hellogѸ˥֥               ǿ     helhub (The HEL Hub) 2024-07     ڡ     ɽ    

hellogѸ˥֥ / 2024-07-30

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

2024-07-30 Tue

#5573. ʬΥؤ꤬ʤä19 [split_infinitive][prescriptive_grammar][infinitive][syntax][word_order][complaint_tradition]

ʬΥ (split_infinitive) ˤˤĤƤϡʲεǼ夲Ƥʤ뤤εå򻲾ȡˡ

#2992. Ѹˤʸȯã ([2017-07-06-1])
#4976. ʬΥ׻Ϥ ([2022-12-11-1])
#4977. ʬΥ14餢äΤ19ȾС ([2022-12-12-1])
#4979. Ȥ to not do ŪˤϤä ([2022-12-14-1])
#4981. Reginald Pecock --- ˾Ƕ "infinitive-splitter" ([2022-12-16-1])

ʬΥϡѸȾФ˰ٲФȤʤäƤ1819ˤƽ̤ƤȤϤɬ٤Ѥ褦ˤʤä櫓ǤϤʤ⤷19--20ˤƾ٤Ƥǽ⤢ä⤷ʤβǽϵʸˡȤȽˤ٤ƤޤäΤǤ롥19ηаޤˤĤ Visser (Vol. 2, 1936--37) βѤ褦

   When, towards the end of the eighteenth century, the usage was resuscitated in the written language, it soon spread with a remarkable rapidity, and in the nineteenth century it was to be found in the works of writers of every standing including several of great name. The usage, however, was of an occasional character so that one had to read hundreds of pages before finding an example. It is worth notice that one type of splitting, common in Middle English, was not revived, namely that with a (pro)noun between to and the infinitive, e.g. 'to hine finde', 'to þee defend', 'to temple go'.
   The usage might have become general and more habitual instead of occasional in the course of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries but for the adverse judgment on it by grammarians. According to 1882 Fitzedw. Hall (On the Separation by a Word and Words of 'to' and the Infinitive) the earliest objection to this usage appeared in print in 1840), when Richard Taylor expressed his dissatisfaction with the idiom in the following words: "Some writers of the present day have a disagreeable affectation of putting an adverb between to' and the infinitive." In 1864 Dean Alford (The Queen's English p. 171) observes: "'To scientifically illustrate'. But surely this is a practice entirely unknown to English speakers and writers. It seems to me, that we ever regard the to of the infinitive as inseparable from its verb." In 1867 the idiom is also categorically condemned by Mason (English Grammar p. 181): "The to of an infinitive mood should never be separated from its verb by an adverb. Such phrases as, 'To rightly use', 'To really understand' are improper." It is noticeable that these early censurers, and many others with them for that matter, did not know of (or ignored?) the occurrence of the idiom in earlier English. The result of the disapproval so strongly expressed was that splitting the infinitives became one of the favourite taboos of the school-teacher, and that minor writers, or those that yet had to win themselves a name, afraid of running the risk of being censured for being ignorant of linguistic conventions, avoided it. Newspaper tradition used to be strong against splitting and sub-editors and correctors of the press were seduously (sic) watching for trespasses of this kind.


ѸȾ "one of the favourite taboos of the school-teacher" Ȥ̤ꡤʬΥϡ19衤Ѹ˴ؤʿ (complaint_tradition) ǤŵŪθʸˡܤȤʤäΤǤ롥

Visser, F. Th. An Historical Syntax of the English Language. 3 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1963--1973.

Referrer (Inside): [2025-01-01-1]

[ | ѥڡ ]

2026 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2025 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2024 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2023 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2022 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2021 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2020 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2019 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2018 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2017 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2016 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2015 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2014 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2013 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2012 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2011 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2010 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2009 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

ǽ: 2026-08-24 22:56

Powered by WinChalow1.0rc4 based on chalow