BS: Son of Star Wars

Subject: RE: BS: Son of Star Wars
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Aug 01 - 01:34 PM

If you're referring to John Bauldie, he passed away recently, being outlived by his hero (Bob Dylan).

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Son of Star Wars
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Aug 01 - 12:50 AM

Boldly go????

With William Shatner and Patrick Stewart, I thought it was "bauldy go"!

Subject: RE: BS: Son of Star Wars
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Aug 01 - 12:05 AM

Beauty, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Son of Star Wars
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Aug 01 - 06:34 PM

Thank you, Carol! That has to be the definitive and final answer on this vexing matter. And so...we can go on saying: TO BOLDLY GO WHERE NO MAN/WOMAN/or OTHERWISE HAS GONE BEFORE!!!!!!

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Son of Star Wars
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Aug 01 - 04:47 PM

"An infinitive is a verb in its simplest form, right out of the box. It can usually be recognized by the word to in front of it: Blackbeard helped him to escape. But the to isn't actually part of the infinitive and isn't always necessary: Blackbeard helped him escape. As a preposition, a word that positions other words, the to lets us know an infinitive is coming.

The truth is that the phrase 'split infinitive' is misleading. Since to isn't really part of the infinitive, there's nothing to split. A sentence often sounds better when the to is close to the infinitive: Violet decided to ask for a raise. But there's no harm in separating them by putting a descriptive word or two in between: Violet decided to bravely ask for a raise. Just don't go overboard. Not: Violet decided to for the first time ever and without even blinking ask for a raise.

Writers of English have been merrily 'splitting' infinitives since the 1300s, and it was considered acceptable until the mid-nineteenth century, when grammar books - notably Henry Alford's Plea for the Queen's English - started calling it a crime. (Some linguists trace the taboo to the Victorian's slavish fondness for Latin, a language in which you can't divide an infinitive.) This 'rule' was popular for half a century, until leading grammarians debunked it. But its ghost has proved more durable than Freddy Krueger."

--Woe is I, The Grammarphobe's Guide to Better English in Plain English, by Patricia T. O'Conner

Subject: RE: BS: Son of Star Wars
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Aug 01 - 03:57 PM

Yes, to spread out the word "contraction"...as in con traction...or con trac tion...is to grossly deny the word its very reason for being! Good thing you noticed.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Son of Star Wars
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Aug 01 - 03:38 PM

That should, of course, be contraction. Sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: Son of Star Wars
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Aug 01 - 03:37 PM

Yes, an apostrophee in the word its is annoying. However, an apostrophee in the con traction for it is is correct. But, if it upsets you so much, the OED says tis okay to split an infinitive. Happy?

Subject: RE: BS: Son of Star Wars
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Aug 01 - 03:29 PM

To deliberately use a split infinitive, and to consciously be aware that the use is deliberate...is to certainly irritate those who think that to deliberately do so is to entirely err.

A far more pressing matter is the constant improper use by most people of an apostrophe in the possessive "its".

It is on matters such as this that the fate of something very serious hangs!

Can anyone tell us what that something is? Bones? Scotty? Does anyone know? Spock?

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Son of Star Wars
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Aug 01 - 03:23 PM

You know, the OED says it's okay to use a split infinitive and so, I believe, does the Times Style Book. In fact, the only reason anyone ever thought we shouldn't split an infinitive in English is because you can't in Latin.

Subject: RE: BS: Son of Star Wars
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Aug 01 - 02:49 PM

Here's another nice one, with some memorable comments from Spaw, and a handy spelling lesson from GUEST, Greyeyes!

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Son of Star Wars
From: GUEST,Greyeyes
Date: 13 Jan 01 - 08:45 AM

You are all muddling up "Star Wars" with "Star Trek". The infinitive was split in "'Trek", as any fule no.

Subject: RE: BS: Son of Star Wars
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 13 Jan 01 - 06:11 AM

Le ha ha.... Ribbit.

Bearing in mind that the Enterprise uses navy ranks, then I would suggest that the other terms would be too.....

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Son of Star Wars
From: GUEST,Ribbit
Date: 13 Jan 01 - 03:08 AM

Mais oui monsieur, here in Paris we piss, how you say, "in the trough". De only problem we ave is getting the tourist to stop eating de mints. Ribbit

Subject: RE: BS: Son of Star Wars
From: Sorcha
Date: 13 Jan 01 - 03:04 AM

yep. 'Gin. The US Marines started out as a division of the US Navy,and even though they are a separate Branch of Service, now they are still affliated with the Navy. The Marine Corps is just plain weird........and I'm (pretty sure? LOL) that the Enterprise was a Marine ship, not Navy. Oh well. Matt would know, but I haven't seen him for several days.

Subject: RE: BS: Son of Star Wars
From: Amergin
Date: 13 Jan 01 - 03:02 AM

Sorry, accidentally pressed something or another...

Head as in: I have been in some tavern heads where one would practically have to be wearing a gumby suit just to take a piss...

or something like that...

Subject: RE: BS: Son of Star Wars
From: Amergin
Date: 13 Jan 01 - 02:59 AM

"Head" is a maritime term....

Subject: RE: BS: Son of Star Wars
From: Sorcha
Date: 13 Jan 01 - 02:43 AM

Liz, the "head" thing has to be because they were Marines....MarineSpeak is a whole 'nother language! (and I think jarheads are a whole 'nother race, too, LOL)

Subject: RE: BS: Son of Star Wars
From: catspaw49
Date: 13 Jan 01 - 12:22 AM

Geez, not The Hague........Must be a thousand urinals there alone and the Shatner Super Squirter will be in high demand in a place like that! No, better Paris where they piss in a trough anyway..............

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Son of Star Wars
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 13 Jan 01 - 12:18 AM

That's it, I'm defecting to the Klingons. Always had a thing for that Worf......

LTS

And the old Enterprise didn't have toilets, the new one had a door just off the captains' ready room, marked 'Head'

Subject: RE: BS: Son of Star Wars
From: John Routledge
Date: 12 Jan 01 - 08:53 PM

More likely GOODNIGHT HAGUE GB

Subject: RE: BS: Son of Star Wars
From: catspaw49
Date: 12 Jan 01 - 08:23 PM

Gee, I hope not Morty......I think my "Shatner Squirter" would sell better in Vienna.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Son of Star Wars
From: Morticia
Date: 12 Jan 01 - 08:13 PM

Are you sure you don't mean 'Goodnight Vienna?'

Subject: RE: BS: Son of Star Wars
From: Lady McMoo
Date: 12 Jan 01 - 07:43 PM

I am much reassured by The Mekon's warm endorsement. This will surely help in preventing his party being elected later this year.

mcmoo

Subject: RE: BS: Son of Star Wars
From: catspaw49
Date: 12 Jan 01 - 07:39 PM

When I have to "go," I can guarantee I both go boldly to the head and then boldly go. Hmmmmmmmm.............Just thinkin' about this.........Maybe that's what they need in the bottom of urinals instead of the little screens and "Pee-Whirrly" propeller jobbies..........They could make a screen with William Shatner's face on it as an aid to guys with prostate trouble........BOLDLY GO emblazoned right above Bill's rug..............Hmmm.....might sell..................

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Son of Star Wars
From: Mooh
Date: 12 Jan 01 - 07:27 PM

Split infinitive, ain't it? Mooh.

Subject: RE: BS: Son of Star Wars
From: SINSULL
Date: 12 Jan 01 - 07:16 PM

Can we "...go boldly..." this time. "To boldly go" is grammatically and possibly factually incorrect.

Subject: RE: BS: Son of Star Wars
From: catspaw49
Date: 12 Jan 01 - 07:07 PM

................"GOODBYE PARIS".................

Your point being..........what?

Spaw

Subject: Son of Star Wars
From: Linda Kelly
Date: 12 Jan 01 - 03:45 PM

I watched with interest on the BBC today that William Hague has endorsed the much talked about space defence system that the Americans hope to develop targetting potential rogue countries to protect herself and her allies.

I do hope its more accurate than the systems in place in the Gulf War-or it's Goodbye Paris!!