D. Ritchie was the other day comparing a dangling modifier to a split
infinitive. Let me see if I find his amusing quote:
Ritchie writes:
“As Donal points out sometimes it’s possible to squeeze sense out of the
construction; often not. But here’s the thing, in my world DMs are getting
thicker on the ground. Could it be that they will follow the split infinitive
and “disinterested” meaning uninterested, and “notoriety” meaning “fame,” they
will pass into acceptance because that’s what people want? Much to the joy of
chickens, who will probably mistake them for computer bugs.”
I raised the topic whether what Ritchie calls the DM – the dangling modifier –
and the split infinitive compare – only to have McEvoy soon afterwards uttering
a nice utterance. It is part of a nightmare he remberering as going to have,
and ended along the lines:
i. The judge seems unpersuaded but decides to retire to
herself read a section.
This contrasts with:
ii. The judge seems unpersuaded but decides to retire to read
herself a section.
Are (i) and (ii) truth-conditionally equivalent? I would think so. In general,
‘split infinites’ are considered okay – by Elizabeth II. The logical form seems
to be identical. In (i) we have a subject, “the judge”, a verb, “decides,” an
object of the decision, an infinitive phrase (“to retire”), and a clause
espressing the judge’s intention in so doing, “to herself read a [relevant]
section [of this and that].”
The issue would be with the expression of this intention: Does an intention to
read herself a novel differ from an intention to read herself a novel?
It might be argued that
iii. The judge retires to read a section.
seems to do. “No aberration without modification,” as J. L. Austin would say
(vide Searle, “Aberrations and modifications,” in “Contemporary British
Philosophy”).
It seems obvious that the judge does not require someone to read the section to
herself (as opposed the lady in “The French Lieutenant’s Daughter,” where the
character played by Meryl Streep is employed to do just that: read stuff to
this lady).
Defendants of the ‘split infinitive’ argue that they (qua utterers) express a
“more intimate” connection: the judge is retiring to herself read a section.”
There is an intimate connection between the act of reading and the fact that it
is herself who’s doing it. In contrast, to retire to read herself a section”
seems distant. Or not, of course!
Back to Richie:
“Could it be that [dangling modifiers] will follow the split infinitive and …
pass into acceptance because that’s what people want?”
Want or lack?
Cheers,
Speranza
