Split Infinitive

[Bocaj Claw]

<!--QuoteBegin-GhostWay+Jul 13 2005, 10:14 PM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (GhostWay @ Jul 13 2005, 10:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> <!--QuoteBegin-Zaaphod+Jul 14 2005, 01:22 AM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (Zaaphod @ Jul 14 2005, 01:22 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> This is the sort of English up with which I will not put.  <!--emo&:P--><img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br>Thank you, Winston Churchill. <!--emo&:P--><img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br> Madam I may be drunk but in the morning I'll be sober and the infinitive will still be split.

[IceDragon]

<!--QuoteBegin-Tom Flapwell+Jul 13 2005, 02:10 PM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (Tom Flapwell @ Jul 13 2005, 02:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> An infinitive, in English, is a combination of "to" and the neutral form of a verb. "To go" is an example of an infinitive. Therefore, a split infinitive has something to separate the two words, as in "to boldly go." Most grammarians do not allow split infinitives, but "to go boldly where no man has gone before" just doesn't have the same ring to it.<br><br>Other languages tend not to have that problem. In Spanish, for instance, <i>ir</i> is an infinitive meaning "to go." <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br> I dont like that rule. Latin and most languages derived from Latin have infinitives as one word. English, which is derived more from the germanic languages, has them as two words. Dont use Latin's grammar rules on a language that is not Latin.

[Muninn]

This is a great strip. The joke really made me laugh (and I'm in an internet cafe), plus that third panel looks fantastic. Reminds me of Carl Barks' art for some reason.

[Gizensha]

<!--QuoteBegin-Zaaphod+Jul 14 2005, 01:22 AM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (Zaaphod @ Jul 14 2005, 01:22 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> <!--QuoteBegin-Tom Flapwell+Jul 13 2005, 11:10 AM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (Tom Flapwell @ Jul 13 2005, 11:10 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> An infinitive, in English, is a combination of "to" and the neutral form of a verb. "To go" is an example of an infinitive. Therefore, a split infinitive has something to separate the two words, as in "to boldly go." Most grammarians do not allow split infinitives, but "to go boldly where no man has gone before" just doesn't have the same ring to it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br>Most grammarians don't like split infinitives because in Latin it's impossible to have a split infinitive, and grammarians seem to think English should be like a language that English is *not* descended from. Makes perfect sense, eh? Grammarians have a lot of time on their hands.<br><br>This is the sort of English up with which I will not put. <!--emo&:P--><img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br> I thought that split infinitives weren't liked rather than weren't allowed, though. Like passive voice.

[Zaaphod]

<!--QuoteBegin-Gizensha+Jul 17 2005, 10:58 AM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (Gizensha @ Jul 17 2005, 10:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> I thought that split infinitives weren't liked rather than weren't allowed, though. Like passive voice. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br> Either way, it's a stupid pointless thing grammarians like to go on about. It's not like they have anything better to do.<br>