[General] Someone said to Confucius, ‘Why do you not take part in govern- ment?'

[Sneymarin]

Hello, I was reading "Analects. Sayings of Confucius. Translated by. D. C. Lau", a collection of Confucius's sayings brought together by his pupils shortly after his death in 497 BC, and stumbled upon this paragraph:

Someone said to Confucius, ‘Why do you not take part in govern- ment?'The Master said, ‘The Book of History says,“Oh! Simply by being a good son and friendly to his brothers a man can exert an influence upon government." In so doing a man is, in fact, taking part in government. How can there be any question of his having actively to “take part in government"?'

To me the last sentence looks particularly weird and grammatically wrong, but given the fact that it's from an actual serious book with a reputable translation it's most likely correct. I hope someone could kindly enlighten me as to why that last sentence is actually correct.

Thank you for your time.

 

[tedmc]

The last sentence using the infintive is not correct.

I think it should be "his having actively taken part in government".

 

[jutfrank]

I can't see anything wrong with it. Which part is concerning you?

The to-infinitive is fine, by the way, tedmc. It's part of an 'obligation' have to.

 

[Rover_KE]

I was reading a book ...-

Always tell us the title and author of any book you quote from, please.

 

[Sneymarin]

Always tell us the title and author of any book you quote from, please.

Thread updated on this.

 

[Sneymarin]

I can't see anything wrong with it. Which part is concerning you?

The to-infinitive is fine, by the way, tedmc. It's part of an 'obligation' have to.

This part "... of his having actively to “take part in government?"
I don't understand why it's not grammatically wrong.

 

[GoesStation]

This part "... of his having actively to “take part in government?"
I don't understand why it's not grammatically wrong.

You've found a great example of the kind of tortured sentence the silly old rule against split infinitives can lead to. Is this version clearer?

How can there be any question of his having to actively “take part in government"?

 

[jutfrank]

This part "... of his having actively to “take part in government?"
I don't understand why it's not grammatically wrong.

Help us out by telling us what appears to you to be ungrammatical.

Is it because the 'obligation' have to is in the gerund form?

 

[Sneymarin]

You've found a great example of the kind of tortured sentence the silly old rule against split infinitives can lead to. Is this version clearer?

How can there be any question of his having to actively “take part in government"?

Yes, thank you for your help.

 

[Sneymarin]

Help us out by telling us what appears to you to be ungrammatical.

Is it because the 'obligation' have to is in the gerund form?

It was the "having actively to" that confused me on which GoesStation has already clarified. I apologize for not pointing out what I couldn't understand better; I'll be clearer in my future posts. Thank you for your time and patience.

 

[GoesStation]

It was the "having actively to" that confused me on which GoesStation has already clarified. I apologize for not pointing out what I couldn't understand better; I'll be clearer in my future posts. Thank you for your time and patience.

The lesson to take from this is to watch for adverbs before or after a to-infinitive in a sentence you can't understand. When you find one, mentally move it to immediately after the "to". That's where it naturally belongs (in most cases, anyway), but generations of careful writers avoided that location because a misguided 19th-century grammarian decreed that "split infinitives" were wrong.

 

[jutfrank]

generations of careful writers avoided that location because a misguided 19th-century grammarian decreed that "split infinitives" were wrong.

Is that actually true? Is there one person in particular to whom that can be attributed?

 

[GoesStation]

Is that actually true? Is there one person in particular to whom that can be attributed?

This somewhat scattered page blames "… Henry Alford, the Dean of Canterbury, in his 1864 book The Queen’s English" for the rule's popularization.