Talk:Split infinitive/Archive 1

message: I see one major problem with this article, it spends about one sentence describing what a split infinitive is and how it's used, and then the whole article is about this debate over whether or not split infinitives are "correct."  See Prescription and description.  Ultimately, this whole article is written from a prescriptive standpoint and ignores the descriptive perspective.
As a matter of fact, from a descriptive linguistic perspective split infinitives are not particularly difficult to deal with, and they are certainly a common feature in virtually every dialect of spoken English. 68.163.13.242 03:36, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; I added a link to the Prescription and description article.  I tried to change the wording a little to avoid the presupposition that the prescriptivists are arguing about an actually substantive issue, when in fact they're just indulging in hissy fits over looney nonsense, as usual.  But in making these changes, we must be careful to preserve the neutral POV; especially since many people might come to the article with prescriptivist presuppositions, it would be counterproductive to offend them by giving prescriptivism the deserved dumping-upon.  Anyway, hope my changes stick. NathanV 11:10, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prescription vs. description 

message: "During certain treaty negotiations with the United States, the British government went so far as to issue instructions to its representatives allowing them to make concessions on fishing rights and reparations, but forbidding them to accept a treaty in which an adverb separated to from an infinitive." Since the only purpose in this bogus information-free statement (what instructions for which treaty? for a starter) is to show what fools the Brits are, I've removed it here. Wetman 06:45, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking as a true-born Brit, I am readily persuaded of our government's folly and pomposity, and I'd be more than happy for the reference to stand - not least for the reasons Doops gives.  But, as we all agree, it's no good unless it can be documented - and now that Wetman mentions it, it does have the ring of an urban myth.  seglea 21:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Brit-snickering

message: I'm the guy who told Jerry that Bishop Lowth didn't write about split infinitives.  I figure I should follow up to confirm what Jerry wrote.  Split infinitives simply weren't an issue in Lowth's time.  The construction had been used in earlier centuries but it went out of fashion and in Lowth's day it was very rare.  The issue simply wasn't on the radar screen.
The construction resurfaced in the late 18th century and over the course of the 19th century became relatively common.  Dean Alford's book _The Queen's English_ has the earliest discussion I am personally aware of.  It would not surprise me if someone were to find an earlier citation.
My guess is that Lowth gets the blame for this because it is confused with ending a sentence with a preposition:  Lowth did advise against that, though he said that it is inelegant, not that it is wrong;  and while the construction is often associated with Lowth, Dryden has the prior claim.  In the early 20th century Henry Fowler characterized the rules against split infinitives and terminal prepositions as "superstitions".  I suspect that Fowler grouping them together explains why they are sometimes conflated, with Lowth getting blamed for both.
My source for this discussion is that I have read Lowth's book, though I do not own a copy.  I do own of copy of Alford's book.
As for Jerry's other point, it is my experience as well that Latin infinitives were not actually used to justify the rule.  19th century usage manuals rarely discussed their judgments on that level.  The rule is simply stated.  Come to think of it, most 20th century manuals do the same thing.  I have only seen the Latin discussion in the context of explaining the rule ex post facto in order to reject it.
Richard Hershberger
:Thank you, Richard!  You're only one of the people who told me that, but I appreciate your contribution here.  —JerryFriedman 21:52, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, Lowth is out of there.  (I also did some tweaks and put in Shakespeare et al.; my source was the a.u.e. FAQ already mentioned in the article.)  Please, everyone, in view what what Richard and I and other people have written above, don't put Lowth back in unless you have an actual citation or some equally good reason.  And please don't say that the argument from Latin (or any other language) was used unless you can cite from someone who used it.  I think those are requests that I'm able to reasonably make, and I hope very much that we'll end up with an article without any "academic legends" in it.  —JerryFriedman 22:42, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Bishop Lowth

message: Is there some information on split infinitives in other languages? -- Sundar 06:24, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
:There was some brief info on German and Dutch, I saw, which makes sense, since they are English' two largest, closest language relatives.
::Should it still be of interest: History has something on that subject: Neither its German cognate zu, nor its Dutch cognate te is considered part of the infinitive in their respective languages, although many sentences use them the same way as English uses to. True, but you can't wedge something between zu and its infinitive. It might be conceivable as intentional anacoluthon and would seem quite awkward.
::That said, the Duden, prescriptive authority of sorts, cites this examples for the use of zu: Die Fähigkeit zu hören: "the ability to hear" and Die Fähigkeit zuzuhören: "the ability to listen" {to someone}, without going into details. I don't know how this qualifies ...and now, neither do you. One funny kraut, curious himself: --tickle  me 12:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it doesn't qualify. Zuzuhören is of the same structure as anzuhören - particle + zu + infinitive. A split infinitive would be something like *ich versuche, ihm zu immer helfen (instead of ich versuche, ihm immer zu helfen), which doesn't sound right (compare the following on Hebrew). --Shlomital 00:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Neither in Hebrew nor in Arabic have the grammarians prescribed against splitting the infinitive. This is because:
* In Hebrew the infinitive (I mean the to-infinitive, the infinitive with ל, which is the one in common use in modern Hebrew, used much like the English to-infinitive) is a single word, welded tightly shut and totally impervious to dismantling. Any attempt to wedge something in the middle of the infinitive would be like saying "I'm bealwayshind you" in English. The grammarians don't need to proscribe it, because the speakers do it themselves.
* In Arabic there is no infinitive... (humour aside, my point is that the Arabic masdar is a verbal noun, not an infinitive. A lot of newbie Arabists get that wrong.) --Shlomital 00:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split infinitives in other languages? 

message: The 'current views' section of this article has somehow become gratuitously offensive, partisan and, more to the point, off-topic. I tried to edit it, but the version of the text I see in the edit box is not the same as the text in the article. Can anyone explain this? I'm a fairly new user.
:It is possible that the "edit" button you clicked is that of a previous or preceding heading rather than that of the one you want (I know I get confused sometimes).  Another potential possibility is that you were actually editing an older version of the article.  If there is some sort of difficulty, i suggest rather than editing an individual section, you could try editing the whole article.  Slac speak up! 21:24, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current views 

message: The introduction seems a little contradictory, and also out of kilter with the page on the infinitive. The introduction seems undecided as to whether the an infinitive is just the verb alone, or the combination of to and the verb. Here is the text that indicates an infinitive is just the verb:
inserting a word or phrase, usually an adverb or adverbial phrase, between to and a verb in its infinitive form.
From this we infer that in the phrase to go it is go which is the verb in its infinitive form. Hence an infinitive is just the verb.
But immediately after that is the suggestion that an infinitive is to plus the verb:
Here, the infinitive verb form of go is to go
From reading elsewhere, and referring to the Wikipedia infinitive page, I think the former is correct: the infinitive is the verb alone. Thus I think the introduction needs to be corrected. Here is a suggestion:
[...] One famous example is from the television series Star Trek: "to boldly go where no man has gone before." Here, infinitive verb form of go has been split apart from the preceding to, and the adverb boldly has been inserted, creating a split infinitive. Note that while the entire construction to boldly go is called a "split infinitive", the infinitive itself is just the verb go. [...]
Opinions welcome.
: Niksilver 17:53, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Niksilver 19:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory introduction 

message: : Final word
: Remember to never split an infinitive.
Is this really appropriate? Mga 23:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For the talk page? Hell, yes. (But not for the article, of course.) Doops |  talk 23:33, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Final word"?

message: I've changed the part about the argument from Latin.  The rebuttal which refers to "certain rarer Latin infinitives" seems misplaced, for two reasons: first, it gives examples of compound infinitives Latin, but not truly split infinitives; and second, even in English the rule against split infinitives has never been applied to the English counterparts (e.g., the perfect "to have gone" splits "to go").  I also changed "the argument from Latin" to "the argument from Classical Languages," and included an example from Ancient Greek.
:I think you missed the point of the perfect tense example: In Latin there is no prohibition against putting an adverb in the middle of amaturus esse; in English, the people opposed to splitting infinitives are indeed opposed to to have devotedly loved. (Not that, awkward as it is, anybody's in favor of it, mind you...) Doops |  talk 19:26, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No one in his right mind considers "to have devotedly loved" a split infinitive.  See the link to the American Heritage Book of English Usage in the article.  (I admit that not everybody is in his or their right mind.)  —JerryFriedman 20:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: argument from classical languages

message: This article says that the campaign against split infinitives started in the 19th century.  Then it goes on to say that it goes back to renaissance grammarians.  This is a contradiction and needs to be clarified.  --Doric Loon 13:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dating contradiction

message: On another forum someone said that the Scandinavian languages have split infinitives.  They gave this reference: Philip Holmes & Ian Hinchliffe, _Swedish. A Comprehensive Grammar_. Routledge Grammars (London: Routledge, 1994), pars. 1125a, 1144d, 1152b.  If any of you know Swedish you might like to follow that up.  --217.250.209.57 20:54, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: I think there should be more notes on this article (just one!) becuase it's a featured article. Kilo-Lima Vous pouvez parler 12:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes

message: in the second paragraph, the meaning of "to boldy go" is not given. the diff between "to go boldly" and "boldy to go" is there, but that's it. I'll jump in and give it a crack. thought I'd put it out there first tho. "to not do (something)" is one of my fave examples where infintiv has such a markedly different meaning than any other option. later. CoolHeadz. a place for any linguistic content WikiPedia refuses. skizznologic3.1 08:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd rather you not edit anything.--Suspected 10:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have to not not say something 

message: I have added an example from Trisk's Mind The Gaffe, I don't know if it counts as copyvio (i have referenced it at the end). If anyone wants to make up a new example but keep the point, that might be good. Damiancorrigan 10:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible copyvio