Please, split your infinitives

B

bybee

New member
rexlunae said:
Recently, I read an article about that discussed Steven Pinker's contention that the prescription against splitting infinitives is a bogus rule, and that there is no reason to have it. I would argue that, not only is that rule bogus, and that it represents a blatant Latinism, but that most of the time, when you can split an infinitive, you should.

The example that is most commonly given is the phrase from Star Trek, which should tell you something about how recent this form of misplaced grammatical pedantry actually is. It is argued that the phrase "...to boldly go..." should be written "...boldly to go..." or "...to go boldly...".

In Latin, and in many other languages, there is a part of speech called an infinitive. In English, we don't genuinely have such a thing. English has what you could call an "infinitive phrase". Like a prepositional phrase, it begins with a short work, "to", but unlike a prepositional phrase, it ends with a verb instead of a noun. Since it has a beginning marker and an ending, it can encompass any number of modifying words without confusion or ambiguity.

If that were the entire story, it would be enough to simply throw out the rule against splitting infinitives. But there is more. In English, and in many other languages, there is also a rule demanding that modifying words not be separated more than necessary from the words that they modify. In the simple case, this means that if we follow the prohibition against cleft infinitives, we are at least adding the separation of a "to" in the case where we move the descriptor forward. If we place it after the verb, it threatens to separate the verb from its object, where there is one. This may be entirely reasonable, if the modifier is meant to apply to the association between the verb and its object "to go boldly to war" as opposed to "to boldly go to war", but there is a slight semantic nuance to the association by position (describing how you go versus how you go to war).

For that reason, I would argue that placing a modifier for an infinitive in front of the "to" should be considered either wrong, or at least less than ideal. People who are learning English who place the modifier in front of the "to" should be gently corrected. Split your infinitives, people.

Here's the article:
http://www.motherjones.com/environm...minds-steven-pinker-style-bogus-grammar-rules
Click to expand...

I love split infinitives! Also, one may end a sentence with with!
And I don't lisp!
 
rainee

rainee

New member
Spitfire said:
SEIN ODER NICHT SEIN, das ist hier die Frage...

Shakespeare is so much better in German.
Click to expand...
German:
SEIN ODER NICHT SEIN, das ist hier die Frage...

English:
To be or not ; that is the question (according to Google Translator)

OR

English:
His or non-existence; this is here the question (according to translation2.paralink.com)



Are either of these correct, Liebling?
 
B

bybee

New member
rainee said:
German:
SEIN ODER NICHT SEIN, das ist hier die Frage...

English:
To be or not ; that is the question (according to Google Translator)

OR

English:
His or non-existence; this is here the question (according to translation2.paralink.com)



Are either of these correct, Liebling?
Click to expand...

It certainly is the question!
 
rainee

rainee

New member
Promise...To have and to hold
from this day forward...

Now see are these not great?
Who would split them??

Let them step forward now or forever hold their peace!!
 
Last edited:
rainee

rainee

New member
Spitfire said:
This is an extremely terrible translation. :p
Click to expand...

My apologies to you.
I just came round enough from my silliness to actually look at the German words.

If SEIN means "Be"

and ODER means "or"

then NICHT SEIN means "not be"

So even Google Translator lost the poetry of the line that is in German as well as English.

However, it doesn't look from my mostly ignorant position as if you could split an infinitive there even if you wanted to joyfully demonstrably split to your heart's content. sigh

So since this thread is about splitting I should split the marriage vows.
 
Spitfire

Spitfire

New member
It is not possible to split infinitives in German since the infinitive is one word. :p

Just like in Latin, French, Spanish, Swedish, Dutch, Italian, and.... pretty much every other language I know anything about (and of course in Chinese there is only one form of every verb!)
 
rainee

rainee

New member
I, Blah blah blah, take you, Ta Da Dee Da,

to most completely and assuredly be my lawfully wedded spouse,

to irrevocably but nicely have

and to unrepentantly but gently and lovingly hold,

from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part.

There.

He asked for splits, there we go :)
 
rainee

rainee

New member
Spitfire said:
It is not possible to split infinitives in German since the infinitive is one word. :p

Just like in Latin, French, Spanish, Swedish, Dutch, Italian, and.... pretty much every other language I know anything about (and of course in Chinese there is only one form of every verb!)
Click to expand...

You make me very jealous, thank you very minx. :)
 
PureX

PureX

Well-known member
rexlunae said:
Recently, I read an article about that discussed Steven Pinker's contention that the prescription against splitting infinitives is a bogus rule, and that there is no reason to have it. I would argue that, not only is that rule bogus, and that it represents a blatant Latinism, but that most of the time, when you can split an infinitive, you should.

The example that is most commonly given is the phrase from Star Trek, which should tell you something about how recent this form of misplaced grammatical pedantry actually is. It is argued that the phrase "...to boldly go..." should be written "...boldly to go..." or "...to go boldly...".

In Latin, and in many other languages, there is a part of speech called an infinitive. In English, we don't genuinely have such a thing. English has what you could call an "infinitive phrase". Like a prepositional phrase, it begins with a short work, "to", but unlike a prepositional phrase, it ends with a verb instead of a noun. Since it has a beginning marker and an ending, it can encompass any number of modifying words without confusion or ambiguity.

If that were the entire story, it would be enough to simply throw out the rule against splitting infinitives. But there is more. In English, and in many other languages, there is also a rule demanding that modifying words not be separated more than necessary from the words that they modify. In the simple case, this means that if we follow the prohibition against cleft infinitives, we are at least adding the separation of a "to" in the case where we move the descriptor forward. If we place it after the verb, it threatens to separate the verb from its object, where there is one. This may be entirely reasonable, if the modifier is meant to apply to the association between the verb and its object "to go boldly to war" as opposed to "to boldly go to war", but there is a slight semantic nuance to the association by position (describing how you go versus how you go to war).

For that reason, I would argue that placing a modifier for an infinitive in front of the "to" should be considered either wrong, or at least less than ideal. People who are learning English who place the modifier in front of the "to" should be gently corrected. Split your infinitives, people.

Here's the article:
http://www.motherjones.com/environm...minds-steven-pinker-style-bogus-grammar-rules
Click to expand...
I mostly agree, but I believe there is a 'higher' imperative, here; and that is the arrangement of words, "poetically". Meaning: the arrangement of words not only according to clear or 'correct' grammatical rule, but also according to how they sound together in our minds, as though spoken. Because that relationship often illuminates and amplifies the specific meaning intended by the writer in his choosing those particular words in that particular order.

Very good writing has a tendency to 'sing' as we're reading it. And that's not necessarily because the writer followed all the rules. Sometimes, it's because he didn't.
 
Caledvwlch

Caledvwlch

New member
PureX said:
I mostly agree, but I believe there is a 'higher' imperative, and that is the arrangement of words, "poetically". Meaning: the arrangement of words not only according to clear or 'correct' grammatical rule, but also according to the relationship of how they sound together in out minds. Because that relationship often illuminates the and amplifies specific meaning intended by the writer in choosing those particular words.

Very good writing has a tendency to 'sing' as we're reading it. And that's not necessarily because the writer followed all the rules. Sometimes, it's because he didn't.
Click to expand...

This is a great point. I read another piece recently about the way we string together multiple adjectives.

For simplistic example:

"A tall, green tree" sounds much more natural than "a green, tall tree."
 
The Barbarian

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Come on! Why should we care about such trifles when prepositions are terminating sentences all over the place!
Click to expand...

The old story:

A woman from Texas and a woman from California meet at a party. The woman from Texas says to the woman from California; "Hah! Where y'all from?"

The woman from California says, "Where I come from we don't end sentences with prepositions..."

So the woman from Texas says, "O.K., where y'all from, (insult deleted)?!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top