The American Constitution splits infinitives
Watching Barack Obama take the oath of office, live on television, we thought that he’d fluffed his lines, but wondered how that could be possible when he had his terrific speech memorised to perfection (how is it done?). Then it turned out that the chief justice had bungled it, by not doing that irritating American/Blairite/preacher thing of sticking an adverb in the middle of an infinitive: ‘to hungrily eat’; ‘to loyally care’; ‘to passionately love’.
Now Obama has taken his oath of office again, just to be on the safe side, and the way it was put to the press was that it’s because there was a ‘word out of sequence’. They couldn’t very well say that it was because the American Constitution splits its infinitives when the chief justice does not.
www.timesofmalta.com – Thursday, 22 January – 07:38CET
Obama takes oath again
Out of “an abundance of caution,” U.S. President Barack Obama took the oath of office a second time last night at the White House because a word was out of sequence when he was sworn in on Tuesday.
Chief Justice John Roberts, who first administered the oath to Obama on Tuesday on the steps of the U.S. Capitol, administered it again to the president on Wednesday in front of reporters and a few members of the president’s staff. “We believe that the oath of office was administered effectively and that the president was sworn in appropriately yesterday,” Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told a hastily gathered group of journalists, quoting a statement from White House counsel Greg Craig.
“But the oath appears in the Constitution itself and, out of an abundance of caution, because there was one word out of sequence, Chief Justice John Roberts will administer the oath a second time.”
Then Gibbs ushered reporters into the Map Room, where Obama was waiting, smiling, along with the chief justice. The president visited with journalists and then stood next to Roberts and took the oath again.
During the ceremony on the steps of the Capitol on Tuesday Roberts accidentally switched the word order when he administered the oath, saying “I will execute the office of president to the United States faithfully,” instead of, “I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States.”
Obama, who briefly interrupted the chief justice by starting the oath before Roberts finished reciting the first part, then repeated back the line as Roberts had said it.
34 Comments Comment
Reply to ASP Click here to cancel reply
I know my comment is going to be out of context, but I’m dying to know if anybody out there, besides myself, doesn’t like what the First Lady is wearing. I really can’t put my finger on what I don’t like about her clothes, but somehow I feel that her stylists (i am assuming she has them) can do much much better. She seems to be quite tall and has a nice figure and yet that white dress at the Ball, for example, was sooo unflattering. Does anybody agree with me?
[Daphne – That’s what we were all talking about the day before yesterday while watching the big event (at least the women were). That dress was so unexceptional, lacking in style, unflattering and aging – the sort of thing that certain boutiques in Malta sell to l-omm tal-gharusa ghat-tieg. And it was cocktail-hour wear anyway, not suitable for the morning and for standing around outside in sub-zero temperatures. She would have looked fantastic in figure-hugging Parisian-style day-suit, in a single colour with just a touch of contrast at the neck. She’s tall and has an amazing figure, and they fitted her out as though she’s 5 foot nothing and round.]
Ah so I’m not the only one to think so. I found the colour off-putting and the texture reminiscent of curtains…
As for the way it fitted her, I thought that she might be wearing thermals underneath.
Apparently she has a stylist from Chicago
http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/fashion/2009/01/20/2009-01-20_meet_ikram_goldman__the_woman_with_the_k.html
Daphne, Obama doesn’t fluff his lines ‘cos he uses a teleprompter. It was clearly visible to the side of the screen on CNN. There are quite a lot of erms and ahs when he answers q’s and a’s. What did you think of his speech? I think it lacked a je ne sais quoi. As for the First lady’s dresses – very disappointing especially those green gloves and shoes.
[Daphne – He would have had to memorise the speech despite the teleprompter to deliver it properly. What it lacked was this: fire and passion and conviction. The speech itself was excellent, covered all bases, made all the right references, but the delivery was devoid of feeling. The green gloves made her hands look like those of Kermit the Frog – awful.]
Her posture needs some fine-tuning too, don’t you think?. She walks like a ‘caflanga’ (read the c bit-tikka) and don’t ask me what the word means, it’s just a word I use for someone who walks clumsily. With just a little bit of effort, she can look glamorous.
[Daphne – Yes, her posture is awful and so is her general comportment. I couldn’t help noticing, too, that during the ceremony her daughters were fiddling around and chatting and instead of reprimanding them she joined in, totally oblivious to the fact that a woman in her position is expected to look as though she’s paying attention even if her mind is zoned out and she’s half-dead with boredom. Unfortunately, and I hate saying it because it sounds dreadful, these are the indicators of social background, and that includes her posture and her clumsy walk. It’s a shame because she’s so tall and has a smashing curvy figure and plenty of oomph. On the whole, though, I think it’s a lot better to be herself than to work on her walk, posture and general comportment if she can’t carry it off or feels/looks uncomfortable and ‘false’ doing it. Lots of women who come from very nondescript backgrounds learn quickly how to wear the feathers of another bird very convincingly. They can really carry it off. But others can’t. Michelle Muscat is very comportment-aware, for example, and you can tell that she’s really trying hard to look and behave like a real little lady. But it just looks false, as though she’s playing at something – and the worst, I mean the very worst and most off-putting clue to the fact that this behaviour is ‘learned’ (as opposed to training from childhood) is that GHASTLY limp handshake thing that women like her and also many men just won’t ‘unlearn’. They put out their arm with a bent elbow as though you might bite or have a disease or something, drop their hand at the wrist and flaccidly touch your palm but don’t actually grip it. AAAAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHH! It’s the worst. If only they knew how much this gives away about them they wouldn’t do it.]
I think the speech was planned to be serious. Everyone knows he can give a damn good speech, but this one was meant to not distract but really hit home what huge problems they have and how difficult times ahead will be, without any distractions. I find his ‘erms’ and ‘ahs’ really attractive and think he does them on purpose. But then I find everything about him attractive especially when he breaks into a smile. She has on occasion, in the past few months, worn clothes that really suited her and I quite liked her in the white evening dress, but the yellow ensemble and the dress she wore the next day were bloody awful. I don’t think she has a stylist but makes her own choices.
[Daphne – I’m pretty sure she’ll learn. She’s clever. Lots of women in the international eye start out as sartorial disasters and end up charming us all. Just remember how awful the Princess of Wales’ style was in her first few years in the limelight. The important thing is that she has the figure to work with. It would have been different if she had the awful figure of, say, Cherie Blair. Nothing looks good on that.]
Yes, Cikki and his eyes light up when he smiles too unlike hers. Her eyes are a tad too hard for my liking.
Daphne, there was no phrase that could be remembered and quoted many decades later, like Kennedy’s for example.
[Daphne – No, but then again, I don’t imagine he’ll be chasing starlets and hookers round the swimming-pool like Kennedy did, so we can forgive him. Kennedy’s ‘ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country’ was ultimately meaningless anyway. Here’s his inaugural address in 1961: http://www.famousquotes.me.uk/speeches/John_F_Kennedy/5.htm Read through it and you’ll identify immediately what was missing in Obama’s speech: the deliberate rhythm of the sentences designed to stir interest and emotion. The introductory paragraph is a brilliant example:
We observe today not a victory of party, but a celebration of freedom – symbolizing an end, as well as a beginning – signifying renewal, as well as change. For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forebears prescribed nearly a century and three quarters ago.
It’s modelled on Ecclesiastes 3:1-8, which is one of the best examples of this ‘dual’ rhythm and the standard-setter for many famous and less famous speeches:
To everything there is a season,
a time for every purpose under the sun.
A time to be born and a time to die;
a time to plant and a time to pluck up that which is planted;
a time to kill and a time to heal …
a time to weep and a time to laugh;
a time to mourn and a time to dance …
a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing;
a time to lose and a time to seek;
a time to rend and a time to sew;
a time to keep silent and a time to speak;
a time to love and a time to hate;
a time for war and a time for peace.
To bring things closer to home, Fenech Adami and Gonzi both used this model to great effect in their ‘eve of election’ or ‘this is a historic hour’ speeches at mass meetings.]
Can you imagine what the know-it-alls of Malta would say if a Maltese PM fluffed his oath and had to take it again?
[Daphne – It was the chief justice who fluffed his lines, by correcting the grammar of the American Constitution.]
And then the speech was followed by that yawntastic ‘poem’…
The best bit was by the last one to speak, the elderly gent Rev Lowery’s Benediction…though many in the blogosphere are lamenting that it’s racist.
“We ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to give back, where brown can stick around, when yella’ will be mella’, when the red man can get ahead, man- and when white will embrace what is right. Let all of those who will do justice and love mercy say ‘Amen’.
[Daphne – I couldn’t make head or tail of what he was saying. His presence was a mistake, confirming the racial stereotype on which some people are fixated.]
Which convinces me even more that Obama deliberately avoided that model. His was just a hard-hitting, no frills, no distractions speech; all he did was hammer home the situation America is in.
I don’t think her eyes are hard although she’s a tough lady. I think they’re a wonderful family, an example to many.
[Daphne – Yes, they are. One gets sick of scandals and sickened by them.]
Daphne, she’s not a hamalla who will become a pulita but black from Chicago’s southside who went to Harvard. So intellectually she’s many people’s superior and socially she’s comfortable as she is so I don’t know that she’ll change or want to change.
[Daphne – No, I don’t think she’ll want to change, either; she’s actually quite defiant about her background though totally devoid of chippiness because she’s so clever (and went to Harvard, though the less we say about that…..). But most woman, however clever, good-looking, self-confident or privileged, would prefer not to come across as badly dressed or as wearing unflattering clothes, so while I think she’ll carry on not giving a damn about her deportment, comportment or the social graces – and good for her – I do think she’ll get to work on the clothes.]
Ironically, Obama voted against Chief Justice Roberts’ confirmation on the Bench…
More ironic still, had someone decided to nitpick and declare that the Oath doesn’t count, the case would have been brought in Roberts’ court.
Although some experts maintain that Obama became the de facto President of the USA at the stroke of noon on 20.01.09 anyway.
[Daphne – Ah, so out with the conspiracy theories: the chief justice fluffed that line on purpose….]
Well, I didn’t say there are any conspiracy theories. It’s a known fact that Obama voted against Roberts.
And if one listens closely, the fluffing started from Obama… when he didn’t let Roberts finish the ‘I Barack Hussein Obama do solemnly swear..’ Insomma, then Roberts was totally thrown even because he refused to have it written down.
anyway, back to my studies :(
“I don’t imagine he’ll be chasing starlets and hookers round the swimming-pool like Kennedy did, so we can forgive him.”
Didn’t life teach you anything? He DOESN’T NEED to chase them! Like any other man who wields power, he’s knee deep in chicks, 24/7.
[Daphne – Didn’t life teach you anything? The reason women love him is because he’s clearly not a woman-chaser. I can repeat this until I’m blue in the face and men still don’t get it: women prefer men who are clearly and obviously devoted to their wives, even if it means that they are clearly and obviously not interested and not available. It appears to be a paradox, but it is not. I have no doubt that there are going to be legions of girls and women making a play for him and throwing themselves naked in his way. But we ladies out here like to think he won’t do a Bill Clinton.]
Meerkat – “As for the way it fitted her, I thought that she might be wearing thermals underneath”
A bullet-proof vest would have been more likely.
Fanny – “As for the First lady’s dresses – very disappointing especially those green gloves and shoes.”
Though they could have been better, they certainly were far more suited to the occasion than Jill Biden’s mutton-dressed-as-lamb ensemble and ballgown.
I think that the assessment on Obama’s inauguration speech deserves more than just slagging off his wife’s dress sense or her comportment qualities, clumsy walk etc., or indeed her social background. These qualities do not a First Lady make. In fact I think her obviously brilliant mind, and her warmth which Obama himself admits has been an inspiration to him, have been instrumental in endearing the Obamas as a family to millions of American voters. As to someone asking whether she was wearing a thermal vest, I suggest it was probably a bullet-proof kevlar vest. In fact, did you notice their walk-abouts always took place near federal buildings or around open spaces.
Anyway, I think we should rise above petty comments and look at the substance. Never has the western world and indeed the rest of it ever been as enthusiastic and hopeful for a real change in world politics as it is now that Barack Obama is finally president.
[Daphne – Sigh. Men will never understand that this kind of talk about dresses and comportment and what everyone was doing and wearing and saying serves as a sort of social glue, building relationships etc etc. God forbid the world had to get along on male communication style, because it just simply would not.]
This link below regards split infintives; its an article in today’s IHT
http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/01/22/opinion/edpinker.php
The important bit is below.
Language pedants hew to an oral tradition of shibboleths that have no basis in logic or style, that have been defied by great writers for centuries, and that have been disavowed by every thoughtful usage manual. Nonetheless, they refuse to go away, perpetuated by the Gotcha! Gang and meekly obeyed by insecure writers.
Among these fetishes is the prohibition against “split verbs,” in which an adverb comes between an infinitive marker like “to,” or an auxiliary like “will,” and the main verb of the sentence. According to this superstition, Captain Kirk made a grammatical error when he declared that the five-year mission of the starship Enterprise was “to boldly go where no man has gone before”; it should have been “to go boldly.” Likewise, Dolly Parton should not have declared that “I will always love you” but “I always will love you” or “I will love you always.”
Any speaker who has not been brainwashed by the split-verb myth can sense that these corrections go against the rhythm and logic of English phrasing. The myth originated centuries ago in a thick-witted analogy to Latin, in which it is impossible to split an infinitive because it consists of a single word, like dicere, “to say.” But in English, infinitives like “to go” and future-tense forms like “will go” are two words, not one, and there is not the slightest reason to interdict adverbs from the position between them.
Though the ungrammaticality of split verbs is an urban legend, it found its way into The Texas Law Review Manual on Style, which is the arbiter of usage for many law review journals. James Lindgren, a critic of the manual, has found that many lawyers have “internalized the bogus rule so that they actually believe that a split verb should be avoided,” adding, “The Invasion of the Body Snatchers has succeeded so well that many can no longer distinguish alien speech from native speech.”
[Daphne – Oh dear. I think I’ll stick to language pedantry, though. I have an innate suspicion of anyone who places adverbs between the two parts of an infinitive.]
Sticking an adverb in the middle of an infinitive is quite a normal thing, considering that the practice is centuries old. Old English texts show the same usage too.
U ejja, Daphne, first of all I must emphasise that not only do I have a lot of time for the female ”communication style”, I believe it’s probably more insightful than the male’s……but, for once I find myself disagreeing with you, specifically with your comments on Mrs Obama. If the inauguration had been some society ball, or some other celebration at the Palace, then I would tend to agree with you. And I could understand the ladies ‘communicating’ their disapproval or otherwise of the First Lady’s choice of dress or what they thought of her level of deportment. But this was a ‘celebration’ never mind an inauguration of a people’s president, people who were hungry for change, and wanted to experience a very special moment in history. After 40 years, for many of them Martin Luther King’s dream has now become reality – and I am not just referring to the black voters. In my humble opinion I do not think that the ”social glue” was compromised, and as to ”building relationships”, well, millions of people seemed to have felt good about it all, and at that moment in time that factor was all that mattered. At least they weren’t shoving their Rolexes, or their Harvard degrees down our throat!
[Daphne – You can bet your last cent that in this Sunday’s international broadsheets, Mrs Obama’s clothes will be dissected as keenly as Mr Obama’s speech.]
Daphne, I would say the tabloids for sure, but then again, they always miss the wood for the trees.
Changing the subject, did anyone read that Segolene Royal is claiming that she inspired Obama, and his team copied her campaign. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/henry_samuel/blog/2009/01/21/i_inspired_obama_sgolne_royal_brags_after_crashing_the_party
Hope her other socialist friend Gowzef won’t do the same and claim that his ‘Il-bidla’ line was copied as well.
[Daphne – Actually, I didn’t mean the tabloids. I take The Sunday Telegraph (that’s right, right-wing but with all the best writers) and The Sunday Times, read several other London and New York/Washington broadsheets on line, and What She (or he) Wore is invariably a big topic of discussion. When Sarkozy visited London a couple of months ago, his wife’s outfits stole his headlines – on the broadsheets – and were endlessly discussed by most of the women columnists and even a leader-writer or two. Don’t make the usual condescending male assumption that whatever is uninteresting to men, or interesting mainly to women, is unimportant, silly or fit only for tabloids. You should know what we think about sport, which takes up entire supplements….because men are interested in it which makes it important.]
Yesterday’s 5pm Bay Radio deejay (forgot the name) in between songs said that Obama had to take the oath once again because HE said a ‘word out of sequence’. I immediately called Bay Radio to report this inaccuracy. Told them to browse BBC to confirm. Unfortunately I had to leave home 10 minutes after the call and didn’t hear the deejay correcting his mistake… if he ever did.
The ‘rule’ of not splitting infinitives comes from the misguided notion that English should follow the rules of Latin, a language with which it has very little in common. I daresay somebody, a long time ago, thought it would distinguish the gentry from the rabble if the gentry spoke a latinised form of English.
As to the talk of Mrs Obama’s wardrobe and posture – all very snobbish really. And anyway, she was never going to win, whatever she did. Imagine she had chosen some stunning dress that cost thousands of dollars. You’d all be putting her down for being so excessive in a time of recession. That’s probably the reason for the drab dress in the first place. The lesser of two evils.
Oh and another thing, you all keep saying she is so intelligent because she went to Harvard. Well, I don’t know her personally, so she may or may not be intelligent. What we do know though is that attending Harvard is no guarantee of intelligence. Have we forgotten already how ‘intelligent’ our former leader of the opposition is?
[Daphne – Agreed on the last point, but as for Michelle Obama’s inauguration dress, what can I say? Trust a man to look at that dress and imagine that it wasn’t expensive because it was unattractive. I’ve never been able to understand why straight men, however au courant with things, can never work out what a woman’s outfit might cost. They just can’t pick up on the details. I could tell at a distance of several metres, watching the small screen over the heads of the assembled party at the US embassy, that this dress was hugely expensive. It was the typical mother-of-the-bride outfit: bank-breakingly expensive and mirror-crackingly ugly. I’m sure most women who were watching also saw, as I did, the words VERY EXPENSIVE written invisibly across that ensemble.]
[Daphne – Sigh. Men will never understand that this kind of talk about dresses and comportment and what everyone was doing and wearing and saying serves as a sort of social glue, building relationships etc etc. God forbid the world had to get along on male communication style, because it just simply would not.]
Daphne, men will understand only the kind of talk to the tunes of “X’gisem/sider/sorm ghandha! X’naghmillha!” Come on guys, admit it. We gossip about the dresses, you gossip about the anatomy. And if you want a sample of ‘male communication style’, please refer to photo at the back of In-Nazzjon of today.
[Daphne – What’s in the picture? I read the newspapers on line.]
Seven men including Minister George Pullicino, all in suits, standing with umbrellas in the pouring rain, and all looking like they’re having the time of their lives. The occasion? Take a deep breath …..”waqt il-presentazzjoni lil tliet Kunsilli Lokali li gabru l-akbar ammont ta’ skart separat”. The photoshoot is taking place near a bring-in site. Please do try and see it because it’s one of a kind.
Jesus, ok, so her dress was awful but expensive, but is it really all that important in relation to such an historic occasion? I mentioned the tabloids per se, because I felt the broadsheets would probably minimise the issue seeing that Michelle is not Carla Bruni etc etc. and her husband is giving us all grander aspirations than Sarki, but then it’s a matter of personal opinion, an opportunity which your website thankfully provides us with.
If Sunday’s broadsheets give the dress issue major coverage, then I suppose I’ll eat humble pie.
Good wknd all.
[Daphne – You won’t have to wait until Sunday. There’s plenty of discussion already about Michelle Obama’s election night and inaugural day dresses on the on-line versions of leading newspapers. Google ‘Michelle Obama’s dress’ and you’ll get endless results. Try these for starters. You’ll notice that even The Wall Street Journal covered the dress story (and Aretha Franklin’s hat):
http://blogs.wsj.com/runway/2009/01/22/coach-profit-drops-14-michelle-obamas-fashion-message-aretha-franklins-hat-sales-soar/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/20/michelle-obamas-inaugurat_n_159344.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/08/fashion/08michelle.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1232722951-nWpuXhxV1zwH5MhDMWZXoQ
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article5086230.ece
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/3388432/Michelle-Obamas-election-night-dress-upsets-Americas-fashion-crowd.html
http://www.usatoday.com/life/lifestyle/fashion/2008-11-05-michelle-obama-dress_n.htm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fashion/fashionnews/4317336/Michelle-Obamas-dress-designer-Jason-Wu-in-profile.html
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2009/01/21/arts/NA-US-Obama-Fashion-Dress.php
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-michelle-obama-dress-story,0,1949360.story
@Tony Pace
Watch your blood pressure.
@ Steve
There is absolutely nothing snobbish in talking about someone’s clothes. Also, some of the most expensive
designer clothes are, in my opinion, hideous. Expensive doesn’t mean beautiful nor cheap ugly. I don’t know Mrs. Obama personally either, but as I said Chicago southside to Harvard Law School is pretty impressive. Read about her career so far, listen to her speak and I’m sure you’ll think she’s quite a lady
without having had to meet her.
To be honest I ‘assumed’ since everyone here is saying the dress was ugly, that it was inexpensive, at the time I really wasn’t looking at her clothes. I agree with you that ugly clothes can be expensive, and vice versa, but still insist that whatever she had done (cheap and ugly, cheap and elegant, expensive and elegant and what she apparently wore, i.e. expensive and ugly) she would have been attacked.
Anyway, if anyone’s to blame about her wardrobe choice, I’m sure she has someone on her staff who can take the blame.
[Daphne – Nobody criticised Jackie Kennedy’s clothes. Or the late Princess of Wales’. Or Carla Bruni’s.]
@Cikki
Chicago Southside to Harvard is impressive, but not impressive intelligence (although I have no doubt she must be), but impressive resolve. To be honest pre-Alfred Sant, it would have impressed me a lot more. He’s kind of taken the sheen off that institution for myself and a lot of others.
“I’ve never been able to understand why straight men, however au courant with things, can never work out what a woman’s outfit might cost.”
I also have never been able to understand how women, however au courant with things, could be more interested in what a woman is wearing than what her husband has to say. Especially when that man is the President of the World (well he is isn’t he?) It must be that darned multi-tasking thing again. Listen to speech, check-out first Lady’s dress and make a cup of tea all at the same time. We poor (straight) men have to decide between dress, President’s inauguration speech or light refreshment.
Steve
“What we do know though is that attending Harvard is no guarantee of intelligence. Have we forgotten already how ‘intelligent’ our former leader of the opposition is?”
Actually, nobody has ever put Alfred Sant’s intelligence in doubt. He showed, however, that being intelligent is not enough to make one a good politician.
Daphne.
Really liked this thread on split infinitives. However, I must have ‘misunderstood’ the ‘Oaf of Office’ I thought the Chief Justice said ” Do you, Barack Faithfully Obama, Promise to Hussein execute the office of Faithfully President of the United States, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health and to defend the Constitution, for which it stands, one nation , under faithfully, to the best of your ability, so help you God”.
The clothes stuff I can do without.
@ Steve
She went to Princeton too!
Sorry Antoine, but I disagree. Intelligence is not about how many exams you can pass. It’s a lot more complicated than that. Go back and look at some of the things Alfred Sant said (well most of them to be honest). Do they seem the words of an intelligent man? Maybe he had an agenda, maybe he’s too ‘intelligent’ for me, because I don’t get it.
[Daphne – He has no emotional intelligence but plenty of the other sort. That was the essential problem. People with no emotional intelligence are unable to read situations, despite being very good at maths.]