“Hopefully, the professor will be able to seriously take the work on which I am presently engaged, which is, I believe, rather unique.”
"Hopefully" modifies "be" and is relocated to reflect colloquial speech patterns. Banning split infinitives is a legacy of trying to bend English to Latin grammar rules. "Presently" is a synonym of "Currently".
To me, "to seriously take" sounds strange not because it's split infinitive (there's nothing wrong with that), but "seriously" is not just an ordinary adverb here: it's a complement of the verb _take_. "To take the work seriously" is a very different thing from "to take the work," while "to engage the work seriously" is basically the same as "to engage the work," except more seriously.
And I don't think "seriously" (or a similar adverb), when used as a complement of "take," could just move around freely. Just like you can't say "I away chased the dog."
When used in the present tense, presently is indeed a synonym of currently. When used in the future tense—e.g., “I will be leaving presently”—it means “shortly,” since “currently” isn’t compatible with the future tense.
> But if the meaning is clear, I would ask students, why bother eliminating these mistakes? The answer is because not to do so is to risk offending people who know better, the educated, a small group, to be sure, some would even say an endangered species, but one that tends to be touchy about such matters.
I think you should "follow the rules," not out of fear of offending someone but because following these guidlines results in writing that is easier to understand. Even when the "meaning is clear," it can be made more clear (and have a greater result).
Compare
> Hopefully, the professor will be able to seriously take the work on which I am presently engaged, which is, I believe, rather unique.
with
> I hope the professor will take my unique work seriously.
There's a common argument that the purpose of language is communication, that mistakes don't matter if the desired information is communicated, and that prescriptive rules for punctuation and grammar are merely pedantry.
However, that argument is self-defeating. The purpose of language is obviously communication, yes. Mistakes might not hinder communication in some cases, sure. The rules of grammar have changed throughout history and are somewhat arbitrary, granted.
However, as the ideas one wishes to communicate become more complex, abandoning the greater set of grammatical tools makes ones sentences more difficult to read. I see this all the time in professional environments of all places. I frequently have to reread communications because someone was too lazy to proofread.
And as for language changing through time? It does. But that's not carte blanche for making whatever changes one wishes. Language change has to come about by collective agreement, not by some cowboy who doesn't like grammatical rules.
I think another advantage is making writing easier. Consistent style guides can reduce cognitive load while writing, in the same why that a consistent design language or design system can reduce cognitive load while developing software user interfaces.
> In 1927 in New Jersey, a man named Salvatore Merra was wrongly executed because of the want of a semicolon in a jury’s sentencing
Here are the actual words that led to his execution:
"In the Merra case the dissenting justices pointed out that the jury's verdict was originally recorded as follows:"
We find the defendant Salvatore Merra guilty of murder in the first degree and the defendant Salvatore Rannelli guilty of murder in the first degree, and recommend life imprisonment at hard labor.
"which was amended by the trial judge to read:"
We find Salvatore Merra guilty of murder in the first degree. We find Salvatore Rannelli guilty of murder in the first degree and recommend life imprisonment.[1][2]
It does seem like an injustice happened here. The jury's verdict as originally recorded is a little ambiguous, but to my mind, the recommendation of life imprisonment would seem to apply to both. Although this doesn't seem like a comma vs semicolon issue so much as a judge taking liberty to change the wording and not clarifying the intention with the jury. The straightforward thing to do during the appeal would've been to find the jurors and ask them what they meant; I guess that wasn't (legally) allowed.
Despite decades of training, it still rankles me to use a bare apostrophe for the possessive of a proper noun ("Moses'.") I've never pronounced it that way, and neither has anyone else, that I've noticed.
> “Hopefully, the professor will be able to seriously take the work on which I am presently engaged, which is, I believe, rather unique.” The meaning of the sentence is clear enough, though it contains four mistakes.
I don't mean to brag, but I got 0 of 4 on both the first, initial reading and the second reading. :)
Only 2 of those are valid. The battle against "hopefully" as a sentence adverb was lost decades ago, and there was never a strong argument against split infinitives.
This remind me of the excellent read ‘Dreyer’s English: An Utterly Correct Guide to Clarity and Style’, if you are interested in stuff like this. I cannot recommend it enough.
But, be warned, your friends and family might think you have turned bonkers reading a “grammar book” voluntarily.
[+] [-] kevin_thibedeau|6 years ago|reply
"Hopefully" modifies "be" and is relocated to reflect colloquial speech patterns. Banning split infinitives is a legacy of trying to bend English to Latin grammar rules. "Presently" is a synonym of "Currently".
Looks like a perfectly cromulent sentence to me.
[+] [-] yongjik|6 years ago|reply
And I don't think "seriously" (or a similar adverb), when used as a complement of "take," could just move around freely. Just like you can't say "I away chased the dog."
* And, while we're at it, it's a bad idea to take seriously (haha) anyone who thinks split infinitives are wrong. You can find tons of amusing writings by actual linguists here: https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/index.php?s=Split+infi...
(Spoiler alert: they think the rule is BS.)
[+] [-] spdustin|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jkingsbery|6 years ago|reply
I think you should "follow the rules," not out of fear of offending someone but because following these guidlines results in writing that is easier to understand. Even when the "meaning is clear," it can be made more clear (and have a greater result).
Compare
> Hopefully, the professor will be able to seriously take the work on which I am presently engaged, which is, I believe, rather unique.
with
> I hope the professor will take my unique work seriously.
[+] [-] goto_self|6 years ago|reply
However, that argument is self-defeating. The purpose of language is obviously communication, yes. Mistakes might not hinder communication in some cases, sure. The rules of grammar have changed throughout history and are somewhat arbitrary, granted.
However, as the ideas one wishes to communicate become more complex, abandoning the greater set of grammatical tools makes ones sentences more difficult to read. I see this all the time in professional environments of all places. I frequently have to reread communications because someone was too lazy to proofread.
And as for language changing through time? It does. But that's not carte blanche for making whatever changes one wishes. Language change has to come about by collective agreement, not by some cowboy who doesn't like grammatical rules.
[+] [-] baddox|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 0_gravitas|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] splittingTimes|6 years ago|reply
https://www.stilldrinking.org/programming-sucks
[+] [-] Diederich|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alister|6 years ago|reply
Here are the actual words that led to his execution:
"In the Merra case the dissenting justices pointed out that the jury's verdict was originally recorded as follows:"
We find the defendant Salvatore Merra guilty of murder in the first degree and the defendant Salvatore Rannelli guilty of murder in the first degree, and recommend life imprisonment at hard labor.
"which was amended by the trial judge to read:"
We find Salvatore Merra guilty of murder in the first degree. We find Salvatore Rannelli guilty of murder in the first degree and recommend life imprisonment.[1][2]
It does seem like an injustice happened here. The jury's verdict as originally recorded is a little ambiguous, but to my mind, the recommendation of life imprisonment would seem to apply to both. Although this doesn't seem like a comma vs semicolon issue so much as a judge taking liberty to change the wording and not clarifying the intention with the jury. The straightforward thing to do during the appeal would've been to find the jurors and ask them what they meant; I guess that wasn't (legally) allowed.
[1] https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-p...
[2] https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3586846/state-v-merra/ [from the Supreme Court of New Jersey]
[+] [-] AlexCoventry|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zhte415|6 years ago|reply
Amazon: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Eats-Shoots-Leaves-Lynne-Truss/dp/0...
Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eats,_Shoots_%26_Leaves
[+] [-] wahern|6 years ago|reply
I don't mean to brag, but I got 0 of 4 on both the first, initial reading and the second reading. :)
[+] [-] mrob|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] surfsvammel|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]