1 2  4 5 6 7 8 14
The use of modals without the preposition, and the infinitive ... =3D "I have my work to do". EXACTLY the same.

Well, if you carefully choose the example, and you acknowledge that every word is spelled differently (and in your example, ... you have created your own personal definition, spelling, and capitalization for "exactly," yes, there is a vague kind of similarity.

Do you recognize that both English and German have 'modal' verbs which use the bare infinitive:
"Ich muss dieses tun" =3D I must do this
and non-modal verbs which require the preposition + verb:

"Ich habe meine Arbeit zu tun" =3D "I have my work to do".

Do you? How much more similar could they be?
German and English are NOT "completely different languages" They are related.
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage says, under "split infinitive" The consensus in the 20th century, however, seems to be ... misnomer, as to is only an appurtenance of the infinitive, which is the uninflected form of the verb.

What on earth does that mean? If it is truly an "appurtenance", then it should surely not be separated.

Rob Bannister
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
"Ich müß dieses tun" = I must do this "Ich habe meine Arbeit zu tun" = "I have my work to do". EXCATLY the same.

No, not exactly the same. German has additional rules, such as that the infinitive must come at the end of ... comes second, except in a question, where it is first, etc. "Ich muß dieses tun." = "I must this do."

And do you know how this came about? Interfering grammarians wanted German to look like Latin periods. Before that, English and German word order was very similar.

Rob Bannister
No, not exactly the same. German has additional rules, such ... etc. "Ich mu=DF dieses tun." =3D "I must this do."

And do you know how this came about? Interfering grammarians wanted German to look like Latin periods. Before that, English and German word order was very similar.

Perhaps. I do know that Latin was used in academic or legal settings long after other European languages turned to their vernaculars, so it's quite possible.(1) German has a great deal of flexibility in word order (except the placement of verbs in subordination), more so than English. You can arrange the subject of a German sentence and the object in quite a different way than English. "Diesen Mann habe ich nie gesehen". Here, the accusative 'diesen' indicates that this is the direct object. "This man I have never seen before" seems quite odd in English, at least today.
So the fact that NO flexibility is allowed in the combination of 'zu' plus the in finitive is quite telling. It sticks out like a sore thumb.

(1) See: The Emergence of German as a Literary Language by Blackall.
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage says, under "split infinitive" ... the infinitive, which is the uninflected form of the verb.

What on earth does that mean? If it is truly an "appurtenance", then it should surely not be separated.

Not even by another appurtenance, such as an adverb? Does no one wear an undershirt between skin and shirt?
MW is not UC.

Bob Lieblich
Master of the Weird Analogy
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage says, under "split infinitive"

In that article, they also say But the term is ... the infinitive, which is the uninflected form of the verb.

What on earth does that mean? If it is truly an "appurtenance", then it should surely not be separated.

Are you taking too narrow a view of the definition of "appurtenance"? Dictionaries I've looked in say it's anything having to do with the thing it's said to appertain to. Definitions are so vague that it seems a shame such a long word doesn't have a more precise definition.
In saying that the "to" particle is an appurtenance to the infinitive, I understand them to mean simply that the "to" particle accompanies the infinitive. So far as I know, it serves no useful purpose except to follow convention.

That convention is really unnecessary. If we say "I like walk on the beach" or "I want drink some water", the meanings should be quite clear. They sound like pidgin, but they leave no doubt as to their meanings. If the convention were to omit the "to" particle in all cases, it shouldn't be missed after we had had a few decades to get used to its absence.
However, eliminating the "to" particle when it's associated with the infinitive doesn't extend to omitting it when it's part of the preceding syntax and only looks superficially to be associated with the infinitive. As someone here has said (was it Mike?), in "I have to go", the "to" is really part of the phrase "have to", not an accompaniment to the infinitive. This is made clearer by putting the "have to" phrase at the end of the sentence: "I will eat because in order to stay alive I have to".
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage says, under "split infinitive" The consensus in the 20th century, however, seems to be ... misnomer, as to is only an appurtenance of the infinitive, which is the uninflected form of the verb.[/nq]Bloody hell, Bob, not this hoary old subject again! Why does it upset you so much? There are some people who, like you, think this "rule" is ridiculous, ill-conceived and unnecessary. There are others, myself included, who feel something close to physical pain when they hear an "infinitive" being split. No amount of argumentation (=A9 Fran) will convince us to break the habit of a lifetime. Because that's what it is - a habit, in my case imbibed with mother's milk.

As an aside, I'm perfectly well aware that the word t-o-i-l-e-t is a widely accepted synonym for lavatory, but I would never, under any conceivable circumstances, use it. Nor would I ever, under any conceivable circumstances, split an infinitive. What's more, I'm bringing up my children to follow my example. So put that in your meerschaum and set light to it.
Will.
However, in Swedish, it is perfectly acceptable to split infinitives. English is more closely related to Swedish so hey, go ahead and split.

Linz
Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford
My accent may vary
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
"Awkward avoidance"? Who says that is necessary? Vocabulary is key! ... with both languages, the infinitive is used 'bare' (with modals).

However, in Swedish, it is perfectly acceptable to split infinitives. English is more closely related to Swedish so hey, go ahead and split.

I fear that saying that to UC is splitting into the wind.
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.english.usage)
Show more