Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage says, under "split infinitive"
The consensus in the 20th century, however, seems to be that awkward avoidance of the split infinitive has produced more bad writing than use of it.
In that article, they also say
But the term is actually a misnomer, as to is only an appurtenance of the infinitive, which is the
uninflected form of the verb.
 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 14
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage says, under "split infinitive" The consensus in the 20th century, however, seems to be that awkward avoidance of the split infinitive has produced more bad writing than use of it.

"Awkward avoidance"? Who says that is necessary? Vocabulary is key!
In that article, they also say But the term is actually a misnomer, as to is only an appurtenance of the infinitive, which is the uninflected form of the verb.

Not a correct analysis. In German, 'bare' infinitives are often used alone (with modals), but when used with 'zu', they are never separated! In certain cases with both languages, the infinitive is used 'bare' (with modals).
"Ich m=FC=DF dieses tun" =3D I must do this
"Ich habe meine Arbeit zu tun" =3D "I have my work to do".

EXCATLY the same.
But the term is actually a misnomer, as to ... the infinitive, which is the uninflected form of the verb.

Not a correct analysis. In German, 'bare' infinitives are often used alone (with modals), but when used with 'zu', they ... I must do this "Ich habe meine Arbeit zu tun" = "I have my work to do". EXCATLY the same.

No. It's very different. It's a completely different language, with completely differnt rules of grammar and usage.
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
Not a correct analysis. In German, 'bare' infinitives are often ... =3D "I have my work to do". EXCATLY the same.

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

The use of modals without the preposition, and the infinitive with the proposition, is exactly the same. I just gave you examples.

"Ich m=FC=DF dieses tun" =3D I must do this
"Ich habe meine Arbeit zu tun" =3D "I have my work to do". EXACTLY the same.
Not a correct analysis. In German,

snip twaddle
EXCATLY the same.

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

You're pissing into the wind the clown refuses to accept that, even though it's a self-evident truth.

Cheers, Harvey
Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van
On 25 Oct 2006, Reader wrote

snip twaddle

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

You're pissing into the wind the clown refuses to accept that, even though it's a self-evident truth.

Are you actually going to tell me you don't see the parallel? German and English are not "completely differnt" (sic). They share many features derived from a common ancestor. Chinese and English, on the other hand, are "completely different".
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
Don't look now, but there's and unwarranted umlaut about.
"Ich habe meine Arbeit zu tun" = "I have my work to do". EXCATLY the same.

Skitt (in Hayward, California)
http://www.geocities.com/opus731/
"muß"
By the way, the modern spelling is "muss".
No. It's very different. It's a completely different language, with completely differnt rules of grammar and usage.

The use of modals without the preposition, and the infinitive with the proposition, is exactly the same. I just gave you examples. "Ich müß dieses tun" = I must do this

"muß", or more recently, "muss"
"Ich habe meine Arbeit zu tun" = "I have my work to do". EXACTLY the same.

Skitt (in Hayward, California)
http://www.geocities.com/opus731/
Not a correct analysis. In German,

I hadn't noticed anyone here speaking German.
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
Show more