1 2 3  5 6 7 8 14
"Ich muß dieses tun." = "I must this do." (I've forgotten some German: should the "dieses" not be "dies"? I know the umlaut was wrong, though.)

Both is correct according to grammar books. However, "dieses" sounds a bit outdated.
Personally, I would just use "das" and replace "tun" with "machen": "Ich muss das machen."
Claus
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage says, under "split infinitive" ... the infinitive, which is the uninflected form of the verb.

Bloody hell, Bob, not this hoary old subject again! Why does it upset you so much? There are some people ... unnecessary. There are others, myself included, who feel something close to physical pain when they hear an "infinitive" being split.

Ouch! "To quickly and easily create" is one of the worst. Used on a lot of software packaging.
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
UC wrote

(Reader replied) No. It's very different. It's a completely different language, with completely differnt rules of grammar and usage.

UC wrote (somehow, the >'s have gone missing. Why?) The use of modals without the preposition, and the infinitive with ... "I have my work to do". EXACTLY the same. (I reply) Only because you have chosen your specific example.'

There are only a few modals in English or German: Must/m=FCssen, can/kann, may/m=F6gen, etc.
What about the colloquial form, often heard in power stations and other similar places of toil:- "I have my work ... that might have split the infinitive between your "to" and your "do". Therefor=e, your example is an example of nothingness.

You miss the point.
UC wrote

(Reader replied) No. It's very different. It's a completely different language, with completely differnt rules of grammar and usage.

UC wrote (somehow, the >'s have gone missing. Why?) The use of modals without the preposition, and the infinitive with ... "I have my work to do". EXACTLY the same. (I reply) Only because you have chosen your specific example.'

There are only a few modals in English or German: Must/müssen, can/kann, may/mögen, etc.
What about the colloquial form, often heard in power stations and other similar places of toil:- "I have my work ... that might have split the infinitive between your "to" and your "do". Therefore, your example is an example of nothingness.

(UC wrote)
You miss the point.

(Richard Chambers replies)
So I have, I'm sorry. Now I have re-read everything, I realise that you are writing about the relative merits, in English, of :-

a. I have to my work do.
b. I have my work to do.
and you have concluded that (b) is preferable, or even obligatory. I cannot think that anybody here would disagree with you. I thought you were writing about something more weighty, and more relevant to the title ("The split infinitive rule") than you actually were. You seem to be in your own little world. The rest of want to either split(1) infinitives with complete abandon, or avoid at all costs any such splitting. An adverb is the usual item with which we split infinitives. Adverbial infinitive-splitting is what the mainstream argument is all about, as far as everybody else is concerned, at least as I perceive the situation.
(1) A nice little split infinitive which I put in just for fun."Either", in this context, is an adverb. Personally, I split infinitives right, left and centre, whenever I feel like it, and nobody not even my wife can stop me. I'm a little devil in that respect. I will stop, however, if anybody can show that this style impedes comprehension or dulls down the style. The type of argument that I do not accept is the unthinking and hidebound repetition of hidebound rules propagated forty years ago by hidebound schoolmasters who themselves learnt these hidebound rules from an even more hidebound earlier generation of hidebound schoolmasters in hidebound Prep Schools.

That last sentence may require some editing to eliminate unnecessay repetition. I leave that as an exercise for the reader.

Richard Chambers Leeds UK.
Unfortunately this post is so incohenrent I cannot form a reply. Try expressing yourself in the English language.
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
(UC wrote)
Unfortunately this post is so incohenrent I cannot form a reply. Try expressing yourself in the English language.

(Richard Chambers replies)
It must be the split infinitive that I used. They must do more harm to comprehensibility than I ever imagined possible.
Indidentally, why is it that when I reply to your posts, the symbol ">" is never generated to identify what you have written, and to demarcate it from my reply. I have this problem only with your posts, not with anybody else's. Is this problem caused by an incorrect setting on my computer (Outlook Express), or is it something wrong with the messages being sent by UC? Can somebody please advise?
Richard Chambers Leeds UK.
(answering UC)
Indidentally, why is it that when I reply to your posts, the symbol ">" is never generated to identify what ... my computer (Outlook Express), or is it something wrong with the messages being sent by UC? Can somebody please advise?

I have no problem answering UC's posts, although he is using "quoted-printable" transfer encoding, and that can screw up OE. I use the latest OE, together with QuoteFix. QF takes care of stuff like that.
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
http://www.geocities.com/opus731/
"Ich mu=DF dieses tun." =3D "I must this do." (I've ... not be "dies"? I know the umlaut was wrong, though.)

Both is correct according to grammar books. However, "dieses" sounds a bit outdated. Personally, I would just use "das" and replace "tun" with "machen": "Ich muss das machen." Claus

Ja, nat=FCrlich. Mein Fehler.
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
Unfortunately this post is so incohenrent I cannot form a reply. Try expressing yourself in the English language.

Says the writer who seems to have no way of reading posts before sending them.

Stephen
Lennox Head, Australia
Show more