(urth) OT: split infinitive [was Re: torturing BTQ]

Milton Jackson miltonwjackson at gmail.com
Wed Jul 29 16:29:02 PDT 2009


When I took grammar in high school, my English teacher told me the reason
compound verbs and infinitives shouldn't be split was that large numbers of
words between the component parts of the phrase broke the flow of the
sentence. How true that is I don't know, but that's what I was taught.

On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman at yahoo.com>wrote:

> --- On Wed, 7/29/09, James B. Jordan <jbjordan4 at cox.net> wrote:
> > At 03:10 PM 7/23/2009, you wrote:
> ...
>
> >> Everything
> >> I know about split infinitives (and some things other
> >> people know) is at
> >>
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_infinitive
> >
> > I was taught that the rule against split infinitives comes
> > from the
> > oppression of Latin grammar imposed on English. Latin
> > infinitives are one
> > word; hence English infinitives must be treated as one
> > word.
>
> You put that clearly.  However, though many people
> have been taught that (including me), I'd like to see
> some evidence for it.  When the rule against split
> infinitives was first stated, in the 19th century, did
> anyone actually justify the rule with Latin grammar?  Is
> there any reason to think that was anyone's
> justification?
>
> I'd be interested in any citation earlier than the one
> in the Wikipedia article (John Opdycke, 1941).  I'm not
> looking for people claiming without evidence, "The split
> infinitive was banned because of an analogy with Latin"--
> we have plenty of those.
>
> Jerry Friedman
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20090729/e531d312/attachment-0003.htm>


More information about the Urth mailing list