Split Infinitives

[mbkudu]

I have always been under the impression that infintives should not be split.

Examples: "I would like to briefly make a point." Or, "I would like to make a point briefly."

Then I read something in a book by Jeff Mohamed, a TEFL specialist who has over 30 years experience. He states:"There is no logical reason why infinitives should NOT (emphasis mine) be split in English. The "rule" about not splitting them is based solely on the fact that infinitives cannot be split in Latin. There is absolutely no reason why rules of Latin grammar should be applied to English." What do you all think about that?

[dr. kc]

Sorry if this is slightly off topic, but it reminded me of one of my favourite douglas adams quotes from the hitch hikers guide to the galaxy :

"Far back in the mists of ancient time, in the great and glorious days of the former Galactic Empire, life was wild, rich and largely tax-free. Mighty starships plied their way between exotic suns, seeking adventure and reward among the farthest reaches of Galactic space. In those days spirits were brave, the stakes were high, men were real men, women were real women and small furry creatures from Alpha Centuari were real small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri. And all dared to brave unknown terrors, to do mighty deeds, TO BOLDLY SPLIT INFINITIVES THAT NO MAN HAD SPLIT BEFORE -- and thus was the Empire forged. " (DA)

----------

Incidently, you can't split a latin infinitive anyway as they are just a verb suffix (present tense at least!) - "Amare" = TO love, "Bibere" = TO drink.

As for split infinitives generally, it's been a long running linguistical debate - some are against it, and other linguists endorse them...

[mbkudu]

Personally I think it gives the sentence a better flow if the infinitive is split, not all the time, but sometimes. William Shatner saying, "To boldly go where no man has gone before," sounds better for some reason than, "To go boldly where no man has gone before." I don't know why this is. As a teacher I always said no to splitting infinitives. I always thought the Star Trek thing was just another example of poor American English that sounded cool.

[kenkannif]

Context, context, context!

Grammar can vary on how and why you're using it!

[Ijustwannateach]

Mbkudu's explanation may well be true; I'd never heard the reason for it before.

However, to my tender ear it does sound a bit harsh to flagrantly split the poor things (as in this sentence). Though, as in the case of Star Trek, a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of undaring sentences- the phrase would certainly not be improved by following the rules.

I believe, also, that common usage is making it more and more acceptable to split infinitives with adverbs indicating state of completion:

"to fully accomplish"

"to completely fill"

"to barely finish"

Rephrasing these to avoid splitting the infinitive does not sound correct these days, but merely precious, IMHO...

"Steven"

[PeaceBlondie]

Mai bpen rai, no lo importa nada, it doesn't matter one whit.

BTW, how much is a whit - about a farthing?

There are many more, far more important, things about English composition than worrying about word order when all the words are in the sentence, in places well enough to comphrehend their meaning, unlike this sentence.

English can be communicated whether or not the infinitive is split, and can be mis-communicated either way, also.

Specialists make special rules so they'll be called upon to settle arguments between lesser specialists, when the rest of the populaton needn't know and doesn't care.

[nomade]

There are many more, far more important, things about English composition than worrying about word order when all the words are in the sentence, in places well enough to comphrehend their meaning, unlike this sentence.

Right on. If a split infinitive sounds better then split it. Language should be a creative tool that you can use like an artist's paintbrush to best express your thoughts, emotions, poetry, humour, whatever. Perfect grammar kills a language. Look what happened to latin.

[PeaceBlondie]

Maybe because I'm American, I never even notice when an infinitive is split. I do notice, or get confused, when an ADVERB is misplaced, far from the word to which it refers. Which brings up the other sacrosanct question, can a sentence end with a preposition? Yes, if the prep. is part of a phrasal verb, such as "refer to." And some verbs which are normally transitive, such as "refer to...[object]" don't need to always have an object.

Here's my favorite example of properly placing the adverb: HE KISSED HER

Now, place "only" at every place in the sentence, and see how different the meanings are.

[Ijustwannateach]

^great example! And in cases where there's a direct object quite often the split infinitive is just better:

He knelt to kiss boldly the Spider Queen. [Hi, Ms. Boldly, how ya doin'?]

He knelt boldly to kiss the Spider Queen.

He boldly knelt to kiss the Spider Queen. [These last two sound more like his kneeling was bold, and that's just not usually a bold thing.]

He knelt to boldly kiss the Spider Queen. [Ok, kissing a Spider Queen can be bold! And don't ask me what I'm reading these days!]

"Steven"

[PeaceBlondie]

He only boldly kissed her balding old bowling knee. (Say that five times fast, after five beers).

Or to illustrate the future perfect passive progressive: "Her only old bowling knee will be being kissed by the balding old bold fool."

But, we will have been digressing from the topic, so therefore:

He only wanted to boldly kiss her knee.

[Polly]

Or;

He only wanted to kiss her knee, boldly. (Not just a peck, I think) No splitting!

[Ajarn]

Same with ending a sentence in a preposition. If it makes sense, don't worry about it. The Grammar Translation Method is what inspired these 'rules', and they served their use at one time, but English, since escaping the yoke of class-based UK English, is much more flexible now, and 'common usage' has become the (common-sense) rule-of-thumb now as to whether it's acceptable usage now, generally. Of course, there will always be those anal types that just can't let go.......

I do still get a bit annoyed when I've seen others get flamed for their spelling or grammar, especially the splitting infinitives/dangling prepositions issue. Says to me that they don't really have anything to say, but they still want to be a prick somehow.

[kenkannif]

^ You missed out a comma there

[Ajarn]

^ You missed out a comma there

"...but they still want to be a prick, somehow."

My mistake

[kenkannif]

I didn't even know you'd missed one out (I use them like full stops!) just being facecious (sp?)! Shall I edit in the interests of not being funny?

[Ajarn]

I didn't even know you'd missed one out (I use them like full stops!) just being facecious (sp?)! Shall I edit in the interests of not being funny?

Just having fun, as I'm sure you are...My crank's not wound up, and neither was it my intention to wind you up. I sense you're not, and just checking on me...If that's the case, thanks for the kind consideration of my feelings. The feeling is mutual, I assure you

Humour gets a bit tricky here, at times

[kenkannif]

Cheers chap! All in the best possible taste (as Kenny Everitt would say, if he wasn't dead!)

[astral]

Best to not worry about it too much.

[jerry921]

I'm not qualified, but I have an opinion

The reason why "to boldly go where no man has gone before" sounds better than the alternatives is rhythm.

To boldly-go where no-man-has-gone before.

Its sounds almost musical when spoken with the hyphens representing shorter pauses than the spaces. Its the same meter as the last line of a limmerick, isn't it?

[PeaceBlondie]

There once was an astonautical bore

Who said as he flew to the store,

If I were a bold man

With spaceship I'd places span

To boldly go where no man has gone before.

Uhhhh. I'm not sure. Think limerics line 1, 3, and 5 have to have only 9 syllables, not eleven.

[jerry921]

There once was an astonautical bore

Who said as he flew to the store,

If I were a bold man

With spaceship I'd places span

To boldly go where no man has gone before.

Uhhhh. I'm not sure.  Think limerics line 1, 3, and 5 have to have only 9 syllables, not eleven.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

After reading your post I wasn't sure either, so I googled, learning how to spell it in the process (I don't know how to spell check my posts with this new firefox browser I use).

As usual, I learned more than I bargained for.

Limerick Discussion Page

Seems from the link that it can be either 10 or 11 syllables for lines 1, 2 and 5, but the star-trek line doesn't have the first strong beat on the correct syllable. In fact, it would if it were "To go boldly where no man has gone before". Which sort of shoots down my whole argument.

Edited February 7, 2005 by jerry921

[Dickie]

Same with ending a sentence in a preposition. If it makes sense, don't worry about it. The Grammar Translation Method is what inspired these 'rules', and they served their use at one time, but English, since escaping the yoke of class-based UK English, is much more flexible now, and 'common usage' has become the (common-sense) rule-of-thumb now as to whether it's acceptable usage now, generally. Of course, there will always be those anal types that just can't let go.......

I do still get a bit annoyed when I've seen others get flamed for their spelling or grammar, especially the splitting infinitives/dangling prepositions issue. Says to me that they don't really have anything to say, but they still want to be a prick somehow.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Typical for someone to bring 'class' into this discussion. The power of English is that it's widespread and should, therefore, allow many diverse peoples to communicate. If there is no central standard to the language, both grammar and pronunciation, then we will eventually have several variations, unintelligible to each other, and the language will have effectively ceased to exist as a single entity. This is, unfortunately, happening already.

I've met Septics who can't understand me, though never Aussies or Kiwis, which indicates that there is a diverging going on between US and UK English, and it's not just spelling and colloquialisms.

If the language is going to survive and remain a uniting entity then a central standard MUST be maintained and recognised as the authority on the language and its usage. Let's face it: EVERYONE understands BBC English with its clear accent and impeccable pronunciation. Maybe it sounds too 'class-based' for certain types but I'd say that that form of English should be the standard.

[mbkudu]

Same with ending a sentence in a preposition. If it makes sense, don't worry about it. The Grammar Translation Method is what inspired these 'rules', and they served their use at one time, but English, since escaping the yoke of class-based UK English, is much more flexible now, and 'common usage' has become the (common-sense) rule-of-thumb now as to whether it's acceptable usage now, generally. Of course, there will always be those anal types that just can't let go.......

I do still get a bit annoyed when I've seen others get flamed for their spelling or grammar, especially the splitting infinitives/dangling prepositions issue. Says to me that they don't really have anything to say, but they still want to be a prick somehow.

Typical for someone to bring 'class' into this discussion. The power of English is that it's widespread and should, therefore, allow many diverse peoples to communicate. If there is no central standard to the language, both grammar and pronunciation, then we will eventually have several variations, unintelligible to each other, and the language will have effectively ceased to exist as a single entity. This is, unfortunately, happening already.

I've met Septics who can't understand me, though never Aussies or Kiwis, which indicates that there is a diverging going on between US and UK English, and it's not just spelling and colloquialisms.

If the language is going to survive and remain a uniting entity then a central standard MUST be maintained and recognised as the authority on the language and its usage. Let's face it: EVERYONE understands BBC English with its clear accent and impeccable pronunciation. Maybe it sounds too 'class-based' for certain types but I'd say that that form of English should be the standard.

As an American school kid I naturally was educated with American spelling and

words like van for lorry, sidewalk for pavement, flat tire for puncture, ect. I think these differences are fairly acceptable. I do agree with Dickie that the basic grammatical structure should stay intact. I much prefer British English grammar

over American English grammar. It's pretty hideous how the American media has butchered the language. It then just spreads to the masses and becomes what we have today in the USA as 'American.'

[Ajarn]

Same with ending a sentence in a preposition. If it makes sense, don't worry about it. The Grammar Translation Method is what inspired these 'rules', and they served their use at one time, but English, since escaping the yoke of class-based UK English, is much more flexible now, and 'common usage' has become the (common-sense) rule-of-thumb now as to whether it's acceptable usage now, generally. Of course, there will always be those anal types that just can't let go.......

I do still get a bit annoyed when I've seen others get flamed for their spelling or grammar, especially the splitting infinitives/dangling prepositions issue. Says to me that they don't really have anything to say, but they still want to be a prick somehow.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Typical for someone to bring 'class' into this discussion. The power of English is that it's widespread and should, therefore, allow many diverse peoples to communicate. If there is no central standard to the language, both grammar and pronunciation, then we will eventually have several variations, unintelligible to each other, and the language will have effectively ceased to exist as a single entity. This is, unfortunately, happening already.

I've met Septics who can't understand me, though never Aussies or Kiwis, which indicates that there is a diverging going on between US and UK English, and it's not just spelling and colloquialisms.

If the language is going to survive and remain a uniting entity then a central standard MUST be maintained and recognised as the authority on the language and its usage. Let's face it: EVERYONE understands BBC English with its clear accent and impeccable pronunciation. Maybe it sounds too 'class-based' for certain types but I'd say that that form of English should be the standard.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As an American school kid I naturally was educated with American spelling and

words like van for lorry, sidewalk for pavement, flat tire for puncture, ect. I think these differences are fairly acceptable. I do agree with Dickie that the basic grammatical structure should stay intact. I much prefer British English grammar

over American English grammar. It's pretty hideous how the American media has butchered the language. It then just spreads to the masses and becomes what we have today in the USA as 'American.'

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Though I agree with many points of the two posters, using splitting infinitives and dangling prepositions as your causes célèbres is going down the wrong path; as many of these postings have pointed out, some alleged 'rules' are just ridiculous if not allowed some flexibility. Language is about successful communication, not rigid and anal rules. Language is also a direct reflection of the culture in that locality. Differing cultures mean differing languages. That's the way it's always been...

Anyway, the Language Police will always be around. Such is life.

And, personally, I wouldn't care if I was misunderstood by any 'Septics', even the Aussies and Kiwis

Edited February 8, 2005 by Ajarn

[Dickie]

not allowed some flexibility. Language is about successful communication, not rigid and anal rules. Language is also a direct reflection of the culture in that locality. Differing cultures mean differing languages. That's the way it's always been...

Anyway, the Language Police will always be around. Such is life. 

And, personally, I wouldn't care if I was misunderstood by any 'Septics', even the Aussies and Kiwis 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Now you've just destroyed the whole purpose of English as a universal form of communication. "... reflection of the culture in that locality"? We're discussing a language that's become a global one, not some local thing. Successful communication also means people can understand what you're saying and if the various forms of English, so to speak, are allowed to drift too far because the "language police" haven't corrected the drift then the usefulness of speaking English is eroded to the point of futility.

[Ajarn]

not allowed some flexibility. Language is about successful communication, not rigid and anal rules. Language is also a direct reflection of the culture in that locality. Differing cultures mean differing languages. That's the way it's always been...

Anyway, the Language Police will always be around. Such is life. 

And, personally, I wouldn't care if I was misunderstood by any 'Septics', even the Aussies and Kiwis 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Now you've just destroyed the whole purpose of English as a universal form of communication. "... reflection of the culture in that locality"? We're discussing a language that's become a global one, not some local thing.

No, sir, you're trying to pigeon-hole a language to fit your needs, but if you look more broadly, you'll see that English has been adapted by many, and it has formed around the local culture(s). India has it's own version of English, as does Singapore, Malaysia, Philippines, America, England, etc., etc. And you can still talk with these folks, mostly, right? Your comments are exactly the same comments heard from Parisian French when talking about Quebecer French in Canada, or Cajun French in Louisiana....

Instead of slagging because it won't fit your rigid rules, why not chill and appreciate and enjoy the differences in our cultures? Your trying to create to create a one-dimensional elitist language is fine for you, but history tells us people adopt and adapt language to suit their own needs, so your efforts to create your 'superior' language will fail, as it has throughout history, because others simply aren't all going to follow you.

Successful communication also means people can understand what you're saying and if the various forms of English, so to speak, are allowed to drift too far because the "language police" haven't corrected the drift then the usefulness of speaking English is eroded to the point of futility.

And you'll decide when others have strayed 'too far', I assume?

That's maybe one reason why this can never be more than an Academic discussion. It's just not based in reality

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Ijustwannateach]

Well, I doubt anyone here would recognize spoken Chaucerian English (even if we knew how it was actually pronounced) and even educated folk have to strain to follow Shakespeare. Times change, language changes.

It's true that England is the home of the English language, as a colleague of mine used to joke introducing himself to his Asian students. However, given that most native speakers no longer live in old perfidious Albion, and that more non-native speakers now live than native speakers, whose language is it, really? To say that historical precedent means we non-English native speakers should teach British English- and not only that, but a particularly high-toned dialect of it- as a standard to our non-native speaking students is simply silly.

"Steven"

[bannork]

Same with ending a sentence in a preposition. If it makes sense, don't worry about it. The Grammar Translation Method is what inspired these 'rules', and they served their use at one time, but English, since escaping the yoke of class-based UK English, is much more flexible now, and 'common usage' has become the (common-sense) rule-of-thumb now as to whether it's acceptable usage now, generally. Of course, there will always be those anal types that just can't let go.......

I do still get a bit annoyed when I've seen others get flamed for their spelling or grammar, especially the splitting infinitives/dangling prepositions issue. Says to me that they don't really have anything to say, but they still want to be a prick somehow.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Typical for someone to bring 'class' into this discussion. The power of English is that it's widespread and should, therefore, allow many diverse peoples to communicate. If there is no central standard to the language, both grammar and pronunciation, then we will eventually have several variations, unintelligible to each other, and the language will have effectively ceased to exist as a single entity. This is, unfortunately, happening already.

I've met Septics who can't understand me, though never Aussies or Kiwis, which indicates that there is a diverging going on between US and UK English, and it's not just spelling and colloquialisms.

If the language is going to survive and remain a uniting entity then a central standard MUST be maintained and recognised as the authority on the language and its usage. Let's face it: EVERYONE understands BBC English with its clear accent and impeccable pronunciation. Maybe it sounds too 'class-based' for certain types but I'd say that that form of English should be the standard.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As an American school kid I naturally was educated with American spelling and

words like van for lorry, sidewalk for pavement, flat tire for puncture, ect. I think these differences are fairly acceptable. I do agree with Dickie that the basic grammatical structure should stay intact. I much prefer British English grammar

over American English grammar. It's pretty hideous how the American media has butchered the language. It then just spreads to the masses and becomes what we have today in the USA as 'American.'

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Though I agree with many points of the two posters, using splitting infinitives and dangling prepositions as your causes célèbres is going down the wrong path; as many of these postings have pointed out, some alleged 'rules' are just ridiculous if not allowed some flexibility. Language is about successful communication, not rigid and anal rules. Language is also a direct reflection of the culture in that locality. Differing cultures mean differing languages. That's the way it's always been...

Anyway, the Language Police will always be around. Such is life.

And, personally, I wouldn't care if I was misunderstood by any 'Septics', even the Aussies and Kiwis

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It might be a bit draining after a while.

[PeaceBlondie]

Population of the UK: roughly sixty million, slightly less than Thailand. 81.5% English English English; 9.6% Scottish; 2.4% Irish; 1.9% Welsh, 1.8% Ulster, and 2.8% other. If the UK citizens that I've met in Thailand and in the UK are typical of their kind, they speak about ten dialects, several of which are indecipherable. Do you go to the seashore just to put pebbles in your mouth?

My son lives in Western Ireland and I understand those folks better than the English British English folks. It amazes me that such a teensy little island, not even 40% the size of the second largest state in the USA, should have countless accents and dialects - and then some BBC bloke wants all the Singaporeans, Manitobans, Oklahomans, and Hawaiians to speak the Queen's English!

[Ajarn]

In San Francisco, where I'm from , around 40% of the population speaks The Queen's English...