Subject: disc : grammar in uk schools

on thu , 3 july 1997 , larry koch wrote : > i read your contribution to the linguist list after having it forwarded > to me , and i must say i am disappointed to see a teacher of english > promoting the fallacy of the " split infinitive " . there simply is no > such thing . > > first , the " to " particle is not always a part of the infinite ( e . g . > after modal verbs ) . > > second , placing the adverb between " to " and the infinitive is often > the only way the sentence makes sense , in terms of modifying the verb . > likewise , placing the adverb elsewhere often makes the sentence less > understandable . i think you have misunderstood what i was saying in my contribution to the list . i do not ` promote the fallacy of the split infinitive ' . the syllabus which i teach requires a descriptive rather than a prescriptive approach . the questions set by the external examining board , however , often require the students to show their commitment to descriptivism by commenting critically on various prescriptive rules laid down in the past , as in the orwell example . they need to know what actives , passives and infinitives are before they can do this . the sixteen-year - old students who come to me have usually been taught no terminology at all , apparently because their teachers have been terrified of being prescriptive . i know and teach that not all infinitives contain ` to ' . i also give the students examples ( e . g . ` i asked him to kindly apologise ' ) where placing the adverb anywhere else would cause ambiguity . jennifer chew
