On the subject of Blastflow there is a typo on the main page
"BlastFlow is a manufacturer and designer of watercooling solutions for Extreme Gaming PCs and Workstations based in London. Apart of being a team of dedicated Engineers we are also a team of hardcore PC Gamers and Enthusiasts that have been using watercooling in our own systems long before joining the BlastFlow."
It is incorrect grammar to split an infinitive...you should never split the 'to' and the verb.
ouch i thought that was coming. i was going to write a little note alluding to this age old debate, but decided against it.
the split infinitive used to be bad grammar, but it has been used more and more in english over the last 2 centuries. prescriptive grammarians condemned its usage, as any purist would be expected to. and the problem i have with 'prescriptive grammarians' and the like is an incessant reluctance to admit the constant and unstoppable progress and change of language. it lives and changes just as and while its speakers do. so i am against the objection of a split infinitive. i think stylistically it works, and have no qualms or hesitations about breaking any rules of a version of english set by some academic sitting in his study telling us, legitimate speakers of english, that 'to boldy go' is wrong. and just the fact that i am willing to use it, shows that, in a sense, it is correct grammar. because language, as i said, changes with its speakers. i will give another example. 'init' as a tag questoin is used in some dialects of english as a universal tag. so an example of its use in this sense would be:
i can read books, init? as opposed to a speaker of modern standard british english would consider normal: 'can't i?'
or
you do like cheese, init? instead of don't you?
the two sound odd to me, as this goes against my 'personal grammar', if you will. now there is a chance, however slim, that in the future, this will become common usage. there is nothing that can properly stop this, only something that can delay it. back to the prescriptive grammairians. who, with this example, would upon its first usage, emphatically deny its correctness. and this point has already been made: simply because people use it, means it is, again only in a sense, correct.
this is exactly the same with when the first infinitives were split. it would have sounded so disgutsing, so 'un-english' that their reaction would have been entirely justified, and i'm sure if the usage of init as a universal tag, i myself would also be against it. and i ask you this: if you feel that 'to boldly go' is disgusting as the above certainly is to me, then i apologize, and respect your view. if, however, you feel that it personally makes sense, but know (i.e. have read, been told) that it is not, then consider the true nature of grammar - it is personal. this is my view.
thanks for reading. i mean in no way to cause offence, and if i have, i will freely withdraw my post and apologize.
It is incorrect grammar to split an infinitive...you should never split the 'to' and the verb.
ouch i thought that was coming. i was going to write a little note alluding to this age old debate, but decided against it.
the split infinitive used to be bad grammar, but it has been used more and more in english over the last 2 centuries. prescriptive grammarians condemned its usage, as any purist would be expected to. and the problem i have with 'prescriptive grammarians' and the like is an incessant reluctance to admit the constant and unstoppable progress and change of language. it lives and changes just as and while its speakers do. so i am against the objection of a split infinitive. i think stylistically it works, and have no qualms or hesitations about breaking any rules of a version of english set by some academic sitting in his study telling us, legitimate speakers of english, that 'to boldy go' is wrong. and just the fact that i am willing to use it, shows that, in a sense, it is correct grammar. because language, as i said, changes with its speakers. i will give another example. 'init' as a tag questoin is used in some dialects of english as a universal tag. so an example of its use in this sense would be:
i can read books, init? as opposed to a speaker of modern standard british english would consider normal: 'can't i?'
or
you do like cheese, init? instead of don't you?
the two sound odd to me, as this goes against my 'personal grammar', if you will. now there is a chance, however slim, that in the future, this will become common usage. there is nothing that can properly stop this, only something that can delay it. back to the prescriptive grammairians. who, with this example, would upon its first usage, emphatically deny its correctness. and this point has already been made: simply because people use it, means it is, again only in a sense, correct.
this is exactly the same with when the first infinitives were split. it would have sounded so disgutsing, so 'un-english' that their reaction would have been entirely justified, and i'm sure if the usage of init as a universal tag, i myself would also be against it. and i ask you this: if you feel that 'to boldly go' is disgusting as the above certainly is to me, then i apologize, and respect your view. if, however, you feel that it personally makes sense, but know (i.e. have read, been told) that it is not, then consider the true nature of grammar - it is personal. this is my view.
thanks for reading. i mean in no way to cause offence, and if i have, i will freely withdraw my post and apologize.
Of course you have not caused offence, no intellectual is afraid of debate
I would say firstly, that there is another distinction which I would make here, that you have not; that between vocabulary, and grammar. Your reference to 'init', I would say has nothing to do with grammar, but is a word on its own - whilst descended from isn't it, no longer means that, it is merely a question word, expecting agreement, somewhat like 'non?' in French. I would argue that 'init' is a word on its own, and is not an issue of grammar.
You also mentioned the point of regional dialects. I agree with you that one person's correct English is not another's. I would argue that this is what means that when debating thorny issues like this, we must ignore the regional dialects, and use 'standard oxford English'. On that basis I would keep my claim that a split infinitive is incorrect.
I completely respect your opinion, but that is where my point comes from.
I would say firstly, that there is another distinction which I would make here, that you have not; that between vocabulary, and grammar. Your reference to 'init', I would say has nothing to do with grammar, but is a word on its own - whilst descended from isn't it, no longer means that, it is merely a question word, expecting agreement, somewhat like 'non?' in French. I would argue that 'init' is a word on its own, and is not an issue of grammar.
okay, yes i see your point. init is a shortened version of isn't it, but the distinction is its shift in usage. yes, it is a question word, demanding/expecting agreement, but its usage as a piece of vocabulary in the example i gave previously is broader than i would consider grammatically correct. and as they are effectively the same thing, we now have:
you do like cheese, isn't it? (instead of don't you?)
which can be considered exactly the same as (because: this is just an issue of vocabulary and any inferred nuance as a result of the different form used means nothing, we are talking in terms of grammar):
you do like cheese, init?
as per previous post. so i do however think that the grammatical function has changed, even though it is just a word which has shifted to replace all question tag forms. (1)
on a random tanget here, i was under the impression that the French equivalent was formally 'n'est-ce pas?' i.e. is that not right? which is used in all cases (2) - an example of a universal tag question which the said dialect also uses in the form of init.
on on Macduff!
Jk wrote:
You also mentioned the point of regional dialects. I agree with you that one person's correct English is not another's. I would argue that this is what means that when debating thorny issues like this, we must ignore the regional dialects, and use 'standard oxford English'. On that basis I would keep my claim that a split infinitive is incorrect.
Yes. however the problem here is, is that a lot of people who already speak standard English use split infintives - it is found in literature, and is used in speech. think about some of the grammatical changes which have occured in the past: there will be resistance at first, but the changes were eventually accepted into standard english.
so yes, the split infinitive is not standard English, but since it is used more than just a bit, then is there not an argument that it should become a part of standard English? on what basis is its grammatical correctness denied, when a large amount of people use it, who appear to speak standard English in every other way?(3)
but you are correct, in that (for now at least!) the splitting of the infinitive is technically incorrect. - therefore, yes, it shouldn't really be used in a formal situation. i personally do like it, and think it allows for a slightly greater depth of meaning and clarity.
1.
i.e. it breaks all the rules by always using isn't it (=init), instead of a charge switch, do-compound forms...etc etc
2.
although 'non?' may also be acceptable, thats not the point, its just that there are no firm rules governing which form to use as in english.(as per (1)).
3.
you might object to my assumptions as to the split infinitive being used commonly, and fair enough. i do notice it however, in both written and spoken forms of language, and think it works.
ere, u 2 wat r u on about? Wat language tis it thou speaketh off I no to know when I am talking the proper way them there long words you r saying doesnt make any sence to us proper english.,,. speaking people. I went oxford once on a sharrow cudnt understand a word they wernt talking about. E bye gum tis a rum doo when reaing those psosts your riting
By the way old chap those spiving folk at Vadim have done a splendid job on BLASTFLOW that will manufacture high end waterblocks for us. I for one will be HAVING IT INSTALLED IN MY NEXT VADIM.
Lets try and keep to the subject chaps, as this forum has been specifically been introduced by Vadim to discuss BLASTFLOW
erm yeah i guess we did get slightly diverted there.
back on topic, i'm hoping that the new ones can go into my vadim being built now, but i'm having doubts... it did, after all, only just come out!
but if you do happen to read this, Mark, er, please, if at all possible can i have the new ones??? *begs*
so anyways i'm off to bed now, and if you don't see me for a while, i'm off to the lakes for a week. i'm doubting high speed broadband out there, but i should be able to check semi-frequently. who knows?
and then when i get back, then the pc should be ready... note to Kandice: perhaps you should add a :drools over new Vadim on the way: emoticon. i'm sure it would be used!!
ere, u 2 wat r u on about? Wat language tis it thou speaketh off I no to know when I am talking the proper way them there long words you r saying doesnt make any sence to us proper english.,,. speaking people. I went oxford once on a sharrow cudnt understand a word they wernt talking about. E bye gum tis a rum doo when reaing those psosts your riting
By the way old chap those spiving folk at Vadim have done a splendid job on BLASTFLOW that will manufacture high end waterblocks for us. I for one will be HAVING IT INSTALLED IN MY NEXT VADIM.
Lets try and keep to the subject chaps, as this forum has been specifically been introduced by Vadim to discuss BLASTFLOW
Sorry master, I will stick to the prescribed topic in future...although it was blastflow related.
Lamaserai, I do not often notice split infinitives in spoken or written English, which may also be a root of our disagreement. I would agree it is very difficult to decide when a point of grammar should become acceptable due to wide usage. However in a formal setting like this, I would still maintain the infinitive should not be split.
sharp eye
I'll have a look around and see about getting one added 
