Forum newsfeeds |  | | Notices | You are welcome to answer questions posted in the Ask a Teacher forum as long as your suggestions, help, and advice reflect a good understanding of the English language. If you are not a teacher, you will need to state that clearly at the top of your post. Please note, all posts are moderated by our in-house language experts, so make sure your suggestions, help, and advice house the kind of information an international language teacher would offer. If not, and your posts do not contribute to the topic in a positive way, they will be subject to deletion. | 
11-Feb-2005, 16:00
| | | What isn't a split infinitive? 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. | 
11-Feb-2005, 23:10
|  | VIP Member | | Join Date: Sep 2003 Country: Canada
Posts: 12,997
Current Location: China First Language: English Member Type: Other Thanks: 0
Thanked 45 Times in 44 Posts
| | Re: What isn't a split infinitive? Quote: |
Originally Posted by M56 Do you agree with this statement:
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. | Yes.  "infinitive" refers to the verb, not to its object:
Infinitive verb: [to be]
Object: [accepted]
Verb phrase: [ [to be] [accepted] ]
The adverb can go anywhere outside the verb boundary ([. . .]) or the verb phrase boundary, but never inside the verb boundary. If that happens, it splits the integrity of the infinitive structure:
[to be] generally [accepted] generally [to be] [accepted]
[to be] [accepted] generally
[to generally be] [accepted] (split infinitive) | 
11-Feb-2005, 23:35
| | | Re: What isn't a split infinitive? Quote: |
Originally Posted by Casiopea Yes.  "infinitive" refers to the verb, not to its object:
Infinitive verb: [to be]
Object: [accepted]
Verb phrase: [ [to be] [accepted] ]
The adverb can go anywhere outside the verb boundary ([. . .]) or the verb phrase boundary, but never inside the verb boundary. If that happens, it splits the integrity of the infinitive structure:
[to be] generally [accepted] generally [to be] [accepted]
[to be] [accepted] generally
[to generally be] [accepted] (split infinitive) | I agree. Thanks for the swift reply.
What do you think of this written by a NS who claims to be an authority on English grammar?
to be understood - passive infinitive
to clearly be understood - split infinitive
to be clearly understood - split infinitive
to be understood clearly - no split
Last edited by M56; 11-Feb-2005 at 23:52.
| 
12-Feb-2005, 01:14
|  | VIP Member | | Join Date: Sep 2003 Country: Canada
Posts: 12,997
Current Location: China First Language: English Member Type: Other Thanks: 0
Thanked 45 Times in 44 Posts
| | Re: What isn't a split infinitive? Quote: |
Originally Posted by M56 I agree. Thanks for the swift reply. | You're welcome, M56. Quote:
What do you think of this written by a NS who claims to be an authority on English grammar?
1. to be understood - passive infinitive
2. to clearly be understood - split infinitive
3. to be clearly understood - split infinitive
4. to be understood clearly - no split
| Let's check it out:
1. For us to be understood, we have to. . . . (passive infinitive)
2. For us to clearly be understood, we have to. . . . (split infinitive)
3. For us to be clearly understood, we have to. . . . (split infintive)
4. For us to be understood clearly, we have to. . . . (no split)
Clearly, there's a split in 2. | 
12-Feb-2005, 06:08
| | Editor, UsingEnglish.com | | Join Date: Nov 2002 Country: UK
Posts: 25,454
Current Location: Phnom Penh First Language: English Member Type: English Teacher Thanks: 6
Thanked 429 Times in 385 Posts
| | Re: What isn't a split infinitive? Is the NS suggesting that #3 is incorrect or needs rewriting because of the alleged split? If so, I disagree. | 
12-Feb-2005, 13:43
| | | Re: What isn't a split infinitive? Quote: |
Originally Posted by tdol Is the NS suggesting that #3 is incorrect or needs rewriting because of the alleged split? If so, I disagree.  | He is suggesting it is correct. He says that the whole thing ("to be understood") is a unit and cannot be split. | 
12-Feb-2005, 20:07
|  | Moderator | | Join Date: Feb 2003 Country: USA
Posts: 13,535
Current Location: North Carolina First Language: English Member Type: Other Thanks: 73
Thanked 901 Times in 806 Posts
| | Re: What isn't a split infinitive? They are all okay with me. Split all you like. In my humble opinion, split infinitives are not something to worry about. | 
12-Feb-2005, 20:18
|  | Junior Member | | Join Date: Feb 2005 Country: neverland
Posts: 73
First Language: Chin Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
| | Re: What isn't a split infinitive? To me split infinitive seems to be pedantic, especially when overused. | 
13-Feb-2005, 00:24
| | | Re: What isn't a split infinitive? Quote: |
Originally Posted by tuangpi To me split infinitive seems to be pedantic, especially when overused.  | Interesting, Tuangpi. Could you elaborate? | 
13-Feb-2005, 00:35
|  | VIP Member | | Join Date: Sep 2003 Country: Canada
Posts: 12,997
Current Location: China First Language: English Member Type: Other Thanks: 0
Thanked 45 Times in 44 Posts
| | Re: What isn't a split infinitive? Quote: |
Originally Posted by tuangpi To me split infinitive seems to be pedantic, especially when overused.  | Welcome. | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes | Linear Mode |
Posting Rules
| You may post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts HTML code is Off | | | All times are GMT. The time now is 20:31. |  |