1 6 7 8 9 10 11  13
Because they don't. The things that are parallel in German ... difference are often large. It's just the way it is.

And sometimes the differences are small, as when English allows a word or phrase between "to" and an infinitive form but German does not do so in the corresponding structure with "zu."

But that's begging the question.
I wonder how you are able to adhere so inflexibly to such a nonsensical position.

Begging the question.
Have you actually rationalized yourself into such a corner, or is this a test to see how long you can hold a pose?(1)

Can you not see how 'must'/'m=FC=DFen', 'can'/'kann', 'may'/'m=F6gen', etc. behave identically in the two languages?

Translate this into German: "He told me that he can speak both English and German fluently."

"Er hat es mir gesagt, da=DF er beide Englisch und Deutch gut sprechen kann."
Note the position and word order of "sprechen kann." Tell me how that corresponds to the position and word order of "can speak" in the English version.

The word 'da=DF' ois subordinating, and this forces the verb to the end.
Explain how that proves that they "behave identically."

WHEN English and German use modals, the verbs are in the 'bare' form.

"Er sagte mr, da=DF ich dieses machen muss."
"He told me that I must do it."
When they don't, they use the prepositional forms ('zu' and 'to').

"Um dieses zu bekommen..."
"In order to receive this..."
Here, 'um' is equivalent to "in order".
You're the intellectual whizbang here. Enlighten we ignorami. (1) If this is still getting past any kill-files, here's why I keep going: I just gotta get the answer to this question. How does he do it? The rest is just embroidery.

You talkin' to me?
Auf Deutsch, not in English. That's the point.
Explain how that proves that they "behave identically."

WHEN English and German use modals, the verbs are in the 'bare' form. "Er sagte mr, daß ich dieses machen muss." "He told me that I must do it."[/nq]But the issue of the split infinitive is ultimately one of word order: Where does the adverb go? I accept that German doesn't allow an adverb between "zu" and the following infinitive form. But neither does German allow the verb to precede the direct object in a dependent clause. Yet the German word order involving "zu" and the infinitive is somehow mandatory for English (in your view) while the German word order of subject, object, and verb in dependent clauses is wildly different from that of English and yet it is only English "to" plus infinitive, and only that construction (it would appear) that you would force into your German-made procrustean bed.

English doesn't have sentences like "He told me that be both English and German well speak can." If we don't pattern the word order of our dependent clauses on German, why should we be required to pattern the word order of "to"/adverb/infinitive on German?
I'm sure you'll have an answer. I'm sure it'll be as persuasive as all your prior ones.
When they don't, they use the prepositional forms ('zu' and 'to'). "Um dieses zu bekommen..." "In order to receive this..." Here, 'um' is equivalent to "in order".

Danke schön. Irrelevant, however.
You're the intellectual whizbang here. Enlighten we ignorami. (1) If ... How does he do it? The rest is just embroidery.

You talkin' to me?

Playin' to the crowd.
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
In German and in English, the adverbs are placed basically identically. Here is a bit of Kant, with my translation below.In diese Verlegenheit ger=E4t sie ohne ihre Schuld. Sie f=E4ngt von Grunds=E4tzen an, deren Gebrauch im Laufe der Erfahrung unvermeidlich und zugleich durch diese hinreichend bew=E4hrt ist. Mit diesem steigt sie (wie es auch ihre Natur mit sich bringt) immer h=F6her, zu entfernteren Bedingungen. Da sie aber gewahr wird, da=DF auf diese Art ihr Gesch=E4ft jederzeit unvollendet bleiben m=FCsse, weil die Fragen niemals aufh=F6ren, so sieht sie sich gen=F6tigt, zu Grunds=E4tzen ihre Zuflucht zu nehmen, die allen m=F6glichen Erfahrungsgebrauch =FCberschreiten und gleichwohl so unverd=E4chtig scheinen, da=DF auch die gemeine Menschenvernunft damit im Einverst=E4ndnisse steht.

Dadurch aber st=FCrzt sie sich in Dunkelheit und Widerspr=FCche, aus welchen sie zwar abnehmen kann, da=DF irgendwo verborgene Irrt=FCmer zum Grunde liegen m=FCssen, die sie aber nicht entdecken kann, weil die Grunds=E4tze, deren die sich bedient, da sie =FCber die Grenze aller Erfahrung hinausgehen, keinen Probierstein der Erfahrung mehr anerkennen. Der Kampfplatz dieser endlosen Streitigkeiten hei=DFt nun Metaphysik.

Es war eine Zeit, in welcher sie die K=F6nigin aller Wissenschaften genannt wurde, und wenn man den Willen f=FCr die Tat nimmt, so verdiente sie, wegen der vorz=FCglichen Wichtigkeit ihres Gegenstandes, allerdings diesen Ehrennamen. Jetzt bringt es der Modeton des Zeitalters so mit sich, ihre alle Verachtung zu beweisen und die Matrone klagt, versto=DFen und verlassen, wie Hecuba: modo maxima rerum, tot generis natisque potens - nunc trahor exul, inops - Ovid. Metam.
Yet no blame lies upon Reason for falling into this embarrassment. It begins with principles whose employment is unavoidable in experience, and sufficiently proved by experience. Borne up with these principles (and as demand by its nature), it ascends higher and higher, to ever more remote conditions. Because Reason discovers, though, that if performed in this manner, its work can never be completed-as the questions never cease-Reason is driven to seek refuge in principles which, though transcending any possible application to experience, seem so innocent that common sense accepts them.

Reason then finds itself plunged into darkness and contradictions, from which it can only infer that somewhere must be lurking errors that it cannot detect, be-cause the principles which Reason employs, as they transcend all experience, will not submit to any trial by that experience. The battle-field of these endless conflicts is called Metaphysics.
At one time, she was acknowledged as the Queen of the Sciences, and if the Will were taken for the Deed, the pre=EBminence of her domain would accord her this noble title. Now, though, it is the fashion to display for her nothing but contempt, and the matron Metaphysics, forsaken and for-lorn, laments, like Hecuba: Modo maxima rerum, to generis natisque potens - nunc trahor exul, inops. (Ovid. Metamorphoses (xiii. 508-510))
If you can, try to follow the structural transpositions.

"In diese Verlegenheit ger=E4t sie ohne ihre Schuld." =3D "Into this predicament falls she without her fault"
"Sie f=E4ngt von Grunds=E4tzen an, deren Gebrauch im Laufe der Erfahrung unvermeidlich und zugleich durch diese hinreichend bew=E4hrt ist.".

"She starts from principles whose use in the course of experience unavoidable and at the same time through this (experience) sufficiently proved is."
About the only odd thing here is the position of the verb.

"She starts from principles whose use in the course of experience is unavoidable and at the same time sufficiently proved through this (experience)."
My version is a bit more elegant:
"It begins with principles whose employment is unavoidable in experience, and sufficiently proved by experience."

Continuing:
"Mit diesem steigt sie (wie es auch ihre Natur mit sich bringt) immer h=F6her, zu entfernteren Bedingungen."
"Borne up with these principles (and as demand by its nature), it ascends higher and higher, to ever more remote conditions.

The structural similarities are striking.
I accept that German doesn't allow an adverb between "zu" and the following infinitive form. But neither does German allow ... English "to" plus infinitive, and only that construction (it would appear) that you would force into your German-made procrustean bed.

German preserves a condition that is becoming corrupt in English. I believe there are good reasons NOT to split the infinitive. For one thing, it's ugly.
English doesn't have sentences like "He told me that he both English and German well speak can."

The only 'odd' thing from an English-speaker's perspective is the relocation of the verb to the end. Read the translations above and you'll see that.
If we don't pattern the word order of our dependent clauses on German, why should we be required to pattern the word order of "to"/adverb/infinitive on German? I'm sure you'll have an answer. I'm sure it'll be as persuasive as all your prior ones.

See above.
When they don't, they use the prepositional forms ('zu' and ... to receive this..." Here, 'um' is equivalent to "in order".

Danke sch=F6n. Irrelevant, however.

Why is it irrelevant?
The structural similarities are striking.

I'm not sure I agree, but I'm not qualified to engage in a discourse ranging over the entire field of German and English word order. That's why I picked what I thought was an obvious example and sought to deal specifically with it.
I accept that German doesn't allow an adverb between "zu" ... appear) that you would force into your German-made procrustean bed.

German preserves a condition that is becoming corrupt in English.

Once again, you are dreaming of a past Arcadia that never existed. Adverbs (and occasionally other words) have intruded between "to" and the infinitive in English since at least the 14th Century. (I got this item of information from MWDEU, which I believe you also have. I didn't track it to the sources they cite, but what they say certainlylooks reliable.) The "corruption," in other words, is more than 500 years old.
Okay, Hooray for German. In case you haven't noticed lately, German isn't English. This is the point I've been trying to get you to acknowledge with specific reference to the "split infinitive."
I believe there are good reasons NOT to split the infinitive. For one thing, it's ugly.

So are lots of women out there. They're allowed to live out their lives in peace.
At any rate, aesthetic preferences are of little avail against usage. Not to mention that plenty of usages now accepted without cavil were once thought ugly.
English doesn't have sentences like "He told me that he both English and German well speak can."

The only 'odd' thing from an English-speaker's perspective is the relocation of the verb to the end. Read the translations above and you'll see that.

And the only odd thing about the Tower of Pisa is that it's not quite perpendicular to the ground. And the only odd thing about the "split infinitive" is that the adverb moves to the position between "to" and the infinitive form. That's a lot less disruption than moving the verb to the end.
If we don't pattern the word order of our dependent ... sure it'll be as persuasive as all your prior ones.

See above.

That's it? This isn't a fair fight.
I declare myself the victor, and not because I'm losing.

Bob Lieblich
Moron Triumphans
The structural similarities are striking.

I'm not sure I agree, but I'm not qualified to engage in a discourse ranging over the entire field of German and English word order.

In some ways they are the same, in some ways different. the LOCATION of the verb is different when there is subordination; otherwise, no.
That's why I picked what I thought was an obvious example and sought to deal specifically with it.

German preserves a condition that is becoming corrupt in English.

Once again, you are dreaming of a past Arcadia that never existed. Adverbs (and occasionally other words) have intruded between "to" and the infinitive in English since at least the 14th Century.

Not one in Shakespeare?
(I got this item of information from MWDEU, which I believe you also have. I didn't track it to the ... words, is more than 500 years old. Okay, Hooray for German. In case you haven't noticed lately, German isn't English.

Not relavant.
This is the point I've been trying to get you to acknowledge with specific reference to the "split infinitive."

If it's such a grand idea, why and how does German get along without it?

Victor Frankenstein?
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
Okay, Hooray for German. In case you haven't noticed lately, German isn't English.

Not relavant.

It's the whole point. Don't bother denying this again; we understand your position and why it's ludicrous.
This is the point I've been trying to get you to acknowledge with specific reference to the "split infinitive."

If it's such a grand idea, why and how does German get along without it?

If moving verbs to the end of dependent clauses is such a good idea, how does English get along without it?
You've run out of arguments, haven't you. The ones you have are transparently inadequate.
Hey, Stephen Calder, wait for me.
Victor Frankenstein?
In some ways they are the same, in some ways ... when there is subordination; otherwise, no. Not one in Shakespeare?

"Thy pity may deserve to pitied be." This is relevent because it's English.

It's irrelevant because it's poetry, not prose.
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
I seem to have hit send without making a comment. Probably a good idea.

I often make spirited comments and then don't hit 'send'. An even better idea.

Robin
Herts, England
Show more