1- You ought to seriously consider the problem. 2-You ought to consider the problem seriously. I would like to know which one has a more common use in written English. Thank you
Top answer
Single word adverbs are generally placed in the medial position, often between the subject and the verb. So, usuing this guideline, 1 would be best.
— Abbie1948
Single word adverbs are generally placed in the medial position, often between the subject and the verb.
So, usuing this guideline, 1 would be best.
Free · every Monday
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
Thank you very much, I am sure that you are right as I was right, but now I am quite sure that, there is a sort of international secret pact among the native speakers to push me into all kinds of confusions; last week I gave five miserable pages to this fellow, an Irish friend of mine to correct the possible mistakes, and yesterday, I got them back with 22 linguistic inc
Ah- the old split infinitive! How we hate it. "To boldly go ..." Informally, this is becoming more acceptable, but it is guaranteed to get hackles rising in some quarters!
I find the second the most neutral and least likely to generate controversy. I'm not sure that the objection with the first would be the split infinitive, because one alternative for avoiding the split infinitive is to say "You ought seriously to consider the problem" which, to my ear, is downright peculiar, and I wouldn't advise it. So in order of acceptability, most acceptable first,
So, it is better to give it up to the advise of that big mouth, I was dreaming of the day, when I could magisterially snare him, well it's not today. Thank You Calif
Perhaps you could leave out 'seriously' altogether, X., and shoot your friend's fox (or 'snake', as it seems BrEs will soon have to say).
After all, 'ought' is already quite strong.
I've often wondered who those Latinate grammarians might be. They are much mentioned, in 'split infinitive' discussions; but has anyone ever seen the text(s) in question?