To boldly go to the most famous grammar mistake of all time.

[justnotcricket]

It does rather make my eye twitch when people use 'alot' instead of 'a lot'. It's two words, for goodness' sake. Not to mention the old 'your' instead of 'you're'. *shudder* =P Split infinitives, on the other hand, are something I don't tend to notice people messing up too much...perhaps that rule is a little more fine that I can be bothered getting worked up over...
I am very fond of English grammar in all its mad glory, and I like to see it used correctly, but what can I say - languages evolve...
(Although, just to be hypocritical, I'd say that the above examples that irritate me are an example of the language *de*volving ;-)

 

[Alex_P]

To me, it is important to have consistent grammar rules by which we communicate, in order to optimize understanding. Of course there are exceptions, like poetry, but I just don't want our communal grasp of the importance of language to slip, mmmkay?

You're right about the general point. The thing is, prescriptivism isn't the right approach at all. That's because it started with a bunch of people -- many of whom had the old-school academics' hard-on for Latin and wanted to force English to be more like it -- making up "the rules" on the spot based on common usage and personal preferences. The prohibition against split infinitives is the perfect example of their arbitrary bullshit: "Latin doesn't have a 'to'. So let's force 'to' to always be glued to the verb so we can act like it's a small wart on our language rather than a significant difference." Several of the common rules for "proper" English are, therefore, nothing more than the personal preferences of a bunch of overly-stubborn19th-century grammarians who went mad with the very moderate amount of power that they wielded.

The thing I really hate? The hypercorrection that results when people learn about the "common mistakes" better than they learn the actual language. I see tons of it on these forums, actually. When people actually make the "common mistakes" that are accepted in everyday conversational English, their words still look natural; when they go the other way and create all new mistakes based on their naive understanding of what "proper" means, it stands out like a sore thumb. Examples:
"The puppy followed Bob and I to the store."
"She is someone whom makes a difference in the lives of children."
In spoken language, when people say "an historic" even though they pronounce the H.

-- Alex

 

[Leorex]

language changes.

 

[tehweave]

To play along...

"Star Trek" could be considered a correct term. In the first contact movie, Cochran's character says:

"So, you guys are like astronauts? On some kind of 'Star Trek?'"

(ok, I paraphrased the first sentence a bit, but the second part is what he actually says)

So, they are on a star trek. IMO the title works.

 

[Guitar Gamer]

heil Grammar!

 

[Naeo]

Heh. I'd always noticed the split infinitive there.

Although, one of your examples is flawed. Semantically, "to not go" and "not to go" are different- it's restriction versus exclusion. A better example would be "to not want X" versus "not to want X"- to not want X means you have an active not wanting of it, ergo restricting the idea to not wanting it. However "not to want" is exclusive, as it merely says you do not actively want X. You might not dis-want (so to put it) X, though; it only excludes one possibility.

Now I'm going to leave before people call me a grammar nazi for understanding the nuances of my native language.

 

[Kpt._Rob]

I am currently in college, training to be a English Teacher, and I must honestly say; why is this a big deal? Who cares about a rediculous little rule like this? The point of grammar is to create a set of rules that make our speech easily understandable, and it makes sense to follow grammar rules when they make us understandable. But why give a crap about these pittly little technicalities? Sometimes the bad grammar even sounds better (although not always), but as long as it comes out sounding good, isn't that the important part. I guess what I'm trying to stress here is content over presentation, what's really important is what you say, not how you say it.

 

[hypothetical fact]

On the internet anyone that brings up the issue is accused of chasing grammar rather than answering the point.
In reality anyone that brings up the issue is accused of being pedantic.
In writing it is the editor's discretion whether to make the change not the writer's.

No matter how you slice it split infinitives are pointless.

 

[Sewblon]

I read in the dictionary that split infinitives being incorrect is based on a false analogy with Latin. Sir Churchill said it best "this is the sort of English, up with witch I can not put."

 

[Leorex]

Isn't the split infinitive rule a stylistic choice and not an actual rule? Like the rule about not ending a sentence with a preposition. It's not incorrect, it just sounds weird in most cases.

And what's with the Escapist reducing my English spacing [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-spaced_sentences] to single spaces?

Nope. They aren't stylistic choices. I'm not sure where one could find proof of the no preposition rule, but I know split infinitives are mentioned in The Elements of Style.

Now to speak to the whole thread. Look, I didn't make this thread to be a jerk, and I almost didn't make it. My grammar is not perfect, but I was simply pointing out a trend I noticed. To me, it is important to have consistent grammar rules by which we communicate, in order to optimize understanding. Of course there are exceptions, like poetry, but I just don't want our communal grasp of the importance of language to slip, mmmkay?

i have that book

 

[MicrosoftPaysMe]

Don't get me wrong, Star Trek is a wonderful show, but it has what is perhaps the most publicized grammar mistake in history. You see, a split infinitive is when one takes an infinitive, such as "to do," "to eat," or "to play," and then adds a word or term in between the word "to" and the action of the infinitive. This disrupts what is supposed to be a single term, and then causes a minor grammar fallacy. Some examples of split infinitives are "to quickly run" or "to not die," which should actually be "to run quickly" or "not to die." I have hesitated until now to bring up how common split infinitives are, but I feel that it is appropriate to make a thread on this topic. Recently I have seen far too many intelligent people, including some escapist forum members and Yahtzee, falling prey to the split infinitive. Please excuse any rudeness I may have had in making this topic.

Also, in order to make this thread discussion worthy, I must ask- are there any grammar mistakes or other linguistic fallacies that people make that are pet peeves of yours?

Dude movies do that shit all the time. There obviously in the fucking future and a fictional future at that. the writers probly thought that the diologe of that era would be a little bit differant then our current 1. And its in a lot of future-based movies and tv shows so its acceptable.

 

[Cleverpun]

The "split infinitive" rule is bullshit - it's a misguided attempt to apply Latin rules of grammar to English. There is absolutely no rational reason to object to the split infinitive in most cases. The only time when split infinitives should be avoided is when it causes the construction of a sentence to become awkward, which is not the case here.

Following this "no infinitives" rule would entirely rob the statement of all the punch and poetic rhythm that it has. A split infinitive makes grammatical and poetic sense here - no rational person would object to it.

This thread is nothing more than the rote application of an obscure grammatical quibble to a case to which it quite simply does not apply.

Glad someone said it. It is indeed a Latin rule to never split infinitives. I could've typed "never to split infinitives" but who cares? This is English.

Being an aspiring writer, I have my share of grammar peeves, but none of them are the result of misplaced Latin rules.

 

[NeutralDrow]

The "split infinitive" rule is bullshit - it's a misguided attempt to apply Latin rules of grammar to English. There is absolutely no rational reason to object to the split infinitive in most cases. The only time when split infinitives should be avoided is when it causes the construction of a sentence to become awkward, which is not the case here.

Following this "no infinitives" rule would entirely rob the statement of all the punch and poetic rhythm that it has. A split infinitive makes grammatical and poetic sense here - no rational person would object to it.

This thread is nothing more than the rote application of an obscure grammatical quibble to a case to which it quite simply does not apply.

Shoot. That's basically everything I wanted to say the instant I read the OP. Well...at least it was said.

Incidentally, is it even possible to split infinitives in Latin?

Now to speak to the whole thread. Look, I didn't make this thread to be a jerk, and I almost didn't make it. My grammar is not perfect, but I was simply pointing out a trend I noticed. To me, it is important to have consistent grammar rules by which we communicate, in order to optimize understanding. Of course there are exceptions, like poetry, but I just don't want our communal grasp of the importance of language to slip, mmmkay?

Consistent grammar is helpful, but not vital, for comprehension, nor does it guarantee understanding. If such were the case, learning foreign languages would be less "daunting" and more "nearly-impossible," and there would be no jokes about lawyers not using plain English. In fact, language as a whole would be far less organic...which makes grammar rules an exercise in futility, come to think of it.

And that's not even getting into minutiae like splitting infinitives or using prepositions to end a sentence with.

The thing I really hate? The hypercorrection that results when people learn about the "common mistakes" better than they learn the actual language. I see tons of it on these forums, actually. When people actually make the "common mistakes" that are accepted in everyday conversational English, their words still look natural; when they go the other way and create all new mistakes based on their naive understanding of what "proper" means, it stands out like a sore thumb. Examples:
"The puppy followed Bob and I to the store."
"She is someone whom makes a difference in the lives of children."
In spoken language, when people say "an historic" even though they pronounce the H.

-- Alex

I love it when people make that first mistake. Especially grammarians. It's not often I get to feel smarter than someone else in the Humanities.

 

[dragonspirit]

One thing that did get me a bit worked up was the title of the movie "Eight Legged Freaks"

Now look at that title for a moment will you. Because besides the fact that the movie itsself is rubbish, that title...takes the cake.

Think about what it says for a moment will you. This title says that there are eight freaks with legs. The title should have been "Eight-legged freaks" or "Eightlegged freaks"

Personally I don't mind the "To boldly go" one, I think it sounds better and more fluent than "To go boldly" but that's just my opinion, and heck...I may be wrong with my own grammar seeing as I am a Dutchy.

 

[AdamAK]

Also, using 'a' when 'an' is appropriate, like 'an horrendous mistake' spoken as 'a horrendous mistake'. The first one is correct, the second one is not. It's not that hard to remember, and easy enough to correct.

Wait, what? 'An horrendous mistake' is supposed to be correct? I highly doubt that. The 'h' is definitely prounounced, so it should be 'a horrendous mistake'. Unless of course you have the Cockney accent...

Oh, and I agree with the OP. I find split infinitives to sound a bit strange when used improperly.

 

[Alex_P]

Yes! Grammar Nazi's unite! I have a bit of a pet peeve for split infinitives too, ever since I found out what they were.

Greengrocer's apostrophe on the loose.

Also, using 'a' when 'an' is appropriate, like 'an horrendous mistake' spoken as 'a horrendous mistake'. The first one is correct, the second one is not. It's not that hard to remember, and easy enough to correct.

"An" is used to prevent unintended elisions caused by having a bunch of vowel sounds next to each other. If you pronounce the H, there is absolutely no reason to say "an" before it -- and, since writing "an" but saying "a" would be downright stupid, so you shouldn't write it, either.

-- Alex

 

[Sgt Doom]

Split infinitives is one of those little grammar rules I don't give a shit about as it sounds fine either way, as opposed to a and an being used wrongly e.g. an car.