| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3] > | to boldly go into the split infinitive Thread poster: Lesley Clarke
|
|---|
| If it works... | Mar 24, 2004 |
This discussion reminds me of a book I read quite a while ago:
It's about a British professor changing places with a US professor. One of them teaches English or writing, and his "doctrines" are presented one by one throughout the book as part of the main story. In the chapter following each of these rules, the author then goes ahead and does exactly what the ficticious professor has told his students to never do (I couldn't resist this one)... One chapter full of split infinitives, anothe... See more This discussion reminds me of a book I read quite a while ago:
It's about a British professor changing places with a US professor. One of them teaches English or writing, and his "doctrines" are presented one by one throughout the book as part of the main story. In the chapter following each of these rules, the author then goes ahead and does exactly what the ficticious professor has told his students to never do (I couldn't resist this one)... One chapter full of split infinitives, another one with prepositionas at the end, etc. Hilarious!
My memory is a bit hazy about it, so I hope I'm not making everything up. But the book's worth reading no matter what: Changing Places by David Lodge. (It's amazing that after all these years I still remember author and title, that must mean something since I usually don't even remember the title of the book I'm currently reading.)  ▲ Collapse
| | | | RHELLER
United States
Local time: 14:34
French to English
+ ...
| It's up to you | Mar 24, 2004 |
In the U.S. we are more free about it. I do it all the time
For example, "to better implement" the network installation. I trust my ear.
"A split infinitive occurs when a word is placed between the two parts of the verb. While prescriptive grammarians frown on split infinitives, many speakers and writers commonly use them. In some cases, the infinitive may be split to retain clarity, and it may actual... See more In the U.S. we are more free about it. I do it all the time
For example, "to better implement" the network installation. I trust my ear.
"A split infinitive occurs when a word is placed between the two parts of the verb. While prescriptive grammarians frown on split infinitives, many speakers and writers commonly use them. In some cases, the infinitive may be split to retain clarity, and it may actually improve the sentence overall. "
Murders are expected to more than double next year. (split infinitive)
Murders are expected more than to double next year. (intact infinitive)
The sentences are the exact same words, but the first sentence is clearer
this is actually from a Canadian website
http://www.uncp.edu/home/canada/work/caneng/usage.htm
[Edited at 2004-03-24 02:59] ▲ Collapse
| | | | invguy 
Bulgaria
Local time: 23:34
English to Bulgarian
| Pardon my non-native's pinion... ;) | Mar 25, 2004 |
... and please correct me if I'm wrong - but I've always thought it was simply a matter of adequate usage.
IMHO, aside from the technical side (where a construction is possible - or not - without a split infinitive), it adds a certain ring: basically, either more formal, or more dramatic. Therefore, I've always been convinced that using it (or not) is mostly a matter of how you want the sentence/phrase to sound.
That is, I'd rather regard split infinitive as a means for... See more ... and please correct me if I'm wrong - but I've always thought it was simply a matter of adequate usage.
IMHO, aside from the technical side (where a construction is possible - or not - without a split infinitive), it adds a certain ring: basically, either more formal, or more dramatic. Therefore, I've always been convinced that using it (or not) is mostly a matter of how you want the sentence/phrase to sound.
That is, I'd rather regard split infinitive as a means for 'fine-tuning' the overall feeling you get from a sentence.
Of course, if we go with the tuning analogy, you can't compensate poor engine characteristics only by fine-tuning; OTOH, excessive fine-tuning might cause a deterioration in the performance of an otherwise well working engine...
Does anyone share this view? ▲ Collapse
| | | | Lesley Clarke
Mexico
Local time: 14:34
Spanish to English
TOPIC STARTER
Thanks to everyone for their interesting contributions. It has been extremely helpful to me to clarify my ideas.
As I say in that case I removed the split infinitive because on rereading the paragraph I made several changes and it read better without it, but I will never again stand on my head to avoid it.
| | |
|
|
|
| Example of when not splitting can cause lack of clarity | Mar 30, 2004 |
I found this example in Merriam Webster's Dictionary of English Usage.
... the authorities would be required correctly to anticipate their requirements for at least ten days ahead - W. Manning Dacey, The British Banking Mechanism, 1951
"In the sequence "required correctly to anticipate" the adverb 'correctly' can be construed as modifying either 'required' or 'to anticipate.'.... as it appears on the printed page, there is just a slight opportunity of doubt. The sequenc... See more I found this example in Merriam Webster's Dictionary of English Usage.
... the authorities would be required correctly to anticipate their requirements for at least ten days ahead - W. Manning Dacey, The British Banking Mechanism, 1951
"In the sequence "required correctly to anticipate" the adverb 'correctly' can be construed as modifying either 'required' or 'to anticipate.'.... as it appears on the printed page, there is just a slight opportunity of doubt. The sequence "required to correctly anticipate" would remove that doubt, without changing the meaning of the sentence. The adverb can also can also be placed after 'anticipate', but doing this would have the effect of emphasizing the adverb rather than the verb. Had the author intended 'correctly' to be the focus, he probably would have written "required to anticipate their requirements correctly." Some commentators have advised routinely repairing split infinitives by placing the adverb after the infinitive, but note that this has the effect of altering the emphasis of the sentence." ▲ Collapse
| | | | Refugio
Local time: 13:34
Spanish to English
+ ...
| Churchill on overly nice grammatical rules | Jun 8, 2004 |
On the subject of never ending a sentence with a preposition [incidentally, in high school we were taught the virtues of using a gerund to get around the split infinitive quandary], and the contortions that such a rule might necessitate, Winston Churchill has the last word:
"That is a form of pedantry up with which I will not put."
| | | | | To boldly resurrect this thread... | Oct 10, 2005 |
I was actually searching to see whether there were any threads on split infinitives, as I intended to start one. So, in the hope that someone else out there is (still) interested, I think the (English speaking) world can be divided into three categories:
1) Those who don't know it's wrong to split an infinitive
2) Those who know it is wrong to split an infinitive
3) THose who know it isn't wrong to split an infinitive
Unfortunately, those like me in category... See more I was actually searching to see whether there were any threads on split infinitives, as I intended to start one. So, in the hope that someone else out there is (still) interested, I think the (English speaking) world can be divided into three categories:
1) Those who don't know it's wrong to split an infinitive
2) Those who know it is wrong to split an infinitive
3) THose who know it isn't wrong to split an infinitive
Unfortunately, those like me in category 3) find themselves bending over backwards to avoid splitting infinitives, for fear that those in category 2 will think them ignorant!
So although I split them naturally, every time I catch myself at it I'll "correct" what I've written. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Winston Churchill could be the primary "lawbreaker" | Dec 28, 2005 |
USAGE: There is a traditional view, first set forth by the 17th-century poet and dramatist John Dryden, that it is incorrect to put a preposition at the end of a sentence, as in where do you come from? or she's not a writer I've ever come across. The rule was formulated on the basis that, since in Latin a preposition cannot come after the word it governs or is linked with, the same should be true of English. The problem is that... See more USAGE: There is a traditional view, first set forth by the 17th-century poet and dramatist John Dryden, that it is incorrect to put a preposition at the end of a sentence, as in where do you come from? or she's not a writer I've ever come across. The rule was formulated on the basis that, since in Latin a preposition cannot come after the word it governs or is linked with, the same should be true of English. The problem is that English is not like Latin in this respect, and in many cases (particularly in questions and with phrasal verbs) the attempt to move the preposition produces awkward, unnatural-sounding results. Winston Churchill famously objected to the rule, saying 'This is the sort of English up with which I will not put'. In standard English the placing of a preposition at the end of a sentence is widely accepted, provided the use sounds natural and the meaning is clear.
--Cited from the New Oxford Dictionary of English.
Ruth Henderson wrote:
On the subject of never ending a sentence with a preposition [incidentally, in high school we were taught the virtues of using a gerund to get around the split infinitive quandary], and the contortions that such a rule might necessitate, Winston Churchill has the last word:
"That is a form of pedantry up with which I will not put."
▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
USAGE: You have to really watch him; to boldly go where no man has gone before. It is still widely held that splitting infinitives--separating the infinitive marker to from the verb, as in the above examples--is wrong. The dislike of split infinitives is long-standing but is not well founded, being based on an analogy with Latin. In Latin, infinitives consist of only one word (... See more USAGE: You have to really watch him; to boldly go where no man has gone before. It is still widely held that splitting infinitives--separating the infinitive marker to from the verb, as in the above examples--is wrong. The dislike of split infinitives is long-standing but is not well founded, being based on an analogy with Latin. In Latin, infinitives consist of only one word (e.g. crescere 'to grow'; amare 'to love', which makes them impossible to split: therefore, so the argument goes, they should not be split in English either. But English is not the same as Latin. In particular, the placing of an adverb in English is extremely important in giving the appropriate emphasis: you really have to watch him and to go boldly where no man has gone before, examples where the infinitive is not split, convey a different emphasis or sound awkward. In the modern context, some traditionalists may continue to hold up the split infinitive as an error in English. However, in standard English the principle of allowing split infinitives is broadly accepted as both normal and useful.
--From the NODE
The AHD has more detailed discussion:
http://www.bartleby.com/61/55/S0655500.html
The split infinitive has been present in English ever since the 14th century, but it was not until the 19th century that grammarians labeled and condemned the usage. The only rationale for condemning the construction is based on a false analogy with Latin. The thinking is that because the Latin infinitive is a single word, the equivalent English construction should be treated as if it were a single unit. But English is not Latin, and distinguished writers have split infinitives without giving it a thought. Noteworthy splitters include John Donne, Daniel Defoe, George Eliot, Benjamin Franklin, Abraham Lincoln, William Wordsworth, and Willa Cather. Still, those who dislike the construction can usually avoid it without difficulty. The sense of the sentence To better understand the miners' plight, he went to live in their district is just as easily expressed by To understand the miners' plight better, he went to live in their district. However, one must take care not to ruin the rhythm of the sentence or create an unintended meaning by displacing an adverb. •When choosing to retain split infinitives, one should be wary of constructions that have more than one word between to and the verb. The Usage Panel is evenly divided on the one-adverb split infinitive. Fifty percent accept it in the sentence The move allowed the company to legally pay the employees severance payments that in some cases exceeded $30,000. But only 23 percent of the panel accepts the split infinitive in the sentence We are seeking a plan to gradually, systematically, and economically relieve the burden. In some contexts, the split infinitive is unavoidable, as in the sentence We expect our output to more than double in a year. •Excessive zeal in avoiding the split infinitive may result in an awkward placement of adverbs in constructions involving the auxiliary verbs be and have. Infinitive phrases in which the adverb precedes a participle, such as to be rapidly rising, to be clearly understood, and to have been ruefully mistaken, are not split and should be acceptable to everybody. By the same token, there are no grounds for objecting to the position of the adverb in the sentence He is committed to laboriously assembling all of the facts of the case. What is “split” here is not an infinitive but a prepositional phrase.
More discussions at Longman: http://www.longman.com/ae/azar/grammar_ex/message_board/archive/articles/00025.htm
Split infinitives
Q:
Our strict grammarian teachers always told us never to split an infinitive. However, I often hear and read split infinitives, such as to boldly go, and they seem correct. Is it still not OK to split infinitives?
Anonymous
Salt Lake City, UT
A:
The split infinitive seems to always be with us! Its prohibition has been mostly the occupation of grammarians schooled in the finer points of the Latin language in the late 19th century. This structure has been a feature of English for centuries and rarely causes a lapse in communication or effectiveness. There are far more egregious errors that we ought to spend precious teaching time on. (Note that I also don't mind ending that last sentence with a preposition!)
Barbara Matthies
I believe that it is actually a good thing to split infinitives in certain cases. Doing so clearly shows which word the adverb in the phrase is modifying: the verb directly after it.
Look at these examples from Marcella Frank (Modern English, Prentice Hall Regents, 1993), who says:
As evidence that the best writers have not hesitated to use this (mid-) position of adverbs with infinitives, we cite here examples of "split" infinitives taken from the works of reputable authors of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
…to still further limit the hours…
…without permitting himself to actually mention the name…
…in order to fully appreciate Lord Holland…
…to half surmise the truth…
…I wish the reader to clearly understand…
…to further complicate our problem…
Some of these examples really clarify the modification of the verb that is in the infinitive form.
Of course, we shouldn't prescribe splitting the infinitive; it's just that, sometimes, using it is accurate and beautiful to describe what you mean. As Barbara has stated, it is not a point to get hung up on. (Note that I also don't mind ending this last sentence with a preposition.)
[Edited at 2005-12-28 16:20] ▲ Collapse
| | | | Jeff Allen
France
Local time: 22:34
Multiplelanguages
+ ...
| not intimidated by split infinitives | Jan 1, 2006 |
GoodWords wrote: I am convinced by the arguments that claim that this was a pseudo-rule, a chimera, a figment of 18th-century grammarians' imaginations. http://www.theslot.com/split.html
.... Somebody somewhere made up this "rule" because infinitives were never split in Latin. Of course they weren't: In Latin, infinitives are single words.
Both Latin and Greek. This is exactly what I have said in Linguistics courses I have given since the early 1990s.
I've written elsewhere:
"I'm a sociolinguist originally by trade, and this is just the way we talk and think. George Fasold, a well-known sociolinguist, wrote in the preface of his book "Language in Society" (exact title might be slightly different) back in the 80s that he specifically left the prepositions hanging at the end of sentences throughout the book to make it non-intimidating and easier for the readership to grasp the ideas being presented.
And I split my infinitives all time. Star Trek could by claiming to boldly go where no man...... so I can split them too."
My sons hear split infinitives and dangling prepositions in my speech all the time.
My cousin, also a trained linguist, goes nuts when, once in a while, I send him some of my articles to read over. He always focuses on the split infinitives. Yet the magazine editors never seem to care. I'm not aware of flame mail coming back to the magazines asking me to fix my infinitival structures. If they ask me to change them, then I do so.
Also, it didn't cause me to not be elected to the advisory board of the LINGUIST list (and I do a lot of writing in collaboration with their staff and board members), so I don't get intimidated by it.
Jeff
==========================
Jeff Allen
Advisor, LINGUIST List
Paris, France
http://jeffallen.chez.tiscali.fr/about-jeffallen.htm
| | | | Jeff Allen
France
Local time: 22:34
Multiplelanguages
+ ...
| grammarians vs speakers/writers | Jan 1, 2006 |
Rita Heller wrote: In the U.S. we are more free about it. I do it all the time For example, "to better implement" the network installation. I trust my ear. "A split infinitive occurs when a word is placed between the two parts of the verb. While prescriptive grammarians frown on split infinitives, many speakers and writers commonly use them. In some cases, the infinitive may be split to retain clarity, and it may actually improve the sentence overall. "
And that's exactly why I use them too. Let it flow as it sounds and feels.
Jeff
| | | | Jeff Allen
France
Local time: 22:34
Multiplelanguages
+ ...
| the over-engineering analogy | Jan 1, 2006 |
invguy wrote: That is, I'd rather regard split infinitive as a means for 'fine-tuning' the overall feeling you get from a sentence. Of course, if we go with the tuning analogy, you can't compensate poor engine characteristics only by fine-tuning; OTOH, excessive fine-tuning might cause a deterioration in the performance of an otherwise well working engine... Does anyone share this view?
Yes, Kurt Godden of General Motors gave a similar analogy of this at the 1999 SAE Multilingual Documentation Toptec (see conference details at: http://www.proz.com/post/250823#250823) where he referred to what is called in the mechanical field: over-engineering, this being that if you get too caught up in dealing with all the potential intricate details of an object, then it is possible to deteriorate or degrade the quality of the object overall.
Jeff
http://jeffallen.chez.tiscali.fr/about-jeffallen.htm
[Edited at 2006-01-02 08:46]
| | |
|
|
|
| split infinitives and prepositions | Feb 21, 2006 |
These prescriptive grammar rules are so outdated now and only adhered to by people who believe language shouldn't change. It is the nature of language to change along with culture. At the end of the day, we create language, so however it is commonly used, is correct. The notion that one shouldn't end a sentence with a preposition is largely based on conventions of Latin. Not only is Latin extinct but it is a completely different language from English. And what makes it the perfect language? I be... See more These prescriptive grammar rules are so outdated now and only adhered to by people who believe language shouldn't change. It is the nature of language to change along with culture. At the end of the day, we create language, so however it is commonly used, is correct. The notion that one shouldn't end a sentence with a preposition is largely based on conventions of Latin. Not only is Latin extinct but it is a completely different language from English. And what makes it the perfect language? I believe there is absolutely nothing wrong with splitting an infinitive as long the meaning of the words is still clear. It is simply about communication after all.
[Edited at 2006-02-21 06:01] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Jane is right | Feb 21, 2006 |
I entirely agree. In fact there is nothing to agree with, it's fact. I think if was Dryden who came up with this sill presriptivist rule, basing it on Latin.
Glad we cleared that one up. Discussion over.
| | | | Richard Benham
France
Local time: 22:34
German to English
+ ...
In memoriam | I even reject the concept of a "split infinitive" | May 10, 2006 |
If you say "I must go", what part of the verb "go" are you using? The infinitive, of course. The word "to" is not part of the infinitive, and never has been.
It is a long time since I have studied any linguistics, but it seems intuitively obvious that the preposition "to" does *not* govern the verb alone, but the whole decapitated (i.e. subjectless) clause. So, if I say "I want to drink some beer", "to" governs "drink some beer". Of course this distinction evaporates when there is *... See more If you say "I must go", what part of the verb "go" are you using? The infinitive, of course. The word "to" is not part of the infinitive, and never has been.
It is a long time since I have studied any linguistics, but it seems intuitively obvious that the preposition "to" does *not* govern the verb alone, but the whole decapitated (i.e. subjectless) clause. So, if I say "I want to drink some beer", "to" governs "drink some beer". Of course this distinction evaporates when there is *only* the verb.
Quite frankly, by putting an adverb before "to", which is the usual "correction" to the non-error of "splitting the infinitive", you are turning a correct construction into an incorrect one. Kim has given an example where this can be misleading; here is another, from a news report: "The teachers' union voted expeditiously to settle the dispute". Later in the report, it became clear that the vote was anything but expeditious, there being repeated points of oder, procedural irregularities, etc., before the vote was finally taken and declared. The *best* place to put the adverb in sentences like this is between "to" and the verb; it avoids all ambiguity about *which* verb the adverb modifies.
The argument from Latin is irrelevant. Comparisons with Old English are more relevant, and in Old English we find the "inflected infinitive". So the infinitive of the verb "eat" was "etan", but with "to" it became "to etanne". So we can say the OE "to" did govern the infinitve, without of course being part of it. But that was a long time ago, and things have changed. The pernicious influence of Latin scholarhsip is in trying to incorporate "to" as part of the infinitive, presumably because the Latin infinitive is often translated as "to"+infinitive. This is a stupid reason. Maybe the French should regard "à" as part of the article in "Tu ressembles à un singe" because, after all, when translating English "You resemble a monkey", "a monkey" gets translated by "à un singe". Of course, the article should be part of the noun, too, because there are no articles in Latin....
Just a quick word on prepositions. They were occasionally postposed in Old English, and even in Latin (think of vade mecum); so, even if the analogy with Latin were relevant, it would hardly be an argument. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » to boldly go into the split infinitive | Anycount & Translation Office 3000 | Translation Office 3000
Translation Office 3000 is an advanced accounting tool for freelance translators and small agencies. TO3000 easily and seamlessly integrates with the business life of professional freelance translators.
More info » |
| | Trados Business Manager Lite | Create customer quotes and invoices from within Trados Studio
Trados Business Manager Lite helps to simplify and speed up some of the daily tasks, such as invoicing and reporting, associated with running your freelance translation business.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
