To boldly split infinitives which no person has split before

[LaRoza]

Please don't make this a heated argument, but I am interested in the community's (native English speakers or not, doesn't matter) thoughts on splitting infinitivies. To those who don't know what that is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_infinitive

(After doing the poll, I realise "ok" is not really a word. Perhaps we need another poll on that :-))

[swoll1980]

I find my self using "To blatantly lie"

[klange]

Your poll answers are incorrectly worded.
As the question is "Is it wrong...", to correctly answer the statement I would have to say "no, it is not wrong" but this is not a choice available to me. (Basically, I'd just like to see the first two options switched around to have "No..." and then "Yes..." to properly answer the question)

Much obliged.

[NovaAesa]

I didn't vote because my opinion doesn't agree with any of the options. I think that it a good thing to use, not only because it is correct English but because it makes whatever you write less ambiguous. I would have voted "It is fine to use whenever one pleases" but this option still seems to indicate that it is "wrong".

EDIT: After reading your post below I voted for "It is fine to use whenever one pleases".

[LaRoza]

I didn't vote because my opinion doesn't agree with any of the options. I think that it a good thing to use, not only because it is correct English but because it makes whatever you write less ambiguous. I would have voted "It is fine to use whenever one pleases" but this option still seems to indicate that it is "wrong".

That option was meant to mean it is perfectly fine to use whenever one pleases because it isn't wrong at all in any way.

[etnlIcarus]

On the Internet, where people care neither for grammar nor spelling; split infinitives are the least of my frustration.

[LaRoza]

On the Internet, where people care neither for grammar nor spelling; split infinitives are the least of my frustration.

On the contrary, on the internet, it is even more important because of the diverse audience.

Writing properly in any language used is extremely important.

[SunnyRabbiera]

The bunny rabbits is comming ;)

[LaRoza]

The bunny rabbits is comming ;)

Are they?

[Northsider]

On the Internet, where people care neither for grammar nor spelling; split infinitives are the least of my frustration.
UGH, that is the honest truth! Sometimes it's a chore to read on the internet. Does school even teach English/grammer class anymore? I don't buy the quicker or lazy argument either...I can type ~50wpm, with near perfect spelling, punctuation, and grammer...it's not that hard.

[LaRoza]

UGH, that is the honest truth! Sometimes it's a chore to read on the internet. Does school even teach English/grammer class anymore? I don't buy the quicker or lazy argument either...I can type ~50wpm, with near perfect spelling, punctuation, and grammer...it's not that hard.

I noticed the non native speakers and dyslexics are not the worst (often times, they are better). It is the lazy natives...

I can type 80+ wpm without any errors either.

[etnlIcarus]

I blame these new-fangled mobile phones and their, "txt", language. It's destroying our already delinquent youth!

[LaRoza]

It's destroying our already delinquent youth!

Every generation thinks that ;)

[SunnyRabbiera]

Are they?

Yes they is ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdjHatcHNfw

[swoll1980]

quicker or lazy

You forgot the comma. :)

[MaxIBoy]

Ideally, language is there to facilitate understanding and to otherwise stay the hell out of the way. Communication breaks down when a conscious effort to phrase things correctly must be made. Conversely, communication also breaks down when the language that is being spoken is significantly devolved from the language which is being understood. So rules of grammar and spelling should be upheld to the extent that they make things easier to understand, and thrown out the moment they make things too complicated.

[swoll1980]

Ideally, language is there to facilitate understanding and to otherwise stay the hell out of the way. Communication breaks down when a conscious effort to phrase things correctly must be made. Conversely, communication also breaks down when the language that is being spoken is significantly devolved from the language which is being understood. So rules of grammar and spelling should be upheld to the extent that they make things easier to understand, and thrown out the moment they make things too complicated.

I agree, as long as you can easily understand each other. who cares about anything else?

[LaRoza]

I agree, as long as you can easily understand each other. who cares about anything else?

Huh?

[swoll1980]

Huh?

What?

[LaRoza]

What?

Efforts to communicate have failed.

Rebooting...

[SunnyRabbiera]

What?

Who?

[LaRoza]

Who?

Anyone remember that Airplane! scene where they are taking off :-)

[swoll1980]

Anyone remember that Airplane! scene where they are taking off :-)

Know, I don't no what your talking about.

[saulgoode]

I didn't vote because my opinion doesn't agree with any of the options. I think that it a good thing to use, not only because it is correct English but because it makes whatever you write less ambiguous. I would have voted "It is fine to use whenever one pleases" but this option still seems to indicate that it is "wrong".
I share this viewpoint. I often find using split infinitives not merely "fine", but preferable to constructs which avoid them.

[Koselara]

I picked the "not if you want to look intelligent" option because it reflects reality... In everyday conversation, most people don't notice or care, but if you're writing an academic essay or legal document, there's a chance they will.

If the question is whether I personally judge people for it, the answer is no. :) I think in sensory terms and have to 'translate' all verbal communication in both directions; judging sentence structure for errors takes an extra effort that would be a silly waste on a discussion forum! :tongue:

I'm not sure where you got the impression that "ok" isn't a real word in English, especially since there's no central authority as to what is or isn't a word. (Or so I was taught at university, either in Linguistics or Early American Lit class.) I'm not sure about the UK, but the closest thing America has to a defining source is Webster's Dictionary, and okay/ok are in there (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/okay).

[swoll1980]

but if you're writing an academic essay or legal document, there's a chance they will.

What if your making a TV show?

[hansdown]

I didn't vote, because the subject has inspired flame- wars since the 13th. century.

http://www.google.ca/search?q=+split+an+infinitive%3F+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=com.ubuntu:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-a

[SunnyRabbiera]

all your base are belong to us :D

[Erik Trybom]

It's OK because it makes an addition to the language, to be used for convenience or beauty. The ability to write "to boldly go" is an asset in the English language and adds to its wealth.

I don't know if it's grammatically correct or not, but it surely should be.

[LaRoza]

I'm not sure where you got the impression that "ok" isn't a real word in English, especially since there's no central authority as to what is or isn't a word. (Or so I was taught at university, either in Linguistics or Early American Lit class.) I'm not sure about the UK, but the closest thing America has to a defining source is Webster's Dictionary, and okay/ok are in there (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/okay).

I meant it is not a word like it isn't very sensible. It has no real origin (although there are a lot of theories) and it is so easy to use and it is very common. It just seems like a weird concept to me.

There is no central English authority. The Oxford English Dictionary and Webster's are commonly used references though.



I don't know if it's grammatically correct or not, but it surely should be.

That's the thing. There is no authority, so it is correctness depends on what people think.

[gn2]

On the contrary, on the internet, it is even more important because of the diverse audience.

Writing properly in any language used is extremely important.

I quite agree.

The Queen's English should be used at all times, proper English like that what is spoke in England.

Acronyms are another case in point, it is all too easy to be misinterpreted on the use of an acronym, there can be different meanings in different locales for the same acronym, so perhaps they shouldn't be used.

[LaRoza]

I quite agree.

The Queen's English should be used at all times, proper English like that what is spoke in England.


English as it is spoken in England? Are you aware England has more dialects of English than the USA? Are you aware the Queen doesn't speak "Queen's English"?

Are you aware "proper English" is not English as it is spoken in England?

England is a small island next to Europe.

In fact, in terms of speakers of English, the UK is number four (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_English-speaking_population)

Standard English, if it were to exist, would be how English is spoken in the USA and/or India (possibly Nigeria also).

[nothingspecial]

England is a small island next to Europe.



England is a part of a small island next to Europe that also includes Scotland and Wales.

[samjh]

The choices don't have the answer I want.

IMHO, it's OK to use a split infinitive as long as the meaning of the sentence is clear.

[Canis familiaris]

Standard English, if it were to exist, would be how English is spoken in the USA and/or India (possibly Nigeria also).
Standardised English will never happen. There would be certainly be side effects of being the most used language on the net.

[LaRoza]

Standardised English will never happen. There would be certainly be side effects of being the most used language on the net.

Formal Written English is pretty close though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_written_English

[gn2]

England is a small island next to Europe.

England has more than one island.
England isn't beside Europe, it is part of Europe.
Just as Cuba isn't beside North America, it is part of North America.

You obviously didn't realise that my comment about proper spoken English was a joke?

[LaRoza]

You obviously didn't realise that my comment about proper spoken English was a joke?

No. I didn't.

[Canis familiaris]

No. I didn't.

Neither did I.


(Hint: Use Smileys ;) )

[gn2]

Irony, it's like tinny or coppery. :roll:

[Northsider]

quicker or lazyYou forgot the comma. :)
I don't see a need for a comma here. If it was something like "quicker, lazy, or easier" then commas would be needed. Anyone?

[gn2]

I don't see a need for a comma here. If it was something like "quicker, lazy, or easier" then commas would be needed. Anyone?

"quicker, lazy or easier" is correct, you had a comma between lazy and or which is not required.

[fiddledd]

"quicker, lazy or easier" is correct, you had a comma between lazy and or which is not required.

I would have used a comma after "lazy" as well. To me the absence of the comma makes it read like "quicker" is one thing and "lazy or easier" is one thing. Whereas with the comma after "lazy" it reads as three things. Note the highly technical word "thing".:) I know little about correct punctuation or grammar, but I try my best.

[Northsider]

^^ Agreed, a comma should be used before 'or' and 'and' when listing things like that: milk, juice, and bread; cute, shy, and smart; east, west, or north.

[pp.]

a comma should be used before 'or' and 'and' when listing things like that: milk, juice, and bread; cute, shy, and smart; east, west, or north.

eh?

[Northsider]

eh?

It's ok, don't worry about it :)

[HappyHenry]

I think it is important we all use the same rules in communication, to insure clear communication. We all accept this, to a point. Slang is accepted and used by most people. That is the way our language evolves. Soon a word is common and included in a dictionary of common words. Take for example the word ***. Some people would become inflamed by the word. Some people would consider *** as something to be inflamed.

Sentence structure serves the same reasoning. I am not convinced our current rules are the best. Our written structure should reflect the common spoken language. Language, that is in use, must evolve. Here's the best example I can think of;

Did you konw you’re a guiens? Jsut the fcat taht you can atllacuy raed tihs psot porves taht fcat. The huamn mnid is so pufowerl it can dcodee tihs txet eevn tguohh eervy sglnie wrod is slepled iocenrtclry. The one cavaet is taht the frist and lsat lertets are pervresed in erevy wrod. Cidrgbame Uitesirnvy cetoudncd a sduty and fnuod taht the biarn deos not raed eevry snlige lteetr, but wodrs as a wohle.

Only half of communication is the senders responsibility. Reception is the other half of communication. How I read what is written is just as important as how it is written. We need laws to insure I can decipher the code sent. Laws are always up for review, in my mind. Getting all people, using English, to follow all the rules that apply to English is not something I think is possible. English is always changing in its' use. We don't follow the same English rules of common usage as say, the King James Holy Bible. It is written in English and follows the laws of English, yet most people can not comprehend what the writers are communicating. So even by following the laws of English we fail to communicate.

I say write what ya writes and only care if you's gniog to b under stood as much as you wants to be. LOL But nnthiog will guaranty it.

[Methuselah]

The whole objection always seemed rather inconsequential really.
It's like asking if it's ok for the sky to be blue.
Well, regardless of what any of us think of that colour, it is blue.

Now, the english infinitive is split:
to <space> eat, you see, two words!
This is very different from a latin derived language with an infinitive such as 'comer' which is obviously one word.

In english an auxiliary word is needed to form the infinitive in the first place just as auxiliary words are needed for many tenses.
So the infinitive is split into separate words by the nature of the language.
So we're really asking whether it's ok to insert an adverb between the 'to and the verb.
And I think it's perfectly natural for the adverb to go directly before the verb especially when you wish to emphasize the adverb.

No permutation of:
'To boldly go where no man has gone before'
has the same power.

Note that I can say:
Boldly, I went,
I went boldly, or
I boldly went.
So why isn't it possible 'to boldly go'?

IMO any arbitrary rule that inhibits the expressiveness of a language is totally worthless.
It's just another misguided attempt to impose more romance language rules on primarily germanic english grammar.
In fact, modern English is really a very idiosyncratic language with all its closest relatives remaining much truer to their roots than it has.

Besides, natural languages grammars are not prescribed, they just are.
We document them not construct them and they evolve organically.
Even unwritten languages have grammars.

[HappyHenry]

Well written, Methuselah!

[blairm]

Depending on the circumstances, split infitives can be more than OK - they can be desirable.
English that follows every grammatical rule tends to sound stilted and overly formal.
Like it or not, some people find that more difficult to comprehend because many schools (here in NZ at least) haven't taught formal grammar for almost 20 years.
As a newspaper sub-editor (copy sub for Americans) I am forced to fix split infinitives in the course of my work, but there are times it makes me wince to do so.

Blair

[LaRoza]

Depending on the circumstances, split infitives can be more than OK - they can be desirable.
English that follows every grammatical rule tends to sound stilted and overly formal.
Like it or not, some people find that more difficult to comprehend because many schools (here in NZ at least) haven't taught formal grammar for almost 20 years.
As a newspaper sub-editor (copy sub for Americans) I am forced to fix split infinitives in the course of my work, but there are times it makes me wince to do so.

Blair

Another rule that begs to be broken is preopositions at the end of the sentence.

[swoll1980]

Another rule that begs to be broken is preopositions at the end of the sentence.

Very much so. Prepositions at the end of sentences are to die for. Those Star Trek people really knew their stuff.

[MaxIBoy]

"I have developed a remote-activated device to violently flip cars over."


Perfectly good English, I tell you!

[JillSwift]

Another rule that begs to be broken is preopositions at the end of the sentence.Ah, that brought back a memory from my freshman year in university. While trying to get myself familiar with the campus, I became lost. I happened across an upperclassman and asked him "Excuse me, do you know where the library is at?"
He looked down his node at me and said "Young lady, this is a prestigious institution where care is taken with our use of English. Here one does not end a sentence with a preposition."
I was a bit taken aback, but went ahead and corrected myself.
"Please pardon me. I would like to know if you can tell me where the library is at, you pompous twit?"

:biggrin:

[swoll1980]

"I have developed a remote-activated device to violently flip cars over."


Perfectly good English, I tell you!

To horribly abuse the English language in this way, is something you shall have to get away from.

[swoll1980]

What about when people split adjectives? Like "spec-freakin'-tacular", or "abso-freakin'-lutely"

[LaRoza]

Ah, that brought back a memory from my freshman year in university. While trying to get myself familiar with the campus, I became lost. I happened across an upperclassman and asked him "Excuse me, do you know where the library is at?"
He looked down his node at me and said "Young lady, this is a prestigious institution where care is taken with our use of English. Here one does not end a sentence with a preposition."
I was a bit taken aback, but went ahead and corrected myself.
"Please pardon me. I would like to know if you can tell me where the library is at, you pompous twit?"


This is the kind of impertinence up with which I shall not put.

[JillSwift]

This is the kind of impertinence up with which I shall not put.:D Yay Churchill!

[Sef]

Historically, the infinitive has been split. Often if it is not split, the word being modified is unclear or the meaning is changed. The position of the adverb can change the meaning of the sentence by emphasizing one word over the others. The rule against the split is fairly recent. It started with the early grammarians who thought that English derived from Latin, and verbs cannot be split in Latin since the infinitive is one word and not two as in English.

[red_Marvin]

I believe that trying to enforce very detailed grammatical rules on a language with such a big geographical spread (especially as a second or third language) as English is an exercise in futility, and the standardized variant will finally only be used by those who make a point by using it or for some reason are forced to do so.
On the other hand, I have some nitpicks myself, and sometimes cringe at a sentence somebody has written.
I guess it has to do with in which part of one's life a type of expression is introduced.

[Sealbhach]

It started with the early grammarians who thought that English derived from Latin, and verbs cannot be split in Latin since the infinitive is one word and not two as in English.

Well, if Wiki can be trusted, this rule is a much more recent innovation (19th century)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_infinitive#History_of_the_controversy

and I think it's just a manifestation of the British Empire identifying itself with the Roman Empire and engaging in a bit of snobbery.

I would urge people to blithely ignore it.


.

[LaRoza]

:D Yay Churchill!
I don't think he really said that, but it is attributed to him.

[JillSwift]

I don't think he really said that, but it is attributed to him.Yeah, who can say for sure (http://www.wsu.edu/%7Ebrians/errors/churchill.html)? But, it matches his historical persona, so what the heck?

[terabyte1]

I voted but to be honest I don't give a crap how a writer writes it. I have seen so many interpretations of the English language - that I'm somewhere on the fourth Moon of Za'noth trying to get my head together and trying to understand if my eyes have gone into warp-drive; trying to read some anamorphic textual screed that looks vaguely like a fragment of Babylonian text or Urdu...Sigh


Terabyte :confused:

[Chilli Bob]

Split away I say. If it makes sense to put an adjective immediately before a noun, then an adverb should go immediately before the verb. For aesthetic and interpretative reasons it is usually more elegant to put it immediately before the bare infinitive. There are no hard and fast rules in English, so always go for the form that is (1) most accurate at getting the message across, and (2) the most pleasing to the eye/ear.

[mkendall]

I tend not to split infinitives, but have been known to effectively split one for emphasis.