Talking about grammar and episode titles has me thinking an episode called "Split Infinitives" would be a hotly debated episode for generations to come, on "Tuvix" level, for the title alone.
Spoilers Star Trek: Strange New Worlds 1x06 - "Lift Us Where Suffering Cannot Reach"
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
I don't think Kirk would have been able to save the newly crowned First Servant either, but he probably would have tried to do something to make sure he would be the last First Servant.
I think we know how Kirk would have reacted actually.
How?
Because Gene Roddenberry wrote this episode for Phase II where Kirk was the captain.
How?
Because Gene Roddenberry wrote this episode for Phase II where Kirk was the captain.
William Shatner is a great actor. It's just his actual personality is that of Zap Brannigan.
So its been confirmed that this is based on an unused Roddenberry script?
I have exactly two criticisms:
1) Ursula K. LeGuin should have received a writing credit given that this episode was rather obviously inspired at least in part by "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas."
2) At the end when Alora asks Pike if he can honestly say that Federation society does not require the suffering of a child growing up in poverty or despair to function, Pike should have said, "Of course not! We abolished poverty and classism long before we even founded the Federation!"
1) Ursula K. LeGuin should have received a writing credit given that this episode was rather obviously inspired at least in part by "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas."
2) At the end when Alora asks Pike if he can honestly say that Federation society does not require the suffering of a child growing up in poverty or despair to function, Pike should have said, "Of course not! We abolished poverty and classism long before we even founded the Federation!"
I think it works better as is because I didn't read it as Pike thinking the Federation is flawed, I saw it as Pike is so disgusted with her that he doesn't deam it worth arguing with her.
Starfleet gave up on child-fueled reactors decades ago 
It was presented explicitly as a situation Pike couldn't affect. It was impossible to save the boy in this case. Whether the Federation will change its policy toward the planet when they're informed is not a decision that has much to do with the captain of a ship.
Anyway, ending the practice doesn't doom these people. They'll have to move to one of several planets available to them - they've already got people on Prospect 7.
Exactly. Alora is a monster, and not worthy of his time.
Anyway, ending the practice doesn't doom these people. They'll have to move to one of several planets available to them - they've already got people on Prospect 7.
Exactly. Alora is a monster, and not worthy of his time.
That's a totally fair interpretation. I just wish Pike had said there is no poverty in the Federation for the audience's benefit tbh. I think that basic idea -- that there is no poverty -- gets lost sometimes.
Of course there's poverty in the Federation.
Earth has been presented, at times, as a paradise. The Federation has not.
As one example, Ardana is a Federation world. Remember that place?
There is one established canonical criterion for membership, which is a functioning warp drive. As TNG indicated at one point, even a worldwide government is not an absolute requirement.
Earth has been presented, at times, as a paradise. The Federation has not.
As one example, Ardana is a Federation world. Remember that place?
There is one established canonical criterion for membership, which is a functioning warp drive. As TNG indicated at one point, even a worldwide government is not an absolute requirement.
I think Pike's argument depends on the fact that they don't have this kind of exploitation and they try to work for the betterment of all.
Okay, now I want to see SNW do "Lord Bobby's Obsession." 
Has @Christopher really not rung in on split infinitives? We went round on this eons ago. I found it fun, he not so much, I fear.
How can anyone say that not to split an infinitive (seewhutididthere, Vern?) was not a rule?
It was a rule. Many authorities, some cited above, still teach it as a rule.
You can think it’s unworthy of being followed. Or was based on folly (sentence fragment there, I know). But it was quite an observed rule of English for quite awhile. And still is by some. This is my second favorite topic after command tunic color. Why? And what of Lazarus, speaking of downer endings?
How can anyone say that not to split an infinitive (seewhutididthere, Vern?) was not a rule?
It was a rule. Many authorities, some cited above, still teach it as a rule.
You can think it’s unworthy of being followed. Or was based on folly (sentence fragment there, I know). But it was quite an observed rule of English for quite awhile. And still is by some. This is my second favorite topic after command tunic color. Why? And what of Lazarus, speaking of downer endings?
Anyone can declare a rule. Requires no authority at all. A rule that no one has to follow and most do not isn't a rule in any consequential respect.
Well, they taught you wrong. It was common dogma in public education for a time and is, consequently, the older, stodgier belief.
I'll agree that they can often be avoided. I write a lot professionally, and I actually avoid them when possible to prevent stodgy yahoos from complaining, convinced that it's some sort of rule. I only split them when it's an unequivocable improvement.
Here's the modern perspective on splitting infinitives. I doubt you'll agree but that's ok. We can agree to disagree.
Follett, in Modern American Usage (1966) writes: "The split infinitive has its place in good composition. It should be used when it is expressive and well led up to." Bernstein (1985) argues that, although infinitives should not always be split, they should be split where doing so improves the sentence: "The natural position for a modifier is before the word it modifies. Thus the natural position for an adverb modifying an infinitive should be just … after the to" (italics added). Bernstein continues: "Curme's contention that the split infinitive is often an improvement … cannot be disputed." Heffernan and Lincoln, in their modern English composition textbook, agree with the above authors. Some sentences, they write, "are weakened by … cumbersome splitting," but in other sentences "an infinitive may be split by a one-word modifier that would be awkward in any other position."
Back to SNW!
