1 4 5 6  8 9 10 13
Does that mean that "different to" is the best usage?

Not all by itself. But, to repeat, it's commonplace in the UK and regarded as no worse than "different from." Let's call it "tied for best."

I really hate to disagree with you, Bob, especially when you are disagreeing with UC, but:
It's commonplace here (in the UK) but careful speakers regard it as incorrect and in insist on "different from". Even "different than" is regarded as at worst an Americanism and is more acceptable than "different to".
Most people, of course, don't think enough about the way they speak to know or care that there is even a choice to be made.
Cheers,
Daniel.
Not all by itself. But, to repeat, it's commonplace in ... worse than "different from." Let's call it "tied for best."

I really hate to disagree with you, Bob, especially when you are disagreeing with UC, but: It's commonplace here (in the UK) but careful speakers regard it as incorrect and in insist on "different from".

YES! Whoo Whoo!
Even "different than" is regarded as at worst an Americanism and is more acceptable than "different to". Most people, of course, don't think enough about the way they speak to know or care that there is even a choice to be made.

Quite.
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Explain what "to ever" means, please, or "to never" or "to quickly and easily".

Okay, so in the first two examples, you combined the "to" and the first word that immediately followed it to create a unit that you expect has some meaning.

What is "to further"? What about "to further further"?
But why, in the third example, did you take the first three words after "to"? Why did you not look at the first three words after the "to" in the first two examples?

Because the verb is supposed to follow immediately after 'to' (just like in German).
You must have known that the word you deliberately missed off in each phrase was the verb that goes with the "to" or else why the arbitrary cut-off points in each of your examples?

What is "to immediately"?
In short, you're asking stupid questions with the mistaken belief that you're actually proving a point. There *is* no point. You're presenting some crazy reductio ad absurdum strawmen. You're not very good, are you?

The word following 'to' is supposed to be a verb, don't you know? Have you never been confused by 'to further' or 'to please', where 'further' and 'please' were used adverbally?
"Ask them to please sit down". WRONG
"They were compelled, at the risk of their necks, to please the king".

"They were required to further process the samples". WRONG

"They were determined to further the interests of the monarchy".

Is "To further further test the possibility of bilateral represetnation in central vision, a new paradigm is proposed" a typo?

Look how many show up in a search:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22to+further+further%22&btnG=Search
Because the verb is supposed to follow immediately after 'to'

I now understand your problem. You can only parse language as if it were a Markov process, never being able to look ahead or refer back and only taking the current word into consideration to determine the next word. How limiting for you, but it does explain a few things.

johnF
Because the verb is supposed to follow immediately after 'to'

I now understand your problem. You can only parse language as if it were a Markov process, never being able ... current word into consideration to determine the next word. How limiting for you, but it does explain a few things.

No. It's merely a question of proper form. Is this a properly formed English sentence?:
"He then went to seek the king, for he, and he alone, had the power to set his father free".
How about this one:
"Then he went to seek the king, for he, and he alone, had the power to set his father free".
Or this one:
"Then went he to seek the king, for he, and he alone, to set his father free had the power".
Or this one:
"Went then the king he to seek, for he, he alone and, the power to set his father free had".
You see, the word order matters. A certain flexibility is built into the language, but it has always been somewhat limited. The word 'to' in English, just like 'zu' in German and 'te' in Dutch 'marks' a verb (among other uses). Since English long ago lost much of its sythetic characteristics, word order has become much more important than it was when inflection indicated relationships. Modern German retains much of this flexibility in word order, but the verb + zu is absolutely inseparable.
"Den K=F6nig gang er zu suchen..." (The king went he to seek)

"Er gang den K=F6nig zu suchen..." (He went the king to seek)

"Gleichzeitig jedoch begann er um seinen Thron zu f=FCrchten. Er befahl den weisen M=E4nnern, den K=F6nig zu suchen und ihm zu sagen, wo er zu finden sei."
Translation:
"Simultaneously he began to fear for his throne. He ordered the wise men to seek out the king and to tell him where to find him."

There are four infinitives with 'zu':
"Emotion: umbrella zu f=FCrchten": "to fear for"
"zu suchen": "to seek out"
"zu sagen": "to tell"
"zu finden": "to find". This last is also translatable as "where he can be/is to be found".
http://www.theater-grashuepfer.de/Bethlehem.html
Not one of these is "splittable".
MOST 'slpiiting' of the infinitive in English is wholly unnecessary. It is the reulst of an excess of modification, fueled by a desire for exaggeration in everything.
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
No. It's merely a question of proper form. Is this a properly formed English sentence?: "He then went to seek the king, for he, and he alone, had the power to set his father free".

(etc)
You tried all that before and no one said that it was convincing. Your argumentation is weak, your analogies are flawed, you're sitting in the corner by yourself on this one.
For the rest of the reply and this thread, I refer you to the first sentence of my message (Email Removed).

johnF
No. It's merely a question of proper form. Is this ... he alone, had the power to set his father free".

You have refused to answer this:
If the split infinitive is so great, how is it that Dutch and German get along quite nicely without them?
Morphing your ID like this only gets by the filters one post at a time..
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
On 23 Oct 2006, UC wrote Morphing your ID like this only gets by the filters one post at a time..

What ever are you talking about?
Show more