Usage changes and evolves. If it is "long" enough it ceases to be "incorrect." I know, I know, that is a point of controversy, but I think the "it sounds good" ("good" by the way, not necessarily "right") is valid if (a) there is enough wiggle room, even a teensy bit, AND (b) it is poetry.

David R.

Andrew,

Are we voting? If we're voting, I vote for 'consumes.'

On the other hand, if there's a 'right answer,' I have no idea what it is. ;)

Thanks,

Bill

Yes, and if the people it "sounds good" to are the likes of Andrew Frisardi and other distinguished Erato company, it's hard to dismiss their impressions as irrelevant. One must at least ask why educated, native speakers who are extremely verbal, gifted writers, and lovers of proper language, have the impression they have, because those are the very people whose ears will govern the creation of future rules and conventions.

Carol, I agree that the infinitive as a noun seems best suited, when it's the subject of a sentence, when the verb is "to be" verb, but I'm not sure I'd limit it to that verb entirely. And, of course, when it is not the subject of a sentence, the infinitive is more common. "I love to eat" is just as idiomatic as "I love eating," for example.

Yes, and if the people it "sounds good" to are the likes of Andrew Frisardi and other distinguished Erato company, it's hard to dismiss their impressions as irrelevant. One must at least ask why educated, native speakers who are extremely verbal, gifted writers, and lovers of proper language, have the impression they have, because those are the very people whose ears will govern the creation of future rules and conventions.

Well, you can ask "why", but the truth is that extremely distinguished, exceptionally learned and intelligent writers make mistakes from time to time just like everyone else does. That's one of the reasons there are copy editors at publishing companies.

"Mistakes," yes, but when the issue is brought to their attention and they disagree with the copy editors, it's not a "mistake" but a disagreement, and they often get to make the final call.

Why is it suddenly not a mistake, but a disagreement? Is it because the writer is "distinguished"? I once read an article (might have been an obit) about a copy editor at the New Yorker. Worked there a long time and was both feared and respected. A writer could apparently take up an issue with her, but she wouldn't budge an inch if she knew the writer was wrong. Good copy editors put the text first, the writer second.

David:

Yes, language is fluid. It changes and evolves. And that's a beautiful although at times troubling matter for the users of language. In Elizabethan England, the use of double superlatives was apparently acceptable English usage, as is evidenced in Shakespeare's well-known line from Julius Caesar: "This was the most unkindest cut of all." But who among us would use such a double superlative today? And would anyone participating in this discussion, when wishing to speak or write correctly, say I've drank a lot of French wine or They have went to California on vacation? Perhaps that usage will eventually become standard. But it certainly isn't considered standard now. For the most part, don't we have to paddle about in the language pond of our own time and place?

I think we can all agree that at any particular time there are various levels of usage available: standard and nonstandard, formal and informal, colloquial and literary, and so forth. And all these forms and levels of language are available to writers. But doesn't the act of composition, by its very definition, mean that we we make choices when creating a sentence or crafting an expression? And shouldn't those choices be carefully considered, especially when we're talking about writing as a literary art?

The word composition, when speaking of the arts, means to select, arrange, and form. It's what all artists do: writers, painters, musical composers. Composition is not a willy-nilly, haphazard, by-guess-and-by-gosh process. A good painter doesn't randomly or carelessly put colors, lines, and shapes on a canvas. Those elements are purposely selected and arranged. And so it is with writers and words.

Richard

Petra, I'll believe you if you know differently, but I doubt very much that John Updike didn't get his way when he and the copy editor disagreed. I agree that there is such a thing as a "mistake" as opposed to a mere disagreement, but I think that we are unlikely to be dealing with "mistakes" when an educated and proven writer, with his attention drawn to the issue, sticks to his guns. Also, given that language is fluid and evolving, where but in the writing of top writers should we look to for a reflection of that fluidity and evolution?

Another point worth mentioning is that even Carol has not said that the use of an infinitive as a noun in this context is a "mistake." She wrote, "I don't know if this particular usage could be called incorrect, but it isn't idiomatic." I think when it comes to a discussion of whether a usage is "idiomatic" or not, as opposed to "incorrect," surely the writer should win out over the copy editor, no?

...but I think that we are unlikely to be dealing with "mistakes" when an educated and proven writer, with his attention drawn to the issue, sticks to his guns.

So, educated & proven writers do not make mistakes? What's gotten into you, Bob? I think you know that's bunk. Even copy editors, who are trained to spot errors in other people's writing, can make mistakes in their own work.

Petra, the distinction is between a slip of the pen, or keyboard, which the writer didn't notice, and a difference of opinion which is reflected upon and discussed. In the latter case, my vote would normally go with the distinguished writer rather than the copy-editor.

A nice exception is Elizabeth Bowen's editor, who elegantly objected to one of her more outlandish formulations as

"far, I venture to suggest, fetched."