# EN: not to do / to not do - to go boldly / to boldly go - split infinitive



## pepskrik

bonjour , je suis confus avec la forme negative en anglais avec l infinitif :

doit on dire
"i am asked to not do something" ou "i am asked not to do something" ???

merci pour votre aide

*Note des modérateurs :* Plusieurs fils ont été fusionnés pour créer celui-ci.


----------



## geostan

Je dirais "not to." Mais plus je les répète, plus je crois que les deux se disent.

Cheers!


----------



## MooseVW

"Not to," c'est correct. Vous ne pouvez pas diviser l'infinitif.


----------



## wildan1

pepskrik said:


> doit on dire "i am asked to not do something" ou "i am asked not to do something" ???


les deux variantes se disent et s'entendent

Il y a bien les traditionalistes qui sont contre le _split infinitive_, qui diront donc que _*to* not *do* something_ est inadmissible. Mais cela se dit beaucoup, et s'écrit de plus en plus...


----------



## sound shift

Purely anecdotally, I would say that "not to" dominates in the UK, and by some distance. I don't use "to not" myself.


----------



## Cobo

Hi there,
I have buried in my memory that you never put the adverb between “to” and the following verb; did I dream it? Would “to actively participate” be correct?
Thanks a lot and greetings from snowy Lausanne under the snow. Cobo


----------



## jierbe31

Hi,

It's definitely correct in so far as the adverb emphasizes the verb.
Specialists call it _split infinitive_.


----------



## hotpocket

You didn't dream it...and officially that IS the rule, otherwise you have what's called a split infinitive....the infinitive being TO PARTICIPATE.

However, in *current spoken English*, 'to actively participate' is *just fine*.
No worries about that at all.  

In written English, I would hesitate, and then I might switch it, such as in '...students are encouraged to participate actively in any and all activities offered by the school.'

The first spoken example is quite acceptable.  The second would be correct and without reproach.  

It's kind of like writing with apostrophes.  In the sentence I just wrote, we would have been corrected in school to change that sentence to "It is not unlike writing with apostrophes"  The latter sentence is more formal.

Another 'rule' would be the use of prepositions at the end of a sentence.  Officially, this is unacceptable as well...but everyone does it.  "Who were you just speaking to?"  should be "To whom were you just speaking?"  The former is current.  The latter is correct.

You know, I really think all of these rules are changing...developing.  Are there any professionals out there who can say for sure????

Cheers


----------



## Wynn Mathieson

It's a "rule" inherited from Latin -- from which English is, of course, NOT descended -- based on the idea that in Latin the infinitive is a single word; therefore the corresponding sentence element in English should not be split either.

Pro patria mori : To die for the fatherland

pro ......        for
patria ... (the) fatherland
mori ..... (to) die

The "reasoning" was that if, for example, _mori_ (one word) equals _to die_ (two words), then the English words should not be split.

In my own view, the "don't split infinitives" rule is no more justified than a "don't split substantives" rule would be. After all, _patria_ in the above example corresponds to two English words.

Be warned, nevertheless, that the "don't split infinitives" rule, whether justified or not, has had such acceptance as a shibboleth of "correct English" in the past that you still risk opprobrium if you break it in formal writing.


----------



## Tim~!

hotpocket said:


> You know, I really think all of these rules are changing...developing.  Are there any professionals out there who can say for sure????


The "rule" was imposed by seventeenth-century grammarians who tried to apply the rules of Latin to English.  These are the same people who added a silent letter b so that we know have the word _debt_, since they wanted to show its Latin roots.  (They wanted to reflect _debitum_, in their total ignorance of the word having entered into English via the French _dette_.)

In Latin it is not possible to split an infinitive into two parts, since there is only one whole unit.  English is different; our infinitive features the particle _to_ and the verb form.  Because it is not possible to split the infinitive in Latin they declared that it's not possible in English, which is totally false.

It's not that the rules have changed so much as schoolchildren aren't actually punished for not enforcing this needless, baseless "rule". 

As you say, there is greater acceptance nowadays of an English which violates these impositions which decree that the rules that bind Latin must be applied to English.  They don't have to be and never should have been.


----------



## jp75

Hi, 

I want to write "The common feature of both methods is that they do not take into account (...)" :

Is any of those wordings good: 
"The common feature of both methods is *not to* take into account (...)"
"The common feature of both methods is *to not* take into account (...)"

Thanks,
JP


----------



## wildan1

Both phrases are a bit awkward, I'm afraid, jp75.

How about something like this:

_The common feature of both methods is that they do not take into account..._
_OR_
_Neither method takes into account..._


----------



## Micia93

I seond JP75 in this request : we french have always learn the famous" to be or not to be", suggesting that "to" had to be placed _after_ "not"
but I've often seen on this forum the right opposite, such as : "in order to not do ..."
can you explain that, Wildan ?


----------



## wildan1

It's the traditional rule against making "split infinitives" -- putting a word between "to" and the verb.

It often leads to awkward-sounding phrases, so most people break this rule with regularity! 

Nowadays a lot of people say this is an old schoolteacher's rule that makes no sense--see here.


----------



## Micia93

thanks Wildan, I'm used to putting adverbs between "to" and the verb (ex : to quickly remove)
my question concerned the negative form : it is correct (or slang) to say : "to *not* go there " for instance ?


----------



## wildan1

It's more a question of style than register, micia. It could be perfectly fine or very awkward, depending on the full sentence and the context (sorry if I can't give a more precise reply).

In jp75's case, it sounded awkward to me...


----------



## Micia93

thank you Wildan
in order not to get confused, I'll never use "not" between "to" and the verb  :=)


----------



## paulfg42

Micia93 said:


> my question concerned the negative form : it is correct (or slang) to say : "to *not* go there " for instance ?



Your example is fine. As already noted, a split infinitive is acceptable in English. However, it is usually better to place 'not' before 'to' than after. There is no grammatical reason - it just reads and sounds better.


----------



## Veentea

wildan1 said:


> It's more a question of style than register, micia. It could be perfectly fine or very awkward, depending on the full sentence and the context (sorry if I can't give a more precise reply).
> 
> In jp75's case, it sounded awkward to me...



I agree with Wildan that the context would determine whether "to not go there" is awkward or not.

Also, I'm confused.  What was wrong with:


jp75 said:


> "The common feature of both methods is that they do not take into account (...)" :


----------



## Tresley

What is the point of this?

Not to get things wrong in English ... OR
To not get things wrong in English?

It's a very tricky question!

We say and use both expressions, but when written, it's more important!

When written I would choose 'Not to get things wrong in English' simply because I was taught the 'split infinitive rule' at school, but in spoken English I would understand both, but say myself 'not to get ...' because I was taught that was the correct way and (to be honest) it sounds better to me that way round (I don't know why - schooling? Dominant English teacher? Who knows?).

I hope this helps.


----------



## Tresley

I've been thinking ...

Perhaps it depends on the structure of the sentence ...

For example:

"So as *not to* get things wrong we need to ..."
"In order *not to* get things wrong we need to ..."
"In order *to not* get things wrong we need to ..."

Perhaps we change things based on how many times we use the word 'to' in the sentence?

All my examples above sound correct to me!

My English teacher might say otherwise!

I wouldn't say:

"So as *to not* get things wrong" (but I have heard other people say this)

Nevertheless, what do others think? I don't know what advice to give to foreigners learning English!


----------



## jp75

Veentea : actually, nothing is wrong with the sentence you ask about. I was wondering how to state it with the "not to" structure !


----------



## jp75

This discussion is actually interesting. I try to precise my first question, then.

I understand that some of you would accept (at least to say, if not to write) both sentences:
"The nice feature of this car is not to drive fast."
"The nice feature of this car is to not drive fast."

I understand that the first one is a more consensual grammatical form, since it does not break the "split infinitive" rule. But that the second one might be said by an english speaker.

But I wonder  whether both have the same meaning: I think the first one implies that the car may or not be able to drive fast, but that the nice feature is anything else, whereas the second one means that the nice feature of the car is that it does not drive fast.

What do you think? And in case this is true, would it be possible to state the second sentence without breaking the split infinitive rule, but still with an analogous structure?


----------



## wildan1

Maybe my original post wasn't clear in its intent. My suggestion to reword the sentence entirely was NOT because the sentence given was grammatically incorrect. 

My comments were ones of style, not grammar. I found the wording awkward, not incorrect. 

_to not.._ or _not to._..? 

Both could be used, but to me neither is very smooth in this context and register. If a native speaker on my staff wrote either in a draft, I would suggest the same kind of rewording that I suggested above.

wildan1


----------



## Tory_237

I think both are correct, they sound fine to me. I think i would prefer the "not to" one though.


----------



## Veentea

jp75 said:


> I understand that some of you would accept (at least to say, if not to write) both sentences:
> "The nice feature of this car is not to drive fast."
> "The nice feature of this car is to not drive fast."



I would not accept either of these.


----------



## Keith Bradford

jp75 said:


> "The nice feature of this car is not to drive fast."
> "The nice feature of this car is to not drive fast."
> ...
> I think the first one implies that the car may or not be able to drive fast, but that the nice feature is anything else, whereas the second one means that the nice feature of the car is that it does not drive fast.


 
In this sentence you are absolutely correct. 

In some other context where the distinction of meaning does not apply, placing _not_ after _to_ gives the negative greater impact (because it is more unusual).


----------



## piupiu06

Hi all,

I have to translate in english this sentence:"Nous vous demandons de ne pas couper le bouton de commande qui regule la ventilation."

Her is my translation: "We kindly ask you not to turn off the manual command which regulate the ventilation." My problem is I don't know if it is "not to tun" or "to not turn "?????.

Thank you in advance


----------



## franc 91

We would ask you not to switch off...


----------



## chamby

Hello again, 

I have been reading an article , and I have come across this sentence:".....[he] later decided to not press charges against.......". I thought it correct to say : ...."not to press"   instead of "to not" as in the example above. But as I have already read it at least two or three times, I am wondering.......Can you help ? Thanks


----------



## jamsmasher

It is most correct to write _not to press_, but it is commonly written (and even more commonly said) _to not press_. I advise that you employ _not to press_.


----------



## jack59

"try not to do something" or "try to not do something". I think the first  is the good one but I'm looking for the rule. Thank you.


----------



## Novanas

I'd say "try not to" rather than "try to not".  E.g., "Try not to be a nuisance, OK?"

I'm not sure about any rule, though.  If you say, "to not be", you're splitting the infinitive, "to be", and in school we're taught that that's a very bad thing to do.  In practice, though, we often split infinitives because it sounds better to do so.  In this case, however, I wouldn't split it.  There are  probably some threads about split infinitives on this forum.


----------



## thedov

Split infinitives are not always wrong, but if possible they should be avoided. Therefore, in your example you should say,
'try not to do'


----------



## Novanas

In principle, you're right, the dov.  But what's the most famous split infinitive of all?  "Their mission, *to boldly go* where no man/one has ever gone before."  How could we possibly avoid splitting this one?  As you suggest, it isn't always possible.


----------



## Maître Capello

I'm not sure Star Trek is a real reference when it comes to grammar…  Anyway, why wouldn't “to go boldly” work?


----------



## Novanas

Excuse me, Maître Capello, but Star Trek is the authority on everything (and every true Star Trek fan knows that).  As for why "to go boldly" won't work, well, it just doesn't have the same ring to it.  A question of style.


----------



## Zolina

There is of course the question of the difference between "to not do anything" and "not to do something" which has been discussed in full and well explained.

"not to press charges" vs. "to not press charges"
Both are perfectly idiomatic in English. In the past, it has been frowned upon to split infinitives (i.e. not to press charges was preferred) however this rule is becoming less and less relevant. Either will be accepted by a native speaker, but if you want to avoid all controversy, it is better _not to split_ the infinitive (i had to correct myself from saying _to not split_) the infinitive, alors "not to press charges".

As was say "to go boldly where no man has gone before" has a slightly different meaning ring than "to boldly go" in my ear. "to boldly go" is much more idiomatic.


----------



## Maître Capello

Zolina said:


> As was say "to go boldly where no man has gone before" has a slightly different meaning than "to boldly go" in my ear. "to boldly go" is much more idiomatic.


Regardless of one being more idiomatic than the other, do you really think there is a difference in *meaning*? If so, could you please elaborate?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I had the same thought as the Maȋtre.  I can't see that there is a difference of meaning.  I don't see that _'to boldly go'_ is the more idiomatic of the two either.  I don't have a prescriptivist hang-up about split infinitives, but I'd be more likely to use 'to go boldly' in most circumstances.


----------



## Zolina

Sorry, I didn't mean to say it has a different meaning, i meant to say ring. You are right.


----------



## JeffPSU

La division is toujours à éviter. Beaucoup de gens la considèrent comme incorrecte et un peu campagnarde.


----------



## Enquiring Mind

To be or not to be - that is the answer!


----------



## wster

pepskrik said:


> "i am asked to not do something" ou "i am asked not to do something" ???


Every language has nuances.  The more nuances you know, the better you understand the language.  In this case, there is no problem splitting the infinitive.  Most of the time one wouldn't split the infinitive.  But if one wanted to emphasize the negation, then one would.  So a mother might say to her child, "I asked you not to jump on the couch."  But an irate mother might very well say, "I asked you to not jump on the couch."  If a non-native speaker were to continually split the infinitive, it would be noticeable and in the aggregate it would be incorrect.  If a native speaker were to do it on occasion to emphasize the negation, it would show a level of mastery.  Moreover, one can find countless instances in the English literature of recent centuries.  You would have to go back 400 to get me to change my response.


----------



## fouine suisse

Peut-on employer indifféremment "not to" et "to not" ?
J'ai la phrase :
"A temporary restraint to not impose your whims on your neighbour"
Est-ce correct ? j'aurais inversé : "... not to impose..." Ai-je tort ?
Y a-t-il une réelle différence ?
Merci de votre réponse !


----------



## pointvirgule

La règle est d'éviter de séparer la particule _to_ de l'infinitif. 
Ainsi, _not to impose_ est la forme considérée comme correcte par les puristes. (Insistons : par les puristes. Voir les nuances exprimées _supra_.)

Comme dit la plaisanterie, _writers should learn to not split infinitives_.


----------



## Keith Bradford

On the matter of "to not do" versus "not to do", there may possibly be cases where the meaning actually changes - for instance where the verb itself has a different meaning when put in the negative.  But I'm blowed if I can think of one!

As for "to boldly go..." the answer is easy.  In the original word-order it's a regular iambic pentameter: _To boldly go where none has gone before_.  However if you avoid the so-called split infinitive*, you have an inverted or syncopated stress: _To go boldly (_or _To go boldly...) where none has gone before_, which is less pleasing.
______________________________

* An entirely artificial concept; we never talk about _the good boy _as being a split nominative, do we?


----------

