Grammar as taught doesn't have a lot to do with much of anything, really - certainly not with how a language is "supposed to be" spoken, because there's no correct answer to that.
But some folks like rules for everything.
Split infinitives are fine.
Spoilers Star Trek: Strange New Worlds 1x06 - "Lift Us Where Suffering Cannot Reach"
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
Grammar as taught doesn't have a lot to do with much of anything, really - certainly not with how a language is "supposed to be" spoken, because there's no correct answer to that.
But some folks like rules for everything.
Split infinitives are fine.
"Cannot" is proper English, whether you can accept it or not. It has been in use since the fifteenth century and its usage is more common than your preferred *can not." It is not disappearing from the language anytime soon. You will not get in trouble for using your preferred two-word form and no one will think any less of you for using it.
All languages have their idiosyncrasies. This is one of ours. Accept it. Language usage is not going to change to accommodate your personal desire for consistency.
Surely a split infinitive can only be ‘split’ if the two parts are of one and the same ‘word’, therefore splitting the sequence of letters/sounds would ‘break’ the meaning of the word and would also break a pattern in other similarly structured word combinations? This ‘to go’ logic should therefore be applied to other similar examples of wording structures in the English language too? For example, ‘can not’ becomes cannot as previously stated, so perhaps ‘to go’ becomes ‘togo’. We can say “You can definitely not do that!” - however this would be splitting ‘cannot’ though. We could therefore rephrase this as “you definitely cannot do that”, or using the split infinitive logic we could say “you cannot definitely do that”.
Who’s making this sh*t up anyway?? Shakespeare?
The point of knowing the rules is knowing when to break them.Surely a split infinitive can only be ‘split’ if the two parts are of one and the same ‘word’, therefore splitting the sequence of letters/sounds would ‘break’ the meaning of the word and would also break a pattern in other similarly structured word combinations? This ‘to go’ logic should therefore be applied to other similar examples of wording structures in the English language too? For example, ‘can not’ becomes cannot as previously stated, so perhaps ‘to go’ becomes ‘togo’. We can say “You can definitely not do that!” - however this would be splitting ‘cannot’ though. We could therefore rephrase this as “you definitely cannot do that”, or using the split infinitive logic we could say “you cannot definitely do that”.
Who’s making this sh*t up anyway?? Shakespeare?
Like Shakespeare.
Who’s making this sh*t up anyway?? Shakespeare?
Well, he did get pretty much first crack at it.
The "rules of English grammar" are, in practice, pretty much just suggestions. They matter to your grade on pop quizzes, and that's about all. I understand that there are languages in which such things are taken more seriously.
Fo shizzle.
Screenrant, really?
"To merrily chant" is also incorrect? Give me a break. An adverb with a verb. Looks fine to me.
It was the shortest article. But, I'd be happy to discuss it more at length if that's preferred.
Edit to add: Here is MLA's take.
Last edited:
Have to chime in as an English teacher and say: split infinitives are perfectly fine and sometimes preferable to not splitting them. As the American Heritage Dictionary says (and many major dictionaries, linguists, and rhetoricians echo), "The only rationale for condemning the construction is based on a false analogy with Latin."
An infinitive in Latin is one word and pretty much cannot be split.
I learned the rule in English from my mom. I am a prescriptive (and proscriptive, when it comes to split infinitives) grammarian. Ya gotta have a gimmick.
@Christopher and I have gone round on this years ago, and of course I was right.
I sometimes make mistakes in my posts and ask your mercy. Sometimes I write colloquially too.
I have heard that Kirk's split infinitive lit -- or lighted? -- up the NBC switchboard in September 1966 like José Feliciano singin' the Star Spangled Banner at the 1968 World Series in a non-Robert Merill-y way. (Almost got Detroit icon Ernie Harwell fired, as he was the one who hired him. Ernie wasn't an icon yet.)
You have now read one big digression.
I learned the rule in English from my mom. I am a prescriptive (and proscriptive, when it comes to split infinitives) grammarian. Ya gotta have a gimmick.
@Christopher and I have gone round on this years ago, and of course I was right.
I sometimes make mistakes in my posts and ask your mercy. Sometimes I write colloquially too.
I have heard that Kirk's split infinitive lit -- or lighted? -- up the NBC switchboard in September 1966 like José Feliciano singin' the Star Spangled Banner at the 1968 World Series in a non-Robert Merill-y way. (Almost got Detroit icon Ernie Harwell fired, as he was the one who hired him. Ernie wasn't an icon yet.)
You have now read one big digression.
I love the defensive reaction to saying some is grammatically incorrect as if we don't do it all the time or it makes it "bad."
It's a technicality. I thought Trek fans liked those..
I learned at school (Germany) that only 'cannot' is correct.Am I the only person who is slightly infuriated by this episodes title? I know that ‘cannot’ is an acceptable use of English, but this is *not* taught in schools and seems quite unusual as it is not often seen. We usually see this phrase written as Can’t or Can not… never cannot as far as I can remember! This is actually REALLY bugging me, but I know it is probably only because this way of saying ‘can not’ is not part of my local dialect/language… it could be used in the wider world quite commonly without me having realised it.
I wouldnot know, personally…
If "I am"="I'm" and "is not"="isn't" or "are not"="aren't", etc., why isn't "I am not"="I'mn't"?
There are a few things that pop up everywhere and feel wrong to me. Like comma when introducing something or someone, example: We are discussing this with topic expert, Madam Someone. Why not: We are discussing this with topic expert Madam Someone? Or when combined words have a - or not, example: Our recently-developed method is much better. Why not: Our recently developed method is much better? Those kinds of things appear everywhere, so I must be wrong...
Well there's always the issue with the phrase:I went to a *really* rubbish school. I wish that I was taught English this way and then maybe I would be better at it.
An example of Star Trek educating me yet again, even after all of these years…
"to boldly go"
The more correct form of this English phrase would be:
" to go boldly"
" to go boldly"
ETA:
I see I was already ninja'd with respect to this particular grammar issue.
These rules are designed to call out particular information, essential and not. Names are treated differently.I learned at school (Germany) that only 'cannot' is correct.
If "I am"="I'm" and "is not"="isn't" or "are not"="aren't", etc., why isn't "I am not"="I'mn't"?
There are a few things that pop up everywhere and feel wrong to me. Like comma when introducing something or someone, example: We are discussing this with topic expert, Madam Someone. Why not: We are discussing this with topic expert Madam Someone? Or when combined words have a - or not, example: Our recently-developed method is much better. Why not: Our recently developed method is much better? Those kinds of things appear everywhere, so I must be wrong...
Direct address
When directly addressing someone, the person’s name or title should be set off with commas.
It maybe THE dealbreaker for him
Agreed on the 26-ep business. 10 episodes is seriously problematic. We need at least 15.
Personally, I think 17 episodes is perfect for one Season per year.
Season Beginning & Ending can be a special Double-Length episode each while the remaining 15 episodes can be 1 hr each.
DISCO started S1 off with 15 episodes, why can't we just have 2 more double length and you can air a nice longer season.
Airing wise, 17 eps will last ~⅓ of the year in continuous unbroken airing back to back.
Then you can alternate between various shows.
If "I am"="I'm" and "is not"="isn't" or "are not"="aren't", etc., why isn't "I am not"="I'mn't"?
"I am not," would be shortened with the informal contraction ain't to "I ain't." It is what is commonly used in the Southern United States, and ain't generally acceptable for academic or professional use.
Ain’t = Has not/have not/Am not/are not/is not.
I'm not aware of any formal negative contraction for "am not." To avoid the informal negative contraction for "am not" (ain't) is why formally you see the use of "I'm not" for "I am not."
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Wasn't there a dalliance with a, uh, professional in "Bread and Circuses"?Alora: The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
Pike: Is that really the hill you want to die on Alora?
Alora: It's the hill your friend Spock will die on.
There was an old website that analyzed this and found that the only woman Kirk ever actually had s-- with in TOS was Deela from Wink of an Eye, after she more or less coerced him I think? I can't find the website now.
Pointing out that something is wrong isn't being "defensive", although calling it "defensive" allows one to handwave the points away.I love the defensive reaction to saying some is grammatically incorrect as if we don't do it all the time or it makes it "bad."
It's a technicality. I thought Trek fans liked those..
Usage determines language.