Nick,

Why was the following rejected?


…more than sufficient to offset the loses…


This seems much more logically structured.


Bruce

--- [log in to unmask] wrote:

From: Nick Carbone <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: You all probably know this, but what the heck . . .
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 09:36:25 -0500

In article that praises George Curme's 100 year old “Origin and Force of the Split Infinitive” (Modern Language Notes 29 (2), 41–45), Geoffrey K. Pullum draws this gem from Curme:

Curme makes one observation that I had thought much more recent: that in some cases infinitives must be split (unless you simply abandon the attempt to use the adjunct). He cites an example containing the phrase sufficient to more than offset the losses. It cannot be recast as *sufficient more than to offset the losses or *sufficient to offset the losses more than: These are ungrammatical.

(from htttp://chronicle.com/blogs/linguafranca/2014/12/11/george-curme-21st-century-grammarian/)

I like a good split infinitive and sometimes, by way of exercise, ask students to as widely as they can, and keeping to the guideline that what they come up with has to be intelligible only, split infinitives with glee.

But this is the first time I've seen an example of one  where it had to be split.

--
nick.carbone at gmail dot com
http://ncarbone.blogspot.com
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/