Talk:Split infinitive

Template:WP1.0

Unclear Language

In the "descriptivist objection" section there is this sentence: "Thus the descriptivist objection involves a person whose idiolect does not have the construction advising against its use on the grounds that it is not the norm. " It has three negatives and is not clear. I think someone who knows what it is trying to say should re-work it. I have had no luck unraveling it and am not an expert. Also, idiolect could be linked to its wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.208.4.10 (talk) 12:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Spoken version

Timwi has just added the "spoken version" tag which was removed last year. The reason it was removed was that the article has been completely rewritten, and the old text found in the spoken version is not to be recommended. Obviously it would be best to re-record this, but that is a big job for someone, and should probably wait until the article gets GA status, i.e. until we are sure we are not about to make more substantial changes. Meanwhile, is it best to leave this tag, or leave it with a warning of some sort, or just delete it again? --Doric Loon 14:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Moriarty

About the sentence: "In any case, Moriarty is clearly in error when she dates the prohibition to a time when Latin was regarded as the only scholarly language - this was not the case in 1834." What wasn't the case -- that Latin was regarded as the only scholarly language, or that the prohibition against splitting infinitives was in effect? Moreover, if this author mangles basic facts about the history of split infinitives is this something important enough to be quoting and dissecting within the article? Just my two bits. Daniel Freeman 13:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hard to say what she was thinking. Either she thought the controversy was centuries older than it actually is (I suspect that is the case) or she thought Latin was the sole scholarly language much longer than it was. English became regarded as a serious scholarly language in the 16th or 17th century, but was beginning to be used for serious writing quite a bit earlier than that. The split infinitive controversy only began in the 19th century, so she is clearly wrong to see it in that context. I agree that she is hardly a significant writer, and possibly the quote should be replaced with another one. --Doric Loon 15:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

As I recall, the purpose of the quotation is to show specifically what real people believed the argument from Latin was, as some editors here doubted anyone could think anything so absurd. I would certainly rather see a quotation from someone more famous and more knowledgeable about the split infinitive. And I wouldn't miss the "clearly" in error sentence if people believe it's beating a dead horse. —JerryFriedman 04:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Lowth

The article now says that Lowth did NOT proscribe against the split infinitive. Every reference I have ever seen says that he did, and he is cited in Garner's latest usage manual. Where is the evidence he did NOT create this proscription? Manning 20:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I read Lowth's book and didn't find anything about split infinitives. If that's not good enough, see [1]. It's cited in the article, but not at "first known prohibition", which maybe it should be. —JerryFriedman 20:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but that's the way myths grow, isn't it? A thing is said often enough and you will never root it out. But it is up to you, Manning Bartlett, to find a citation in Lowth, not for us to prove there is none. --Doric Loon 10:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, at least one of the usage books we cite says the prohibitions appeared in the mid 19th century. The AHDEU? We should probably cite that too at the beginning of "History of the controversy", as Manning probably won't be the only person with this question.

Manning, if you've want, you can add the cite from Garner to footnote 13 as more evidence that reputable people believe in the myth. —JerryFriedman 14:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the Lowth statement is better supported now. Thanks for bringing this up, Manning. —JerryFriedman 04:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Nearly a couple of years later, but this page inspired me to reread, cover to cover (why didn't they have indexes in those days?) my editions of Bullokar (1586), Wallis (1653), Cooper (1685), Brightland (1746); Johnson (1755), Priestley (1761), Lowth (1762), Ash (1785), Cobbett (1820) Murray (1852 American edition) . No prescriptions against split infinitives that I could see. It's not until Angus (1870.132) that I found: 'The to of an infinitive mood should never be separated from its verb by an adverb. Such phrases as 'To rightly use,' To really understand' are improper'. Angus gives no reasons. I haven't added this citation to the article, as I am not sure whether we can consider Angus to really be an 'authority'. Onions (1904), referring to the construction as 'the split infinitive' writes: '...it is generally admitted that a constant and unguarded use of it is not to be encouraged.' He admits its historical precedence, citing a c.1450 example. So if Fowler wasn't against it, then the real age of prescription was pretty short. Burchfield , however, in his 1996 revision of Fowler (1926) writes:' There can be no doubt that there continues to be a noticeable reluctance to split infinitives in the national press and in the work of many of our most respected writers.' It appears to me that there are many people who feel that the authorities are against the split infinitive, but not many who can quote the actual authorities. Even Crystal (1995) refers to the large number of people against it, but quotes only one , Sir Stafford Northcote (a statesman, not a grammarian). He cites ten authorities (including himself) who do not object to split infinitives. --gramorak (talk) 18:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Borrowing from French

It is not clear that this section is correct, at least as regards French. The proper French translation of "I decide to not do something" does not include the particle "de." Rather, contrary to the claim that "the preposition is not considered a part of the infinitive form," the preposition is in fact part of the lexical infinitive, but not as a separate word. That is, the translation of "faire" is not "do" but "to do," and the proper French translation is "Je décide ne pas faire quelque chose." This is true of other Romance languages as well; the reason they do not refer to split infinitives is that they are impossible because the infinitive does not have a separate particle. --uvaphdman 19:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)uvaphdman

The French for "I decide not to do" really is "Je décide de ne pas faire". See this French-English dictionary or try Google for a very rough approximation of usage:

"je décide de ne pas": 20,900

"je décide ne pas": 196

"Faire" is indeed often translated "to do", but also often as just "do". In fact it can be both—"je dois le faire", I should do it, I ought to do it. One could debate, though, whether the "de" above is really equivalent to the English "to". —JerryFriedman (Talk) 20:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Jerry's right. Please note that the article doesn't claim that the de in this French sentence is syntactically identical to the to in the English equivalent - just that there is a superficial similarity which might have been enough to trigger a linguistic borrowing. --Doric Loon 00:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

"Thus it might be argued that the English split infinitive ("I decide to not do something") may have arisen under the influence of French".

This claim seems rather suspect to say the least. In English we have incredible flexibility in word order due to the breakdown of inflections. Thus the same statement could be varied to read: I decide not to do something; I decide to do nothing; I haven't decided to do something; etc. I don't see influence; I see parallel development. Split infinitives are an internal development in English. Also, the argument using comparison to other Germanic languagues is faulty, since the same dismantling of inflected forms occurred independently in each, and rules laid down for English and German came much later in their histories. It's an attempt at using present linguistic coincidences to explain past linguistic events. Utter nonsense! I move to remove the entire section. Leasnam (talk) 21:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, not utter nonsense, in my opinion. However, it does need a citation. I was embarrassed recently to see this page from a linguistics book that cites the Wikipedia article for the claim that some scholars "consider that it is the result of a French influence". If there are such scholars, we should say who they are. And it would be nice if the scholars had some evidence beside the similarity of the English and French constructions. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 06:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

A question

Would the following be regarded as a split infinive? And if not, then what?

"Are you going to talk?"

"Yes, I'm going to"

Since the second person has omitted "talk" from the end of his answer, which would otherwise leave "to talk" there.

No, this is not a split infinitive. It is just a shortened form of a construction which I suspect is uniquely English. A similar situation with finite verbs is:

Does he talk much?

Yes, he does. (="does talk much")

Most languages have situations where a word which strictly is necessary for a construction to be complete may be dropped because it is obvious what is meant, and these echo situations, where the first speaker already used the word which the second speaker can then assume, are typical examples. But I can't think that any other language leaves the infinitive marker in stressed position while dropping the infinitive itself. --Doric Loon (talk) 07:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

BTW, the term for this is "ellipsis". This does bring into question the assertion that "to talk" forms a linguistic unit. "Yes, I am" would also be considerd a perfectly fine answer to the question, but "Yes, I am going" would not. So, apparently, the word "to" is attached to "going", not "talk". In other words, English uses the phrase "going to" to indicate future tense. Just "going", by itself, would be present progressive. The "to" modifies "going", not "talk". So "I am going to really enjoy this" would not be an example of a split infinitive (can you imagine someone saying "I am going really to enjoy this"?)Heqwm (talk) 06:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you find a source for that? It is very interesting, and if any linguist has taken that view in a citable work I would say we should include it in the section on origins of the construction - it shows that the role of "to" has changed over time. But it may also be that the future tense is a special case. Would it also work that way with "decided to"? I am more sceptical there. --Doric Loon (talk) 07:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The standard analysis in generative grammar (both transformational and otherwise) is to analyze to as an auxiliary verb. (See, e.g., Syntax: A Formal Introduction 2003 by Ivan A. Sag, Thomas Wasow and Emily Bender). Thus He decided to, She never told me anyone was able to, etc., are examples of "verb phrase ellipsis," just like she can, no one will, and so on. But this does not necessarily diagnose the connectedness of going to vs to talk, but simply that talk is a unit. --rikdzin (talk) 23:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

More interesting stuff. My knowledge of linguists' ideas on syntax is both meager and obsolete. I imagine they have some explanation for why can, will, etc. never appear in a situation where to can appear, and (to get to the topic of the article) why not appears after the auxiliary in she will not but almost always before in she decided not to. Anyway, I think this analysis should be cited in the article, and I'll do a little based on the snippet at Google Books. If there's a succinct way to say how they account for the rarity of the "to ADVERB VERB" construction at some times in the past, the continued rarity of that construction with not etc., and the avoidance of it by some present speakers (you know who you are), that would be great to add, but I can't do it. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 22:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, a problem I've run into on other subjects: if we want to claim that this is the standard generative analysis, how do we substantiate that? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 22:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes: the main difference between to and and the rest is captured (again, in some modern theories) in terms of finiteness. As to the goodness of she decided not to but he badness of she decided to not, I'm not sure what people in general say. I know of one account in HPSG by Ivan Sag, but the technicalities would probably be inappropriate for an article on the history and usage of the split infinitive. As to determining the standardness of a parcticular analysis: any number of introductory textbooks may be cited, or technical articles. However, they may not all agree on terminology. E.g., one group of articles may call to an auxiliary verb, while the others say it is a inflectional head. These are actually essentially equivalent, but to the uninitiated might seem rather different. -rikdzin (talk) 20:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You can say it's standard when it finds its way out of exploratory works and into tertiary texts (text books, encyclopedias). I think this is very interesting, but it needs a fuller explanation than you have given. The idea that "to" is a verb is so radical that it would need more than one citation. I also wonder if it is helpful to drop that in the middle of the argument on prescriptive objections, where you have it. Further up the page there is a sentence on generative grammar, in the section on how the construction arose, and that would be the place to discus the syntax analysis. --Doric Loon (talk) 05:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I actually didn't mean to imply that any particular modern analysis of infinitival to belongs in an article on the split infinitive at all, though perhaps it might. I can look around for suitable references if it's useful (see also my reply above to JerryFriedman). -rikdzin (talk) 20:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe modern analyses belong at Infinitive (where the auxiliary-verb theory is notably missing). Maybe what this article needs is simply a statement that both analyses and terminology have varied a great deal over the years and we're simply talking about a phenomenon and the history and current state of prescriptions concerning it. (I can't think that hard at the moment, though.) However, I think theories that account for the history of the split infinitive or the present avoidance of it by some, particularly in some cases, are great to mention here with a source for the interested reader. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 00:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

"a cardinal sin"

Amusing passage on split infinitives by Arnold Bennett here. I don't know whether it should go in the article. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 01:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

A couple of things from my first introduction to the concept

There are a couple of things I'd love to see worked into this article just because they are from my first research into the topic: Looking it up in the dictionary.

My old unabridged Random House has these two things to say about the topic:

1] To really get to know someone you have to have lived with them.

Placing 'really' anywhere else makes for awkward phrasing.

2] Traditionalists',purists', and other schoolmarmish stylists' objections notwithstanding, there is nothing wrong with a split infinitive in English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.41.60.82 (talk) 09:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

In your first example, I think two phrasings that come to mind have slightly different emphasis:

• To really get to know someone you have to have lived with them.
• To get to really know someone you have to have lived with them.

Depending on which infinitive you split, you get a different emphasis. To me, this says that the split infinitive is not "incorrect", but rather a semantically meaningful construct... and should be taught and learned as such.

This also reinforces my belief that making a programing language "English-like" in any way is naught but foolishness supreme. But that is a digression to which I shall not go further into, lest I spend the rest of the day talking like Jeeves. -- Resuna (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I doubt very much that there is a meaningful difference between those two. Both are identical in meaning to the non-split:

• To get to know someone really well you have to have lived with them.

Theoretically it would be possible to express slight differences of logic through these, but I doubt very much that any English speakers really do. To make your argument plausible, you would have to demonstrate that there are actually people who use both of those and distinguish them consciously. Otherwise they are just linguistic habits used unthinkingly, and not carrying meaningful distinctions at all. I agree that the split infinitive is useful and idiomatic, but there are also varieties of English which don't have it and they can express anything they need to. When people try to argue that they have found a split infinitive which expresses something which cannot be said any other way, I never find them terribly convincing. --Doric Loon (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

One emphasizes the process of learning about the other person, the other emphasizes the depth of understanding the other person. -- Resuna (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The German example "to know her is to love her"

What exactly is the German translation referred to here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.149.199 (talk) 14:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Like English, German infinitives have both a bare form without zu and an extended form with it. Unlike English, the bare form is used when the infinitive stands alone (in vocabulary lists) or as the subject or predicate nominative of a sentence. So the literal translation of that sentence is Sie kennen ist sie lieben, not *Sie zu kennen ist sie zu lieben. That's a bad example because the English meaning is so idiomatic it gets lost in translation. More straightforward examples include:

• To see is to believe. / Sehen ist glauben.
• To err is human. / Irren ist menschlisch.

Like English, German uses the extended infinitive with zu after most but not all verbs, and also after adjectives and prepositions. Sluggoster (talk) 14:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Your first example is bad because we would normally say "seeing is believing". But "To err is human" would be super, and if you prefer it, feel free to put it in the article. I don't think it is correct to use the terminology "full and bare infinitive" for German. That is applying English grammar categories to another language, which is dangereous precisely because German is quite closely analagous here. --Doric Loon (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

one commentator sees the roots of this controversy in the Enlightenment's continued focus on Latin and the Hellinistic world as an ideal to be emulated in the modern; thus the attempt to force English, a Germanic language, into a "Latin corset" as according to this author split infinitives go back in English to the work of Chaucer

There's some discussion of that claim in the article here. If you've got a reliable source that adds something to the discussion, I hope you'll add it. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

removed text

Split infinitives are to be avoided when Latin infinitives are translated into English.

Removed because I think the person who said it may be joking.

Latin also tended to put adverbs in front of verbs rather than after them. In the split infinitive, the adverb always comes before the verb.

Removed because the relevance is unclear. In particular, the anti-splitting theorists saw (or even still see) the adverb as going before only part of the verb.

As it is discussed above, a split infinitive such as "to quickly find" may reflect a natural word order such as "I quickly found it."

Removed as unneeded repetition. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 23:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

more removed text

I removed the last sentence of the lead, though it's been there a long time:

It can be used for intentional effect, as a form of hyperbaton (as discussed below), and has been employed to good effect by some major poets (see below).

We don't have any source or example for the hyperbaton statement. Also, I think that's a really minor issue. Most of us who use split infinitives do so without thinking about it (a statement I believe and we do have a source for); it's just the natural word order for us. By the same token, we would seldom notice a split infinitive as an intentional rhetorical effect. If we do want the use as hyperbaton in the article, I don't think it's important enough to go in the lead.

Likewise I don't see that the use in poetry is particularly important. We do need the example from Shakespeare and the one from Burns, but I don't think the Shakespeare one is necessarily "to good effect". Anyway, much though I like poetry, I'd say it's outside the mainstream of usage, so it doesn't belong in the lead.

If anyone puts either part of that sentence back in, I think there may be some better place. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 02:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

"To" is needed to distinguish the Infinitive from the Present Tenses.

The article makes clear —apropos the "Latin" argument— that in English the infinitive is two words, not one. That is, it might seem improper to split the English verb to love; but in Latin, it is impossible to split the verb amare. According to some, one may not split infinitives in English, whereas in the Romance languages the infinitive cannot be split, it is indivisible.

What the article makes no mention of, however, is the remarkable simplicity of English verbs vis-a-vis verbs in the Romance languages —and why this necessitates the preposition "to" in the infinitive.

Except for to be and to wit, each verb in the English language has only 4 or 5 inflections. In the Romance languages, by contrast, a verb can have as many as 47. For instance:

English to love	Present Indicative /Present Subjunctive /Imperative, love	Present Indicative (3rd Person singular), loves	Past Indicative /Past Subjunctive /Past Participle, loved	Present Participle, loving
Spanish amar	Present Indicative, amo - amas - ama - amamos - amais - aman	Past Indicative, amé - amaste - amo - amamos - amasteis - amaron	Future Indicative, amaré - amarás - amarán - amarémos - amaréis - amarán	Imperfect Indicative, amaba - amabas - amaba - amabamos -amasteis - amaban	Conditional Indicative, amaría - amarías - amaría - amaríamos - amaríais - amarían	Present Subjunctive, ame - ames - ame - amemos -améis - amen	Imperfect Subjunctive, amara - amaras - amara - amaramos - amarais - amaran	Imperative, ama - ame - amemos - amad - amen	Present Participle, amando	Past Participle, amado

Notice that while (in Spanish) the infinitive is distinct from all the other tenses, in English it performs several different duties. Unless written with the preposition "to", the infinitive in English creates ambiguity as to whether it forms a clause or an infinitive phrase. This might raise issues of punctuation, flow, and even sentence fragmentation.

I suggest that the article make note of this, since a split infinitive can give the false impression that it is the present tense in a clause and not the main verb in a phrase. What do you think?Pine (talk) 23:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you would have to give me an example of a sentence where a split infinitive is ambiguous in the way you suggest. Also, I haven't seen this in the literature, so is it OR? --Doric Loon (talk) 23:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Also, some infinitives in English don't have "to", such as "I saw him do it. If there's a source for the statement that English infinitives often have "to" because of the possible confusion with other parts of the verb, that should certainly go in Infinitive, and it might be useful here too. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 00:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

"to pitied be" not a split infinitive

I moved the following text out of the article, where it was after the claim that "Thy pity may deserve to pitied be" was Shakespeare's only split infinitive:

[Note: inverted word order, yes, but not a split infinitive, since it is the passive form of the verb "to pity," that is, "to be pitied," whose word order is inverted to the poet's purpose: "to pitied be."]

—JerryFriedman (Talk) 16:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you were right to remove that. Split infinitive is a traditional grammatical term, not a syntactic one. Syntacticians might analyse the phrase "to be pitied" differently, but traditional grammar sees it as the infinitive of the auxiliary verb used with the participle to create a passive infinitive, i.e. "to be" is still an infinitive word-pair, and if anything else comes between them, it is a split infinitive. It is a very odd one, but that is commented on further down the article. --Doric Loon (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, at least some modern grammars treat it that way—for example, the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, p. 106, calls the past participle the "next verb" after the auxiliary be. (I read the CGEL by searching it at Amazon.)

As I recall, Fowler devotes some space to explaining why expressions such as to have thoroughly searched aren't split infinitives, so he doesn't regard an auxiliary plus a main verb as a single verb.

I've added a reference to the article that calls "to pitied be" a split infinitive. I don't know of any sources that disagree. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 17:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

To have thoroughly searched is not a split infinitive. But to thoroughly have searched is. --Doric Loon (talk) 21:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Apologies - I inadvertently resurrected this debate with my edit a few days ago, without checking the talk page. However, I do agree with whoever posted the [Note] that Jerry originally deleted - the original verb is not 'to be', but 'to be pitied', and in inverting this Shakespeare has not introduced a split infinitive. Maybe that's just Latinist prejudice on my part - if Doric or anyone feels strongly about it I don't mind if they want to revert it. What do you think? Drjamesaustin (talk) 11:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

In addition to the source in the article and the CGEL mentioned above, the Fowler brothers denied (without giving a reason) that to be fatally wounded was a split infinitive, so I think there's a lot of agreement that to be pitied isn't a single verb. So I'm going to revert the change. If there's a source for the idea that this construction is a reversed two-word verb, it could be noted in the article. (Of course, we can only guess why Shakespeare didn't use split infinitives in general and did permit himself this construction—maybe in his mind they were different.) —JerryFriedman (Talk) 23:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

That's fine with me. I can cite no references to back up my interpretation - merely my Latin-influenced view of grammar - so will gladly bow to higher authority. Thanks Jerry! Drjamesaustin (talk) 08:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Weasel words

This article has a "weasel words" tag, and I see it has just been marked down on the quality scale because of that. However, the person who added this tag (User:Marcus Brute) gave no explanation, and reading the article I cannot see any weasel words. It seems to me to be a very scholarly article, making specific statements rather than vague ones, and documenting these with lots of scholarly references. But of course I wrote large chunks of it, so I could be blind to something. But I can't improve it without guidance. What is the correct procedure here? If I just remove the tag without improving anything, that surely breaks rules, but the onus does not seem to be on the tagger to take the thing any further. Does that mean that we are stuck with such a tag permanently? --Doric Loon (talk) 12:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think there are quite a few "weasel words", like "several", "usually", "most", "slightly odd", "appears to be", "very", "presumably" etc. However, the question is not whether these words should be used per se, but whether these words are justifiable. If you think they are justifiable, and accurately reflect expert opinion, then in my opinion you should remove the tag. Tags should not be left on articles if they do not apply. However, if the tag is replaced and the tagger does not provide more specific guidance on his or her concern, then I think you should approach them directly and ask for more information. They may be willing to remove the tag themselves if you explain any contentious points. DrKiernan (talk) 14:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. That's helpful. --Doric Loon (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I made some wording changes under the "Argument from Classical Languages" section:

• Removed the wording that the "link to Latin" is "not found in any of the major statments of the position." Without defining "major statements," I don't have a good frame of reference as to what Wikipedia would consider a "major statement." I could be wrong. I know that under WP:V and WP:RS, books from university presses are considered second in reliability only to peer-reviewed journal articles. I added a statement from the Martin Cutt's, Oxford Guide to Plain English, published by the Oxford University Press that links the two. Unless I'm mistaken, Wikipedia doens't identify criteria for "major statements." This could be added back in if some framework was added in to give it some context. It appears to push a POV though.
• I deleted the sentence, "Of the writers cited here (and the many others consulted) who ascribe the split-infinitive prohibition to Latinism, none cite a source." Again, that is not a criteria that increases or decreases the reliability of a source here on Wikipedia. There are plenty of sources that are reliable as "stand alone" authorities that do not need to cite sources. As editors, we cannot make a judgement on which authors merit that consideration, and which authors should list a source because their reliability could be in question otherwise. If I'm missing something, let me know.

These were good faith edits. I don't have a position either way on this topic. I know a bit more about it than your average English-speaker, but I don't have a POV to push. Thus, my edits here are intended to make the article better. There is certainly room to add the ideas back in revised forms as noted above, but that should be done very carefully. If we, as editors, present the information listed in sources, that should be able to stand alone (assuming we did a good job). We must be careful about taking positions. Throwing question on the reliability of sources that are otherwise considered reliable under WP:RS should not be done by editors at Wikipedia. Airborne84 (talk) 02:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

By major statements we meant those cited further up the article. I thought that shorthand was OK, but perhaps you can make it clearer without the sentence becoming clumsy. On the second point, the problem is not that a particular authority doesn't cite a source, but that NOBODY can find a source. You are welcome to try to find other ways of saying this, but don't let's lose the main point: those who don't encourage the SI have been accused of using a faulty Latin-based logic, but the big proponents of their view in the 19th century debate never used this logic, nor has any reputable linguist since, and yet the other side continues to make the accusation without citing sources. We have to expose that. This is not POV, since we have pinned it down to facts; it is not OR, since we have ourselves cited sources; and I don't think we're being weasly, since we are actually stating the problem fairly strongly. It is fair enough to say these things. But please do try to find ways of saying them better. --Doric Loon (talk) 20:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll look at it again in a day or two. I should mention that I considered the points you made, and I understand the logic. The issue regarding that statement is that it gives the appearance of POV. I'll give the rest of the article a closer look, as I didn't read the entire thing carefully. Maybe it simply merits an endnote that explains the logic behind that particular statement. Airborne84 (talk) 03:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I took a crack at clarifying what's there. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 17:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I like it. Airborne84 (talk) 20:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up and looking at the change. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 17:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

RE: the particle matter

I wouldn't dare to tamper directly with the article, as I am not a linguist. But I urge that my ideas at least be considered in earnest.

I am a proponent of particles, eh.

But I don't see how the particle argument for "to (verb)" is sustainable under any kind of diligent scrutiny.

Please consider which of these sentences is more representative of nonstandard usage:

1) "I constructed this sentence for to demonstrate my point."

2) "I constructed this sentence to demonstrate my point." (as used as if equal to) "I constructed this sentence in order to demonstrate my point."

If "to" in "to demonstrate" is closer in nature to a particle than to a preposition, then why is the "for" considered to be out of place, and why is there effectively no difference in meaning when "in order" is omitted?

I realize that there is a vague shift from the idea of "this sentence (is) to demonstrate" towards the idea of "I constructed in order to demonstrate".

Yeah... whatever.

I'm just saying that the particle explanation is not any less problematic, and that anyone who says that "splitting" a particle construction automatically creates some kind of a problem can't possibly have any familiarity with languages like Mandarin Chinese.

Or I'm wrong about this?

OK... how?

- Joshua Clement Broyles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.25.46.154 (talk) 02:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow. Are you using some particular (no pun intended) definition of "particle"? I believe different grammarians use the word in somewhat different senses.

Does "the particle argument for 'to (verb)'" mean the argument that "to" in such constructions is a particle? I don't think the article contains such an argument, though it does follow some grammarians in using the term. In this case I take it to mean "a miscellaneous short function word".

I also don't see an argument in the article that splitting particle constructions necessarily creates a problem.

Now that you mention it, though, the quotation from Alford about "the to of the infinitive" may not summarize the "argument from the full infinitive" the way the article says it does. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 16:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Except of course that Alford was writing in the 19th century, so for understanding him only traditional grammar is relevant, not more recent analyses. I don't know whether he would have called the "to" a preposition or an infinitive marker or a particle, probably he would not have had a term for it at all, but he would certainly have regarded it as part of a full infinitive.

Joshua, please remember that our article is not arguing for anything; we just report the analysis of others, and grammarians have analyzed this in many different ways. --Doric Loon (talk) 09:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Removed text on "to not want" etc.

I removed this unsourced text, as it looks like original research to me:

Accuracy in negation by splitting the infinitive can be shown by this retort:

I did not want to see her: I craved to see her.

Here, the retort revolves around whether the negation is of wanting or seeing. The poetic ambiguity collapses into confusion if you were to rephrase this as

I wanted to not see her: I craved to see her.

In this construction, there is no ambiguity to poetically play with because the negation is only of seeing.

Note that negation can also be constructed to comply with the convention in a way that shows how sometimes not splitting the infinitive is actually required for accurate meaning: eg

I wanted not to see her but to hear her.

This is not the same as

I wanted to not see her but to hear her.

The desire was not "not seeing her" but simply "hearing her".

I added a citation to the previous paragraph. The first argument—that "I did not want to see her" is ambiguous and "I wanted to not see her" isn't—makes sense to me, and I wouldn't mind a sourced version, especially one that includes "I wanted not to see her" (or something similar). I don't follow the second point, about "I wanted not to see her but to hear her." —JerryFriedman (Talk) 00:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources for style guides

The three guides currently listed are all guides of American English. I am not a linguist, so cannot claim any expertise on the matter, however I am aware that different dialects of English have different preferences; hence the overall richness of the language as a whole.

Could someone with a better understanding of linguistics and the associated guides include the views on split infinitive in a broader scope of English speakers? For instance, what are the rules in English English?