They say split infinitives are ugly, apparently. Were you saying Fowler would support the use of split infinitives, or just that it would make an appropriate blunt instrument with which to beat me? :)
Wikipedia has this (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fowler's_Modern_English_Usage) reference to Fowler:
Fowler's remark on the split infinitive is well known:
"The English speaking world may be divided into those who neither know nor care what a split infinitive is, those who don't know, but care very much, those who know and approve, those who know and condemn, and those who know and distinguish."
Fowler concludes that split infinitives should not attract as much attention as they do, and says that they are indeed sometimes the best way to express one's meaning. See the split infinitive article for further discussion.
In general, Fowler is a voice(s) of reason amongst many proscriptive grammarian voices. Whereas they claim there is a single "correct English", he freely admits that language is a tool to be used or abused as seen fit by the author, and restricts himself to documenting usage as it stands rather than attempting to change usage by condemning forms he doesn't approve of.
In the case of your clause, the split infinitive is indeed a natural way of expressing the correct stress with the least fuss. But you may have to defend that position against Pointless Pedants.
Note that splitting with a negation is sometimes considered specially, but that the general fix for it, that of moving the negation outside to the next surrounding verb as I posted below, in this case subtly changes the meaning. With some verbs it works unambiguously, but in this case are there people who don't consider the subject to be keeping up, or is there no one who does consider the subject to be keeping up. One is a stronger statement about whether the subject is or is not keeping up!
I've often found pages with fixed backgrounds have very unhappy scroll performance in gecko browsers on low-powered machines. I can't think of a single good reason for that... the implementation of fixed backgrounds must be really odd.
"not considered to be keeping up" would be okay if there's an excluded middle in the context it appears, I think. Though I'd be tempted to say somehting like "considered to be fallnig behind", :).
I think both of your phrases make sense, though they both sound awkward to me. But in the right context, I think they could both work so.
The second, I think implies a state/category "not keeping up".
There is a simple division between those who are keeping up, and those who are not keeping up. You are considered to be not keeping up.
Whereas the first it's more of a definite absence of a particular positive state.
There is a requirement that you keep up, that you maintain vigilence, and that you are trustworthy. Whilst you are considered to be vigilent, and you are considered to be trustworthy; you are considered not to be keeping up.
`if the question needs asking, the sentence needs rewriting' appears to have become my mantra. i think i'd say `considered to be failing to keep up'; although of the two you offer i'd pick the first.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-10 01:38 pm (UTC);p
(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-10 01:44 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-10 01:46 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-10 01:59 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-10 02:14 pm (UTC)They say split infinitives are ugly, apparently. Were you saying Fowler would support the use of split infinitives, or just that it would make an appropriate blunt instrument with which to beat me? :)
(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-10 02:44 pm (UTC)In general, Fowler is a voice(s) of reason amongst many proscriptive grammarian voices. Whereas they claim there is a single "correct English", he freely admits that language is a tool to be used or abused as seen fit by the author, and restricts himself to documenting usage as it stands rather than attempting to change usage by condemning forms he doesn't approve of.
In the case of your clause, the split infinitive is indeed a natural way of expressing the correct stress with the least fuss. But you may have to defend that position against Pointless Pedants.
Note that splitting with a negation is sometimes considered specially, but that the general fix for it, that of moving the negation outside to the next surrounding verb as I posted below, in this case subtly changes the meaning. With some verbs it works unambiguously, but in this case are there people who don't consider the subject to be keeping up, or is there no one who does consider the subject to be keeping up. One is a stronger statement about whether the subject is or is not keeping up!
(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-10 01:56 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-10 02:14 pm (UTC)(Is it just be or do these S2 styles really drag. Firebird on a P120 takes *ages* to render, then vertical scroll down them.)
(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-10 02:17 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-10 02:26 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-10 03:55 pm (UTC)Though I'd be tempted to say somehting like "considered to be fallnig behind", :).
I think both of your phrases make sense, though they both sound awkward to me. But in the right context, I think they could both work so.
The second, I think implies a state/category "not keeping up".
There is a simple division between those who are keeping up, and those who are not keeping up. You are considered to be not keeping up.
Whereas the first it's more of a definite absence of a particular positive state.
There is a requirement that you keep up, that you maintain vigilence, and that you are trustworthy. Whilst you are considered to be vigilent, and you are considered to be trustworthy; you are considered not to be keeping up.
I'd still not start from here, though, :).
(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-10 05:48 pm (UTC)*laughs* I'd forgotten that phrase :)
And yes, you could be right...
(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-11 01:13 am (UTC)-m-
(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-11 04:15 am (UTC)I'm reminded of the Churchillian 'up with more I will not put'.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-11 05:24 am (UTC)*goes away to look up preposition*