valid example of doing something useful.
Yes, imperatives don't normally serve as the object of a preposition
like "like". Normally, as Eric says, you need a gerund there. But
English is flexible; it finds a way to make things work.
I think "clean your room" must include an infinitive
Why don't you do something useful like [to] clean your room?"
"to clean you room" is a well known type of noun phrase. But
this, of course, is not proper English today but it have been
once-upon-a-time.
You think? The idea of the "bare infinitive" is, as far as I know, one of
those "English should be like the perfect language, Latin, in all
possible ways" ideal of the 19th century schoolmaster. I don't think it
has any relevance to any English that was ever spoken.
...
Are you objecting to all uses of "infinitive" in describing English, or
just to "bare infinitive"?
The latter. English certainly has an infinitive form, but not in the
same sense that Latin does with a few exceptions.
What are the things you'd call infinitives in English? I'm hoping to
argue that the "bare infinitive" is a lot like whatever they are.
OK, "To boldly go" is now, and always has been, perfectly acceptable
and good English. It has been used for hundreds of years. So, is "to go"
a bare infinitive? Not if you define it as it is in Latin since it is
impossible to say "to boldly go" in Latin.
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Lewis
Instead of saying
"See, English is like Latin, the perfect language" it would be more
accurate to say that English shares a few features with Latin which may
have come from Latin and may not have (There may be people who know
this, I'm not saying it is necessarily unknown).
Almost no modern grammarians think Latin is the perfect language
or want to demonstrate that English is like it, as far as I know.
I should hope not, but there is still a couple of centuries of baggage
from that sort of thinking.
--
You are responsible for your Rose
Jerry Friedman
2019-11-12 15:12:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Lewis
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Lewis
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Eric Walker
Post by Yurui Liu
Is "clean" correct in the following?
Why don't you do something useful like clean your room?
"Like" can only compare things with things--"Jane's house is like
John's"; it cannot compare a thing with an action...
"Why don't you do something useful like cleaning your room?"
There, the gerund "cleaning" is properly likened to the noun "something".
I think the reason the original is such a common informal usage is
that "Why don't you do something useful?", although cast as a question,
may have the force of an imperative. So "clean your room", another
imperative, serves as a valid example of doing something useful.
Yes, imperatives don't normally serve as the object of a preposition
like "like". Normally, as Eric says, you need a gerund there. But
English is flexible; it finds a way to make things work.
I think "clean your room" must include an infinitive
Why don't you do something useful like [to] clean your room?"
"to clean you room" is a well known type of noun phrase. But
this, of course, is not proper English today but it have been
once-upon-a-time.
You think? The idea of the "bare infinitive" is, as far as I know, one of
those "English should be like the perfect language, Latin, in all
possible ways" ideal of the 19th century schoolmaster. I don't think it
has any relevance to any English that was ever spoken.
...
Are you objecting to all uses of "infinitive" in describing English, or
just to "bare infinitive"?
The latter. English certainly has an infinitive form, but not in the
same sense that Latin does with a few exceptions.
What are the things you'd call infinitives in English? I'm hoping to
argue that the "bare infinitive" is a lot like whatever they are.
OK, "To boldly go" is now, and always has been, perfectly acceptable
and good English. It has been used for hundreds of years. So, is "to go"
a bare infinitive? Not if you define it as it is in Latin since it is
impossible to say "to boldly go" in Latin.
There's been some terminological confusion. As I understand, a bare
infinitive is an infinitive without "to". "I forced them to leave" has
a "to"-infinitive and "I made them leave" has a bare infinitive. That's
why I said the "clean" in the OP was a bare infinitive.

"To boldly go" is what I'd call a split infinitive.

As it happens, split infinitives have not literally always been
acceptable and good English. The first known one was in the early 13th
century. They became more common--certain writers, such as John
Wycliffe, were especially fond of them--and then they nearly disappeared
for no known reason in the 15th through 17th centuries. There is one
(possibly two) in Shakespeare and none in the King James Bible. They
started coming back in the 18th.

The first known objection appeared in 1803 in America, and others
followed, but it didn't attract much attention till 1864 with Henry
Alford's book /The Queen's English/. Some of the early critics of the
construction gave no reason. Others said it wasn't used, or wasn't used
by the best writers. The first comparison to Latin may have been in
1896, and it gave another comparison as well: "/To have/ is as much
one thing, and as inseparable by modifiers, as the original form
/habban/, or the Latin /habere/."

However, a number of usage books have claimed that the objection to
split infinitives was originally based on Latin. None of the ones I've
seen give any evidence.

(Most of that's from the Wikipedia article, which I contributed a lot
to. Sorry, you pushed my split-infinitive button.)
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter Moylan
2019-11-12 16:32:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Lewis
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Lewis
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Lewis
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Eric Walker
Post by Yurui Liu
Is "clean" correct in the following?
Why don't you do something useful like clean your room?
"Like" can only compare things with things--"Jane's house is like
John's"; it cannot compare a thing with an action...
"Why don't you do something useful like cleaning your room?"
There, the gerund "cleaning" is properly likened to the noun "something".
I think the reason the original is such a common informal usage is
that "Why don't you do something useful?", although cast as a question,
may have the force of an imperative. So "clean your room", another
imperative, serves as a valid example of doing something useful.
Yes, imperatives don't normally serve as the object of a preposition
like "like". Normally, as Eric says, you need a gerund there. But
English is flexible; it finds a way to make things work.
I think "clean your room" must include an infinitive
Why don't you do something useful like [to] clean your room?"
"to clean you room" is a well known type of noun phrase. But
this, of course, is not proper English today but it have been
once-upon-a-time.
You think? The idea of the "bare infinitive" is, as far as I know, one of
those "English should be like the perfect language, Latin, in all
possible ways" ideal of the 19th century schoolmaster. I don't think it
has any relevance to any English that was ever spoken.
...
Are you objecting to all uses of "infinitive" in describing English, or
just to "bare infinitive"?
The latter. English certainly has an infinitive form, but not in the
same sense that Latin does with a few exceptions.
What are the things you'd call infinitives in English? I'm hoping to
argue that the "bare infinitive" is a lot like whatever they are.
OK, "To boldly go" is now, and always has been, perfectly acceptable
and good English. It has been used for hundreds of years. So, is "to go"
a bare infinitive? Not if you define it as it is in Latin since it is
impossible to say "to boldly go" in Latin.
There's been some terminological confusion. As I understand, a bare
infinitive is an infinitive without "to". "I forced them to leave" has
a "to"-infinitive and "I made them leave" has a bare infinitive. That's
why I said the "clean" in the OP was a bare infinitive.
"To boldly go" is what I'd call a split infinitive.
As it happens, split infinitives have not literally always been
acceptable and good English. The first known one was in the early 13th
century. They became more common--certain writers, such as John
Wycliffe, were especially fond of them--and then they nearly disappeared
for no known reason in the 15th through 17th centuries. There is one
(possibly two) in Shakespeare and none in the King James Bible. They
started coming back in the 18th.
The first known objection appeared in 1803 in America, and others
followed, but it didn't attract much attention till 1864 with Henry
Alford's book /The Queen's English/. Some of the early critics of the
construction gave no reason. Others said it wasn't used, or wasn't used
by the best writers. The first comparison to Latin may have been in
1896, and it gave another comparison as well: "/To have/ is as much
one thing, and as inseparable by modifiers, as the original form
/habban/, or the Latin /habere/."
However, a number of usage books have claimed that the objection to
split infinitives was originally based on Latin. None of the ones I've
seen give any evidence.
(Most of that's from the Wikipedia article, which I contributed a lot
to. Sorry, you pushed my split-infinitive button.)
Thanks. But when did the particle "to" in "to go" first appear in
English? It wasn't there in Anglo-Saxon days, as far as I know.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Peter T. Daniels
2019-11-12 17:16:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Jerry Friedman
There's been some terminological confusion. As I understand, a bare
infinitive is an infinitive without "to". "I forced them to leave" has
a "to"-infinitive and "I made them leave" has a bare infinitive. That's
why I said the "clean" in the OP was a bare infinitive.
"To boldly go" is what I'd call a split infinitive.
As it happens, split infinitives have not literally always been
acceptable and good English. The first known one was in the early 13th
century. They became more common--certain writers, such as John
Wycliffe, were especially fond of them--and then they nearly disappeared
for no known reason in the 15th through 17th centuries. There is one
(possibly two) in Shakespeare and none in the King James Bible. They
started coming back in the 18th.
The first known objection appeared in 1803 in America, and others
followed, but it didn't attract much attention till 1864 with Henry
Alford's book /The Queen's English/. Some of the early critics of the
construction gave no reason. Others said it wasn't used, or wasn't used
by the best writers. The first comparison to Latin may have been in
1896, and it gave another comparison as well: "/To have/ is as much
one thing, and as inseparable by modifiers, as the original form
/habban/, or the Latin /habere/."
However, a number of usage books have claimed that the objection to
split infinitives was originally based on Latin. None of the ones I've
seen give any evidence.
(Most of that's from the Wikipedia article, which I contributed a lot
to. Sorry, you pushed my split-infinitive button.)
Thanks. But when did the particle "to" in "to go" first appear in
English? It wasn't there in Anglo-Saxon days, as far as I know.
But "to go" isn't a thing. "go" occurs with "to" in various connections.
There's only a notion of "to go" because someone wanted verbs to have
"principal parts" like the Classical languages.
CDB
2019-11-12 19:31:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Lewis
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Lewis
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Lewis
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Eric Walker
Post by Yurui Liu
Is "clean" correct in the following?
Why don't you do something useful like clean your
room?
"Like" can only compare things with things--"Jane's
house is like John's"; it cannot compare a thing
with an action...
"Why don't you do something useful like cleaning
your room?
There, the gerund "cleaning" is properly likened to
the noun "something".
I think the reason the original is such a common
informal usage is that "Why don't you do something
useful?", although cast as a question, may have the
force of an imperative. So "clean your room",
another imperative, serves as a valid example of
doing something useful.
Yes, imperatives don't normally serve as the object
of a preposition like "like". Normally, as Eric
says, you need a gerund there. But English is
flexible; it finds a way to make things work.
I think "clean your room" must include an infinitive
Why don't you do something useful like [to] clean your
room?" "to clean you room" is a well known type of noun
phrase. But this, of course, is not proper English
today but it have been once-upon-a-time.
You think? The idea of the "bare infinitive" is, as far
as I know, one of those "English should be like the
perfect language, Latin, in all possible ways" ideal of
the 19th century schoolmaster. I don't think it has any
relevance to any English that was ever spoken.
...
Are you objecting to all uses of "infinitive" in
describing English, or just to "bare infinitive"?
The latter. English certainly has an infinitive form, but not
in the same sense that Latin does with a few exceptions.
What are the things you'd call infinitives in English? I'm
hoping to argue that the "bare infinitive" is a lot like
whatever they are.
OK, "To boldly go" is now, and always has been, perfectly
acceptable and good English. It has been used for hundreds of
years. So, is "to go" a bare infinitive? Not if you define it as
it is in Latin since it is impossible to say "to boldly go" in
Latin.
There's been some terminological confusion. As I understand, a
bare infinitive is an infinitive without "to". "I forced them to
leave" has a "to"-infinitive and "I made them leave" has a bare
infinitive. That's why I said the "clean" in the OP was a bare
infinitive.
"To boldly go" is what I'd call a split infinitive.
As it happens, split infinitives have not literally always been
acceptable and good English. The first known one was in the early
13th century. They became more common--certain writers, such as
John Wycliffe, were especially fond of them--and then they nearly
disappeared for no known reason in the 15th through 17th centuries.
There is one (possibly two) in Shakespeare and none in the King
James Bible. They started coming back in the 18th.
The first known objection appeared in 1803 in America, and others
followed, but it didn't attract much attention till 1864 with
Henry Alford's book /The Queen's English/. Some of the early
critics of the construction gave no reason. Others said it wasn't
used, or wasn't used by the best writers. The first comparison to
Latin may have been in 1896, and it gave another comparison as
well: "/To have/ is as much one thing, and as inseparable by
modifiers, as the original form /habban/, or the Latin /habere/."
However, a number of usage books have claimed that the objection
to split infinitives was originally based on Latin. None of the
ones I've seen give any evidence.
(Most of that's from the Wikipedia article, which I contributed a
lot to. Sorry, you pushed my split-infinitive button.)
Thanks. But when did the particle "to" in "to go" first appear in
English? It wasn't there in Anglo-Saxon days, as far as I know.
A-S infinitives had an ending to mark them, as in "habban", quoted
above. (Interestingly, to me anyway, "have" -- "habban" has forms with
"f", like the imperative "hafa" -- is cognate, not to "habere" but to
"capere", to seize.)

There is a "to-" prefixed to verbs in OE, still found in later
centuries, often to convey the notion of "apart" with verbs that
accommodate that nuance (OE "tobrecan", to break apart, "tobraedan", to
spread abroad; and I remember a ME phrase "the deil him todrawe"*, may
the devil tear him apart). With some verbs it seems to have had an
intensifying effect ("toclyfian", to cling to, "tocnawan", to recognise,
acknowledge). I suppose the original force of the prefix might have
been intensive, since that would account for the implication "apart"
when the verb already incorporated that meaning.

Drifting deep into speculation, perhaps the loss of the infinitive "-an"
was felt to be a disadvantage, and the ending was replaced in some
dialects by the prefix as a sign of that form. The fact that "to-" was
a prefix first of all would be a non-Latinate reason for the widespread
reluctance to separate it from the verb.
_________________________________________________________________

*I remembered the source as I was writing: "The Man in the Moon", a good
poem. In the last stanza the drunken speaker loses patience: "the
dumbass must be deaf, the Devil rip him up!" (I translate "cherl" as
"dumbass" even though the word is cognate to my name; that's just how
even-handed I am.)

http://www.luminarium.org/medlit/medlyric/maninmoon.php
Jerry Friedman
2019-11-13 00:25:22 UTC
Permalink
On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 9:32:28 AM UTC-7, Peter Moylan wrote:

[split infinitives]
Post by Peter Moylan
Thanks. But when did the particle "to" in "to go" first appear in
English? It wasn't there in Anglo-Saxon days, as far as I know.
The OED says,

History:—Beside the simple infinitive, or verbal substantive in -an
(Middle English -en, -e), Old English, like the other West Germanic
languages, had a dative form of the same or a closely-related noun,
which in Old English ended in -anne, -enne, in Middle English
reduced successively to -ene, -en, -e, and was thus at length
levelled with the simple infinitive, and with it reduced to the
uninflected verb-stem. This dative form was always preceded or
‘governed’ by the preposition tó ‘to’. By many German writers it
is called the ‘gerund’, after the Latin verbal noun in -ndum. In
modern English the functions of the Latin gerund are more properly
discharged by the verbal noun in -ing, and it is therefore more
convenient to speak of the Old English form in -anne as the
‘dative infinitive’ or ‘infinitive with to’. Originally, to before
the dative infinitive had the same meaning and use as before
ordinary substantives, i.e. it expressed motion, direction,
inclination, purpose, etc., toward the act or condition
expressed by the infinitive; as in ‘he came to help (i.e. to
the help of) his friends’, ‘he went to stay there’, ‘he prepared
to depart (i.e. for departure)’, ‘it tends to melt’, ‘he
proceeded to speak’, ‘looking to receive something’. But in
process of time this obvious sense of the preposition became
weakened and generalized, so that tó became at last the ordinary
link expressing any prepositional relation in which an infinitive
stands to a preceding verb, adjective, or substantive. Sometimes
the relation was so vague as scarcely to differ from that between
a transitive verb and its object. This was esp. so when the verb
was construed both transitively and intransitively. There were
several verbs in Old English in this position, such as onginnan
to begin, ondrǽdan to dread, bebéodan to bid, order, bewerian
to forbid, prevent, gelíefan to believe, þencean to think, etc.;
these are found construed either with the simple (accusative)
infinitive, or with tó and the dative infinitive. There was
also a special idiomatic use (sense B. 13a) of the infinitive
with tó as an indirect nominative, where logically the simple
infinitive might be expected. From these beginnings, the use of
the infinitive with to in place of the simple infinitive, helped
by the phonetic decay and loss of the inflections and the need
of some mark to distinguish the infinitive from other parts of
the verb and from the cognate noun, increased rapidly during
the late Old English and early Middle English period, with the
result that in modern English the infinitive with to is the
ordinary form, the simple infinitive surviving only in particular
connections, where it is very intimately connected with the
preceding verb (see below). To a certain extent, therefore,
i.e. when the infinitive is the subject or direct object, to
has lost all its meaning, and become a mere ‘sign’ or prefix
of the infinitive. But after an intransitive verb, or the
passive voice, to is still the preposition. In appearance,
there is no difference between the infinitive in ‘he proceeds
to speak’ and ‘he chooses to speak’; but in the latter to
speak is the equivalent of speaking or speech, and in the
former of to speaking or to speech. In form, to speak, is
the descendant of Old English tó specanne; in sense, it is
partly the representative of this and largely of Old
English specan.

Sorry, I didn't mark the italics.
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter Moylan
2019-11-13 01:06:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
[split infinitives]
Post by Peter Moylan
Thanks. But when did the particle "to" in "to go" first appear in
English? It wasn't there in Anglo-Saxon days, as far as I know.
The OED says,
History:—Beside the simple infinitive, or verbal substantive in -an
(Middle English -en, -e), Old English, like the other West Germanic
languages, had a dative form of the same or a closely-related noun,
which in Old English ended in -anne, -enne, in Middle English
reduced successively to -ene, -en, -e, and was thus at length
levelled with the simple infinitive, and with it reduced to the
uninflected verb-stem. This dative form was always preceded or
‘governed’ by the preposition tó ‘to’. [...]
Fascinating. Thank you.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Jerry Friedman
2019-11-13 17:05:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Jerry Friedman
[split infinitives]
Post by Peter Moylan
Thanks. But when did the particle "to" in "to go" first appear in
English? It wasn't there in Anglo-Saxon days, as far as I know.
The OED says,
History:—Beside the simple infinitive, or verbal substantive in -an
(Middle English -en, -e), Old English, like the other West Germanic
languages, had a dative form of the same or a closely-related noun,
which in Old English ended in -anne, -enne, in Middle English
reduced successively to -ene, -en, -e, and was thus at length
levelled with the simple infinitive, and with it reduced to the
uninflected verb-stem. This dative form was always preceded or
‘governed’ by the preposition tó ‘to’. [...]
Fascinating. Thank you.
I should add that since you asked when "to" was first used this way,
the OED's first citations for several subsenses are from Bede's
/Ecclesiatical History/, c. 890.
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter T. Daniels
2019-11-13 15:08:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
[split infinitives]
Post by Peter Moylan
Thanks. But when did the particle "to" in "to go" first appear in
English? It wasn't there in Anglo-Saxon days, as far as I know.
The OED says,
History:—Beside the simple infinitive, or verbal substantive in -an
(Middle English -en, -e), Old English, like the other West Germanic
languages, had a dative form of the same or a closely-related noun,
which in Old English ended in -anne, -enne, in Middle English
reduced successively to -ene, -en, -e, and was thus at length
levelled with the simple infinitive, and with it reduced to the
uninflected verb-stem. This dative form was always preceded or
‘governed’ by the preposition tó ‘to’. By many German writers it
is called the ‘gerund’, after the Latin verbal noun in -ndum. In
modern English the functions of the Latin gerund are more properly
discharged by the verbal noun in -ing, and it is therefore more
convenient to speak of the Old English form in -anne as the
‘dative infinitive’ or ‘infinitive with to’. Originally, to before
the dative infinitive had the same meaning and use as before
ordinary substantives, i.e. it expressed motion, direction,
inclination, purpose, etc., toward the act or condition
expressed by the infinitive; as in ‘he came to help (i.e. to
the help of) his friends’, ‘he went to stay there’, ‘he prepared
to depart (i.e. for departure)’, ‘it tends to melt’, ‘he
proceeded to speak’, ‘looking to receive something’. But in
process of time this obvious sense of the preposition became
weakened and generalized, so that tó became at last the ordinary
link expressing any prepositional relation in which an infinitive
stands to a preceding verb, adjective, or substantive. Sometimes
the relation was so vague as scarcely to differ from that between
a transitive verb and its object. This was esp. so when the verb
was construed both transitively and intransitively. There were
several verbs in Old English in this position, such as onginnan
to begin, ondrǽdan to dread, bebéodan to bid, order, bewerian
to forbid, prevent, gelíefan to believe, þencean to think, etc.;
these are found construed either with the simple (accusative)
infinitive, or with tó and the dative infinitive. There was
also a special idiomatic use (sense B. 13a) of the infinitive
with tó as an indirect nominative, where logically the simple
infinitive might be expected. From these beginnings, the use of
the infinitive with to in place of the simple infinitive, helped
by the phonetic decay and loss of the inflections and the need
of some mark to distinguish the infinitive from other parts of
the verb and from the cognate noun, increased rapidly during
the late Old English and early Middle English period, with the
result that in modern English the infinitive with to is the
ordinary form, the simple infinitive surviving only in particular
connections, where it is very intimately connected with the
preceding verb (see below). To a certain extent, therefore,
i.e. when the infinitive is the subject or direct object, to
has lost all its meaning, and become a mere ‘sign’ or prefix
of the infinitive. But after an intransitive verb, or the
passive voice, to is still the preposition. In appearance,
there is no difference between the infinitive in ‘he proceeds
to speak’ and ‘he chooses to speak’; but in the latter to
speak is the equivalent of speaking or speech, and in the
former of to speaking or to speech. In form, to speak, is
the descendant of Old English tó specanne; in sense, it is
partly the representative of this and largely of Old
English specan.
Sorry, I didn't mark the italics.
One would like to see how this discussion has fared over the century
or so since it was prepared. This probably precedes Jespersen's
historical syntax, and certainly Visser's, as well as reams of
specialized studies!
Eric Walker
2019-11-13 08:21:52 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 03:32:20 +1100, Peter Moylan wrote:

[...]
Post by Peter Moylan
But when did the particle "to" in "to go" first appear in
English? It wasn't there in Anglo-Saxon days, as far as I know.
According to Curme, in his _English Grammar_:

"The infinitive originally was a noun and had the inflection of a
noun. The infinitive without 'to' is the nominative or the accusative
of this old noun....The infinitive with 'to' was originally the object
of the preposition 'to', and we can sometimes feel the original force:
'Something impelled me _to do it = toward the doing of it_. We do not
now usually feel the 'to' before the infinitive as a preposition, but
construe it as the sign of the infinitive, so that we now employ the
infinitive with 'to' as the subject or the object of the verb, as once
the old simple infinitive was used....The 'to'-infinitive has in large
measure supplanted the old simple infinitive since it is a more
distinctive form."
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
Peter T. Daniels
2019-11-13 15:09:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Walker
[...]
Post by Peter Moylan
But when did the particle "to" in "to go" first appear in
English? It wasn't there in Anglo-Saxon days, as far as I know.
(Not his two-volume reference grammar)

Also written a century ago, quite possibly summarized from the OED.
Post by Eric Walker
"The infinitive originally was a noun and had the inflection of a
noun. The infinitive without 'to' is the nominative or the accusative
of this old noun....The infinitive with 'to' was originally the object
'Something impelled me _to do it = toward the doing of it_. We do not
now usually feel the 'to' before the infinitive as a preposition, but
construe it as the sign of the infinitive, so that we now employ the
infinitive with 'to' as the subject or the object of the verb, as once
the old simple infinitive was used....The 'to'-infinitive has in large
measure supplanted the old simple infinitive since it is a more
distinctive form."
Lewis
2019-11-13 07:14:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Lewis
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Lewis
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Lewis
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Eric Walker
Post by Yurui Liu
Is "clean" correct in the following?
Why don't you do something useful like clean your room?
"Like" can only compare things with things--"Jane's house is like
John's"; it cannot compare a thing with an action...
"Why don't you do something useful like cleaning your room?"
There, the gerund "cleaning" is properly likened to the noun "something".
I think the reason the original is such a common informal usage is
that "Why don't you do something useful?", although cast as a question,
may have the force of an imperative. So "clean your room", another
imperative, serves as a valid example of doing something useful.
Yes, imperatives don't normally serve as the object of a preposition
like "like". Normally, as Eric says, you need a gerund there. But
English is flexible; it finds a way to make things work.
I think "clean your room" must include an infinitive
Why don't you do something useful like [to] clean your room?"
"to clean you room" is a well known type of noun phrase. But
this, of course, is not proper English today but it have been
once-upon-a-time.
You think? The idea of the "bare infinitive" is, as far as I know, one of
those "English should be like the perfect language, Latin, in all
possible ways" ideal of the 19th century schoolmaster. I don't think it
has any relevance to any English that was ever spoken.
...
Are you objecting to all uses of "infinitive" in describing English, or
just to "bare infinitive"?
The latter. English certainly has an infinitive form, but not in the
same sense that Latin does with a few exceptions.
What are the things you'd call infinitives in English? I'm hoping to
argue that the "bare infinitive" is a lot like whatever they are.
OK, "To boldly go" is now, and always has been, perfectly acceptable
and good English. It has been used for hundreds of years. So, is "to go"
a bare infinitive? Not if you define it as it is in Latin since it is
impossible to say "to boldly go" in Latin.
There's been some terminological confusion. As I understand, a bare
infinitive is an infinitive without "to". "I forced them to leave" has
a "to"-infinitive and "I made them leave" has a bare infinitive. That's
why I said the "clean" in the OP was a bare infinitive.
That's what I thought, but I thought you had said "to <verb>" was "bare"
so I went with your terminology. Probably I misread. Sorry.
Post by Jerry Friedman
"To boldly go" is what I'd call a split infinitive.
Yes, most people would call it that and some people have been told it
is improper English.
Post by Jerry Friedman
As it happens, split infinitives have not literally always been
acceptable and good English. The first known one was in the early 13th
century.
When people spoke, literally, a different, albeit related, language.
Before the Norman Conquest there were no split infinites because Old
English had a single word infinitive, but from 1066 on to... I forget?
1500ish? Middle English was the language (well, French for the nobles
and Latin for the church) in England.
Post by Jerry Friedman
They became more common--certain writers, such as John Wycliffe, were
especially fond of them--and then they nearly disappeared for no known
reason in the 15th through 17th centuries. There is one (possibly
two) in Shakespeare and none in the King James Bible. They started
coming back in the 18th.
Fair enough. I still stand by the fact that they've been part of English
for hundreds of years and date back to the entirety of English even if
rare, though I didn't know they had gone away for quite some time. They
have never been what you would call common, I'll give you that. They are
still not common.

Are you sure about 15th through 17th? That doesn’t sound right. I seem
to recall in a previous discussion coming up with several from John
Donne? (though I cannot find them now)

I also think they are more common in spoken speech than in written text,
but that is just based on my impression of the language I hear. "To
finally|fully|completely|partially|etc understand" is one construction I
hear fairly often, for example, but not sure I've seen it in a book.
Post by Jerry Friedman
(Most of that's from the Wikipedia article, which I contributed a lot
to. Sorry, you pushed my split-infinitive button.)
No problem!
--
"Whose motorcycle is this?" "It's chopper, baby." "Whose chopper is
this?" "It's Zed's." "Who's Zed?" "Zed' dead, baby. Zed's dead."
Jerry Friedman
2019-11-13 15:37:04 UTC
Permalink
...
Post by Lewis
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Lewis
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Lewis
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Lewis
Post by David Kleinecke
I think "clean your room" must include an infinitive
Why don't you do something useful like [to] clean your room?"
"to clean you room" is a well known type of noun phrase. But
this, of course, is not proper English today but it have been
once-upon-a-time.
You think? The idea of the "bare infinitive" is, as far as I know, one of
those "English should be like the perfect language, Latin, in all
possible ways" ideal of the 19th century schoolmaster. I don't think it
has any relevance to any English that was ever spoken.
...
Are you objecting to all uses of "infinitive" in describing English, or
just to "bare infinitive"?
The latter. English certainly has an infinitive form, but not in the
same sense that Latin does with a few exceptions.
What are the things you'd call infinitives in English? I'm hoping to
argue that the "bare infinitive" is a lot like whatever they are.
OK, "To boldly go" is now, and always has been, perfectly acceptable
and good English. It has been used for hundreds of years. So, is "to go"
a bare infinitive? Not if you define it as it is in Latin since it is
impossible to say "to boldly go" in Latin.
There's been some terminological confusion. As I understand, a bare
infinitive is an infinitive without "to". "I forced them to leave" has
a "to"-infinitive and "I made them leave" has a bare infinitive. That's
why I said the "clean" in the OP was a bare infinitive.
That's what I thought, but I thought you had said "to <verb>" was "bare"
so I went with your terminology. Probably I misread. Sorry.
No problem. I may well not have been clear.
Post by Lewis
Post by Jerry Friedman
"To boldly go" is what I'd call a split infinitive.
Yes, most people would call it that and some people have been told it
is improper English.
Post by Jerry Friedman
As it happens, split infinitives have not literally always been
acceptable and good English. The first known one was in the early 13th
century.
When people spoke, literally, a different, albeit related, language.
Before the Norman Conquest there were no split infinites because Old
English had a single word infinitive, but from 1066 on to... I forget?
1500ish? Middle English was the language (well, French for the nobles
and Latin for the church) in England.
Post by Jerry Friedman
They became more common--certain writers, such as John Wycliffe, were
especially fond of them--and then they nearly disappeared for no known
reason in the 15th through 17th centuries. There is one (possibly
two) in Shakespeare and none in the King James Bible. They started
coming back in the 18th.
Fair enough. I still stand by the fact that they've been part of English
for hundreds of years and date back to the entirety of English even if
rare, though I didn't know they had gone away for quite some time. They
have never been what you would call common, I'll give you that. They are
still not common.
I'll go along with that, though I think they're getting more common. I
think the going away is interesting.
Post by Lewis
Are you sure about 15th through 17th? That doesn’t sound right. I seem
to recall in a previous discussion coming up with several from John
Donne? (though I cannot find them now)
I'm sure, and Donne was an exception, as mentioned in the Wikiparticle.
Post by Lewis
I also think they are more common in spoken speech than in written text,
but that is just based on my impression of the language I hear. "To
finally|fully|completely|partially|etc understand" is one construction I
hear fairly often, for example, but not sure I've seen it in a book.
Probably true. I wonder what the explanation is for the popularity of
"to better serve you" instead of "to serve you better" in advertising.
Post by Lewis
Post by Jerry Friedman
(Most of that's from the Wikipedia article, which I contributed a lot
to. Sorry, you pushed my split-infinitive button.)
No problem!
--
Jerry Friedman
Yurui Liu
2019-11-11 01:25:12 UTC
Permalink
Mark Brader於 2019年11月11日星期一 UTC+8上午6時54分52秒寫道:
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Eric Walker
Post by Yurui Liu
Is "clean" correct in the following?
Why don't you do something useful like clean your room?
"Like" can only compare things with things--"Jane's house is like
John's"; it cannot compare a thing with an action...
"Why don't you do something useful like cleaning your room?"
There, the gerund "cleaning" is properly likened to the noun "something".
I think the reason the original is such a common informal usage is
that "Why don't you do something useful?", although cast as a question,
may have the force of an imperative. So "clean your room", another
imperative, serves as a valid example of doing something useful.
Yes, imperatives don't normally serve as the object of a preposition
like "like". Normally, as Eric says, you need a gerund there. But
English is flexible; it finds a way to make things work.
Is the following correct? It has no imperative force:

John did many useful things like clean the bathroom.
Post by Mark Brader
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "... people are *always* doing stuff ...
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Peter Moylan
2019-11-11 01:53:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yurui Liu
John did many useful things like clean the bathroom.
Change "clean" to "cleaning" and it will be correct.

As somebody said, you can't use an imperative "clean" here because a
sentence like this can't have an imperative. Also you can't have an
infinitive "clean" here because "like" cannot be followed by a verb.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Yurui Liu
2019-11-11 13:26:51 UTC
Permalink
Peter Moylan於 2019年11月11日星期一 UTC+8上午9時53分15秒寫道:
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Yurui Liu
John did many useful things like clean the bathroom.
Change "clean" to "cleaning" and it will be correct.
As somebody said, you can't use an imperative "clean" here because a
sentence like this can't have an imperative. Also you can't have an
infinitive "clean" here because "like" cannot be followed by a verb.
The following is intended as a criticism. Is "clean" incorrect?

Why didn't John do anything useful at home like clean the bathroom?

I'm testing whether the matter really has something to do with
imperative force.
Post by Peter Moylan
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Peter T. Daniels
2019-11-11 13:53:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yurui Liu
Peter Moylan於 2019年11月11日星期一 UTC+8上午9時53分15秒寫道:
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Yurui Liu
John did many useful things like clean the bathroom.
Change "clean" to "cleaning" and it will be correct.
As somebody said, you can't use an imperative "clean" here because a
sentence like this can't have an imperative. Also you can't have an
infinitive "clean" here because "like" cannot be followed by a verb.
The following is intended as a criticism. Is "clean" incorrect?
Why didn't John do anything useful at home like clean the bathroom?
You're doing it again. No matter how many times you repeat the question,
the answer will not change.
Post by Yurui Liu
I'm testing whether the matter really has something to do with
imperative force.
It doesn't.
Yurui Liu
2019-11-11 14:19:35 UTC
Permalink
Peter T. Daniels於 2019年11月11日星期一 UTC+8下午9時53分30秒寫道:
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yurui Liu
Peter Moylan於 2019年11月11日星期一 UTC+8上午9時53分15秒寫道:
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Yurui Liu
John did many useful things like clean the bathroom.
Change "clean" to "cleaning" and it will be correct.
As somebody said, you can't use an imperative "clean" here because a
sentence like this can't have an imperative. Also you can't have an
infinitive "clean" here because "like" cannot be followed by a verb.
The following is intended as a criticism. Is "clean" incorrect?
Why didn't John do anything useful at home like clean the bathroom?
You're doing it again. No matter how many times you repeat the question,
the answer will not change.
Post by Yurui Liu
I'm testing whether the matter really has something to do with
imperative force.
It doesn't.
Someone else advanced that claim.
Peter T. Daniels
2019-11-10 14:26:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yurui Liu
Is "clean" correct in the following?
Why don't you do something useful like clean your room?
What is its part of speech?
I'd appreciate your help.
"Clean" is over-general. The child isn't expected to vacuum the floor,
scrub the scuff-marks off the walls caused by bouncing a ball, etc.
(not that children play with balls any more ...). The intent is the
same as the "pick up" (BrE "tidy") from a day or so ago. It is,
obviously, a verb, parallel with "do." ("Why don't you clean your room?")

As for "like," it means 'such as', so it might be a conjunction, but
"part of speech" isn't a useful concept for a language with hardly
any inflection (as you well know from Chinese, where "part of speech"
at best can refer to the function of a morpheme in any particular
construction).
g***@gmail.com
2019-11-11 05:51:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yurui Liu
Hi,
Is "clean" correct in the following?
Why don't you do something useful like clean your room?
What is its part of speech?
I'd appreciate your help.
Why not interpret "do something healthy" as an indefinite
pro-VP analogous to the indefinite pro-NP "something nutritious"?

(A) Why don't you eat something nutritious(,) like an apple?

In (A), "like" introduces an NP that functions as an example of
"something nutritious," an indefinite NP. Similarly, in "Why don't
you do something useful(,) like clean your room?," "like" introduces
a VP (headed by the verb "clean") that functions as an example of
"do something useful," which may be described as an indefinite VP.
Yurui Liu
2019-11-11 13:10:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Yurui Liu
Hi,
Is "clean" correct in the following?
Why don't you do something useful like clean your room?
What is its part of speech?
I'd appreciate your help.
Why not interpret "do something healthy" as an indefinite
pro-VP analogous to the indefinite pro-NP "something nutritious"?
(A) Why don't you eat something nutritious(,) like an apple?
In (A), "like" introduces an NP that functions as an example of
"something nutritious," an indefinite NP. Similarly, in "Why don't
you do something useful(,) like clean your room?," "like" introduces
a VP (headed by the verb "clean") that functions as an example of
"do something useful," which may be described as an indefinite VP.
Is the following correct?

You may do something relaxing like watch TV.

This is not a command but a suggestion.
Lewis
2019-11-11 17:54:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yurui Liu
Post by Yurui Liu
Hi,
Is "clean" correct in the following?
Why don't you do something useful like clean your room?
What is its part of speech?
I'd appreciate your help.
Why not interpret "do something healthy" as an indefinite pro-VP
analogous to the indefinite pro-NP "something nutritious"?
(A) Why don't you eat something nutritious(,) like an apple?
In (A), "like" introduces an NP that functions as an example of
"something nutritious," an indefinite NP. Similarly, in "Why don't
you do something useful(,) like clean your room?," "like"
introduces a VP (headed by the verb "clean") that functions as an
example of "do something useful," which may be described as an
indefinite VP.
Is the following correct?
You may do something relaxing like watch TV.
This is not a command but a suggestion.
I consider it incorrect. The comparison using "like" should be between
two nouns, so only "[something] like watching" is acceptable there, IMO.
Agreed, though the former is common and understood in speech.
You may hear, or even see, the other form often enough. Many people are
careless with language.
And when enough are consistently careless, you know the language has
changed. Unless the language is French, of course.
--
Watch your mouth, kid, or you're gonna find yourself floating home.
Loading...