What isn't a split-infinitive?

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Fri Feb 11, 2005 11:29 pm

Do you agree with this statement:

http://www.yaelf.com/aueFAQ/mifsplitinfinitive.shtml

Phrases consisting of "to be" or "to have" followed by an adverb
and a participle are *not* split infinitives, and constitute the
natural word order. "To generally be accepted" and "to always have
thought" are split infinitives; "to be generally accepted" and "to
have always thought" are not.

woodcutter · Post by **woodcutter** » Sat Feb 12, 2005 3:44 am

Well, yes, agree, but I thought that linguists generally disputed the fact that split infinitives were "unnatural" anyway.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Sat Feb 12, 2005 11:27 am

woodcutter wrote:Well, yes, agree, but I thought that linguists generally disputed the fact that split infinitives were "unnatural" anyway.

Are you a linguist?

What advice do you, a teacher, give to your students regarding the split-infinitive?

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Sat Feb 12, 2005 12:14 pm

metal56 wrote:What advice do you, a teacher, give to your students regarding the split-infinitive?

To boldly split like the crew of NSA Protector, and get out of there before the green fire-breathing guy shows up.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Sat Feb 12, 2005 12:15 pm

In his panties.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Sat Feb 12, 2005 12:20 pm

Tip for anyone confused about the panties (especially those centuries and lightyears removed from the stardate this post was, um, posted): Do a search for 'panties' and read between the links. (Hopefully, using the word 'panties' won't become a craze on Dave's or the next big thing in TEFL or TEIL - Teaching English as an Intergalactic Language - in the interim: We're all doing "The Panties Approach" now. We certainly have more success teaching with it than those Klingons, clinging on as they still are to Michael Lewis's ridiculous and outdated "ideas". That's how we learned to speak in this rather snazzy RP way, without any trace of our old alien idiom or accent).

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Sat Feb 12, 2005 4:43 pm

As far as I, and most other examiners are concerned, we may indeed go forth and boldly split the infinitive without worrying that doing so is ungrammatical. The only thing to think about is that in doing so we are adding emphasis.

Want to add emphasis - split the infinitive.
Don't want to add emphasis - don't split.

That's all I want to say, so now I'll split.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:40 pm

Andrew Patterson wrote:As far as I, and most other examiners are concerned, we may indeed go forth and boldly split the infinitive without worrying that doing so is ungrammatical. The only thing to think about is that in doing so we are adding emphasis.

Want to add emphasis - split the infinitive.
Don't want to add emphasis - don't split.

That's all I want to say, so now I'll split.

Aw, Andrew, don't split before you've answered th main question:

Do you agree with this?

"to be generally accepted" and "to
have always thought" are not split infinitives.

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Sat Feb 12, 2005 6:29 pm

Do you agree with this?

"to be generally accepted" and "to
have always thought" are not split infinitives.

Well, perhaps what is happening here is that grammarians have always held that adverbs go between auxiliaries and the main verb. A few prescriptivist ones held that the infinitive can't be split. What then happens when you try to put both rules together? The adverb here is between to and the infinitive despite being between the auxiliary and main verb, so I suppose it is a split infinitive of sorts but that may be a pedantic answer. There is still emphasis but it is more muted than without an auxiliary.

woodcutter · Post by **woodcutter** » Sun Feb 13, 2005 2:04 am

Am I a linguist? Certainly not a cunning one......

I say to my students (in theory, cos they never ask, and why bring it up?) "Don't you worry yourselves about split infinitives, go ahead and split 'em" because I thought that is what I am supposed to say, and it seems sensible to me.

I can't understand, therefore, why anyone would worry about whether anything was or was not a split infinitive.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Sun Feb 13, 2005 8:39 am

woodcutter wrote:Am I a linguist? Certainly not a cunning one......

I say to my students (in theory, cos they never ask, and why bring it up?) "Don't you worry yourselves about split infinitives, go ahead and split 'em" because I thought that is what I am supposed to say, and it seems sensible to me.

I can't understand, therefore, why anyone would worry about whether anything was or was not a split infinitive.

The best thing you can do is to warn them to be careful when choosing to use such a construction, as quite a number of higher education institutions still disallow usage of such.

They should check out the target audience and the view of each individual examining body.

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Sun Feb 13, 2005 3:56 pm

Metal wrote:

They should check out the target audience and the view of each individual examining body.

It would be useful if anybody knows of any examining bodies that have a problem with the split infinitive. Personally, I don't know of any that do.

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Sun Feb 13, 2005 4:55 pm

SATS maybe? They have a problem with most things

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Sun Feb 13, 2005 4:59 pm

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Mon Feb 14, 2005 10:32 pm

Is it a split infinitive? Maybe.
Is it a red herring? Absolutely!