|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 2:26 am
I've heard here and there that it's incorrect to split an infinitive with an adverb. So, with the statement:
1. Boldly to go where no man has gone before.
2. To boldly go where no man has gone before.
3. To go boldly where no man has gone before.
Under this rule, options one and three would be correct, but option two would be incorrect.
Now, I personally see no reason why splitting infinitives should be taboo. Aesthetically, option two seems best to me, while the other two just sound wrong.
Who knows, maybe this is just an example of grammar being redefined by convention.
Is splitting infinitives really a no-no?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 9:25 am
From a strictly grammatical viewpoint, it seems that splitting infitinives would be bad, although I would agree that option two does sound the best.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 7:06 pm
I believe that the rule about split infinitives is an old rule...
It is like the rule about never ending a sentence with a preposition...
They are both annulled...
-JanGab
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 9:17 pm
"To boldly go" suggests a infinitive noun phrase, which means option 2 is all subject-no verb.
It could be corrected by adding a verb, as in:
To boldly go where no man has gone before is a crazy idea.
To boldly go where no man has gone before makes me giddy.
"To boldly go where no man has gone before" is not a sentence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 6:48 am
I don't see any reason to worry about it. Language and the rules within it constantly changes, even though change is less often when it comes to grammar.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 9:11 pm
I like to judge in an on-case basis.
"To boldly go where no man has gone before" sounds fine to me.
Try to not use split infinitives like I just did in this sentence. Try to not ever use them like this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:56 am
This is definitely an outmoded rule. It's an "invented rule". Basically, grammarians of a certain period (not sure which) were distraught at how far English was removed, grammatically, from Latin (very little conjugation, no declension, etc.). In Latin, infinitives are all one word: ambulare means "to walk", dormire, "to sleep", and so on. It's impossible to split up one word, therefor, to make English more like Latin, thou shalt not split thine infinitives! It's a silly rule, and one that we need by no means follow.
But "To boldly go where no man has gone before" is not a sentence. An infinitive, split or unsplit cannot function as the main verb of a sentence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 9:25 am
Amphion This is definitely an outmoded rule. It's an "invented rule". Basically, grammarians of a certain period (not sure which) were distraught at how far English was removed, grammatically, from Latin (very little conjugation, no declension, etc.). In Latin, infinitives are all one word: ambulare means "to walk", dormire, "to sleep", and so on. It's impossible to split up one word, therefor, to make English more like Latin, thou shalt not split thine infinitives! It's a silly rule, and one that we need by no means follow. I thought that might be the case, but I wasn't sure. Also, regarding the comments on the particular phrase I chose-- I'm aware that it's grammatically imperfect when taken out of context, but I cited that one in particular because it's the first example that jumped to mind, having at one point in time been the center of debate on the matter of split infinitives. In context: "Space: The final frontier. These are the voyages of the Starship Enterprise. Its 5 year mission [[implied: is]]: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before." That's why it was the underlined segment in particular that I was addressing, not the grammatical imperfections present beside it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 10:56 am
I actually quote enjoyed yourexample, as it's probably the most well-known example of a split infinitive. Yay Star Trek!
Anyway, I agree with the other commenters. Technically, grammar books will still cite the split infinitive as a no-no. I had a professor in college who strictly upheld that rule. But I also think that it's an old rule and is probably falling out of favor. I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes a change in the language as people cecase to use it.
Besides, sometimes, it just sounds better. And once you know the rule and understand it, I think you have peotic license to break it, if it makes your point and suits your prupose. =)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 8:59 am
Vakruz Amphion This is definitely an outmoded rule. It's an "invented rule". Basically, grammarians of a certain period (not sure which) were distraught at how far English was removed, grammatically, from Latin (very little conjugation, no declension, etc.). In Latin, infinitives are all one word: ambulare means "to walk", dormire, "to sleep", and so on. It's impossible to split up one word, therefor, to make English more like Latin, thou shalt not split thine infinitives! It's a silly rule, and one that we need by no means follow. I thought that might be the case, but I wasn't sure. Also, regarding the comments on the particular phrase I chose-- I'm aware that it's grammatically imperfect when taken out of context, but I cited that one in particular because it's the first example that jumped to mind, having at one point in time been the center of debate on the matter of split infinitives. In context: "Space: The final frontier. These are the voyages of the Starship Enterprise. Its 5 year mission [[implied: is]]: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before." That's why it was the underlined segment in particular that I was addressing, not the grammatical imperfections present beside it. Exactly. In context, it's fine enough. Take it out and it's not a sentence all by itself, although it sounds fine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2007 9:45 pm
Amphion This is definitely an outmoded rule. It's an "invented rule". Basically, grammarians of a certain period (not sure which) were distraught at how far English was removed, grammatically, from Latin (very little conjugation, no declension, etc.). In Latin, infinitives are all one word: ambulare means "to walk", dormire, "to sleep", and so on. It's impossible to split up one word, therefor, to make English more like Latin, thou shalt not split thine infinitives! It's a silly rule, and one that we need by no means follow. But "To boldly go where no man has gone before" is not a sentence. An infinitive, split or unsplit cannot function as the main verb of a sentence. Yeah. I have e a little sheet that says "'To boldly go' splits the infinitive 'to go' with the adverb 'boldly.' The reason split infinitives were originally considered bad grammar is that in Latin the infinitive (ire: to go) is a single word and cannot be splt *ire audacter: to go boldly). There is no other reason."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 7:08 am
Doppelgaanger Amphion This is definitely an outmoded rule. It's an "invented rule". Basically, grammarians of a certain period (not sure which) were distraught at how far English was removed, grammatically, from Latin (very little conjugation, no declension, etc.). In Latin, infinitives are all one word: ambulare means "to walk", dormire, "to sleep", and so on. It's impossible to split up one word, therefor, to make English more like Latin, thou shalt not split thine infinitives! It's a silly rule, and one that we need by no means follow. But "To boldly go where no man has gone before" is not a sentence. An infinitive, split or unsplit cannot function as the main verb of a sentence. Yeah. I have e a little sheet that says "'To boldly go' splits the infinitive 'to go' with the adverb 'boldly.' The reason split infinitives were originally considered bad grammar is that in Latin the infinitive (ire: to go) is a single word and cannot be splt *ire audacter: to go boldly). There is no other reason." Isn't that the point of the earlier arguement. Just because something cannot be split in latin (such as the examples already cited), should not mean that it cannot be in another language. In general, I would agree with most of what has been said. I would approach the matter case-by-case, and decide based on whats best for the specific example at hand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
