The "split infinitive" rule: more harm than good

[nq:1]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.[/nq]
"Awkward avoidance"? Who says that is necessary? Vocabulary is key!
[nq:1]In that article, they also say But the term is actually a misnomer, as to is only

[nq:2]But the term is actually a misnomer, as to ... the infinitive, which is the uninflected form of the verb.[/nq]
[nq:1]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.[/nq]
No. It's very different. It's a completely differe

[nq:2]Not a correct analysis. In German, 'bare' infinitives are often ... =3D "I have my work to do". EXCATLY the same.[/nq]
[nq:1]No. It's very different. It's a completely different language, with completely differnt rules of grammar and usage.[/nq]
The use of modals without the preposition, and the infinitive with the proposition, is exactly the same. I just gave you examples.

[nq:2]Not a correct analysis. In German,[/nq]
snip twaddle
[nq:2]EXCATLY the same.[/nq]
[nq:1]No. It's very different. It's a completely different language, with completely differnt rules of grammar and usage.[/nq]
You're ******* into the wind the clown refuses to accept that, even though it's a self-evident truth.

Cheers, Harvey
Canadian and British English

[nq:1]On 25 Oct 2006, Reader wrote[/nq]
[nq:1]snip twaddle[/nq]
[nq:2]No. It's very different. It's a completely different language, with completely differnt rules of grammar and usage.[/nq]
[nq:1]You're ******* into the wind the clown refuses to accept that, even though it's a self-evident truth.[/nq]
Are you actually going to tell me you don't see the parallel? German

Don't look now, but there's and unwarranted umlaut about.
[nq:1]"Ich habe meine Arbeit zu tun" = "I have my work to do". EXCATLY the same.[/nq]
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
http://www.geocities.com/opus731/

"muß"
By the way, the modern spelling is "muss".
[nq:2]No. It's very different. It's a completely different language, with completely differnt rules of grammar and usage.[/nq]
[nq:1]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[/nq]
"muß", or more recently, "mu

[nq:1]Not a correct analysis. In German,[/nq]
I hadn't noticed anyone here speaking German.

[nq:1]"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.[/nq]
No, not exactly the same. German has additional rules, such as that the infinitive must come at the end of the clause, possibly followed by the main verb if this is a subordinate clause; the verb in the main clause comes second, except in a question, where it is f

[nq:2]On 25 Oct 2006, Reader wrote snip twaddle You're ******* ... refuses to accept that, even though it's a self-evident truth.[/nq]
[nq:1]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".[/