XPost: alt.usage.english, alt.english.usage
Peter Moylan:
For quite some time sloppy writers have used the term
"split infinitive" to describe a situation where a word
comes between "to" and the infinitive.
I object to the adjective. No, this is a clanger. I demur
the adjective, for not all errors are due to sloppiness.
That shows an ignorance of English grammar. Strictly
speaking, the "to" never was part of the infinitive. The
"to" is a particle that is often, but not always, attached
to an infinitive,
Yes, one can view it that way as well, but the concept of
/infitive/ and /bare infinitive/ are in wide use and not
totally wrong. At least, it provides a name for a single
entity governed by a non-modal verb, e.g. in /I lurve to
drive/ the verb /lurve/ governs the infinitive /to drive/.
With the terminology you defend, no such single entity
exists.
I, however, have disliked the term /infinitive/ as including
the /to/ since school and have found it confusing. But I
did not know about an alternative view (and terminology).
in the same way that an article is often, but not always,
attached to a noun. The "to" is a particle that is often,
but not always, attached to an infinitive, in the same way
that an article is often, but not always, attached to a
noun.
I fear it is rather hard to defend this claim in its narrow
meaning, but it if was meant as an analogy, then I agree.
Would you say that "the big man" is a split noun because
"big" has been inserted into the noun "the man"? In the
phrase "to boldly go", the infinitive is "go", not "to
go".
So it was not just an analogy. No, I disagree on the ground
of wrong analogy (which may go only thus far). Whereas the
noun is not a verb and the particle not the article (despite
the rhyme), the relation between article and noun is not the
same as that between /to/ (particle or whatever it has been
variously called) and the verb.
In the phrase "to boldly go", the infinitive is "go", not
"to go".
OK. What does the omitted preceeding verb (e.g. /decided/)
govern -- the particle or the infinitive?
Another comment on the thread subject is also in order:
the rule [Don't split infinitives] comes from the
Victorian grammarian Alford's usage book (1864)
In addition to being overprimitive (as observed in a prior
post) in ascribing the rule to a single author, this
statement makes the false impression that the rule is based
on Victorian grammar(s) considering /to/ as part of the
infinitive (and therefore un-splittable), whereas many
grammars not only follow this rule without explicitely
stating it, but also state it while not including /to/ into
the infinitive. The last book where I have encountered it,
although not a exactly grammar, but still a work about
Enlgish -- /Words; Their Use and Abuse/, by William
Mathews:
To extremely maltreat.
This phrase from /Trench/ is an example of a very
common solecism. /To/, the sign of the infinitive,
should never be separated from the verb. Say "to
maltreat extremely," or "extremely to maltreat."
For another example, Goold Brown in his /The Grammar of
English Grammars/ does not consider /to/ as part of the
infiniive and calls it a preposition putting the following
verb into the infinitive mood. Yes he never ever inserts
any word beween that preposition and the verb.
--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org -- against proprietary attachments
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)