 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / October 2006The "split infinitive" rule: more harm than good
_Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage_ says, under "split infinitive" The consensus in the 20th century, however, seems to be that awkward avoidance of the split infinitive has produced more bad writing than use of it. In that article, they also say But the term is actually a misnomer, as _to_ is only an appurtenance of the infinitive, which is the uninflected form of the verb. > _Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage_ says, under > "split infinitive" > > The consensus in the 20th century, however, seems to > be that awkward avoidance of the split infinitive has > produced more bad writing than use of it. "Awkward avoidance"? Who says that is necessary? Vocabulary is key! > In that article, they also say > > But the term is actually a misnomer, as _to_ is only > an appurtenance of the infinitive, which is the > uninflected form of the verb. Not a correct analysis. In German, 'bare' infinitives are often used alone (with modals), but when used with 'zu', they are never separated! In certain cases with both languages, the infinitive is used 'bare' (with modals). "Ich müß dieses tun" = I must do this "Ich habe meine Arbeit zu tun" = "I have my work to do". EXCATLY the same. >> But the term is actually a misnomer, as _to_ is only >> an appurtenance of the infinitive, which is the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > "Ich habe meine Arbeit zu tun" = "I have my work to do". > EXCATLY the same. No. It's very different. It's a completely different language, with completely differnt rules of grammar and usage. > >> But the term is actually a misnomer, as _to_ is only > >> an appurtenance of the infinitive, which is the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > separated! In certain cases with both languages, the infinitive > > is used 'bare' (with modals). > > "Ich müß dieses tun" = I must do this > > "Ich habe meine Arbeit zu tun" = "I have my work to do". [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > language, with completely differnt rules of grammar > and usage. The use of modals without the preposition, and the infinitive with the proposition, is exactly the same. I just gave you examples. "Ich müß dieses tun" = I must do this "Ich habe meine Arbeit zu tun" = "I have my work to do". EXACTLY the same. >>>> But the term is actually a misnomer, as _to_ is only >>>> an appurtenance of the infinitive, which is the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >>> "Ich müß dieses tun" = I must do this "muß" By the way, the modern spelling is "muss". >>> "Ich habe meine Arbeit zu tun" = "I have my work to do". >>> EXCATLY the same. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > "Ich müß dieses tun" = I must do this "muß", or more recently, "muss" > "Ich habe meine Arbeit zu tun" = "I have my work to do". > EXACTLY the same.  SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/ > >>>> But the term is actually a misnomer, as _to_ is only > >>>> an appurtenance of the infinitive, which is the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > "muß" Of course. I had ümläütitis. > By the way, the modern spelling is "muss". Well, yeah, but there's still some usage of the ß > >>> "Ich habe meine Arbeit zu tun" = "I have my work to do". > >>> EXCATLY the same. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Skitt (in Hayward, California) > http://www.geocities.com/opus731/ > > >> But the term is actually a misnomer, as _to_ is only > > >> an appurtenance of the infinitive, which is the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > language, with completely differnt rules of grammar > > and usage. > The use of modals without the preposition, and the infinitive with the > proposition, is exactly the same. I just gave you examples. > > "Ich müß dieses tun" = I must do this > "Ich habe meine Arbeit zu tun" = "I have my work to do". > EXACTLY the same. Well, if you carefully choose the example, and you acknowledge that every word is spelled differently (and in your example, some are spelled incorrectly), the word order is different, it's in a completely different language, and that you have created your own personal definition, spelling, and capitalization for "exactly," yes, there is a vague kind of similarity. > > > >> But the term is actually a misnomer, as _to_ is only > > > >> an appurtenance of the infinitive, which is the [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > own personal definition, spelling, and capitalization > for "exactly," yes, there is a vague kind of similarity. Do you recognize that both English and German have 'modal' verbs which use the bare infinitive: "Ich muss dieses tun" = I must do this and non-modal verbs which require the preposition + verb: "Ich habe meine Arbeit zu tun" = "I have my work to do". Do you? How much more similar could they be? German and English are NOT "completely different languages" They are related. > > "Ich müß dieses tun" = I must do this > > "Ich habe meine Arbeit zu tun" = "I have my work to do". > > EXCATLY the same. > [Reader replied] > No. It's very different. It's a completely different > language, with completely differnt rules of grammar > and usage. UC wrote (somehow, the >'s have gone missing. Why?) The use of modals without the preposition, and the infinitive with the proposition, is exactly the same. I just gave you examples. "Ich müß dieses tun" = I must do this "Ich habe meine Arbeit zu tun" = "I have my work to do". EXACTLY the same. ----------------------------- [I reply] Only because you have chosen your specific example. What about the colloquial form, often heard in power stations and other similar places of toil:- "I have my work to f.cking do, so piss off". Would you wish to change this placement of the adverb to the more grammatical form:- "I have my work f.cking to do, so piss off"? Furthermore, in your specific example, you have not chosen any adverb that might have split the infinitive between your "to" and your "do". Therefore, your example is an example of nothingness. Richard Chambers Leeds UK. > > > "Ich müß dieses tun" = I must do this > > > "Ich habe meine Arbeit zu tun" = "I have my work to do". [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Only because you have chosen your specific example. ' There are only a few modals in English or German: Must/müssen, can/kann, may/mögen, etc. >What about the > colloquial form, often heard in power stations and other similar places of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > might have split the infinitive between your "to" and your "do". Therefore, > your example is an example of nothingness. You miss the point. > Richard Chambers Leeds UK. Dick Chambers wrote: > UC wrote > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Only because you have chosen your specific example. ' There are only a few modals in English or German: Must/müssen, can/kann, may/mögen, etc. >What about the > colloquial form, often heard in power stations and other similar places of [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Therefore, > your example is an example of nothingness. [UC wrote] You miss the point. --------------------- [Richard Chambers replies] So I have, I'm sorry. Now I have re-read everything, I realise that you are writing about the relative merits, in English, of :- a. I have to my work do. b. I have my work to do. and you have concluded that (b) is preferable, or even obligatory. I cannot think that anybody here would disagree with you. I thought you were writing about something more weighty, and more relevant to the title ("The split infinitive rule") than you actually were. You seem to be in your own little world. The rest of want to either split[1] infinitives with complete abandon, or avoid at all costs any such splitting. An adverb is the usual item with which we split infinitives. Adverbial infinitive-splitting is what the mainstream argument is all about, as far as everybody else is concerned, at least as I perceive the situation. [1] A nice little split infinitive which I put in just for fun."Either", in this context, is an adverb. Personally, I split infinitives right, left and centre, whenever I feel like it, and nobody -- not even my wife -- can stop me. I'm a little devil in that respect. I will stop, however, if anybody can show that this style impedes comprehension or dulls down the style. The type of argument that I do not accept is the unthinking and hidebound repetition of hidebound rules propagated forty years ago by hidebound schoolmasters who themselves learnt these hidebound rules from an even more hidebound earlier generation of hidebound schoolmasters in hidebound Prep Schools. That last sentence may require some editing to eliminate unnecessay repetition. I leave that as an exercise for the reader. Richard Chambers Leeds UK. > Dick Chambers wrote: > > UC wrote [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] > > Richard Chambers Leeds UK. Unfortunately this post is so incohenrent I cannot form a reply. Try expressing yourself in the English language. Dick Chambers wrote: > UC wrote > [quoted text clipped - 87 lines] > > Richard Chambers Leeds UK. -------------------------- [UC wrote] Unfortunately this post is so incohenrent I cannot form a reply. Try expressing yourself in the English language. -------------------------- [Richard Chambers replies] It must be the split infinitive that I used. They must do more harm to comprehensibility than I ever imagined possible. Indidentally, why is it that when I reply to your posts, the symbol ">" is never generated to identify what you have written, and to demarcate it from my reply. I have this problem only with your posts, not with anybody else's. Is this problem caused by an incorrect setting on my computer (Outlook Express), or is it something wrong with the messages being sent by UC? Can somebody please advise? Richard Chambers Leeds UK. [answering UC] > Indidentally, why is it that when I reply to your posts, the symbol > ">" is never generated to identify what you have written, and to > demarcate it from my reply. I have this problem only with your posts, > not with anybody else's. Is this problem caused by an incorrect > setting on my computer (Outlook Express), or is it something wrong > with the messages being sent by UC? Can somebody please advise? I have no problem answering UC's posts, although he is using "quoted-printable" transfer encoding, and that can screw up OE. I use the latest OE, together with QuoteFix. QF takes care of stuff like that. SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/ > Unfortunately this post is so incohenrent I cannot form a reply. Try > expressing yourself in the English language. Says the writer who seems to have no way of reading posts before sending them. SignatureStephen Lennox Head, Australia > > Unfortunately this post is so incohenrent I cannot form a reply. Try > > expressing yourself in the English language. > > Says the writer who seems to have no way of reading posts before sending > them. Was? >>> Unfortunately this post is so incohenrent I cannot form a reply. Try >>> expressing yourself in the English language. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Was? Pointless. You don't listen, you won't proofread, you post meaningless one-word answers. I've had enough. SignatureStephen Lennox Head, Australia > > Dick Chambers wrote: > > > UC wrote [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > Unfortunately this post is so incohenrent I cannot form a reply. Try > expressing yourself in the English language. I had no trouble understanding him. Richard, Free Agent put the ">"s in for UC's post for me. It's probably a combination of your program and his posts. You could bracket his posts with lines of hyphens or equal signs, maybe with "start of quoted post" and "end of quoted post". Bill ---------------------------------------------------------------- Reverse halves of the user name for my e-address > > > Dick Chambers wrote: > > > > UC wrote [quoted text clipped - 82 lines] > bracket his posts with lines of hyphens or equal signs, maybe with > "start of quoted post" and "end of quoted post". I use Google Groups. Does that have anything to do with this? >> Richard, Free Agent put the ">"s in for UC's post for me. It's >> probably a combination of your program and his posts. You could >> bracket his posts with lines of hyphens or equal signs, maybe with >> "start of quoted post" and "end of quoted post". > > I use Google Groups. Does that have anything to do with this? I think so, but I'm not sure. It's the "quoted-printable" encoding that causes a problem for OE. The fix is in getting QF, as I have said in another post. SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/ > >> Richard, Free Agent put the ">"s in for UC's post for me. It's > >> probably a combination of your program and his posts. You could [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > causes a problem for OE. The fix is in getting QF, as I have said in > another post. Google Groups limits the number of posts per hour to about 20 or so. That's why I have several accounts; you will see different e-mail addresses throughout the day if I am posting a lot and run up to the limit. > Richard, Free Agent put the ">"s in for UC's post for me. It's > probably a combination of your program and his posts. You could > bracket his posts with lines of hyphens or equal signs, maybe with > "start of quoted post" and "end of quoted post". The best remedy is obtaining the free QuoteFix from http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/ It cures all sorts of OE "features". SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/ > [1] A nice little split infinitive which I put in just for fun."Either", in > this context, is an adverb. Personally, I split infinitives right, left and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > themselves learnt these hidebound rules from an even more hidebound earlier > generation of hidebound schoolmasters in hidebound Prep Schools. My schoolmasters were not bound in hide, although they enjoy handing hidings out. I agree that "either" is another word that I would use between "to" and the verb, although I doubt whether either of us would do the same thing with the following "or". I don't think of this splitting or not as being a rule, but simply a convention. I find anything other than the familiar list of words in that position downright ugly. Incomplete list: either, just, even, only, never. No -ly adverbs. SignatureRob Bannister [...] > I find > anything other than the familiar list of words in that position > downright ugly. For me, nothing can be uglier than the awkward word order that's often resorted to to avoid putting an adverb in its natural place, between a "to" and its infinitive. > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > that's often resorted to to avoid putting an adverb in its > natural place, between a "to" and its infinitive. Most of these are due simply to lack of sufficient vocabulary. "To quickly go" is better expressed by "to hasten', "to hurry", or "to speed" to name jsut a few. UC <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com>, the basket-maker and weaver, pronounced: >> For me, nothing can be uglier than the awkward word order >> that's often resorted to to avoid putting an adverb in its [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > "To quickly go" is better expressed by "to hasten', "to hurry", or "to > speed" to name jsut a few. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAH! "Hasten!" "Speed!" "Thou please-man. Sweep on, you fat and greasy citizens." "Thou feigned friend. Thou stinking haddock." "Thou white-limed wall. Thou ill-begotten, rank very dull fool." "Thou lowborn lass." "Thou art like the harpy, which, to betray, dost with thine angels face, seize with thine eagle's talons." Signaturealt.usenet.kooks - Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker: September 2005 and April 2006 "K-Man's particular genius, however, lies not merely in his humour, but his ability to make posters who had previously seemed reasonably well-balanced turn into foaming, frothing, death threat-uttering maniacs" - Snarky, Demon Lord of Confusion Thou bootless foul and pestilent congregation of vapors. Thou rude-growing spendthrift of tongue. > UC <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com>, the basket-maker and weaver, > pronounced: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAH! Instead of "to quickly go", why not: any of the following? accelerate, barrel, be quick, make a beeline, bestir, breeze, bullet, burst, bustle, dart, dash, dig in, drive, dust, expedite, flee, flit, fly, fog, glide, goad, haste, hasten, hotfoot, hum, hurry, hurry up, hustle, jog, make haste, make time*, make tracks*, move, nip,pass, push, quicken, race, rip, rocket, roll, run, rush, sally, scamper, scoot, scurry, scuttle,skim, slip, smoke, speed, speed up, spur, tear, tool, urge, waltz, whirl, whish, whisk, whiz, zip UC <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com>, the infected executor, chortled: >> UC <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com>, the basket-maker and weaver, >> pronounced: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > scoot, scurry, scuttle,skim, slip, smoke, speed, speed up, spur, > tear, tool, urge, waltz, whirl, whish, whisk, whiz, zip Wow! Not only did you get them all in alphabetical order! You got them all in the same order that thesaurus.com got them in. You're so cool! <aside> f.cking idiot. Signaturealt.usenet.kooks - Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker: September 2005 and April 2006 "K-Man's particular genius, however, lies not merely in his humour, but his ability to make posters who had previously seemed reasonably well-balanced turn into foaming, frothing, death threat-uttering maniacs" - Snarky, Demon Lord of Confusion Thou dwarf. Thou pitiable, flabby dam of horror. > UC <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com>, the infected executor, chortled: > >> UC <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com>, the basket-maker and weaver, [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > <aside> > f.cking idiot. On what basis is this calumny spoken? UC <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com>, the person who makes a living selling tannery remnants, illumined: >> UC <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com>, the infected executor, chortled: >>>> UC <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com>, the basket-maker and weaver, [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > On what basis is this calumny spoken? You hear voices when you read? PS: This, that. That, this. Understand? Signaturealt.usenet.kooks - Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker: September 2005 and April 2006 "K-Man's particular genius, however, lies not merely in his humour, but his ability to make posters who had previously seemed reasonably well-balanced turn into foaming, frothing, death threat-uttering maniacs" - Snarky, Demon Lord of Confusion Thou beastly knave. O most insatiate and luxurious woman. >> Wow! Not only did you get them all in alphabetical order! You got >> them all in the same order that thesaurus.com got them in. You're [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > On what basis is this calumny spoken? Yeah. How dare you imply that he's cool? SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Those who study history are doomed 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |to watch others repeat it. Palo Alto, CA 94304 kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> For me, nothing can be uglier than the awkward word order >> that's often resorted to to avoid putting an adverb in its >> natural place, between a "to" and its infinitive. UC wrote---------------- > Most of these are due simply to lack of sufficient vocabulary. > > "To quickly go" is better expressed by "to hasten', "to hurry", or "to > speed" to name jsut a few. End of quote------------- There is an implied difference of meaning between:- 1. He decided to quickly mend the kettle before setting off to work. 2. He decided to mend the kettle quickly before setting off to work. The first implies a deliberate botch repair, designed for speed not quality. The second implies that he had everything he needed for the job, and thought it would take only a minute or two to do the repair properly. When the English language offers you the opportunity to express yourself more clearly and precisely by means of this distinction, why do you refuse that opportunity by adhering to such an artificial and non-existent rule? The "rule" is little more than just a psychological hang-up. Furthermore, version 2 separates the verb (mend) and the adverb (quickly), by the intervention of "the kettle". While this is usually tolerable, it might not be ideal in a longer sentence. I am an instinctive speaker of English. I have sufficient confidence in my education to believe that if it sounds alright to me, then it is alright. But I cannot quote the grammatical rules by which I sometimes work. This is illustrated well in this discussion on the split infinitive. There are some adverbs that I would never use to split the infinitive. An example is "well", as in:- He continued to do well at school. [1] With other adjectives, I am quite likely to split the infinitive, with no conscience whatsoever, but only if I believe that the result more accurately conveys my intended meaning. For example:- He decided to quickly take the money and run. Can anybody specify the grammatical rule by which I am subconsciously working here, accepting some opportunities to split the infinitive, but rejecting others? [1] I have just thought of one. "He attempted to well-satisfy her every demand". Richard Chambers Leeds UK. > >> For me, nothing can be uglier than the awkward word order > >> that's often resorted to to avoid putting an adverb in its [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > 1. He decided to quickly mend the kettle before setting off to work. > 2. He decided to mend the kettle quickly before setting off to work. Neither is that good. 1. He decided quickly to mend the kettle before setting off to work. (quick decision) 2. He decided to mend the kettle quickly before setting off to work. (quick work) Eh? (snip what is irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial) > When the English language offers you the opportunity to express yourself > more clearly and precisely by means of this distinction, why do you refuse > that opportunity by adhering to such an artificial and non-existent rule? How does German do without it? > The "rule" is little more than just a psychological hang-up. Tell that to the Germans. > Furthermore, version 2 separates the verb (mend) and the adverb (quickly), > by the intervention of "the kettle". While this is usually tolerable, it > might not be ideal in a longer sentence. I gave better examples. > I am an instinctive speaker of English. I have sufficient confidence in my > education to believe that if it sounds alright to me, then it is alright. WTF is 'alright'? Did you mean "all right", mayhaps? > But I cannot quote the grammatical rules by which I sometimes work. This is > illustrated well in this discussion on the split infinitive. There are some [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > conscience whatsoever, but only if I believe that the result more accurately > conveys my intended meaning. For example:- > He decided to quickly take the money and run. Ha. "He decided to grab the money and run." 'Grab' means "quickly take" but you're apparently too stupid to recall that. Your vocabulary is grossly insufficient, it seems. Can't you retain more than five verbs? > Can anybody specify the grammatical rule by which I am subconsciously > working here, accepting some opportunities to split the infinitive, but [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Richard Chambers Leeds UK. >> He decided to quickly take the money and run. > > Ha. "He decided to grab the money and run." 'Grab' means "quickly take" > but you're apparently too stupid to recall that. Your vocabulary is > grossly insufficient, it seems. Can't you retain more than five verbs? Not all quick-taking is grabbing, a term which implies a snatching motion. If the money is strewn around the room, he might have worked quickly and methodically to gather it up, before doing the runner. "To quickly take" is the correct way of describing such an action in this situation if we do not want to go into full detail. It is my policy to ignore all ad hominem remarks that I encounter on Usenet. Such remarks do not contribute to the discussion. Richard Chambers Leeds UK. > >> He decided to quickly take the money and run. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Not all quick-taking is grabbing, a term which implies a snatching motion. Well, we could use 'grab' or 'snatch' or any number of verbs that mean "quickly take". > If the money is strewn around the room, he might have worked quickly and > methodically to gather it up, before doing the runner. "To quickly take" is > the correct way of describing such an action in this situation if we do not > want to go into full detail. Since I don't know all the particulars of this imagined event are, I cannot supply a particular verb, but several are available. 'Grab', 'snatch', 'snag', "snap up", "scoop up", etc., depending on the position of the money. "Quickly take" is quite unimaginative and artless. > It is my policy to ignore all ad hominem remarks that I encounter on Usenet. > Such remarks do not contribute to the discussion. Then don't make absurd suggestions. > Richard Chambers Leeds UK. >> I am an instinctive speaker of English. I have sufficient confidence >> in my education to believe that if it sounds alright to me, then it >> is alright. > > WTF is 'alright'? Did you mean "all right", mayhaps? Maybe he didn't mean that it was all right (completely correct) -- just alright (close enough for government work). There are quite a few who make that distinction. This has been discussed at length in AUE on more than one occasion. It may not be recommended formal usage, but it is certainly not a rare one. There are usage notes about it in both M-W Online and AHD4. SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/ >>>>For me, nothing can be uglier than the awkward word order >>>>that's often resorted to to avoid putting an adverb in its [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > 2. He decided to mend the kettle quickly before setting off to work. > (quick work) I am not at all happy with your first sentence, which, to my mind, fits too easily into Mr Cunningham's ugly sentence category. I would have said, "He quickly decided to mend the kettle...". Of course, one could break the sentence: "He decided, quite on the spur of the moment, to mend the kettle...". SignatureRob Bannister > >>>>For me, nothing can be uglier than the awkward word order > >>>>that's often resorted to to avoid putting an adverb in its [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > I am not at all happy with your first sentence, which, to my mind, fits > too easily into Mr Cunningham's ugly sentence category. Seems unremarkable to me. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22he+decided+quickly+to%22&btnG=Google+Search > I would have > said, "He quickly decided to mend the kettle...". Of course, one could > break the sentence: "He decided, quite on the spur of the moment, to > mend the kettle...". Of course. >> >> For me, nothing can be uglier than the awkward word order >> >> that's often resorted to to avoid putting an adverb in its [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> 1. He decided to quickly mend the kettle before setting off to work. >> 2. He decided to mend the kettle quickly before setting off to work. Both of these mean that a decision was made mend the kettle and to do so quickly. (I'm not convinced that Dick's implied difference of meaning would be conveyed reliably to most readers.) Apart from that, the sentences are unambiguous. >Neither is that good. > >1. He decided quickly to mend the kettle before setting off to work. >(quick decision) That is ambiguous. Does "quickly" apply to "decided" or to "mend"? In the cause of avoiding an infinisplittive some people will position the adverb before "to". Personally I find that arrangement can be ugly and disruptive. So, your (UC's) sentence 1 can indicate either a quick decision or quick work. >2. He decided to mend the kettle quickly before setting off to work. >(quick work) No ambiguity except to the odd individual who parses it as "He decided <something> quickly". Obviously, recasting the sentences can remove ambiguity and make Dick's implied difference explicit. 1. He made a quick decision to mend the kettle before setting off to work. 2. He decided to mend the kettle temporarily before setting off to work. 3. He decided to mend the kettle rapidly before setting off to work. These are perhaps fractionally less colloquial than the originals. I've chosen "rapidly" because, in the area of mending and repairing, "rapid" does not seem to include the sense of temporariness in the way that "quick" can ("quick fix" for example). SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.english.usage) >Both of these mean that a decision was made mend the kettle and to Sorry. "to mend the kettle". Lame excuse which doesn't convince me: I'm in Northern Ireland where "to" is sometimes omitted from the infinitive form. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.english.usage) > >Both of these mean that a decision was made mend the kettle and to > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I'm in Northern Ireland where "to" is sometimes omitted from the > infinitive form. I thought you were taking out insurance against a split infinitive by getting rid of the "to". SignatureBob Lieblich With another moronic comment > >> >> For me, nothing can be uglier than the awkward word order > >> >> that's often resorted to to avoid putting an adverb in its [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > That is ambiguous. Does "quickly" apply to "decided" or to "mend"? Does it really matter whether the decison was quick or the mending is to be quick? The adverb following the verb is commoner. Therefore, 'decided' is modified by 'quickly'. > In the cause of avoiding an infinisplittive some people > will position the adverb before "to". Personally I find that > arrangement can be ugly and disruptive. Why? It's perfectly natural. > So, your (UC's) sentence 1 can indicate either a quick decision or > quick work. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > "rapid" does not seem to include the sense of temporariness in the > way that "quick" can ("quick fix" for example). >> >> >> For me, nothing can be uglier than the awkward word order >> >> >> that's often resorted to to avoid putting an adverb in its [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >Does it really matter whether the decison was quick or the mending is >to be quick? Well, they *are* two different things. If you're willing to sacrifice precision in communication I suppose that it doesn't matter. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>> 1. He decided quickly to mend the kettle before setting off to >>> work. (quick decision) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Does it really matter whether the decison was quick or the mending is > to be quick? Oh my. A quick decision to mend something is the same as a decision to mend something quickly? Now I /know/ English isn't your native language. SignatureLinz Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford My accent may vary >>>> 1. He decided quickly to mend the kettle before setting off to >>>> work. (quick decision) [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Oh my. A quick decision to mend something is the same as a decision to mend >something quickly? Now I /know/ English isn't your native language. Is there any language in which this distinction is not or cannot be made? SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.english.usage) >>>>> 1. He decided quickly to mend the kettle before setting off to >>>>> work. (quick decision) [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Is there any language in which this distinction is not or cannot be > made? Whatever UC's native language is, apparently. SignatureLinz Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford My accent may vary > >>>>> 1. He decided quickly to mend the kettle before setting off to > >>>>> work. (quick decision) [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Whatever UC's native language is, apparently. I recognize the distinction, but idiomatically there is no important difference in the end. > > >>>>> 1. He decided quickly to mend the kettle before setting off to > > >>>>> work. (quick decision) [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > I recognize the distinction, but idiomatically there is no important > difference in the end. If you don't care about whether you are actually saying what you intend to say (or, alternatively, don't care for precision in what you do say), why not take it elsewhere? SignatureBob Lieblich Dead serious > >>> 1. He decided quickly to mend the kettle before setting off to > >>> work. (quick decision) [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Oh my. A quick decision to mend something is the same as a decision to mend > something quickly? Now I /know/ English isn't your native language. Oh yeah? Boo to you. > -- > Linz > Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford > My accent may vary >>>For me, nothing can be uglier than the awkward word order >>>that's often resorted to to avoid putting an adverb in its [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > The second implies that he had everything he needed for the job, and thought > it would take only a minute or two to do the repair properly. Hmm. I think you're reading a lot more into that than most readers would. > When the English language offers you the opportunity to express yourself > more clearly and precisely by means of this distinction, why do you refuse > that opportunity by adhering to such an artificial and non-existent rule? > The "rule" is little more than just a psychological hang-up. Agreed, if you think it is a rule. I think it is just a stylistic guideline that works most of the time, and I still remain to be convinced that anything is gained by "to quickly mend". > Furthermore, version 2 separates the verb (mend) and the adverb (quickly), > by the intervention of "the kettle". While this is usually tolerable, it > might not be ideal in a longer sentence. True, although it would have be a great deal longer than that. > I am an instinctive speaker of English. I have sufficient confidence in my > education to believe that if it sounds alright to me, then it is alright. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > working here, accepting some opportunities to split the infinitive, but > rejecting others? Taste and style. > [1] I have just thought of one. "He attempted to well-satisfy her every > demand". I'm not sure that this qualifies as a split. It looks more like a nonce verb to me. SignatureRob Bannister >> Robert Bannister said: >> [...] >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > "To quickly go" is better expressed by "to hasten', "to hurry", or "to > speed" to name jsut a few. What about the famous "to boldly go"? SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/ > What about the famous "to boldly go"? Henry Cho tells about his friend Jonly[1] asking "So when are they gonna get to Boldligo? They always saying that's where they're going, but they never get there." [1] Born "J.B.", but when he applied for his driver's license ... SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Of course, over the first 10^-10 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |seconds and 10^-30 cubic Palo Alto, CA 94304 |centimeters it averages out to |zero, but when you look in kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |detail.... (650)857-7572 | Philip Morrison http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > > What about the famous "to boldly go"? > > Henry Cho tells about his friend Jonly[1] asking "So when are they > gonna get to Boldligo? They always saying that's where they're going, > but they never get there." Considering that the original text isn't a song lyric, would this still qualify as a "mondegreen"? SignatureOdysseus >>> Robert Bannister said: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > What about the famous "to boldly go"? Infamous. SignatureRob Bannister > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > that's often resorted to to avoid putting an adverb in its > natural place, between a "to" and its infinitive. Mostly, these are sentence structures that were ill-chosen in the first place. I agree that some writers, for obscure reasons, do place adverbs awkwardly in front of the "to", but in most examples I have seen, the adverb fits perfectly naturally later in the phrase. I believe that, somme time back, you presented some good examples where the split is difficult to avoid, at least using the same construction, but rephrasing is usually possible, if not desirable. SignatureRob Bannister hOn Sat, 28 Oct 2006 07:25:50 +0800, Robert Bannister <robban@it.net.au> said: [...] > but rephrasing is usually possible, if not desirable. Your "if not desirable" is an excellent example of an ambiguity that I've recently read about in a usage guide. It can be taken to express either of two contrary points of view toward rephrasing, favorable and unfavorable. That is, it can mean "although not desirable" or "and probably desirable". I'm fairly certain you meant it in the latter way, but I found it fun to come across a good case in point so soon after reading about the principle. > hOn Sat, 28 Oct 2006 07:25:50 +0800, Robert Bannister > <robban@it.net.au> said: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > way, but I found it fun to come across a good case in point > so soon after reading about the principle. Particularly when you quote it like that, out of context, the ambiguity is really striking. There are so many things we say, which are quite unambiguous because of phrasing and tone of voice, but which are obscure when written. SignatureRob Bannister > My schoolmasters were not bound in hide, although they enjoy handing > hidings out. I agree that "either" is another word that I would use [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Incomplete list: either, just, even, only, never. No -ly adverbs. ---------------------- "To boldly go were no man has been before." Why does this work better than any of the alternatives that do not split the infinitive? To find out why, I think you need to do an unconventional grammatical analysis. In my opinion, the sentence should be analysed in terms of concepts rather than mere words:- a. "To boldly go" is the action of a man who habitually goes in a markedly bold fashion to the eight corners of the universe. "Boldly go" is a single concept, unifying both travel and simultaneous habitual boldness. To form the infinitive of the verb form of this concept, you simply need to precede it by "to". b. "To go boldly" is the action of somebody more like you or me. Normally very sensible about where you will, and will not, go to. But on this one occasion, you were abnormally bold and did go on a dangerous journey. The basic concept here is "go", which is subsequently modified by the adverb "boldly". This produces a subtly different meaning from that of (a). The trouble with the split-infinitive "rule" is that it stifles, for no good reason, any attempt to produce subtle shades of meaning such as this. It impedes, rather than promotes, good writing in English. That is why I say that it is a stifling and hidebound rule. Richard Chambers Leeds UK. > > My schoolmasters were not bound in hide, although they enjoy handing > > hidings out. I agree that "either" is another word that I would use [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Why does this work better than any of the alternatives that do not split the > infinitive? It doesn't. The preferable alternative (to my ears) would be: "Boldly to go where no man has gone before." I admit I have a hang-up about splitting infinitives - I cannot break the habit of a lifetime, learned many years ago. But I also don't get why Bob Cunningham has his knickers in such a twist about this - no-one who matters gives a stuff if Bob or anyone else "splits an infinitive", and certainly I would not try to make him conform to my particular set of conventions. By the same token, I'm not going to split infinitives irrespective of anything he or any other "guru" might say. I don't care - to my ear, a split infinitive sounds "wrong". Nor do I agree that by adhering to this convention I am stifling good English - I've never found the need to split 'em in 40-odd years of writing English, so why would I start now? Will. >> ---------------------- >> "To boldly go were no man has been before." [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > "Boldly to go where no man has gone before." ------------------------ You now have me worried. Which of the two above versions is the correct one? Both seem to work well. Richard Chambers Leeds UK. > > "To boldly go were no man has been before." > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > "Boldly to go where no man has gone before." Ouch. If I read that, I'd suspect an automatic translator had been used to translate that sentence from the original Hungarian. I certainly wouldn't expect the writer to be a literate native English speaker. -=Eric > > > "To boldly go were no man has been before." > > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > > > "Boldly to go where no man has gone before." Why not simply: "Its five-year mission: Boldly go where no man has gone before" ? No I didn't. > Why not simply: > > "Its five-year mission: Boldly go where no man has gone before" ? Because it sounds like you forgot something? Like, say, the word 'to'? Seriously, UC, leave English grammar to those of us who know it, okay? -=Eric > No I didn't. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > -=Eric "Your mission: Take Normandy." What the f.ck is wrong with that? > No I didn't. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 'to'? Seriously, UC, leave English grammar to those of us who know > it, okay? I took it as an imperative, but then I would have had "Go boldly". Still, I have noticed people prefacing commands with adverbs. Very strange. SignatureRob Bannister >>>> "To boldly go were no man has been before." >>>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > "Its five-year mission: Boldly go where no man has gone before" ? No one so far seems to have commented on the rhythmic effect of the original and its possible re-phrasings. This is a rather sonorous - even portentous - declaration, and the "split" original is dramatically iambic (the whole line can be delivered as a sort of pentameter). "Boldly to go" is acceptable as an common variant of the iambic rhythm, but it's odd to use a variant before the basic meter has been established. "To go boldly" limps and bumps along; I suppose it would serve if declaimed forcefully with long o's, but the original seems the best version for performance. Evidently that's what the script writer thought, too . . . Alan Jones > <...> "To go boldly" limps and bumps along; <...> To go boldly where no man has gone before. Sounds anapestic to me. It doesn't seem bumpy. T'was the night before Christmas and all through the house... But I still like the original version better. > > <...> > "To go boldly" limps and bumps along; <...> > > To go boldly where no man has gone before. Sounds anapestic to me. Anapest in a storm. Nah, doesn't work. > It doesn't seem bumpy. T'was the night before Christmas and all through the house... > > But I still like the original version better. The original has attained the status of an idiom. Grammar doesn't matter. Not that grammar ever had anything to do with it anyway. SignatureBob Lieblich Remembering that old married couple Buddha and Anna Pest > No one so far seems to have commented on the rhythmic effect of the > original and its possible re-phrasings. This is a rather sonorous - [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the iambic rhythm, but it's odd to use a variant before the basic > meter has been established. The basic meter had been established. This is the third element in a parallel construction: These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Its five year mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |You gotta know when to code, 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 | Know when to log out, Palo Alto, CA 94304 |Know when to single step, | Know when you're through. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |You don't write your program (650)857-7572 | When you're sittin' at the term'nal. |There'll be time enough for writin' http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | When you're in the queue. > The basic meter had been established. This is the third element in a > parallel construction: > > These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Its five year > mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and > new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before. I fail to catch any over-all metre here, especially after the opening sentence: Da-diddy da-diddy (diddy) da da da-diddy. Moreover, parallelism seems to call for "to strangely explore new worlds, to newly seek out life...". SignatureRob Bannister > > No one so far seems to have commented on the rhythmic effect of the > > original and its possible re-phrasings. This is a rather sonorous - [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and > new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before. "These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Its five year mission: to explore strange new worlds, seek out new life and new civilizations, and boldly go where no man has gone before." Duh....... > -- > Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > |There'll be time enough for writin' > http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | When you're in the queue. > > > No one so far seems to have commented on the rhythmic effect of the > > > original and its possible re-phrasings. This is a rather sonorous - [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and > > new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before. That is probably the way it was written, but a hyphen should be between "five" and "year". Bill ---------------------------------------------------------------- Reverse halves of the user name for my e-address UC filted: >> The basic meter had been established. This is the third element in a >> parallel construction: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Duh....... "Friends, Romans, Countrymen: I got somethin' I wanna tell ya." - Bob Newhart, explaining to Abe Lincoln why he shouldn't change the speeches ....r Signature"Keep your eye on the Bishop. I want to know when he makes his move", said the Inspector, obliquely. > UC filted: > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > "Friends, Romans, Countrymen: I got somethin' I wanna tell ya." > - Bob Newhart, explaining to Abe Lincoln why he shouldn't change the speeches I have the two-disc Newhart CD set. He's hilarious! >> "To boldly go were no man has been before." >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > "Boldly to go where no man has gone before." For one interpretation of this wording (I do not necessarily agree with all of it, and like everything else on the internet, it is only one man's personal opinion), see:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Literate_Engineer then scroll approximately half way down the page to the section entitled "Some thoughts on grammar". I found this webpage in the course of trying to discover for myself whether the authentic version of the quote was "to boldly go" or "boldly to go". It is the former, the version that splits the infinitive. Not that that proves anything about good grammatic practice. Richard Chambers Leeds UK >>My schoolmasters were not bound in hide, although they enjoy handing >>hidings out. I agree that "either" is another word that I would use [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > impedes, rather than promotes, good writing in English. That is why I say > that it is a stifling and hidebound rule. I am not disputing that it is stifling if it is taken to be a rule. I don't think it is a rule; simply a matter of good taste. Moreover, I do not agree with your interpretation of "boldly go", which, for me, adds nothing and does not give the nuance you describe. For me, it is jarring. If that is the intent, then that's fine. That is the usual purpose of unusual word order and something which great poets use to great effect; others do it because they are too incompetent to fit the words to the metre or rhyme any other way. As I used to tell my language students: learn the normal way first, then spend a long time studying the practice of good writers and speakers, and then you can try the unusual way. SignatureRob Bannister On 25 Oct 2006, Reader wrote >>> But the term is actually a misnomer, as _to_ is only >>> an appurtenance of the infinitive, which is the >>> uninflected form of the verb. >> Not a correct analysis. In German, -snip twaddle- >> EXCATLY the same. > No. It's very different. It's a completely different > language, with completely differnt rules of grammar > and usage. You're pissing into the wind -- the clown refuses to accept that, even though it's a self-evident truth. SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van > On 25 Oct 2006, Reader wrote > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > You're pissing into the wind -- the clown refuses to accept that, > even though it's a self-evident truth. Are you actually going to tell me you don't see the parallel? German and English are not "completely differnt" (sic). They share many features derived from a common ancestor. Chinese and English, on the other hand, are "completely different". > > On 25 Oct 2006, Reader wrote > > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > features derived from a common ancestor. Chinese and English, on the > other hand, are "completely different". There are differences beyond just spelling words differently. >> On 25 Oct 2006, Reader wrote >>>>> But the term is actually a misnomer, as _to_ is only [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > features derived from a common ancestor. Chinese and English, on the > other hand, are "completely different". If you went back to Germany, split infinitives would no longer bother you and you could speak your native language comfortably instead of struggling with English. SignatureStephen Lennox Head, Australia > >> On 25 Oct 2006, Reader wrote > >>>>> But the term is actually a misnomer, as _to_ is only [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > you and you could speak your native language comfortably instead of > struggling with English. Du mußt vernichtet werden! >>>> On 25 Oct 2006, Reader wrote >>>>>>> But the term is actually a misnomer, as _to_ is only [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Du mußt vernichtet werden! Yes, that's it. See how much easier it is for you than dealing with the complexities of a language that is not your native tongue? SignatureStephen Lennox Head, Australia > >>>> On 25 Oct 2006, Reader wrote > >>>>>>> But the term is actually a misnomer, as _to_ is only [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Yes, that's it. See how much easier it is for you than dealing with the > complexities of a language that is not your native tongue? Tee hee. UC wrote... >> UC wrote >> [ ... ] [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > features derived from a common ancestor. Chinese and English, on the > other hand, are "completely different". How dare you sic HVS when you have written EXCATLY higher up the same post? Not only that, but in capitals so that we can all see it the more easily. Richard Chambers Leeds UK. > UC wrote... > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > How dare you sic HVS when you have written EXCATLY higher up the same post? > Not only that, but in capitals so that we can all see it the more easily. So, you are unaquainted with the Welsh spelling 'EXCATLY'? "Ex officio" adverb as feline. > Richard Chambers Leeds UK. > UC wrote... <snip> > > Are you actually going to tell me you don't see the parallel? German > > and English are not "completely differnt" (sic). They share many [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > How dare you sic HVS when you have written EXCATLY higher up the same post? > Not only that, but in capitals so that we can all see it the more easily. It's actually harder to spot typos in headlines and all-caps text than elsewhere. Increased visibility doesn't necessarily imply increased legibility. SignatureOdysseus >> _Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage_ says, under >> "split infinitive" [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > "Ich müß dieses tun" = I must do this Don't look now, but there's and unwarranted umlaut about. > "Ich habe meine Arbeit zu tun" = "I have my work to do". > > EXCATLY the same. SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/ >>> _Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage_ says, under >>> "split infinitive" [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Don't look now, but there's and unwarranted umlaut about. EXCATLY like English! >> "Ich habe meine Arbeit zu tun" = "I have my work to do". >> >> EXCATLY the same. > Not a correct analysis. In German, I hadn't noticed anyone here speaking German. > "Ich müß dieses tun" = I must do this > > "Ich habe meine Arbeit zu tun" = "I have my work to do". > > EXCATLY the same. No, not exactly the same. German has additional rules, such as that the infinitive must come at the end of the clause, possibly followed by the main verb if this is a subordinate clause; the verb in the main clause comes second, except in a question, where it is first, etc. "Ich muß dieses tun." = "I must this do." (I've forgotten some German: should the "dieses" not be "dies"? I know the umlaut was wrong, though.) SignatureStefano >>"Ich müß dieses tun" = I must do this >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > "Ich muß dieses tun." = "I must this do." And do you know how this came about? Interfering grammarians wanted German to look like Latin periods. Before that, English and German word order was very similar. SignatureRob Bannister > >>"Ich müß dieses tun" = I must do this > >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > German to look like Latin periods. Before that, English and German word > order was very similar. Perhaps. I do know that Latin was used in academic or legal settings long after other European languages turned to their vernaculars, so it's quite possible.[1] German has a great deal of flexibility in word order (except the placement of verbs in subordination), more so than English. You can arrange the subject of a German sentence and the object in quite a different way than English. "Diesen Mann habe ich nie gesehen". Here, the accusative 'diesen' indicates that this is the direct object. "This man I have never seen before" seems quite odd in English, at least today. So the fact that NO flexibility is allowed in the combination of 'zu' plus the in finitive is quite telling. It sticks out like a sore thumb. [1] See: The Emergence of German as a Literary Language by Blackall. >> No, not exactly the same. German has additional rules, such as that >> the infinitive must come at the end of the clause, possibly followed by [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > German to look like Latin periods. Before that, English and German word > order was very similar. This is not true. German inherits its main-verb-final syntax direct from Indo-European; Old English had something like it but lost it in the early Middle Ages. The constraint that the inflected verb comes second goes back, I believe, to Northwest Germanic (the common ancestor of English, German, and the Scandinavian languages), and began to be lost in English only in the late Middle Ages. -Aaron J. Dinkin Dr. Whom >>>No, not exactly the same. German has additional rules, such as that >>>the infinitive must come at the end of the clause, possibly followed by [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > German, and the Scandinavian languages), and began to be lost in English > only in the late Middle Ages. Sorry, I wasn't talking about the verb 2nd rule, but about verb last in subordinate clauses, which was introduced by the same people who translated their names into Latin or Greek. I confess I can't find this quickly using Google, but I know I have read this in a reputable source. SignatureRob Bannister >>>And do you know how this came about? Interfering grammarians wanted >>>German to look like Latin periods. Before that, English and German word [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > subordinate clauses, which was introduced by the same people who > translated their names into Latin or Greek. That's what I was talking about. German inherited verb-final syntax direct from Indo-European; it was not an innovation or an imitation of Latin. Old English had something like it but lost it in the early Middle Ages. -Aaron J. Dinkin Dr. Whom >>>>And do you know how this came about? Interfering grammarians wanted >>>>German to look like Latin periods. Before that, English and German word [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > from Indo-European; it was not an innovation or an imitation of Latin. > Old English had something like it but lost it in the early Middle Ages. I can only repeat that that conflicts with what I have read. I only wish I could find the reference. Furthermore, it does not fit with any of the stuff I had to read at uni in Old High and Middle High German. SignatureRob Bannister >> That's what I was talking about. German inherited verb-final syntax direct >> from Indo-European; it was not an innovation or an imitation of Latin. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I could find the reference. Furthermore, it does not fit with any of the > stuff I had to read at uni in Old High and Middle High German. Interesting. I admit I don't have any reference about the syntax of Old High German at hand at the moment (historical syntax isn't my field), but here's my citation on Old English (Kroch, Taylor, & Ringe 1995: "The Middle English verb-second constraint"): "Old English is a West Germanic language with a syntax roughly similar to that of modern German. In several ways, however, its word order exhibits more complex variation than do the modern West Germanic languages. For instance, it freely allows postposition of complements and adjuncts, both nominal and prepositional, to the right of the uninflected VP-final verb. This postposition leads to sperficially free word order in texts; but recent studies have demonstrated that the apparent freedom of the order of the verb in Old English with respect to its complements or adjuncts results almost entirely from the greater freedom of rightward extraposition in that language relative to its modern West Germanic cousins." I take this as meaning that OE was roughly like Latin in that the fundamental sentence order was SOV, but constituents could appear to the right of V in various frequent-but-exceptional circumstances. In modern German, of course, just about _nothing_ can occur to the right of V. (This it shares with Hittite, the earliest attested Indo-European language.) It may be that Old High German was more like Old English and Latin in that it was basically SOV with occasional surface-level exceptions, and the ability to place constituents after V was lost between then and now - but note that this makes German less like Latin, not more. -Aaron J. Dinkin Dr. Whom >>>That's what I was talking about. German inherited verb-final syntax direct >>>from Indo-European; it was not an innovation or an imitation of Latin. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > ability to place constituents after V was lost between then and now - but > note that this makes German less like Latin, not more. Fair enough. I'll have to research this, but I'm reluctant to pick up the dry-as-dust books on my bookshelf, let alone look farther afield. OHG was hardly my favourite subject: a large number of our texts had Latin equivalents, and despite my abysmal Latin*, it was a lot easier to read than the OHG. The "High" was also misleading as a number of texts were OLG. One of the oldest and probably best-known fragments begins "Ik gehorta dat seggen" (I heard it said), which doesn't look like High German. * I bet I can't find it now, but one of the more interesting items (not prescribed for the course) in my book was a kind of phrase book compiled by a Roman officer serving on the Rhine. It didn't go quite so far as the "Voulez-vous coucher avec moi" expressions, but was quite earthy. SignatureRob Bannister Steve MacGregor <esperantujo@yahoo.com> schrieb/wrote: > "Ich muß dieses tun." = "I must this do." > (I've forgotten some German: should the "dieses" not be "dies"? I > know the umlaut was wrong, though.) Both is correct according to grammar books. However, "dieses" sounds a bit outdated. Personally, I would just use "das" and replace "tun" with "machen": "Ich muss das machen." Claus > Steve MacGregor <esperantujo@yahoo.com> schrieb/wrote: > > "Ich muß dieses tun." = "I must this do." [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Claus Ja, natürlich. Mein Fehler. >> _Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage_ says, under >> "split infinitive" [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > separated! In certain cases with both languages, the infinitive is > used 'bare' (with modals). However, in Swedish, it is perfectly acceptable to split infinitives. English is more closely related to Swedish so hey, go ahead and split. SignatureLinz Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford My accent may vary >>> _Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage_ says, under >>> "split infinitive" [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >However, in Swedish, it is perfectly acceptable to split infinitives. >English is more closely related to Swedish so hey, go ahead and split. I fear that saying that to UC is splitting into the wind. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.english.usage) > >>> _Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage_ says, under > >>> "split infinitive" [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > I fear that saying that to UC is splitting into the wind. So you reckon that, to Bob C, the form with "to" is a spit infinitive? SignatureMike. >> >>> _Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage_ says, under >> >>> "split infinitive" [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >So you reckon that, to Bob C, the form with "to" is a spit infinitive? Possibly. A spit infinitive could be defined as one that 1. is ejected forcibly from the mouth or 2. has a skewer driven right through it. Or I suppose, both. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.english.usage) > However, in Swedish, it is perfectly acceptable to split infinitives. > English is more closely related to Swedish so hey, go ahead and split Well, English and German are both West Germanic, while Swedish is North Germanic, so the closeness of the languages is not really as you say. But since UC thinks that English has to use German rules, while giving examples that highlight cases where English certainly does not follow German rules (word order, Capitalization, spelling, alphabet, and vocabulary), I hope you're just entertaining yourself (as I am) rather than thinking that you'll get through to him. He is simply to unerstand too thick. He must this do, around to tain him enter, as he probably none friends hath. >>However, in Swedish, it is perfectly acceptable to split infinitives. >>English is more closely related to Swedish so hey, go ahead and split [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > cases where English certainly does not follow German rules > (word order, Capitalization, spelling, alphabet, and vocabulary), The word order is a relatively modern invention. Capitalisation or lack of it is another in both English and German; English went one way, German the other. The alphabet is hardly that different, although German tries to have letters for all its sounds, while English makes do with a messy compromise. The vocabulary is very similar with millions of easily recognisable cognates. If that doesn't make German and English somewhat closer than second cousins, I don't know what does, and the argument was purely about "to/zu" + infinitive, not about anything else. Re. Linz's comment. I did try to learn Swedish once, but that was so long ago, I can't remember a thing. Can you please give us a couple of examples of split infinitives. I don't consider Swedish irrelevant, since the Vikings must have had some influence on our language. SignatureRob Bannister >>>However, in Swedish, it is perfectly acceptable to split infinitives. >>>English is more closely related to Swedish so hey, go ahead and split [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> cases where English certainly does not follow German rules >> (word order, Capitalization, spelling, alphabet, and vocabulary), [...] > Re. Linz's comment. I did try to learn Swedish once, but that was so > long ago, I can't remember a thing. Can you please give us a couple of > examples of split infinitives. I don't consider Swedish irrelevant, > since the Vikings must have had some influence on our language. I do not know Swedish to give you "textbook" examples, but here is one in the wild: Det är svårt *att i ord beskriva* hur mycket som krävs av föraren. It is difficult *to in a word describe* how much it demands from [lit. "of"] a driver [drivers?]. <http://www.pgdakar.com/hpriding/russia.html> SignatureAlec St.Petersburg, Russia [30E18 59N56] Alec Kojaev skrev: >>>> However, in Swedish, it is perfectly acceptable to split infinitives. >>>> English is more closely related to Swedish so hey, go ahead and split [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > It is difficult *to in a word describe* how much it demands from > [lit. "of"] a driver [drivers?]. "Föraren" (förare + -en) = "the driver". > <http://www.pgdakar.com/hpriding/russia.html> >>>>However, in Swedish, it is perfectly acceptable to split infinitives. >>>>English is more closely related to Swedish so hey, go ahead and split [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > [lit. "of"] a driver [drivers?]. > <http://www.pgdakar.com/hpriding/russia.html> Now I'm still left wondering whether "att" is like "to" or whether it corresponds to the "um" in an equivalent German expression: "um (es) in einem Wort zu beschreiben" (in order it in a word to describe). SignatureRob Bannister >>>>>However, in Swedish, it is perfectly acceptable to split infinitives. >>>>>English is more closely related to Swedish so hey, go ahead and split [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > corresponds to the "um" in an equivalent German expression: "um (es) in > einem Wort zu beschreiben" (in order it in a word to describe). As far as I know, Swedish is very similar to English in this aspect: <att> is a part of infinitive form, dropped only in certain situations (after modal verbs, after some other verbs, and in two grammatic constructions where it is not really clear whether the form used is actually the infinitive). Understanding written Swedish is quite easy for English-speaker once you get the orphographic conventions; grammatic constuctions are often very close too. For example, almost all words in the sentence above have direct English cognates [1] having very close meaning and even very close pronunciation. [1] <that>, <are>, <to>, <in>, <word>, <describe>, <how>, <much>, <some>, <crave>, <of>. <föraren> can be understood from German <Führer>, leaving only <svårt> without direct cognates. SignatureAlec St.Petersburg, Russia [30E18 59N56] >>>>>> However, in Swedish, it is perfectly acceptable to split >>>>>> infinitives. English is more closely related to Swedish so hey, [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > <some>, <crave>, <of>. <föraren> can be understood from German > <Führer>, leaving only <svårt> without direct cognates. Not a direct cognate, maybe, but "schwer" comes pretty close. SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/ > Understanding written Swedish is quite easy for English-speaker Yes. I used to have a Swedish built Volvo. It was easy to work out that all the inscriptions around the engine meant "This will cost you 10 times as much as for a Ford part". > once you get the orphographic conventions; grammatic constuctions are > often very close too. For example, almost all words in the sentence [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > <some>, <crave>, <of>. <föraren> can be understood from German > <Führer>, leaving only <svårt> without direct cognates. I spent 3 months trying to learn Swedish in 1961, so I don't remember much. I do remember the subordinate word order was much more like English, so that "the chair that I'm sitting on" was something vaguely like "stulen som jeg sitta on" rather than "der Stuhl, auf dem/worauf ich sitze". I thought "svårt" was like "schwer", but that might have been a false cognate. One thing that surprised about Swedish was how hard the pronunciation of some vowels was. When Swedes speak German, they sound as if they're from a Romance-language country, and yet, in English, they sound like super-posh English. SignatureRob Bannister >> once you get the orphographic conventions; grammatic constuctions are >> often very close too. For example, almost all words in the sentence [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I spent 3 months trying to learn Swedish in 1961, so I don't remember > much. I try to learn Swedish now, and I already don't remember much. > I thought "svårt" was like "schwer", but that might have > been a false cognate. Skitt mentions that too, but I never even tried to learn German, so I'll take your [both] word on it. _Svensk etymologisk ordbok_ on Project Runeberg [1] (that doesn't respond at the moment, for some reason) indeed shows [p.922] <svår> and <schwer> as cognates, and even an Anglo-Saxon cognate <swoere>, but no Modern English cognates. [1] Google cache link: <http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cache:tkEbwU2MGUoJ:www.lysator.liu.se/runeberg/sv etym/1010.html> SignatureAlec St.Petersburg, Russia [30E18 59N56] > Skitt mentions that too, but I never even tried to learn German, > so I'll take your [both] word on it. _Svensk etymologisk ordbok_ on > Project Runeberg [1] (that doesn't respond at the moment, for some > reason) indeed shows [p.922] <svår> and <schwer> as cognates, and even > an Anglo-Saxon cognate <swoere>, but no Modern English cognates. For a moment, I thought it might be related to "sere", but it seems not. My German dictionary tells me that "swaere" originally meant something like "respected, honoured". SignatureRob Bannister Robert Bannister skrev: >> Skitt mentions that too, but I never even tried to learn German, >> so I'll take your [both] word on it. _Svensk etymologisk ordbok_ on [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > My German dictionary tells me that "swaere" originally meant something > like "respected, honoured". According to SAOB (http://g3.spraakdata.gu.se/saob/),"svår" is probably related to Latin "serius", so it should also be related to English "serious". > One thing that surprised about Swedish was how hard the > pronunciation of some vowels was. When Swedes speak German, > they sound as if they're from a Romance-language country, > and yet, in English, they sound like super-posh English. If you're not already familiar with the vowel chart for Swedish in the _Handbook of the International Phonetic Association_, you'd probably find it interesting to see. In my copy, which is copyright 1999, the Swedish vowel chart is on page 140. It has ten vowels scattered over the left-hand upper two-thirds of the chart, while American English, page 42, has only three vowels in that region. Audio and pdf available free at: http://web.uvic.ca/ling/resources/ipa/handbook_downloads.htm http://web.uvic.ca/ling/resources/ipa/charts/IPAlab/IPAlab.htm http://web.uvic.ca/ling/resources/ipa/handbook.htm Richard Yates > > One thing that surprised about Swedish was how hard the > > pronunciation of some vowels was. When Swedes speak German, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > left-hand upper two-thirds of the chart, while American > English, page 42, has only three vowels in that region. > _Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage_ says, under > "split infinitive" [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > an appurtenance of the infinitive, which is the > uninflected form of the verb. What on earth does that mean? If it is truly an "appurtenance", then it should surely not be separated. SignatureRob Bannister > > _Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage_ says, under > > "split infinitive" [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > What on earth does that mean? If it is truly an "appurtenance", then it > should surely not be separated. Not even by another appurtenance, such as an adverb? Does no one wear an undershirt between skin and shirt? MW is not UC. SignatureBob Lieblich Master of the Weird Analogy >>>_Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage_ says, under >>>"split infinitive" [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Not even by another appurtenance, such as an adverb? Does no one wear > an undershirt between skin and shirt? You seem to be using the "accessory" meaning, which I would have thought was mainly when "appurtenance" was used in the plural and with which M-W appears to concur. I took it mean "that which belong with" or, as M-W puts it "an adjunct". SignatureRob Bannister > > _Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage_ says, under > > "split infinitive" [...] > > In that article, they also say > > But the term is actually a misnomer, as _to_ is only > > an appurtenance of the infinitive, which is the > > uninflected form of the verb. > What on earth does that mean? If it is truly an "appurtenance", then it > should surely not be separated. Are you taking too narrow a view of the definition of "appurtenance"? Dictionaries I've looked in say it's anything having to do with the thing it's said to appertain to. Definitions are so vague that it seems a shame such a long word doesn't have a more precise definition. In saying that the "to" particle is an appurtenance to the infinitive, I understand them to mean simply that the "to" particle accompanies the infinitive. So far as I know, it serves no useful purpose except to follow convention. That convention is really unnecessary. If we say "I like walk on the beach" or "I want drink some water", the meanings should be quite clear. They sound like pidgin, but they leave no doubt as to their meanings. If the convention were to omit the "to" particle in all cases, it shouldn't be missed after we had had a few decades to get used to its absence. However, eliminating the "to" particle when it's associated with the infinitive doesn't extend to omitting it when it's part of the preceding syntax and only looks superficially to be associated with the infinitive. As someone here has said (was it Mike?), in "I have to go", the "to" is really part of the phrase "have to", not an accompaniment to the infinitive. This is made clearer by putting the "have to" phrase at the end of the sentence: "I will eat because in order to stay alive I have to". > > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > to. Definitions are so vague that it seems a shame such a > long word doesn't have a more precise definition. I actually thought the the M-W definition was so vague that it was meaningless. SignatureRob Bannister > >>>_Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage_ says, under > >>>"split infinitive" > > [...] > >>>In that article, they also say > >>> But the term is actually a misnomer, as _to_ is only > >>> an appurtenance of the infinitive, which is the > >>> uninflected form of the verb. > >>What on earth does that mean? If it is truly an "appurtenance", then it > >>should surely not be separated. > > Are you taking too narrow a view of the definition of > > "appurtenance"? Dictionaries I've looked in say it's > > anything having to do with the thing it's said to appertain > > to. Definitions are so vague that it seems a shame such a > > long word doesn't have a more precise definition. > I actually thought the the M-W definition was so vague that it was > meaningless. That is to say, the word "appurtenance" has such a variety of meanings as to make it meaningless. But it's not. With all of its definitions, it always means something related in some sense. Can you cite a worthwhile dictionary that gives a definition of "appurtenance" that is less vague? The _New Shorter Oxford_ gives the synonym "accessory". One of its definitions of "accessory" is A n. 1 An additional or subordinate thing; an adjunct, an accompaniment; a minor fitting or attachment; a small article of (usu. a womans) dress. Now usu. in pl. LME. I think "accompaniment" is spot on for describing the relation of "to" to an infinitive that it accompanies. > > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > Can you cite a worthwhile dictionary that gives a definition > of "appurtenance" that is less vague? Sorry. A misunderstanding. I meant that its statement about a split infinitive was meaningless. SignatureRob Bannister > _Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage_ says, under > "split infinitive" [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > an appurtenance of the infinitive, which is the > uninflected form of the verb. Bloody hell, Bob, not this hoary old subject again! Why does it upset you so much? There are some people who, like you, think this "rule" is ridiculous, ill-conceived and unnecessary. There are others, myself included, who feel something close to physical pain when they hear an "infinitive" being split. No amount of argumentation (© Fran) will convince us to break the habit of a lifetime. Because that's what it is - a habit, in my case imbibed with mother's milk. As an aside, I'm perfectly well aware that the word t-o-i-l-e-t is a widely accepted synonym for lavatory, but I would never, under any conceivable circumstances, use it. Nor would I ever, under any conceivable circumstances, split an infinitive. What's more, I'm bringing up my children to follow my example. So put that in your meerschaum and set light to it. Will. > > _Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage_ says, under > > "split infinitive" [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > included, who feel something close to physical pain when they hear an > "infinitive" being split. Ouch! "To quickly and easily create" is one of the worst. Used on a lot of software packaging. > No amount of argumentation (© Fran) will > convince us to break the habit of a lifetime. Because that's what it [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Will. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.