82,927
edits
Split infinitive: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "A bogus “rule” of English {{tag|grammar}}, the prohibition on split infinitives frowns self-righteously on interposing an {{tag|adverb}} in middle of a {{tag|verb}}al infi...") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
A bogus “rule” of English | {{pe}}A bogus “rule” of English grammar, the prohibition on [[split infinitive]]s frowns self-righteously on interposing an {{tag|adverb}} in middle of a {{tag|verb}}al infinitive. | ||
One should, according to this disposition, prefer “to go quickly” over “to quickly go”. | One should, according to this disposition, prefer “to go quickly” over “to quickly go”. | ||
But there is no such rule in English. Why would there be? What is special about the infinitive form? No pedant, however contumelious, has ever explained why it would be any less offensive to say | But there is no such rule in English. Why would there be? What is special about the [[infinitive]] form? No pedant, however contumelious, has ever explained why it would be any less offensive to say “[[I]] quickly go” (not an infinitive so, apparently, perfectly acceptable) than “''to'' quickly go”. | ||
Nor can this aversion have derived, as some have claimed, from {{tag|Latin}}. Latin infinitives (''ire'', or ''amare'') have ''no'' {{tag|preposition}} to brazenly split. | |||
It is another question altogether whether you should be using an [[adverb]] in the first place. Why say “quickly go” ''or'' “go quickly”, when you can say “rush”? | |||
It fell to an American TV producer, Gene Rodenberry, to | It fell to an American TV producer, Gene Rodenberry, to forever put the matter beyond doubt. | ||
:''To boldly go where no man has gone before.'' | |||