Split infinitive

[Metamorfose]

Having these sentences:

(1) I told him to never come back again.
(2) I told him never to come back again.

Which one of them is correct? May I slipt the infinitive after all or not?

People say that Spanish and Portuguese speakers say to never come because there is an equivalence to para nunca hacer (fazer in Portuguese.) that is, the way we use these grammatical structure.

What do you have to say about it?

José
[/b]

[dduck]

"I willingly and courageously step in the lion's den, in full knowledge that it might be my last act."

I thought hacer was the infinitive, not para hacer, which would translate as "in order to make|do". So, it's not possible to fit a word into the infinitive, in the same way it's not possible to fit a word into the latin infinitive, from where English grammar gets this rule.

I firmly stand by James T. Kirk's words, to boldly write that this rule is wrong.
Iain

[lolwhites]

The "rule" that you can't split an infinitive in English was artificially introduced by 18th century grammarians who, as they wrote their grammar books, decided to make a few "improvements" on the language. In particular, they wanted to make English look more like Latin, which, in their view, was the perfect language. The minor detail they overlooked was that English is not a Romance language. You can't split infinitives in Latin languages because they are one word. In English, to come is (count 'em) two words, so the Latin "rule" is meaningless.
It's OK to split an infinitive. Many sentences would sound quite artificial if you didn't as it would disrupt the natural rhythm and intonation.
Incidentally, this "make English look more like Latin" mentality led to all kinds of weirdness (e.g. introducing a "b" into the word debt and the ban on using a preposition to end a sentence with...).

[Metamorfose]

The "rule" that you can't split an infinitive in English was artificially introduced by 18th century grammarians who, as they wrote their grammar books, decided to make a few "improvements" on the language. In particular, they wanted to make English look more like Latin, which, in their view, was the perfect language. The minor detail they overlooked was that English is not a Romance language. You can't split infinitives in Latin languages because they are one word. In English, to come is (count 'em) two words, so the Latin "rule" is meaningless.
It's OK to split an infinitive. Many sentences would sound quite artificial if you didn't as it would disrupt the natural rhythm and intonation.
Incidentally, this "make English look more like Latin" mentality led to all kinds of weirdness (e.g. introducing a "b" into the word debt and the ban on using a preposition to end a sentence with...).

That's the point! In romance languages infinitives are one single word (dançar/danzar) and English deals with bare infinitive (dance) to-infinitive (to dance) and the progressive form as the infinitive (dancing).

Iain

I meant that when following the sentence Él he me dicho para nunca más hacher esto is translated directly to English, the word order never to do that again is changed by to never do... because of the display of words in Spanish (and Portuguese).

And hacer, cantar and etc are examples of infinitive, never para hacer, I myself never meant that and would not commit such a horrendous thing, and remember that para hacer can be in order to do/make, to do, for doing... depending on the context.

José

[dduck]

That's the point! In romance languages infinitives are one single word (dançar/danzar) and English deals with bare infinitive (dance) to-infinitive (to dance) and the progressive form as the infinitive (dancing).

I wouldn't describe dancing as an infinitive form. The point of the latin name is that the form of the verb is not conjugated, that is, not finite.

The a good article on The Slot. Walsh, agrees that the 'rule' isn't appropriate but also warns that this area carries a certain risk with it.

Iain

[Metamorfose]

I wouldn't describe dancing as an infinitive form. The point of the latin name is that the form of the verb is not conjugated, that is, not finite.

Iain

Good thinking Iain, but look at this example:

(1) Mary suggested going to the cinema.

Although this going is not an infinitive (non-finito), doesn't it work as if it was one?

José

[dduck]

(1) Mary suggested going to the cinema.

Although this going is not an infinitive (non-finito), doesn't it work as if it was one?

"going to the cinema" here is being used as a noun phrase. You can substitute any noun making

Mary suggested the solution ([that] we were all searching for.)

If you use a real infinitive you get:

Mary suggested eat lunch.
Mary suggested drink tea.

I think it's clear that we need an 'ing' form here.
Iain

[lolwhites]

I wonder whether the term infinitive is appropriate for English at all. Latin languages have a form which is non-finite and mrked by a verb ending (e.g. -AR -ER or -IR) for Spanish. This is different from the imperative and present forms, which have their own endings. This is not the case for English; except for third person -s, which is a historical anomaly, they all look the same.
Wouldn't it be simpler to talk about the Base Form? Why do we insist on using Latin terminology for a Germanic language?

[LarryLatham]

Hear, hear! I totally agree with your point-of-view, lolwhites. "Base form" is indeed a better representation for the simple, unmarked form of English verbs.

England and her language has no further use for Latin, or even "Latinization", as she did at other times in her history. It's time for the grammar mavens to move on.

Larry Latham

[Metamorfose]

Hmm.... base form yeap, that would work out fine, I know the procedure: It will probably take some time to get used to the term and wear off the other and then set the new paradigm in my mind, oh dear...but:

(1) I like to read before sleep.
(2) I like reading before sleep.
(3) My teacher made me read a very boring book last term.

Well, I've just learnt through Iain's help that Mary suggested going to the cinema is a noun phrase (I owe you this and much more!) but can I take this explanation for granted in (2)?

Another thing, I am quite aware that latinisation has been shaking off the English language and one typical latin thing, infinitive, may be amongst these cleaning, but how can one explain this phenomenum (oddly, for want of a better term, English keeps on the latin spelling and Portuguese changed it for fenômeno in this specific case English seem to maintain the Latin tradition), the three sentence given, for they all are verb + infinitive in Latin-based language? Don't you think that keeping the term infinitive although not precise, at least could have a didatical aim? And...how do German and Dutch grammarians or linguists or whatever classify sein and zijn, as base forms?

José

[lolwhites]

No problem, Jose! Let's analyse the examples you gave:

1) like + to + Base Form
2) like + Base Form with -ing
3) make [person] + Base Form (rather than that convoluted term "infinitive without to")

As you quite rightly point out, the Base Form with -ing is used where you might also use a noun phrase. So, I like reading or I like carrots. However, there is a subtle difference between Base Form with to and BF + ing. The former refers to actually doing the action, the second refers to it as an activity, regardless whether or not you actually do it; you could asked a disabled person if they liked dancing but not if they liked to dance.

As regards your second point, I know that Latin languages would use the infinitice in all three cases, but that's not an argument for using the term infinitive to describe three different constructions. It's quite correct to point out that the equivalent structures in Spanish or Portuguese use the infinitive form, but to say "This is the English infinitive" is misleading and leads to a false sense of security on the part of the learner. Anyway, how would this terminology help Chinese, Turkish or Arabic speakers?

[Metamorfose]

Hello Iolwhites

That's brillant! What an explanation, now it got much more clear, thank very much.

Now....please don't take me as unpolite, but I simply don't know how the term infinitve could help Arabic, Chinese and Turkish speakers and it is out of my concerns, I don't care about it, I deal with romance-language speakers and I simply know nothing about those languages you cited.

Again, thank you very much

José

[szwagier]

Having these sentences:

(1) I told him to never come back again.
(2) I told him never to come back again.

Which one of them is correct? May I slipt the infinitive after all or not?

José
[/b]

Um, am I the only one who thinks that both sentences are acceptable/syntactically correct, but that there is an important difference between them?

It seems to me that register is very important here - in most informal situations, whether written or spoken, I suspect that the majority of native speakers would split the infinitive without even thinking once (never mind twice) about it. In more formal/careful registers, though, I think ("educated" "British") writers (predominantly) still go to great lengths to avoid splitting infinitives. The days of "not splitting at all costs" are probably gone, but if there's a sensible way not to split, I'd guess that the careful writer/speaker would not split.

I have no empirical evidence for any of this, but this is one of those areas that people with green ballpens and too much time on their hands still get extremely exercised about, which suggests that, whether or not there's any linguistic reason for not splitting, there is certainly a perceived social reason. The same goes for "hopefully" v "I hope/it is to be hoped" and "less" v "fewer".

[Stephen Jones]

In this case the second sentence is better but not because it appeals to the purists. There is simply no good reason to stick never after to.

The to normally goes with the "base form" afterwards, and you should only split it if, otherwise, you would make a more serious split elsewhere.

[dduck]

There is simply no good reason not to split, In my opinion, it's simply irrelevant. People are sometimes advised to not split because it gets some wrong-headed purists in a tizzy.

Iain