God DAMN IT!!! When I split an infinite. Let it be split. That was an amazing reply to the comment, made the concept clear illustrated with references. I don't understand why people try to pull down others. Criticism can be made without making -ve remarks just for the sake of hurting someone's sentiments and that's what we call +ve criticism. His question was valid, as a learner I found it interesting as well as knowledgeable. But statement made by him in the end disappointed me. He was questioning Gideon's teaching. For the record, nobody is perfect. So stop looking for perfection. If someone is curious or doesn't agree with what teacher had said. Ask it respectfully without being judgemental. I don't know how Gideon felt, but I feel terrible. Just a genuine request, Be respectful and care about other's feelings. Be sensitive. Thanks for the video Gideon. 🙏
Great video! I have to modestly agree: applying that non existent rule just for the sake of it only hinders clarity. I'd love to have a cool backpack, though.
Thanks Gideon for this very clear video. It´s a big alleviation to know that there is not such a rule. I liked the example at 4:03, it shows how following the unexistent rule could ends up with an ambiguous phrase.
I've never heard of this split infinity things. I ve allways split them when it sounded better. I am thinking that it's a fortune that I don't know Latin.
@@LetThemTalkTV that I've learned English for the time, was 40 years ago. It's also possible that I've heard it back in the old days and have it forgotten.
You are the first teacher to let us know this brand new information about infinitives. We used to split infinitives in written English unknowingly. Although we never noticed that we were doing so. All the same, we considered infinitives unsplitable or nonsplitable. An eye- opening video. Thanks sir. 🙏👍
I wish my high school English teacher could've seen this video back in those days.She used to constantly reprimand me for doing what I've just done 😀(especially in writing) because she considered it a grammatical crime. She wouldn't accept my justification that sometimes split infinitives just sound better to me and without using them my essays seemed overly formal (at least from my perspective).Thank you for proving me right in thinking that she was a fussy,old-fashioned grammar nazi (whom I loved and respected despite of her occasional nagging).
Very clarifying, thank you. As a matter of fact, I read about it once in a TOEFL coursebook years ago, and the text was about this comparison you mentioned between Latin and English.
Didn't know about this rule. By the way, it seems that the corresponding rule in German is much more strict. I think it's because when zu is followed by an adverb people seem to understand as the word for "too".
Most other languages with infinitives tend to form them with a single word. This is true of the Romance family, which had a disproportionate impact on English vocabulary but not so much its grammar. From what I can tell, Scandinavian/North Germanic languages seem closest to English with respect to their handling of the infinitive; although English is a West Germanic language, I believe it took in some major North Germanic influences early in its history. I haven't really heard of split infinitives being a thing in other West Germanic languages, where infinitives also seem to exist as one word.
Greetings from Serbia. Could you make a lesson about academic/scholarly writing in English? How different it is from the English used in everyday speech? What approaches and styles are desirable, and what should be avoided? For example, if someone wants to publish a paper in an English-language journal.
A great way to learn academic discourse is to read it. That might sound simplistic, but it's backed by a lot of research that says we acquire writing style subconsciously through input. In other words, as you read academic text you will begin to notice familiar grammar forms and vocabulary that will help you when it comes time to write. There are some general principles you can learn -- a good place to start is They Say, I Say by Gerald Graff and Writing for the Humanities by Eric Hyott (especially the chapter on the Uneven U) -- but ultimately the best way to learn academic writing is to read lots of it. Notice what you like, and study it; try to figure out its structure and mimic it in your own writing. The best English teacher I ever had told us to Steal style. Good luck!
Hello , Gideon. Your lesson on the split infinitive is simply the first time ever I know this. Now I simply wish to really understand this topic. And to get this so interesting subject, I need to continuously practise. And that quote by Raymond Chandler is so inspirational. Cheers,Gideon. 🥇🥇🥇🥇🥇
To boldly kill the so-called rule. Btw, can you read minds, Gideon? Yesterday I contemplated asking you to shed some light on the matter, and voilà... Thank you sir!
A friend of mine who graduated in English Literature was a critic on splitting infinitive by adverbs. I thought that was spoken English so I avoid to use it in formal documents. I found other sources against it, but could never understand how it kept been used anyway. some Latin languages suffered a lot of chances thought out the time, what was grammatically wrong became accepted on speaking manner, then became tolerated on writing, and eventually turned ‘correct’. Maybe that was the reason some people tried to stick to the classic standard.
Way to go man! jajaja Next time they will think twice before making comments like that. Your video was a simple smack on the face. I really enjoyed this video.
If the split infinitive sounds wrong, it's probably because our ears were trained by that old prescriptivist rule. Even if it sounds wrong, the split infinitive promotes clarity in writing style, and it's sometimes necessary.
That's another rule that was inherited from Latin but doesn't actually apply to English. However, I try to avoid putting a preposition at the end of the sentence -- not because there's anything wrong with the syntax, but because the full stop lends a certain emphasis to the item at the end of the sentence, so it makes more sense to give the emphasis to the object rather than to its preposition.
@@WriterScience Sir, I have a confession. English is not my native language. I was born and raised in a place called the United States of America; therefore, I speak what is known as American-lish. In my travels through Europe, I discovered that in England, they speak a totally different language called "English." Now, English and American-lish are similar, and sometimes we can actually understand each other, but not always. For example.... 99.9999% of native American-lish speakers will not know what a "zed" is. But why the heck am I saying all this? OK... let's talk American-lish grammar. Was it us who find "to boldly go..." as the preferential way of saying things? Thank you, Captain Kirk. And I vociferously object that a prepositional phrase can not be an indirect object!!! If I say, "I gave him a book," the pronoun "him" is an indirect object, but if I say, "I gave a book to him," that has the exact same meaning and both are grammatically acceptable (in American-lish), so why can not the prepositional phrase, "to him" also be an indirect object!? Hey, I need a refill of my cup o' Joe (American-lish for "cup of coffee")... gotsta go.....
2:35 Sometimes for reasons of style, you may wish to NOT split an infinitive... Could I say "wish NOT to split..." without change of meaning? Thank you :D
@@LetThemTalkTV Thank you, sir. I am not native speaker and always I tend to split. I guess people just don't read books enough to realize that there is more freedom to English than they were told in high school.
I'd say that "you have to quietly go" means an urge/advice to leave the place/scene without attracting attention, while "you have to go quietly" can mean various things, depending on the context. Am I wrong?
That's an interesting point. You could be right. Moving the adverb can change the meaning and we have to consider that in our sentence but there is no arbitrary "rule" where to place the adverb.
Lool😂 Luck you tulius agrippa Our best teacher has created an entire video explaining your criticism. And as usual, our lovely teacher hit the nail on the head ❤❤❤ piece of advice ya tulius: next time When you notice that someone has made a mistake, you should only pointing out that mistake, do not deny their ability to do the whole thing. It's so rude and unfair.
Excellent point. I reckon the same. Maybe next time this person will show up and teach us some English. I bet he will have to prepare a lot before..amazing work, as always Sir. Highly appreciate your time and dedication 🙏🙌👏
Hallo dear Gideon, l'm not brave enough to boldly break ancient grammar rules. More confident after your illuminating lesson💡 teaching it's possible to freely express ideas in a right context. Split infinitive is not a crime😅Thanks to the best grammarian.Cheers👍💯❤️
Sir please teach us when we can use an indefinite articles(a/an) before uncountable nouns for ex : he has a good knowledge(uncountable) of english...! When we use a/an before uncountables
@@LetThemTalkTV Ah yeah...It would be wonderful if you would make a video about it please, Gideon, though I must say I've never been disappointed with any topic you chose. Many thanks.
We use "a" before uncountable nouns in cases when there's a defining word before them. For example: I had dinner but I had a nice dinner or She acquired knowledge but She acquired a detailed knowledge
You are wrong about the latin infinitives. It's true that the present infinitives and the perfect active infinitive are just one word (laudare, laudari = "to praise" / "to be praised", laudavisse = "to have praised"), the passive past tense infinitive consists of two words (laudatus esse = "to have been praised"). Litterally you can put as many words of the sentence between them without breaking any grammar rule.
Despite It comes from the latin, also in Italian we may split the infinitive exactly like you do, i was not aware there was an ongoing International debate about it
@@LetThemTalkTV 1) è importante VERAMENTE capire l'argomento 2) è importante capire VERAMENTE l'argomento. in the First case the adverb is put prior to the verb while in the second case just after. Ok we don't have the preposition to, but to me the mechanism looks exactly the same, i mean i never had a doubt about the use of the "split" in English.
I agree with you. I would translate to “it is really important to understand” and “it is important to really understand” and it apparently works in a similar way
I am really convinced that the best way to learn English is being aware that there are no grammar rules such so strick, it depends on the situation. What's more you have to laught and learn from mistakes you make. In other words, learning should be fun! 😊 Thanks Gideon for your funny way to teach English language 👍
Hi. Could you make a video one day about how to create law provisions in english? When to use a should, when shall, when musn't when prohibited etc.? Thanks for a good video.
Great riposte to that guy’s comment. I accept constructive criticism but not such toxic statements like he did. I’d recommend him to shut up, learn English harder, get more empathy to others and think twice before writing any comment in order not to offend those whom it conserns. Gideon, great video. You know „your shit” and You’re the legend! 😁👍
'Some thought Sir Jack simply too big, too multi-faceted a being for lesser mortals, often of an envious aspect, to fully grasp; others suspected that a tactical withholding, which deprived the scrutineer of key or consistent evidence, lay behind his technique of dominance.' Juiian Barnes - England, England PS. Pardon for a long quote
It was in the most tragic days of World War II, when the life of Britain, nay, of all Europe, hung in the balance. Churchill prepared a highly important speech to deliver in Parliament, and, as a matter of custom, submitted an advanced draft to the Foreign Office for comment. Back came the speech with no word save a notation that one of the sentences ended with a preposition, and an indication where the error should be eliminated. To this suggestion, the Prime Minister replied with the following note: "This is the type of arrant pedantry up with which I will not put." - The Wall Street Journal, 9 Dec 1948 ("Pepper and Salt")
Yesss Stick it to the sticklers!!! Put these phony rules in the ground where they belong and focus on clarity and elegance. By the way, have you read Pinker's "The Stuff of Thought"? It truly lives up to its subtitle: Language as a Window into Human Nature. Would love to hear you discuss some of the points in there some time.
That's a silly rule, apparently equally silly rules like; never end a sentence with a preposition, double negatives (because two negatives make positive, math!) "ain't" as a no-no, came from a book by an amateur grammarian called Robert Lowth, published in 1762. At the time, probably for the first time since forever, (industrial revolution?) a lot people were climbing the social latter and needed a guide to linguistic correctness, they desperately wanted to distance themselves from the plebes and they took Robert Lowth's book as their bible. The rule appears again in "A Grammar of the English Language" (1931) by George Curme, but this time is more of a suggestion than anything: "If the adverb should immediately precede the finite verb, we feel that it should immediately precede also the infinitive" This is what read on the internet, and if its on the internet it must be true 😉
I would argue that "to boldly go" is not a split infinitive but that combining the adverb boldly and the verb go you get a "new" verb with infinitive = to boldly go
Dear Gideon to boldly split infinitives which no man has split before was always a joke when I was young. As Churchill said about the equally stupid rule not ending sentences with a preposition “This is the type of errant pedantry up with which I will not put.”
I'm a native English speaker. I was never taught the split infinitive rule in school. I only heard of it when I was about thirty years old. I now avoid splitting infinitives in formal writing, but I don't worry about it the rest of the time.
In French, in poetry you can change the place of the words to sound better, or to ryme easily... Sp why not in English who is more poetic beacause of his accentuation we don't have in French... I not a expert in English, but I don't see any raison to make a lot of fuss about it... but may be I'm stupid;... So thanks to talk to us about it.
A few things: A) Tullius Agrippa is from Paris. No wonder that he/she made that comment. French people (and especially Parisians) are drilled with rules about how grammar should or should not work. There is but one correct way, everything else is wrong. We can thank the "Immortals" for that, the people of the prestigeous Académie Française... B) what they often don't realize is that languages are fluid and, on top of that, that a lot of grammar rules were invented (like you explained), mainly to mimic Latin and/ore Classical Greek. C) in practice you see that even in France, especially outside of Paris, people don't care that much about the strict (partly artificial) grammar rules. D) In Dutch there is a very famous example of a invention of "correct" grammar. The word for "them" can be "hen", "hun" & "ze". Most people use them interchangeably, without asking themselves which one is officially correct. And they rightly do so! However, a very complicated rule was invented to decide which one is "correct". But it's completely artificial, again, only done to mimic Latin.
@@LetThemTalkTV Certainly he's not an ancient Roman 😁, personally I've never heard a historical personality known by this name. Just out of curiosity, Agrippa was the name that the ancient Romans usually gave to male babies who were born breech...... Thanks for the lesson, cheers!
@@LetThemTalkTV I'm so sorry. I now see that I connected the comment with the word Paris in the first seconds of the video. My mistake. However, the rest is still true. You can see the same with other languages. In general, my Russian speaking students, have the same initial reaction. When I tell them that Dutch lost a lot of its grammar and that we aren't that strict with the rules, they "never" really trust me. Is it the OFFICIAL language that I'm teaching them? Another great example of that is the use of "zullen" (shall). Almost every grammar book will tell them that we use that word for the future tense. But I (for various reasons) like to disagree with that. And then... yes... they are almost offended! :) It has everything to do with history, culture & politics...
Wouldn't the unsplit version be "I'd like to welcome everybody out there warmly"? As word order rules go, we were taught to put adverbs first or last, and in very few cases, before the verb (reality showed me that this is actually much more common than our teacher wanted us to believe). But between the verb and the object? Eww.
I think that the Jedi Yoda’s speaking language is the most amusing one, e.g. “must we go..” “Size matters not…” etc. Although, conservatively n grammatically (you may think) this isn’t correct, I think this is the actual way people interact with others.
OK, and what about just putting an adverb at the end of the sentence according to the grammar rules? "They were asked to check the notifications regularly"-isn't this sentence correct?
But, I love Star Trek.....To boldly go where no man has gone before! da da da ta da ta daaaaaa! etc. And, being told by a Policeman, to go quietly.....makes more sense.
Thing is, there's no such thing as a split infinitive. "To" is a marker word. It's not part of the infinitive. The infinitive is the basic form of the verb, without modification, conjugation, or time. "To" is used in certain contexts, but is not part of the infinitive. "She had us read the book." "Read" is infinitive. "Let's go." "Go" is infinitive." "We should go." Infinitive. "We ought to go." Infinitive. It's almost indistinguishable from the imperative, which also takes no modification. "Go away." "Shut up." "Bugger off."
Once I wrote :" I don't want to not see you again." So far I've never felt sure if it was right or not. Anyway, I saw the person again, but I have this "thing" about this sentence. Does it sound weird, sir?
What sounds weird there isn't the split infinitive but the double negative. The double negative is intentional in this case, because you're saying that you really DO want to see them, the negatives cancel each other out and make it positive, for emphasis. But the choice of a double negative may sound unusual because it's not the natural way of saying it. "I want to see you again" by itself is better. If you wanted to emphasize that you really do want to see the person again, that it's not just a polite saying to somebody as you leave, maybe you could say "I want to hopefully see you again", where it indicates that you 100% are hoping to see them again soon, while not being so direct as something like "I really want to see you again". Or hell, "I'd hate to not see you again" might be a casual way of saying it if you insist on using the negative. This replaces the double negative "don't want" with a positive verb "I'd hate". With this construction, the "not" doesn't feel out of place, while also demonstrating that you don't want that to happen, that you really do want to see them.
@@sameash3153 Mr. Sam, I'm afraid all this confusion happened because I translated it, in my head, from my mother tongue, Portuguese, into English. I'm used to doing this...anyway, I feel it is not correct.
Another brilliant lesson as always. Thank you Gideon. As for the very interesting unsplitting example that you asked us to try: "Sales are expected to more than double in the next six months.", how about re-writing it to: "Sales are expected to double or more in the next six months."? Will it be correct still? Thanks. Will
I guess the meaning will have changed a little. The first expresses great certainty on the speak's part that the increase will not only be double but the second shows a degree of uncertainty as to whether the sales will just double or possibly more (than double).
I'd write "Sales are expected to increase at least twofold in the next six months" or "Sales are expected to double in the next six months", with some change of meaning.
@@LetThemTalkTV Thanks for the comment, Gideon! Must say...to us who speak English as a second/foreign language, this could be a tricky one to get right. As you kindly suggested, I will ignore this "rule" altogether and at the same time pay more attention to where native speakers put the adverb in relation to the infinitive that it is supposed to modify going forward. Best regards :)
Your lessons are not only clear explanations of grammar rules, but also captivating insights into the inner mechanism of the English language.
Many thanks that was my intention.
Great analysis!
The immortal Yoda extends a wonderful alternative, too: Boldly, she went.
Immortal words
God DAMN IT!!!
When I split an infinite. Let it be split.
That was an amazing reply to the comment, made the concept clear illustrated with references.
I don't understand why people try to pull down others. Criticism can be made without making -ve remarks just for the sake of hurting someone's sentiments and that's what we call +ve criticism.
His question was valid, as a learner I found it interesting as well as knowledgeable. But statement made by him in the end disappointed me. He was questioning Gideon's teaching.
For the record, nobody is perfect. So stop looking for perfection. If someone is curious or doesn't agree with what teacher had said. Ask it respectfully without being judgemental. I don't know how Gideon felt, but I feel terrible.
Just a genuine request, Be respectful and care about other's feelings. Be sensitive.
Thanks for the video Gideon. 🙏
The 99% of positive comments make up for the negative. As you said I welcome constructive criticism but not dogma.
Only if it's countably infinite.
Allows the shifting of emphasis from the verb to the adverb. “Go” vs. “boldly.”
Great video! I have to modestly agree: applying that non existent rule just for the sake of it only hinders clarity.
I'd love to have a cool backpack, though.
I'm sure you'd look cool in a backpack but it's an exception.
@@LetThemTalkTV 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Thank you so much for removing the ear-splitting music sir!
be careful....next time...
@@LetThemTalkTV please, sir, don't! 😍😍
Thanks Gideon for this very clear video. It´s a big alleviation to know that there is not such a rule. I liked the example at 4:03, it shows how following the unexistent rule could ends up with an ambiguous phrase.
I've never heard of this split infinity things. I ve allways split them when it sounded better. I am thinking that it's a fortune that I don't know Latin.
If you hadn't heard of it that's a good thing.
@@LetThemTalkTV that I've learned English for the time, was 40 years ago. It's also possible that I've heard it back in the old days and have it forgotten.
I think that It is not a fortune. It helped me to be fluent in French, Italian, Spanish, and Catalan.
Split infinity is still infinity.
You are the first teacher to let us know this brand new information about infinitives. We used to split infinitives in written English unknowingly. Although we never noticed that we were doing so. All the same, we considered infinitives unsplitable or nonsplitable. An eye- opening video. Thanks sir. 🙏👍
You are free to split or not split
@@LetThemTalkTV God damm it😂😂😂
I wish my high school English teacher could've seen this video back in those days.She used to constantly reprimand me for doing what I've just done 😀(especially in writing) because she considered it a grammatical crime. She wouldn't accept my justification that sometimes split infinitives just sound better to me and without using them my essays seemed overly formal (at least from my perspective).Thank you for proving me right in thinking that she was a fussy,old-fashioned grammar nazi (whom I loved and respected despite of her occasional nagging).
Very clarifying, thank you. As a matter of fact, I read about it once in a TOEFL coursebook years ago, and the text was about this comparison you mentioned between Latin and English.
Interesting. They probably reached the same conclusion.
Didn't know about this rule. By the way, it seems that the corresponding rule in German is much more strict. I think it's because when zu is followed by an adverb people seem to understand as the word for "too".
That 's why we love this guy, he Always teaches us the English we really need.
Chapeau
Thank you for this! Sometimes, when I write, I struggle trying not to split an infinitive. Now I know I don’t have to suffer that much :)
Now you can write freely.
You are like a Messiah ;always there to lucidly clarify our confusions. Thanks sir Gideon.
No, not "messiah" just a "clarifier". Thanks for your comment.
I enjoy each one of your lessons! thank you very much
4:00 "One never has time to really think" - The frase of the modern society
I totally agree. I was taught not to split infinitives, but it just does not work.
I'd like to totally agree with your agreement.
I never knew there was such a rule. I always went with my ear and chose that option which sounded better. And which fit the required context, that is.
I think going with your
instinct is a good decision here. I'd do so myself. Knowing that there is a difference, makes you able to distinguish both.
Most other languages with infinitives tend to form them with a single word. This is true of the Romance family, which had a disproportionate impact on English vocabulary but not so much its grammar. From what I can tell, Scandinavian/North Germanic languages seem closest to English with respect to their handling of the infinitive; although English is a West Germanic language, I believe it took in some major North Germanic influences early in its history.
I haven't really heard of split infinitives being a thing in other West Germanic languages, where infinitives also seem to exist as one word.
Greetings from Serbia. Could you make a lesson about academic/scholarly writing in English? How different it is from the English used in everyday speech? What approaches and styles are desirable, and what should be avoided? For example, if someone wants to publish a paper in an English-language journal.
A great way to learn academic discourse is to read it. That might sound simplistic, but it's backed by a lot of research that says we acquire writing style subconsciously through input. In other words, as you read academic text you will begin to notice familiar grammar forms and vocabulary that will help you when it comes time to write. There are some general principles you can learn -- a good place to start is They Say, I Say by Gerald Graff and Writing for the Humanities by Eric Hyott (especially the chapter on the Uneven U) -- but ultimately the best way to learn academic writing is to read lots of it. Notice what you like, and study it; try to figure out its structure and mimic it in your own writing. The best English teacher I ever had told us to Steal style. Good luck!
@@WriterScience Thank you!
Thank you, Gideon! I haven't been taught this rule, though I've heard something about it. Now I know that it's not a rule at all.
Hello , Gideon. Your lesson on the split infinitive is simply the first time ever I know this. Now I simply wish to really understand this topic. And to get this so interesting subject, I need to continuously practise. And that quote by Raymond Chandler is so inspirational. Cheers,Gideon.
🥇🥇🥇🥇🥇
Amen. Much needed and clear cut lesson, thanks Gideon
Glad you liked it.
The Word spell check always highlights in blue split infinitive every time I use it. And I keep using it.
Good!
To boldly kill the so-called rule. Btw, can you read minds, Gideon? Yesterday I contemplated asking you to shed some light on the matter, and voilà... Thank you sir!
Yes, I can read minds. Beware.
😅😅 Apparently there are a lot of great English writers, but very few fond readers.🖖❤️
A friend of mine who graduated in English Literature was a critic on splitting infinitive by adverbs. I thought that was spoken English so I avoid to use it in formal documents. I found other sources against it, but could never understand how it kept been used anyway. some Latin languages suffered a lot of chances thought out the time, what was grammatically wrong became accepted on speaking manner, then became tolerated on writing, and eventually turned ‘correct’. Maybe that was the reason some people tried to stick to the classic standard.
Way to go man! jajaja Next time they will think twice before making comments like that. Your video was a simple smack on the face. I really enjoyed this video.
Glad you enjoyed it
You are a GREAT teacher! 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
you are a great student
@@LetThemTalkTV so kind of you to say, Gideon! I'd love to chat with you! 😁
How about "Users were told to check regularly their phones for updates"
Sounds clear and great for me
No it doesn't. It's equally ambiguous. "to regularly check" is the only one which is clear.
Really, it's important to understand this subject...
Sir I love you and your work.you are best English teacher in this universe.
I wonder why certain ordering sound better than others. Seems there would be underlying reasons for it to be so.
If the split infinitive sounds wrong, it's probably because our ears were trained by that old prescriptivist rule. Even if it sounds wrong, the split infinitive promotes clarity in writing style, and it's sometimes necessary.
You are clear, smart & funny!
How about ending a sentence with a preposition, as in "Where are you going to?"
That's another rule that was inherited from Latin but doesn't actually apply to English. However, I try to avoid putting a preposition at the end of the sentence -- not because there's anything wrong with the syntax, but because the full stop lends a certain emphasis to the item at the end of the sentence, so it makes more sense to give the emphasis to the object rather than to its preposition.
@@WriterScience Sir, I have a confession. English is not my native language. I was born and raised in a place called the United States of America; therefore, I speak what is known as American-lish. In my travels through Europe, I discovered that in England, they speak a totally different language called "English." Now, English and American-lish are similar, and sometimes we can actually understand each other, but not always. For example.... 99.9999% of native American-lish speakers will not know what a "zed" is. But why the heck am I saying all this? OK... let's talk American-lish grammar. Was it us who find "to boldly go..." as the preferential way of saying things? Thank you, Captain Kirk. And I vociferously object that a prepositional phrase can not be an indirect object!!! If I say, "I gave him a book," the pronoun "him" is an indirect object, but if I say, "I gave a book to him," that has the exact same meaning and both are grammatically acceptable (in American-lish), so why can not the prepositional phrase, "to him" also be an indirect object!? Hey, I need a refill of my cup o' Joe (American-lish for "cup of coffee")... gotsta go.....
You're simply amazing!!!
GOD FORBID we should impose Latin rules on English or open an Academic Anglaise ! English must remain (boldly) elastic or it loses all its magic.
2:35 Sometimes for reasons of style, you may wish to NOT split an infinitive...
Could I say "wish NOT to split..." without change of meaning?
Thank you :D
Yes, absolutely. Of course I split it intentionally but it's not required. You are free.
@@LetThemTalkTV Thank you, sir. I am not native speaker and always I tend to split. I guess people just don't read books enough to realize that there is more freedom to English than they were told in high school.
Happy to watch your video 🙏
happy to read your comments
I'd say that "you have to quietly go" means an urge/advice to leave the place/scene without attracting attention, while "you have to go quietly" can mean various things, depending on the context. Am I wrong?
That's an interesting point. You could be right. Moving the adverb can change the meaning and we have to consider that in our sentence but there is no arbitrary "rule" where to place the adverb.
Lool😂
Luck you tulius agrippa
Our best teacher has created an entire video explaining your criticism.
And as usual, our lovely teacher hit the nail on the head ❤❤❤
piece of advice ya tulius:
next time When you notice that someone has made a mistake, you should only pointing out that mistake, do not deny their ability to do the whole thing.
It's so rude and unfair.
👏well said!
Thanks for you support
Excellent point. I reckon the same. Maybe next time this person will show up and teach us some English. I bet he will have to prepare a lot before..amazing work, as always Sir. Highly appreciate your time and dedication 🙏🙌👏
Hallo dear Gideon, l'm not brave enough to boldly break ancient grammar rules. More confident after your illuminating lesson💡 teaching it's possible to freely express ideas in a right context. Split infinitive is not a crime😅Thanks to the best grammarian.Cheers👍💯❤️
yes good point. It's important to freely express yourself.
Sir please teach us when we can use an indefinite articles(a/an) before uncountable nouns
for ex : he has a good knowledge(uncountable) of english...! When we use a/an before uncountables
good question. I'll think about it
@@LetThemTalkTV Ah yeah...It would be wonderful if you would make a video about it please, Gideon, though I must say I've never been disappointed with any topic you chose. Many thanks.
A very intersting question indeed. Thank you.
We use "a" before uncountable nouns in cases when there's a defining word before them. For example: I had dinner but I had a nice dinner or She acquired knowledge but She acquired a detailed knowledge
@@elenabigun6839 thanks for the info...!
You look now so younger, just because of this T-shirt. Hehe. But seriously, this channel is a must. Thank you
You are wrong about the latin infinitives. It's true that the present infinitives and the perfect active infinitive are just one word (laudare, laudari = "to praise" / "to be praised", laudavisse = "to have praised"), the passive past tense infinitive consists of two words (laudatus esse = "to have been praised").
Litterally you can put as many words of the sentence between them without breaking any grammar rule.
Puto(1) eam(2) AMATAM maxime(3) ESSE.
I believe(1) her(2) TO HAVE BEEN very much(3) LOVED.
brilliant and highly entertaining !
yes you are
@@LetThemTalkTV 🤣
Despite It comes from the latin, also in Italian we may split the infinitive exactly like you do, i was not aware there was an ongoing International debate about it
How can you split an infinitive in Italian? I thought it was one word.
@@LetThemTalkTV 1) è importante VERAMENTE capire l'argomento 2) è importante capire VERAMENTE l'argomento. in the First case the adverb is put prior to the verb while in the second case just after. Ok we don't have the preposition to, but to me the mechanism looks exactly the same, i mean i never had a doubt about the use of the "split" in English.
Thanks for your insight into Italian. I didn't know that.
I agree with you. I would translate to “it is really important to understand” and “it is important to really understand” and it apparently works in a similar way
I'd like to welcome everyone out there, warmly... It's very limiting to some that the modifier can't be moved beyond just a word away...
I am really convinced that the best way to learn English is being aware that there are no grammar rules such so strick, it depends on the situation. What's more you have to laught and learn from mistakes you make. In other words, learning should be fun! 😊 Thanks Gideon for your funny way to teach English language 👍
Good grammar helps you communicate more effectively but what I object to is made up rules that make no sense. Cheers
Hi. Could you make a video one day about how to create law provisions in english? When to use a should, when shall, when musn't when prohibited etc.? Thanks for a good video.
The Chandler's quote is hilarious :)
Great riposte to that guy’s comment. I accept constructive criticism but not such toxic statements like he did. I’d recommend him to shut up, learn English harder, get more empathy to others and think twice before writing any comment in order not to offend those whom it conserns.
Gideon, great video. You know „your shit” and You’re the legend! 😁👍
Exactly I welcome constructive criticism. This wasn't it.
Brilliant video. Good work!
many thanks
P.S. There's so much to learn about English and no need to uselessly worry about non-existing rules
You are god damn right.
Exactly!
Great video. I love your vocabulary e.g. overzealously. Stay mellow.
cheers. Glad you liked it
Master! I hate how people square grammar in such a way that language becomes tasteless.
Plz make understand
Usage of.. should at the start of a sentence.
2.meaning of should have had to.
3.to be and to being.
Very interesting!! Never heard about it, really like this class 🙏🏻😘
'Some thought Sir Jack simply too big, too multi-faceted a being for lesser mortals, often of an envious aspect, to fully grasp; others suspected that a tactical withholding, which deprived the scrutineer of key or consistent evidence, lay behind his technique of dominance.' Juiian Barnes - England, England
PS. Pardon for a long quote
You are great.never mind people showing off
What about "they told me not to do that". Or "to not do that"?
Thank you for this!
I have always been taught not to use split infinitive. I have always been taught to not use spilt infintive. Which one sounds more natural?
Brilliant lesson as always!! Utterly devoted to you, the best teacher of RUclips channel !!thank you Gideon🤩🤩love from italy
You are too kind
the guy who criticised you doesn't know what prescriptive and descriptive grammar is
good point
It was in the most tragic days of World War II, when the life of Britain, nay, of all Europe, hung in the balance. Churchill prepared a highly important speech to deliver in Parliament, and, as a matter of custom, submitted an advanced draft to the Foreign Office for comment. Back came the speech with no word save a notation that one of the sentences ended with a preposition, and an indication where the error should be eliminated. To this suggestion, the Prime Minister replied with the following note: "This is the type of arrant pedantry up with which I will not put."
- The Wall Street Journal, 9 Dec 1948 ("Pepper and Salt")
Yesss Stick it to the sticklers!!! Put these phony rules in the ground where they belong and focus on clarity and elegance. By the way, have you read Pinker's "The Stuff of Thought"? It truly lives up to its subtitle: Language as a Window into Human Nature. Would love to hear you discuss some of the points in there some time.
Thanks for your comment. I'll check it out. Anything by Steven Pinker is worth reading
@@LetThemTalkTV Wonderful! I really like your style, by the way! Was happy when I found you a few weeks ago.
The Zeitgeist Banana Split hahaha. The split infinitive is not bad grammar, it is becoming more and more acceptable
Thanks for your comment. Good writers have always ignored the "rule"
That's a silly rule, apparently equally silly rules like; never end a sentence with a preposition, double negatives (because two negatives make positive, math!) "ain't" as a no-no, came from a book by an amateur grammarian called Robert Lowth, published in 1762. At the time, probably for the first time since forever, (industrial revolution?) a lot people were climbing the social latter and needed a guide to linguistic correctness, they desperately wanted to distance themselves from the plebes and they took Robert Lowth's book as their bible.
The rule appears again in "A Grammar of the English Language" (1931) by George Curme, but this time is more of a suggestion than anything:
"If the adverb should immediately precede the finite verb, we feel that it should immediately precede also the infinitive"
This is what read on the internet, and if its on the internet it must be true 😉
I would argue that "to boldly go" is not a split infinitive but that combining the adverb boldly and the verb go you get a "new" verb with infinitive = to boldly go
if that were true there would be no split infinitives at all
So interesting 🤩 Thanks a lot 🧡
You’re welcome
Dear Gideon to boldly split infinitives which no man has split before was always a joke when I was young. As Churchill said about the equally stupid rule not ending sentences with a preposition “This is the type of errant pedantry up with which I will not put.”
I so enjoy all your videos!! Great stuff and great fun! 😃👍✨✨✨✨
I enjoy your comments. Thanks
Useful video for all students
I'm a native English speaker. I was never taught the split infinitive rule in school. I only heard of it when I was about thirty years old. I now avoid splitting infinitives in formal writing, but I don't worry about it the rest of the time.
No need to avoid it in formal writing. Great writers don't. There is no rule.
Splitting is for emphasising =)
Good video, Sir
Nice of you to say
You are the best........💜
no, you are
Oh, eow. Thanks for sharing
My big doubts finally dissapeared i just a zip! Now I know how to finally use them. (correctly).
Glad I helped remove the doubts.
In French, in poetry you can change the place of the words to sound better, or to ryme easily... Sp why not in English who is more poetic beacause of his accentuation we don't have in French... I not a expert in English, but I don't see any raison to make a lot of fuss about it... but may be I'm stupid;... So thanks to talk to us about it.
A few things:
A) Tullius Agrippa is from Paris. No wonder that he/she made that comment. French people (and especially Parisians) are drilled with rules about how grammar should or should not work. There is but one correct way, everything else is wrong. We can thank the "Immortals" for that, the people of the prestigeous Académie Française...
B) what they often don't realize is that languages are fluid and, on top of that, that a lot of grammar rules were invented (like you explained), mainly to mimic Latin and/ore Classical Greek.
C) in practice you see that even in France, especially outside of Paris, people don't care that much about the strict (partly artificial) grammar rules.
D) In Dutch there is a very famous example of a invention of "correct" grammar. The word for "them" can be "hen", "hun" & "ze". Most people use them interchangeably, without asking themselves which one is officially correct. And they rightly do so!
However, a very complicated rule was invented to decide which one is "correct". But it's completely artificial, again, only done to mimic Latin.
Interesting comment but what makes you think he's from Paris?
@@LetThemTalkTV Certainly he's not an ancient Roman 😁, personally I've never heard a historical personality known by this name.
Just out of curiosity, Agrippa was the name that the ancient Romans usually gave to male babies who were born breech......
Thanks for the lesson, cheers!
@@LetThemTalkTV I'm so sorry. I now see that I connected the comment with the word Paris in the first seconds of the video. My mistake.
However, the rest is still true. You can see the same with other languages. In general, my Russian speaking students, have the same initial reaction. When I tell them that Dutch lost a lot of its grammar and that we aren't that strict with the rules, they "never" really trust me. Is it the OFFICIAL language that I'm teaching them? Another great example of that is the use of "zullen" (shall). Almost every grammar book will tell them that we use that word for the future tense. But I (for various reasons) like to disagree with that. And then... yes... they are almost offended! :)
It has everything to do with history, culture & politics...
The Loch Ness monster does exist, Sasquatch told me so.
Thank you very much .
1:11 Ironic. He could save others from splitting an infinitive - but not himself.
very true
Wouldn't the unsplit version be "I'd like to welcome everybody out there warmly"? As word order rules go, we were taught to put adverbs first or last, and in very few cases, before the verb (reality showed me that this is actually much more common than our teacher wanted us to believe). But between the verb and the object? Eww.
I think that the Jedi Yoda’s speaking language is the most amusing one, e.g. “must we go..” “Size matters not…” etc. Although, conservatively n grammatically (you may think) this isn’t correct, I think this is the actual way people interact with others.
good point
who the heck invented this rule???
OK, and what about just putting an adverb at the end of the sentence according to the grammar rules? "They were asked to check the notifications regularly"-isn't this sentence correct?
But, I love Star Trek.....To boldly go where no man has gone before! da da da ta da ta daaaaaa! etc. And, being told by a Policeman, to go quietly.....makes more sense.
Which book is best for learning English grammar?
Sounds convincing.
Thing is, there's no such thing as a split infinitive. "To" is a marker word. It's not part of the infinitive. The infinitive is the basic form of the verb, without modification, conjugation, or time. "To" is used in certain contexts, but is not part of the infinitive.
"She had us read the book." "Read" is infinitive.
"Let's go." "Go" is infinitive."
"We should go." Infinitive. "We ought to go." Infinitive.
It's almost indistinguishable from the imperative, which also takes no modification. "Go away." "Shut up." "Bugger off."
Once I wrote :" I don't want to not see you again." So far I've never felt sure if it was right or
not. Anyway, I saw the person again, but I have this "thing" about this sentence. Does it
sound weird, sir?
What sounds weird there isn't the split infinitive but the double negative. The double negative is intentional in this case, because you're saying that you really DO want to see them, the negatives cancel each other out and make it positive, for emphasis. But the choice of a double negative may sound unusual because it's not the natural way of saying it. "I want to see you again" by itself is better. If you wanted to emphasize that you really do want to see the person again, that it's not just a polite saying to somebody as you leave, maybe you could say "I want to hopefully see you again", where it indicates that you 100% are hoping to see them again soon, while not being so direct as something like "I really want to see you again".
Or hell, "I'd hate to not see you again" might be a casual way of saying it if you insist on using the negative. This replaces the double negative "don't want" with a positive verb "I'd hate". With this construction, the "not" doesn't feel out of place, while also demonstrating that you don't want that to happen, that you really do want to see them.
@@sameash3153 Mr. Sam, I'm afraid all this confusion happened because I translated it, in my head, from my mother tongue, Portuguese, into English. I'm used to doing this...anyway, I feel it is not correct.
You're so funny, sir!
And he also looks like Caesar!
Another brilliant lesson as always. Thank you Gideon. As for the very interesting unsplitting example that you asked us to try: "Sales are expected to more than double in the next six months.", how about re-writing it to: "Sales are expected to double or more in the next six months."? Will it be correct still? Thanks. Will
I guess the meaning will have changed a little. The first expresses great certainty on the speak's part that the increase will not only be double but the second shows a degree of uncertainty as to whether the sales will just double or possibly more (than double).
I'd write "Sales are expected to increase at least twofold in the next six months" or "Sales are expected to double in the next six months", with some change of meaning.
There are other ways of saying it but the split infinitive one is equally good.
@@sergiyshklyar2573 Thank you for your input.
@@LetThemTalkTV Thanks for the comment, Gideon! Must say...to us who speak English as a second/foreign language, this could be a tricky one to get right. As you kindly suggested, I will ignore this "rule" altogether and at the same time pay more attention to where native speakers put the adverb in relation to the infinitive that it is supposed to modify going forward.
Best regards :)
You're amazing! 👏👏👏👏
no, you are
So what is a split infinitive? I'm so very confused, still. 🤔
The quote from Chandler shall serve as a bottom line for this dispute.