Still to refrain from splitting infinitives?

[MrsSeanBean]

Maybe this is a topics for pedants' corner. I don't know if this is generally considered acceptable now.

Am I an anachronism?

I dunno, but I did a lot better when I left school and redid my GCSE English. Suddenly a lot clicked into place!

To boldly go isn't a problem with me, but I don't like double negatives because they are illogical (Captain). Chaucer or no bloody Chaucer.

Language ain't logical, SpiroTheVulcan. Fold those pointy ears.

It isn't that I don't not appreciate the beauty and texture of the richly not unsupralogical components that language doesn't lack. It is rather that language doesn't not fail to realise it's not uncentral purpose when it doesn't refrain from not omitting to not maintain the not unfundamental distinction between what is and what isn't the case.

Or not.

Language don't realise nuffin, Spiro. It ain't sentient.

Realise in the sense of making actual. I bain't daft.

My nana used 'bain't'.

As in, e.g. 'Thick old toaster, 'ee bain't working no more, the bugger.'

'Thick' meaning 'that' -- with a th sound the same as in 'that'.

Ooh this thread's cheered me up no end.

West country?

yep. somerset/wiltshire

Ooh, I've come over all 'Enry 'Iggins, I 'ave.

Anyone who wants to talk logic is probably on the wrong thread ... This one's about language!

Pet hate of mine (in written English) is people mixing up "it's" and "its". Very distracting and confusing.

Will never understand people who are bothered by the spoken double negative (as opposed to written, because it is clearly inforaml usage). Do you genuinely not understand what the person means? Or are you just being a teensy bit pedantic?

Generally I find double negatives very confusing - and not used in a way which could be described as enriching language in any way.

On the other hand I am sure that you could cite examples that I would consider acceptable, e.g. where they assist with clarity, sound good (even better).

Stillstanding, you mean the formal double negative?

I think there can be a case made for it as subtle understatement (because, of course, to be English and Enthusiastic is impossible! ), but it's also used to bureaucratically obfuscate, which of course is indefensible.

And its/it's is a different thing - it is confusing, and also wrong. Double negatives and split infinitives are more debatable.

NQC, you have quite won me over!

Splitting infinitives can hide meaning. There is a difference between "he was told quickly to run to ..." and "he was told to run quickly to ...". "He was told to quickly run to ..." could have either sense. There are, as others have pointed out, exceptions to the general case, but those exceptions achieve their effect because they are just that - exceptions. I wonder if "to boldly go" would be quite so emphatic or well-remembered if it was not an exceptional use? To my ear many split infinitives are awkward and,I have to say, that I think that most of the time they are the ugly result of idleness or bad teaching or both.

Hmm, to my ear, the split infinitive definately means the latter meaning - to run quickly.

I agree: he was told to quickly run definitely does not mean he was told quickly!

I agree with NQC. Errant apostrophes in the possessive "its" are unforgivable (even my boss has learnt to translate my strangled squawk when I come across one ) but split infinitives are forgivable.

"To quickly run" is perfectly clear to me. As a general rule I won't split them - but I will be guided by the rhythm and flow of the sentence.