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

Jerry Friedman jerry_friedman at yahoo.com
Thu Jul 30 17:24:29 PDT 2009


Interesting.  I agree that you usually shouldn't put a lot
of words between an auxiliary verb and a main verb, or
between "to" and an infinitive.  (By the way, I'm told
that Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar treats this "to"
as an auxiliary verb!)  But English speakers *have always
split* compound verbs with single words, and we still *do
not avoid* it.  So this doesn't strike me as an argument
against splitting infinitives with single words.

Jerry Friedman

--- On Wed, 7/29/09, Milton Jackson <miltonwjackson at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net


      



More information about the Urth mailing list