Okay grammar buffs.....

the_boy · 10-10-2002, 01:00 AM

What the fuck is a "split infinitive"?

My philosophy prof proof-read my essay and wrote "Beware of the split infinitive"

Problem is....im a science student and dont have a fucking clue what that is.

If you could tell me, with an example, that would be awesome.

Thanks

ZERO · 10-10-2002, 01:05 AM

umm i'm not good with grammar but an example would be "to ease gradually" instead of "the gradually ease". meh.

the_boy · 10-10-2002, 01:11 AM

The gradually ease?

now im even more confused

ZERO · 10-10-2002, 01:12 AM

heh sorry. that should read TO gradually ease. i'd look it up and explain it but i'm too lazy.

jenniferkate · 10-10-2002, 01:14 AM

"Sir Ernest Gowers wrote in The Complete Plain Words (HMSO,
1954): "The well-known [...] rule against splitting an infinitive
means that nothing must come between 'to' and the infinitive. It is
a bad name, as was pointed out by Jespersen [...] 'because we have
many infinitives without to, as "I made him go". To therefore
is no more an essential part of the infinitive than the definite
article is an essential part of a substantive, and no one would think
of calling the good man a split substantive.' It is a bad rule
too; it increases the difficulty of writing clearly [...]." The
split infinitive construction goes back to the 13th century, but was
relatively rare until the 19th. No split infinitives are to be
found in the works of Shakespeare, Spenser, Pope, or Dryden, or in
the King James Version of the Bible.

Fowler wrote (in the article POSITION OF ADVERBS, in MEU) that
"to" + infinitive is "a definitely enough recognized verb-form to
make the clinging together of its parts the natural and normal
thing"; "there is, however, no sacrosanctity about that
arrangement". There are many considerations that should govern
placement of adverbs: there are other sentence elements, he said,
such as the verb and its object, that have a *stronger* affinity for
each other; but only avoidance of the split infinitive "has become
a fetish".

Thus, although in "I quickly hid it", the most natural place for
"quickly" is before "hid", "I am going to hide it quickly" is
slightly more natural than "I am going to quickly hide it". But "I
am going to quickly hide it" is itself preferable to "I am going
quickly to hide it" (splitting "going to" changes the meaning from
indicating futurity to meaning physically moving somewhere), or to
"I am going to hide quickly it" (separation of the verb from its
object). And even separating the verb from its object may become
the preferred place for the adverb if "it" is replaced by a long
noun phrase ("I am going to hide quickly any trace of our ever
having been here").

Phrases consisting of "to be" or "to have" followed by an adverb
and a participle are *not* split infinitives, and constitute the
natural word order. "To generally be accepted" and "to always have
thought" are split infinitives; "to be generally accepted" and "to
have always thought" are not.

Certain kinds of adverbs are characteristically placed before
"to". These ******* negative and restrictive adverbs: "not" ("To
be, or not to be"), "never", "hardly", "scarcely", "merely", "just";
and conjunctive adverbs: "rather", "preferably", "moreover",
"alternatively". But placing adverbs of manner in this position is
now considered good style only in legal English ("It is his duty
faithfully to execute the provisions...").

Clumsy avoidance of split infinitives often leads to ambiguity:
does "You fail completely to recognise" mean "You completely fail
to recognise", or "You fail to completely recognise"? Ambiguous
split infinitives are much rarer, but do exist: does "to further
cement trade relations" mean "to cement trade relations further",
or "to promote relations with the cement trade"?

The most frequently cited split infinitive is from the opening
voice-over of Star Trek: "to boldly go where no man has gone
before". (Star Trek: The Next Generation had "one" in place of
"man".) Here, "boldly" modifies the entire verb phrase: the
meaning is "to have the boldness that the unprecedentedness of the
destinations requires". If "boldly" were placed after "go", it
would modify only "go", changing the meaning to "to go where no
man has gone before, and by the way, to go there boldly".

Hardly any serious commentator believes that infinitives should
never be split. The dispute is between those who believe that split
infinitives should be avoided when this can be done with no
sacrifice of clarity or naturalness, and those who believe that no
effort whatever should be made to avoid them."

the_boy · 10-10-2002, 01:15 AM

oooooooooh....ok. that makes WAY more sense.

I still dont see why one is right and one is wrong though.

sawdust restaurants · 10-10-2002, 01:16 AM

An infinitive is a verb in the form: "to (whatever)"

e.g. "to run," "to throw," "to catch."

If you want to modify an infinitive using an adverb, you have to place the adverb after the ENTIRE infinitive. Otherwise you wind up "splitting" a two-word verb.

e.g. "to run quickly," not "to quickly run"
"to catch effortlessly," not "to effortlessly catch"

Random Female · 10-10-2002, 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sawdust restaurants

....

i think i'm in love
you're my queen of english
you're everything i hope to be and more

sawdust restaurants · 10-10-2002, 01:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Random Female

i think i'm in love
you're my queen of english
you're everything i hope to be and more

Queen?

the_boy · 10-10-2002, 01:35 AM

aahhhhhh.....ok, i think i get it now.

Man, that means my professer is REALLY anal.

thanks alot.

plus....i made a love connection.

What's up Chuck Woolery?

sawdust restaurants · 10-10-2002, 02:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by the_boy
Man, that means my professer is REALLY anal

Nah. Split infinitives are pretty egregious mistakes; they're far less clear than the alternative and they make you seem less intelligent than you are. The other night, working copy desk at my school paper, my editor threatened to crack skulls if people kept sending us split infinitives, and it's because fixing that problem is such an easy way to make your writing more effective.

hereisnowhy · 10-10-2002, 02:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sawdust restaurants

Nah. Split infinitives are pretty egregious mistakes; they're far less clear than the alternative and they make you seem less intelligent than you are. The other night, working copy desk at my school paper, my editor threatened to crack skulls if people kept sending us split infinitives, and it's because fixing that problem is such an easy way to make your writing more effective.

I think there are times when it's better to split it. I maintain that it's fine and good to break rules of English if it makes your writing better.

I had a professor who said the most famous split infinitive was the Star Trek intro: "To boldly go where..etc".

10-10-2002, 01:00 AM	#1
the_boy Pledge Location: In your pants Posts: 103	Okay grammar buffs..... What the fuck is a "split infinitive"? My philosophy prof proof-read my essay and wrote "Beware of the split infinitive" Problem is....im a science student and dont have a fucking clue what that is. If you could tell me, with an example, that would be awesome. Thanks

10-10-2002, 01:14 AM	#5
jenniferkate bitch please. Location: wicked witch of the east coast Posts: 5,682	"Sir Ernest Gowers wrote in The Complete Plain Words (HMSO, 1954): "The well-known [...] rule against splitting an infinitive means that nothing must come between 'to' and the infinitive. It is a bad name, as was pointed out by Jespersen [...] 'because we have many infinitives without to, as "I made him go". To therefore is no more an essential part of the infinitive than the definite article is an essential part of a substantive, and no one would think of calling the good man a split substantive.' It is a bad rule too; it increases the difficulty of writing clearly [...]." The split infinitive construction goes back to the 13th century, but was relatively rare until the 19th. No split infinitives are to be found in the works of Shakespeare, Spenser, Pope, or Dryden, or in the King James Version of the Bible. Fowler wrote (in the article POSITION OF ADVERBS, in MEU) that "to" + infinitive is "a definitely enough recognized verb-form to make the clinging together of its parts the natural and normal thing"; "there is, however, no sacrosanctity about that arrangement". There are many considerations that should govern placement of adverbs: there are other sentence elements, he said, such as the verb and its object, that have a stronger affinity for each other; but only avoidance of the split infinitive "has become a fetish". Thus, although in "I quickly hid it", the most natural place for "quickly" is before "hid", "I am going to hide it quickly" is slightly more natural than "I am going to quickly hide it". But "I am going to quickly hide it" is itself preferable to "I am going quickly to hide it" (splitting "going to" changes the meaning from indicating futurity to meaning physically moving somewhere), or to "I am going to hide quickly it" (separation of the verb from its object). And even separating the verb from its object may become the preferred place for the adverb if "it" is replaced by a long noun phrase ("I am going to hide quickly any trace of our ever having been here"). Phrases consisting of "to be" or "to have" followed by an adverb and a participle are not split infinitives, and constitute the natural word order. "To generally be accepted" and "to always have thought" are split infinitives; "to be generally accepted" and "to have always thought" are not. Certain kinds of adverbs are characteristically placed before "to". These ******* negative and restrictive adverbs: "not" ("To be, or not to be"), "never", "hardly", "scarcely", "merely", "just"; and conjunctive adverbs: "rather", "preferably", "moreover", "alternatively". But placing adverbs of manner in this position is now considered good style only in legal English ("It is his duty faithfully to execute the provisions..."). Clumsy avoidance of split infinitives often leads to ambiguity: does "You fail completely to recognise" mean "You completely fail to recognise", or "You fail to completely recognise"? Ambiguous split infinitives are much rarer, but do exist: does "to further cement trade relations" mean "to cement trade relations further", or "to promote relations with the cement trade"? The most frequently cited split infinitive is from the opening voice-over of Star Trek: "to boldly go where no man has gone before". (Star Trek: The Next Generation had "one" in place of "man".) Here, "boldly" modifies the entire verb phrase: the meaning is "to have the boldness that the unprecedentedness of the destinations requires". If "boldly" were placed after "go", it would modify only "go", changing the meaning to "to go where no man has gone before, and by the way, to go there boldly". Hardly any serious commentator believes that infinitives should never be split. The dispute is between those who believe that split infinitives should be avoided when this can be done with no sacrifice of clarity or naturalness, and those who believe that no effort whatever should be made to avoid them." __________________ do you think i would discuss something as stupid as baseball with jk? we only talk about boys and lipgloss. Elizabeth Hasselbeck is dumber than (1) a bag of hammers (2) a sack of wet, disoriented mice who have been concussed with hammers (3) a lobotomized Joey Lawrence.

10-10-2002, 01:05 AM	#2
ZERO Apocalyptic Poster Posts: 1,494	umm i'm not good with grammar but an example would be "to ease gradually" instead of "the gradually ease". meh.

10-10-2002, 01:11 AM	#3
the_boy Pledge Location: In your pants Posts: 103	The gradually ease? now im even more confused

10-10-2002, 01:12 AM	#4
ZERO Apocalyptic Poster Posts: 1,494	heh sorry. that should read TO gradually ease. i'd look it up and explain it but i'm too lazy.

10-10-2002, 01:15 AM	#6
the_boy Pledge Location: In your pants Posts: 103	oooooooooh....ok. that makes WAY more sense. I still dont see why one is right and one is wrong though.

10-10-2002, 01:16 AM	#7
sawdust restaurants Fucking Creep Location: On the East Coast Posts: 5,992	An infinitive is a verb in the form: "to (whatever)" e.g. "to run," "to throw," "to catch." If you want to modify an infinitive using an adverb, you have to place the adverb after the ENTIRE infinitive. Otherwise you wind up "splitting" a two-word verb. e.g. "to run quickly," not "to quickly run" "to catch effortlessly," not "to effortlessly catch"

10-10-2002, 01:35 AM	#10
the_boy Pledge Location: In your pants Posts: 103	aahhhhhh.....ok, i think i get it now. Man, that means my professer is REALLY anal. thanks alot. plus....i made a love connection. What's up Chuck Woolery?