U
Unregistered
Guest
"promise to not run away" or "promise not to run away"? Please explain the rules of similar verbs. Thanks
"promise to not run away" or "promise not to run away"? Please explain the rules of similar verbs. Thanks
The text in red is from an earlier thread; that part of the thread relates to this thread.Ah, we come to the toughy subject of split infinitives. The idea that you should not split an infinitive is fast fading but I would say that it is still more natural with negatives not to split the infinitive so 'not to' rather than 'to not' - complete coincidence (I think?) but I've just noticed that this very sentence contains an example of an unsplit infinitive in the negative and I don't think I'd be tempted to write 'to not split the infinitive'! But in informal speech, I'm sure even in the negative the infinitive is often split, so possibly 'not to' in formal English, but either in informal English.
The text in red is from an earlier thread; that part of the thread relates to this thread.
I think that not only is splitting infinitives acceptable, sometimes it is the (most) direct and correct way to clearly state your meaning.
I did it not to become poor, but to follow my dream. (I did it to follow my dream, but I became poor as a result.)
I did it (in ordrer) to not become poor. (I did it to prevent myself from becoming poor.)OR 'I did it so as not to become poor'
So the 'not to' and 'to not' grammars are both legitimate but have different meanings. (at least different emphases)
(What do you promise to do?)
I promise to not run away. (This sounds better to me than 'I promise not to run away.')
I don't think it's a matter of formal/informal or British/American English. I think it's a matter of precise grammar.
2006I don't think it has anything to do with precise grammar. But if you look at it look at it from a grammatic/semantic point of view, the split infinitive can be more precise, as in my examples. To me, that seems to be clearly so. I think a good general principle, certainly in formal writing, is don't split the infinitive in the negative unless the context makes splitting preferable That's what I'm saying. (which slightly adapts what I said earlier and allows for your tendentious use of the split), at least in GBEng.
Bias can apply both ways.
Anyway, you did say that the feeling against split infinitives is fading, and I am suggesting that there may be good reason for that.
Maybe I didn't write it carefully enough.2006
On the one hand, you're saying the split inifinitive is more precise; on the other ('that's what I'm saying') you're agreeing that you shouldn't split the infinitive unless the context makes this preferable. So, which is it?
Anyway, I'm coming back to this post. The unsplit infinitive still has a last stand to fight!
Your links didn't work.I said I'd come back to the split infinitive in negations. I'm confident academic sources will back up my stance but we'll see. I'll come back to this later but for now, wikipedia will have to do:
"Splitting infinitives with negations remains an area of contention: I'll take that to mean that there is disagreement about that. I want to not see you anymore. I soon learned to not provoke her. Even those who are generally tolerant of split infinitives may draw the line at these.[10] This appears to be because the traditional idiom, placing the negation before the marker (I soon learned not to provoke her) or with verbs of desire, negating the finite verb (I don't want to see you anymore) remains easy and natural, and is still overwhelmingly the more common construction, even if some might argue that there are circumstances in which it carries a slightly different meaning."
maybe not so slightly
Anyway, it doesn't seem that I am the only one defending the splitting of infinitives.