Mechanics Forum

Hey, Matt! Thanks for playing! If it makes you feel better, almost everyone gets question two wrong. It is a bit of a trick, I suppose.

It is absolutely fine to split an infinitive. The reason we were taught not to do it is because the English language is based on Latin, and in Latin, it is not possible to split an infinitive---"to" is simply part of the verb. However, back when our language was being standardized, the great minds of the time noticed that translations of works that had been originally written in Latin never contained split infinitives, so they thought doing so was an error and put the ban on doing it in English. That rule has since been proven bunk, and nowadays all grammarians everywhere are cool with infinitives being split.

There is nothing wrong with using an adverb, Matt, just as you said. Adverbs are meant to describe verbs---if you can choose a strong verb, that's great, but if you really need to emphasize the action, you can go ahead and do so (like I just did with "really need"). We, as writers, are often taught to "show" an action rather than "tell" about it, but that is not always appropriate. I am all for team adverb. They are words too.

I suppose it depends on who you ask with regards to how wrong it is to commit gender bias. To a religious person, the all encompassing "man" is quite normal in a text, but then the Bible was written in a different era and several things that were okay then have since been redefined (or full-on outlawed, such as stoning people to death and other fun things like that). Using the genderless "man" is something we, as editors, are taught to "correct" in this day and age UNLESS we are dealing with a religious work (legal stuff might be an exception too---legal wording is seriously messed. It requires specialization to officially call yourself a legal editor). While perhaps some traditionalists may still employ the genderless "man," it has become quite rare, and is often poo poo'd upon by grammarians and readers alike. The Star Trek quote I used in that question has since been edited, too. If you listen carefully to Capt. Picard of the The Next Generation series (and the series' that follow it), you will notice that the phrased has been changed to "to boldly go where no one has gone before." This is a new-school rule, but one that would be corrected by an editor in most cases.

Part of being an editor means staying abreast of current language trends, and knowing when a trend has morphed into a rule. The English language is constantly changing---the meaning of certain words, usages, spellings, compounds, even new words are being developed---and we must change with it. While the rule about gender bias is still relatively new, it is considered a rule. If a rule is broken, it's an error.

Thanks again, Matt. And thanks for sharing your answers.



Come check out my writing website here: http://katmhawthorne.com, or my editing website here: http://www.movetothewrite.com