|I inquired from the forum at large about 1) a better possible wording and 2) assistance in understand the language at hand.|
Which I thought I had provided you in my first response -- owning to the fact that you never said otherwise
Instead, you moved on to split infinitives and a value judgement on how it SHOULD have been written.
it has nothing to do with the commas and clauses and split infinitives
I admitted that.
|Oweing to their commonness, infinitives split by adverbial phrases are what is targeted by the application of the rule, an infinitive can actually be split by anything (thus violating the rule).|
I hope you aren't reading this
as an 'admission' that you were wrong about split infinitives -- because it is anything but; you still claim that the that the rule is violated!
|Perhaps, however, I should have known better than to have used language myself that would confuse children.|
Like this language, perhaps?:
|My point was that it would have been easy to avoid and cause less confusion regardless of the intended audience. In the absence of some prescribed stylistic language; a discussion of a different aspect of which that was ultimately unable to answer the question at hand and that can be found here and relates to the above passage; obfuscated language is always discouraged.|
This is language that would confuse anyone -- it's a bunch of run-on thoughts and incomplete sentences. But, persisting:
a discussion of a different aspect of which that was ultimately unable to answer the question at hand
Oh, that different
discussion which didn't happen here
I cannot be held responsible for unanswering a question not asked in a discussion I didn't have.
|The article discussed different aspects of prescribed language found in the same passage. Since I can have no hope left for ascertaining the rationale for using obfuscated language in respect to the spliting of "shall not have attained" and "been" in the second clause from you, or, oweing to their apparent lack of interest from others on this board; the forum at large; I can only hope to offer my advice; whatever it be worth; to you, not on grammar but on etiquette. |
Clearly, the fact that I didn't received your (grammatically incorrect) advice was not well-received.
|If you notice I even joked with an edit indicating how many times I had to revise my previous post to give an inkling of my own grammatical uncertainty, but you, as quick witted as you are, came back and as arrogantly as I have ever seen anyone on this board act, proverbially punched a little, old, grey-haired lady with glasses below the belt. |
There is only one thing I said that could elicit such a response:
|I think you ought to take this over to http://www.grammarphobia.com/, since you don't seem to want to believe me about stuff. Or go look it up in your copy of Harbrace's.|
Alas, offering better recourses than simply continuing with one dude on a C++ forum with whom you obviously disagree is now equivalent to going and hitting old ladies below the belt in the most arrogant possible way.
| Should I therefore strive never to improve on it for fear of someone calling me out as a wannabe? Being polite doesn't mean not forming opinions,you can hold what opinion you want of me, but for the love of god Duoas, be damn sure of your facts before you make accusations|
Of what had I accused you?
The only facts I have of you are present in this thread and your assertions about grammar. I never called you a wannabe, or even intimated it; I only said that, as you don't believe me, you should go ask someone else or look it up.
To which you responded with personal vitriol.
So right now my opinion of you is actually pretty low, since you are determined to abuse me personally for not answering your question to your liking.
|And if by chance you don't understand something, and don't have the courage to admit it, shut up.|
Then shut the hell up.