(1) There doesn't seem to be a Latin text of Traditionis custodes. That, in this pontificate, is not particularly remarkable.
There is an English version headed "Official Translation". But the Italian and Spanish have no corresponding heading (and no other language is apparently deemed worthy of a version at all ... bow down, ye Frogs, grovel, ye Krauts ...).
In the Italian version, the pontiff uses the first person singular. Until, that is, he comes to the end ... when he refers to the "year of our pontificate".
Does this mean that PF has an Apostolic Wife tucked away in an attic?
(2) I agree with Mrs Sims, huius Universitatis Artium Magistra, that "to boldly go" is a quite exquisite phrase. As far as English English is concerned, it is as deeply embedded in our shared culture of mirth as the Curate's Egg.
But if the splitting of the infinitive were to become common (ne dicam prescriptive), would not this bright flower become powerless and faded, its hot-house perfume but an exotic memory for aged pedants?
That is the anxiety which drives slumber away and keeps me awake and fretful during the dark watches of the night.
Just as Eccles predicted two months ago:
"The story so far: your predecessor, Pope Benedictus, who lives entirely on German beer and is therefore still alive at the age of 103, wrote a Motor Propeller, Summa Holiday (memo: check title) permitting the wider use of the traditional Latin Mass....
So the time has come to repeal Summa Holiday. You were waiting for Benedictus to die, but you saw him out jogging this morning, and you are wondering whether he might even outlive you. So you have written your own Motor Propeller. In Italian of course, as it would be shooting yourself in the foot if you used Latin. Anyway, your F- grade in Latin is still a sore point."
"To boldly go..." is from the opening credit of the Star Trek shows
No, no, no - 'boldly to go where...'
I was, however, taught not to end sentences with a preposition, but, like Churchill said, it is nonsense 'up with which I will not put'.
But split infinitives are just not on.
Non-native English speaker
Dear Father, I still get a little jump in the stomach whenever I come across a split infinitive. This frisson of distaste also occurs when reading a British newspaper called "The Daily Telegraph". Most of its writers cannot distinguish between "who" and 'whom", and will quite often insert a gratuitous "m" for safety's sake, as it were. In its "Today's Birthdays", it will describe someone as "Lord Lieutenant FOR X-shire", which contradicts the usage of the Court Circular, and pace Fowler and his followers, is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! Another stomach-jolter. You and I, Father, would never do these things.
Who was it who wrote that memorable piece, 'Whither Atrophy'?
The English obsession with the split infinitive results from a misdirected and over-zealous attention to Latin. But its avoidance has become a well-known convention in English writing so, if one comes across it, it both grates and indicates that the writer does not know it grates. It is therefore a perfectly avoidable Black Mark.
Ah yes, Star Trek. It seems as though we are living through an episode of Star Trek.
Heresy: the final frontier. These are the voyages of the Pontificate of Francis. Its continuing mission: to explore strange new doctrines. To seek out new liturgies and destroy old ones. To boldly go where no Pope has gone before!
Very few journalists, let alone sports commentators, CA now match the polish of the late, lamented Richie Benaud. I remember him a few years before he died producing, unscripted and live to air during a test match, a beautifully modulated sentence with 'whomever' in the middle of it. I doubt that many dons could do that now.
I was noting the other day that the English Language branch of vatican.va has Acta Apostolicae Sedis being silent since 2018 or so.
Dear me, Pauncefoot, surely we must leave behind us such small master's common-room pedantries. The most expressive language often comes from the knowing bending of rules, that is the strength of English. Not that the breaking of such modern (19th century) school-book rule would bring vast expression, but worth a try. I shall be splitting infinitives more regularly from now on, not they I have ever avoided them. Especially here!
Grating, frissons, jumps in stomach. You are a funny old lot. I used to get them when I was young, jolly nice to, but never, as I recall, from a split-infinitive. Chacun...
I've been savouring on my tongue the possible options:
Boldly to go…
To boldly go…
To go boldly…
I think it must be the second option.
"Boldly to go" is elegant, but in this context has a slightly prissy feel at odds with the meaning of the phrase. "To go boldly" is acceptable, but seems a bit vanilla alongside the elan of "To boldly go." So, just this once, I'm awarding an indult to the split infinitive.
Ps: "Boldly to go" has a charming dactylic rhythm, but we are looking for bold movement. "To go boldly" has two strongly accented long vowels lying together which make the line stand still rather than move forward. "To boldly go" , with its strong iambic rhythm, has the combination of vigour and forward movement that we are looking for.
All of this doesn't really matter for a passing utterance, but it does matter for a speech which is recorded and played at the beginning of numerous episodes of a TV series.
Post a Comment