[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-17, 10:03, said:

What's the difference in meaning between "not to fail" and "to not fail"?

I give up -- tell us!

Personally, I would replace "to not fail" with "to <a word that is the opposite of failing>". But give us your example sentences.

[WellSpyder]

One way not to fail is not to take a test. But I think that in order to not fail you really need to take a test and presumably to pass.

[mycroft]

I'm willing to accept txtspk in time-sensitive situations; not everybody types 60 wpm. But when there is enough time and space to actually do it, f u rite lik this u won't get red. By me, anyway.

I don't expect formal oxford English; I'm as colloquial as the next poster (okay, maybe more). But assuming that your time is so valuable that you can't type those extra two characters, but my time trying to read it is not, gets the appropriate response.

[the hog]

Trinidad, on 2013-January-17, 04:36, said:

Obviously, for every phenomenon in nature there can only be one causal explanation.

Absolute statements are signs of a closed mind. (Yes, I am aware that this is recurrent.)

Rik

The earth revolves around the sun. This is an absolute statement. Rik, re-read your post and realise how silly it is.

[barmar]

the hog, on 2013-January-19, 01:53, said:

The earth revolves around the sun. This is an absolute statement. Rik, re-read your post and realise how silly it is.

No, they each revolve around their common center of gravity. And that's only if you ignore the effects of all the other planets and satellites. Not to mention the fact that the whole solar system is revolving around the center of the Milky Way.

Getting back to spelling, it changes over time due to cultural influences. What's right at one time can become wrong if enough people adopt the new style. Like when Noah Webster proclaimed a bunch of spelling changes when he published his first American dictionary (e.g. dropping the "u" in words like "colour").

http://www.merriam-w...ling-reform.htm

Who's to say that in 50 years "u" won't be the correct spelling of "you"? And if that's going to happen, it has to start somewhere. You may call it degradation, but it's just natural drift. Spelling is practically arbitrary, there's no inherent right or wrong, just what most people do and what's understandable.

[Vampyr]

Sorry, couldn't properly format what I wanted to post.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-17, 10:03, said:

What's the difference in meaning between "not to fail" and "to not fail"?

The issue with splitting infinitives is practically always in the context of where an adverb should be placed. E.g. "to boldly go" versus "to go boldly" or "boldly to go".

A phrase like "to not fail" essentially treats "not fail" as a compound verb (probably synonymous with "succeed"). I think many people who would have no problem with "to boldly go" would find this construct awkward sounding.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2013-January-21, 14:14, said:

The issue with splitting infinitives is practically always in the context of where an adverb should be placed.

Yes, I thought of mentioning this, but then I thought that blackshoe was asking us a riddle and was going to give us an answer.

[blackshoe]

A riddle, perhaps, but I posted it because I didn't know the answer.

As for "boldly go", if I'm not mistaken the grammar rules I learned as a child would say the correct construction is "to go boldly", perhaps "boldly to go", but "to boldly go" has certainly entered the lexicon since the 1960s and is firmly entrenched. Do they differ in meaning? Again, I don't know.

[helene_t]

Trinidad, on 2013-January-17, 09:59, said:

The fact that it is one word is not a good argument. Other languages are regularly splitting words. As an example, a Dutch word for "to apply" (for a grant) is "aanvragen" (one word). In Dutch one would say: "Kunt u mij helpen deze beurs aan te vragen?". ("Could you help me to apply for this grant?"). In German, as far as I understand it, this would result in one word, split, including the "to": "Können Sie mir helfen dieses Stipendium anzufragen?" (from anfragen and zu). I am not sure about this, but my German colleagues insist on it.

Rik

I think this is a different issue. Dutch has compound verbs which may be written as one or two words depending on grammatical context, i.e. "vraag aan" vs "aanvragen". The issue with split infinitives in English is about the particular word "to". Dutch "te" and German "zu" are, afaik, never split from the infinitive.

[Trinidad]

helene_t, on 2013-January-22, 04:43, said:

I think this is a different issue. Dutch has compound verbs which may be written as one or two words depending on grammatical context, i.e. "vraag aan" vs "aanvragen". The issue with split infinitives in English is about the particular word "to". Dutch "te" and German "zu" are, afaik, never split from the infinitive.

That is true.

However, I was merely arguing that the fact that in other languages (the example given was Latin) an infinitive is one word is no argument why it could not be split. There is no fundamental reason why we are not allowed to cut a word into two pieces. And, in fact, some languages (e.g. Dutch) do so routinely.

Rik

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-21, 18:59, said:

A riddle, perhaps, but I posted it because I didn't know the answer.

As for "boldly go", if I'm not mistaken the grammar rules I learned as a child would say the correct construction is "to go boldly", perhaps "boldly to go", but "to boldly go" has certainly entered the lexicon since the 1960s and is firmly entrenched. Do they differ in meaning? Again, I don't know.

The main thing about "to boldly go" is that it makes it clear that "boldly" refers to "go", and not "to go"; in other words, it is not the act of going but the manner of going that is bold. In this respect it differs from "boldly to go". As for "to go boldly", it sounds pretty bad, and also has some ambiguity, as it is right next to "where no man has gone before"; that is, they didn't go there and it is bold for us to go there.