# EN: to not awake



## pepskrik

hello everyone , 
actually I am kind of confused about the right place of *to* (plus verb)in a sentence when there's a negation , for exemple : I try to keep silent in order *not to* awake him or in order *to not* awake him ??
thank you for your inputs!


----------



## Katoussa

Je suis française mais il me semble que l'on doit choisir ta première option. Attendons un avis définitif d'anglophone 

Katoussa.


----------



## tilt

Les deux se disent, et s'il me semble bien que l'on m'a enseigné ta première proposition, la deuxième est en fait plus courante, comme expliqué ici.


----------



## pepskrik

thank you both of you ! T*ilt* , your link was very enlightening. I feel less ashamed of my being confused !!


----------



## gillyfr

In your example, it should be "awaken". Because this verb is more literary, the more grammatically correct first option should be used: "in order not to awaken him". But if you use "wake up", it could be either, "in order not to wake him up" or "in order to not wake him up". Certainly, this last example would be what most people would say (orally). I'd still go with the first option for anything written formally though.


----------



## pepskrik

gillyfr said:


> In your example, it should be "awaken". Because this verb is more literary, the more grammatically correct first option should be used: "in order not to awaken him". But if you use "wake up", it could be either, "in order not to wake him up" or "in order to not wake him up". Certainly, this last example would be what most people would say (orally). I'd still go with the first option for anything written formally though.


 I do agree that *wake up* works as well but i still dunno why *awake* is not ok ???


----------



## seith

I also vote for "*in order not to wake him up*", but "in order not to awaken him" would be technically correct too.


----------



## pepskrik

seith said:


> I also vote for "*in order not to wake him up*", but "in order not to awaken him" would be technically correct too.


yes but once again why* awake* wouldn't be ok ??


----------



## Moon Palace

_Awake _is an adjective, the literary verb corresponding to it is _to awaken_.


----------



## pepskrik

Moon Palace said:


> _Awake _is an adjective, the literary verb corresponding to it is _to awaken_.


yes* awake* is an adjective but a verb too !


----------



## Moon Palace

It is true indeed, I don't know why it escaped my memory. Yet, I have hardly ever encountered it to say 'he awoke her'... except in very literary contexts. Now why apart from this literary characteristic is it not commonplace? I must admit I have no clue but would be interested in knowing.


----------



## tannen2004

En général il est toujours une bonne idée d'éviter ce que nous appelons "a split infinitive".  C'est à dire dans un bon anglais (écrit) c'est mieux de ne rien placer entre le "to" et le reste du verbe (dans ce cas "wake up"), donc "not to wake him up" est de préfèrence à l'écrit.  D'autres l'ont dit, mais je voulais juste y ajouter la règle générale au cas où elle peut vous être utile plus tard.

De plus, le "up" est facultatif à mon avis.  Vous pouvez dire "to wake him".  Elle est un peu plus litéraire comme phrase que "to wake up" que l'on entend beaucoup plus souvent.


----------



## itka

Merci Tannen ! Cette précision est très intéressante et utile !
Ne pas séparer le _to_ du reste du verbe... mais au fait, comment appelez-vous ce _to_ qui précède tous les verbes à l'infinitif ? Est-ce qu'on dit simplement que c'est une _préposition_ ? Ou bien y a-t-il un autre mot ?


----------



## tilt

itka said:


> Merci Tannen ! Cette précision est très intéressante et utile !
> Ne pas séparer le _to_ du reste du verbe... mais au fait, comment appelez-vous ce _to_ qui précède tous les verbes à l'infinitif ? Est-ce qu'on dit simplement que c'est une _préposition_ ? Ou bien y a-t-il un autre mot ?


Les dictionnaires anglais mentionnent son emploi pour marquer l'infinitif comme une préposition, en effet.


----------



## CapnPrep

On l'appelle parfois — mais à tort — une préposition. En réalité, ce mot n'appartient à aucune catégorie, et on le range dans le fourre-tout des _particules_ (ou _marqueurs_). À mon avis, le plus simple, c'est de dire « infinitival _to_ ».


----------



## dan144556

Actually, the split infinitive issue in English is kind of a contentious one.  The rule forbidding split infinitives originated during the 1700s, when grammarians began applying the rules of Latin to English because Latin was viewed as a more "elite" language.  A lot of traditionalist grammar rules originate from this, such as not ending a sentence with a preposition, and not splitting infinitives (which is one word in Latin, as it is in French, and thus cannot be split).  English, however, has always been a VERY different language from Latin, and using the rules of one language to apply to another language seems kind of ridiculous.  So many modern grammarians consider this rule to be outdated and silly, though there are some traditionalists who still adhere to it.  

Additionally, sometimes it works best to put the adverb in between the "to" and the main verb, even in written English.  This is the sentence I like to use:

"It is hard *to completely understand* the logic of people who don't split infinitives."

This is, in my opinion, the best way to say it.  The other ways are either awkward or ambiguous:

"It is hard *completely **to understand* the logic of people who don't split infinitives."
(Doesn't make much sense, I'd have to think for a second about what this meant.)

"It is hard *to understand **completely * the logic of people who don't split infinitives."
(This alternative is all right, but it's not entirely clear that "completely" modifies "to understand")

"It is hard *to understand* the logic of people who don't split infinitives*, completely *."
(This is ambiguous:  it sounds like people are completely splitting infinitives, which is not what we want to say.)

"*Completely, *it is hard *to understand* the logic of people who don't split infinitives."
(Again, this doesn't make too much sense to me.)

So, in certain situations, splitting infinitives might be the best option.  Though, like I've said, there are certain people who still rely on this rule.  I'm just warning you not to follow it too religiously...


----------



## dan144556

Sorry I've strayed from the topic a bit...to give my input into the initial question, notice that in the last sentence of my last post I've used "not to follow" instead of "to not follow" without thinking about it, so I guess that would be most natural for me in that situation.  But I think either would be correct.


----------



## dragongirl

I don't know whether this has been cleared up but: To wake is a verb and so is to awaken but _to awake_ is not although to *be* awake is... Sorry if that's confusing! 

The "to" in the sentence seems to me to simply be part of the set expression " in order to"...


----------



## dan144556

Wake, waken, awake, and awaken are all correct, but in different contexts...I've copied and pasted this from the American Heritage Dictionary (found in the dictionary.com entry for "wake"):

"The pairs _wake, waken_ and _awake, awaken_ have formed a bewildering array since the Middle English period. All four words have similar meanings, though there are some differences in use. Only _wake_ is used in the sense "to be awake," as in expressions like _waking_ (not _wakening_) _and sleeping, every waking hour._ _Wake_ is also more common than _waken_ when used together with _up,_ and _awake_ and _awaken_ never occur in this context: _She woke up_ (rarely _wakened up;_ never _awakened up _or_ awoke up_). Some writers have suggested that _waken_ should be used only transitively (as in _The alarm wakened him_) and _awaken_ only intransitively (as in _He awakened at dawn_), but there is ample literary precedent for usages such as _He wakened early_ and _They did not awaken her._ In figurative senses _awake_ and _awaken_ are more prevalent: _With the governor's defeat the party awoke to the strength of the opposition to its position on abortion. The scent of the gardenias awakened my memory of his unexpected appearance that afternoon years ago._"

BOTTOM LINE:  Use "wake" for literal use and "awake" for figurative or literary use.  You can get away without ever using "waken" or "awaken."


----------



## dragongirl

Yes that is true I have heard awake used in a figurative context...  I'd forgotten...


----------



## CapnPrep

dragongirl said:


> I don't know whether this has been cleared up but: To wake is a verb and so is to awaken but _to awake_ is not although to *be* awake is... Sorry if that's confusing!


It is quite clear, but unfortunately not quite accurate. In fact the true state of affairs is extremely confusing: _awake_ can be a verb (both intransitive and transitive), but we also have _wake_, _wake up_, _waken_, _awaken_, … And everyone has their own preferences and uncertainties about which one to use when, and even how to conjugate them  ! See here and here in English Only (or just follow dan144556's helpful advice above).


----------



## dragongirl

CapnPrep said:


> It is quite clear, but unfortunately not quite accurate. In fact the true state of affairs is extremely confusing: _awake_ can be a verb (both intransitive and transitive), but we also have _wake_, _wake up_, _waken_, _awaken_, … And everyone has their own preferences and uncertainties about which one to use when, and even how to conjugate them  ! See here and here in English Only (or just follow dan144556's helpful advice above).



I had corrected myself after dan's message, although I am still sure I have never heard it used in the sense of someone awakes someone else eg. "in order not to awake him" - it just sounds wrong to my ears... But on the other hand "I awoke with a start" sounds fine...


----------



## gillyfr

If you said "in order not to awake him" to an English-speaker, s/he would probably correct you.


----------

