User talk:Der Grammarkönnig

Split infinitive
Unless you want to be reported and blocked, I suggest you stop what you're doing at split infinitive now. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 03:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Before you start making threats to report me I would suggest you give me a reason as to why what I am doing is wrong or I will report you for sending me threatening messages that are unwarranted. After all, you're breaking the three revert rule as my edit at the split infinitive page has been thrice removed without any communication as to why. The verbiage I have added is neither incorrect nor inappropriate for the section under which I have continued to post it. The example given in that section is flawed and either the flaw has to be pointed out or the example removed. The fact that the R.L. Trask did not consider moving the adverb after the verb clause means that the example given is not sufficient for the section as it would lead readers to think that there was no remediation to rewriting the sentence available other than a total revision of sentence. Either the whole example need be removed or a follow up paragraph be added to demonstrate that indeed a construction does exist that is valid that both avoids splitting the infinitive and reconstructing the entire sentence. There are certain valid points in the specifics as to why each of the exemplified constructions does not work, but his final conclusion that the only way around the split infinitive is a whole new sentence is flawed. That is why I added the explanatory paragraph. I did not want the reader of the article to lose the small bits of value still available in the R.L. Trask example despite his conclusion. But at this point I think it be the better case to remove the whole example given by R.L. Trask as its inclusion is misleading.

Again I ask you to please not threaten me again without the cause properly stated or I will have to report you. Also, be aware that you removing my edits thrice over or what Wikipedia calls an edit war, is also against policy and your behavior also might warrant removal. I will make my edit again. Removing the section that presents incorrect information (specifically the R.L. Trask example) from the article for the benefit of the Wikipedia community. Please keep this civilized and come to me with a valid reason as to why the section should remain (I.e., why the sentence given does not invalidate R.L. Trask's overall conclusion). Otherwise I will have to report you for your violation of the three revert rule.

Der Grammarkönnig 07:35 30 June 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

June 2014
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at split infinitive. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Two things: first, have you been pointed towards our policy on WP:No original research? Please read through that policy; if you then realize and acknowledge how your initial attempted edits were in contravention of the rule and promise not to continue, I will have no problem unblocking you. Second, just for clarification: are you a native speaker of English? Your English used here on your talkpage certainly sounds competent enough; but then I am all the more at a loss to understand how you could possibly think "She decided to get rid of gradually the teddy bears she had collected" is grammatical English. Have you really thought this through properly? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Let me address your second point first; it being an ad hominum attack. I am, in fact, a native English speaker. Further, I am a specialist on Germanic languages and have devoted my life to studying their influence on the English language. My username is a pun and it would be no more appropriate to bring it into this discussion than would it be for me to bring your username under similar scrutiny. Second, you, as R.L. Trask and his editor must have, assumed that the word "of" in the clause, "get rid of", is the start of a prepositional phrase and this putting "gradually" after "of" in the exemplified sentence would be grammatically incorrect. The problem is that, you, R.L. Trask and the user who initiated the block on my account fail to consider that of does not take the place of a preposition in this case but is rather s part of the verb itself. The original German loswerden from which "rid of" derives, is an uncleft verb in German. The "los" is not considered a preposition in German, but is a part of the verb. The use of the word of in English remains part of the verb. Thus the adverb gradually does not modify "get rid", I.e you would not say get rid gradually, get rid gradually is an unwieldy construction, the adverb modifies the verb phare or clause, "get rid of". Just as in German, in English the word "of" is not serving as a preposition in this case, but is rather part of the verb and must not be cleft thereof. Finally, to your point regarding sourced material; I highly doubt an article exists that specifically takes R.L.Trask to task for his ill considered example. It would not behoove some one to waste their time trying to get such an article published. It is one example in an otherwise well thought out guide. I do not blame R.L.Trask or his editor for getting the grammar wrong, but at the same time I do not think the example should remain up on Wikipedia being that it is wrong. Until a better example is brought forth, the current verbiage should be removed. Leaving it up would lead users of Wikipedia to wrongly consider the sentence cannot be efficiently reconstructed to remove the split infinitive without its total revision.

Der Grammarkönnig⚟ 14:56 30 June 2014


 * Hmm, funny. If you are such a specialist in linguistics, I am sure you will know how to easily find half a dozen authentic corpus examples of "get rid of" + adverb + NP, to illustrate your point. Heck, you might actually go on by finding a couple of good examples of just any verb + adverb + object, in this order... (notice how even if "get rid of" was a single verbal constituent, it could still not host an adverb between it and its object? Oh the joys of English grammar.) Ah yes, and since "loswerden" is an "uncleft" verb according to your analysis (I suppose you mean "nichttrennbar"), I'm also looking forward to half a dozen nice exmples of "er loswird" + NP, or "sie loswurden" + NP, or "zu loswerden"... Have fun. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Notice
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Why are you giving this editor such a notice when they've already been blocked for it? Are you trying to accomplish anything, or just browbeat an editor when they're down? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Presumably he just picked up on the edit-war and hadn't noticed the block. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Except that he posted it directly following the block notice; also, he made note of the block himself at ANI. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Observation
Given the history of this account, it is ironic that there is a split infinitive contained in the unblock request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)