# to not  / not to



## planito

I'm reading a text of programming languages and I found:

<<This causes the program *to not* go back to LOOP label.>>

The doubt that comes to me when I read this line is: When sould we use "not to" and "to not"?

I mean, for example, if I want to say: "Es importante no hacer caso a aquellos que nos critican", could I translate by "It's important to not pay attention to those who criticize us"

If you add a discussion about different usages of NOT TO, I would be grateful.

Thanks


----------



## Periplo

Es sencillo, la función del "to" es convertir el verbo _go_ en infinitivo, por lo tanto debe antecerderlo:

*not* + *to go back*


----------



## planito

Periplo said:


> Es sencillo, la función del "to" es convertir el verbo _go_ en infinitivo, por lo tanto debe antecerderlo:
> 
> *not* + *to go back*



Hola, Periplo, la verdad es que no he entendido que has querido decir con esto, pero insisto en que la frase original que he leído en un documento escrito en inglés es "to not go back" y me has respondido que debe decir "not to go back". Agradecería más precisión.
Un saludo respetuoso.


----------



## Periplo

Ah, creí que preguntabas cuál de las dos formas era correcta. Entonces no sé, nunca vi un ejemplo así.


----------



## NewdestinyX

planito said:


> Hola Periplo, la verdad es que no he entendido que has querido decir con esto, pero insisto en que la frase original que he leido en un documento escrito en inglés es "to not go back" y me has respondido que debe decir "not to go back". Agradecería más precisión.
> 
> Un saludo respetuoso


Son exactamente igual, Planito. Sencillamente elige uno u otro. 

Grant


----------



## unspecified

En el habla o escritura formal y esmerada, "not to [verb]" es la opción que debería usarse para evitar el "split infinitive".  Pero coincido con *NewdestinyX *en que en el habla cotidiana,  son intercambiables.


----------



## waggledook

It's not necessarily a matter of register. It's more a matter of style. Some people prefer not to (to not) split the infinitive, but this can depend on the modifying adverb (in this case not). Many grammarians will cite instances where the split infinitive is more desirable as it avoids ambiguity: An adverb placed between to and its infinitive is clearly modifying the verb and nothing else.

A lot of fuss is made over the split infinitive, but in fact, very few authorities condemn it, and that has been the case for some time. That people are still concerned by it strikes me as a bit of a usage legend. :-D

I would contend that James T Kirk's words, "To boldly go where no man has gone before", is more memorable than, "to go boldly where no man has gone before". 

I believe there have been various previous discussions concerning the split infinitive here on wordreference if you're interested in other points of view.


----------



## Mikebo

Una cosa diría yo: Es que a mí me parece que la forma "*to not*" se utiliza más en EE. UU. que en Inglaterra.
¿Qué te parece, waggledook? [*Boldly to go* where no man has gone before].


----------



## waggledook

Puede ser. Sé que utilizo los dos tanto cuando escribo y hablo. Pero es posible que sea por causa de las influencias americanas.

¡Sino, me suena fatal "Boldly to go"! ¿A lo mejor era un chiste?

The following brief article discusses this very example and the split infinitive debate:

To boldly go where no man has gone before - meaning and origin.

It's also a fantastic site.


----------



## Mikebo

Pues lo de "Boldly to go" - chiste, por supuesto.


----------



## Periplo

Honestly, the split infinitive sounds quite bad to me. I guess it's a matter of preferences.


----------



## Agró

To be or *not to* be, that is... -you know what-.


----------



## waggledook

Agró said:


> To be or *not to* be, that is... -you *k*now what-.


----------



## Shea

They're really just the same, it doesn't matter which you use.
Technically you shouldn't split an infinitive as in "to not go" but no one really cares except stuffy, old grammar nazis.

Sometimes split infinitives just sound better, it wouldn't be quite as good an opening to Star Trek if it was "to go boldly..." and not "to boldly go.."


----------



## WizardLuigi

waggledook said:


> I would contend that James T Kirk's words, "To boldly go where no man has gone before", is more memorable than, "to go boldly where no man has gone before".



Regarding to this, I would say that the English quote par excellence (by Shakespeare) is "To be or NOT TO be" (forgetting the fact that quotes shoudn't be used to support anything...)


----------



## Periplo

Shea said:


> They're really just the same, it doesn't matter which you use.
> Technically you shouldn't split an infinitive as in "to not go" but *no one really cares except stuffy, old grammar nazis*.
> 
> Sometimes split infinitives just sound better, it wouldn't be quite as good an opening to Star Trek if it was "to go boldly..." and not "to boldly go.."



Helllouuuu!!!



Periplo said:


> Honestly, the split infinitive sounds quite bad to me. I guess it's a matter of preferences.


----------



## waggledook

Periplo said:


> Honestly, the split infinitive sounds quite bad to me. I guess it's a matter of preferences.



And yet it is used by many of the greatest writers in English. It did go out of favour for a few centuries but re-emerged in common use in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Shakespeare has been quoted on this thread, but he too is guilty (albeit on only one occasion) of splitting an infinitive:

Thy pity may deserve to pitied be (Sonnet 142).

Try to reorder the following words without changing the meaning of the sentence as a whole:

I want you to really hit it this time!

Go on!! I dare you!!


----------



## Periplo

waggledook said:


> And yet it is used by many of the greatest writers in English. It did go out of favour for a few centuries but re-emerged in common use in the 18th and 19th centuries.
> 
> Shakespeare has been quoted on this thread, but he too is guilty (albeit on only one occasion) of splitting an infinitive:
> 
> Thy pity may deserve to pitied be (Sonnet 142).
> 
> Try to reorder the following words without changing the meaning of the sentence as a whole:
> 
> I want you to really hit it this time!
> 
> Go on!! I dare you!!





Ok, I feel a little pushed now.


----------



## NewdestinyX

I've actually never had a grammar enthusiast be able to quote me one 'source' where the 'split infinitive' was ever considered bad/incorrect. I've seen many articles with opinions from foreros - but not a citation from Oxford, Betty Azar, or the other famous grammarians in an authored source.

Grant


----------



## planito

Muchas gracias a todos. Me ha quedado claro, sobre todo con las intervenciones de NewdestinyX y waggledook, cuyo enlace a la otra página Web también me ha parecido muy interesante.

I beg you *not to dare* one another, unless it's to bring us new knowledge.

Buenas tardes desde Córdoba (España).


----------



## NewdestinyX

planito said:


> I beg you *not to **dare* challenge one to each other another, unless it's to bring us new knowledges knowledge.



rojo=se tiene que cambiar a esto
azul=sonará mejor con esto


----------



## waggledook

sorry guys, I had no intention of upsetting anyone with my "daring". It was simply meant in jest!

In any case, I came across the title of some tv show I've never seen before last night which got me thinking. It was "How not to live your life".

It struck me that if we were to split the infinitive the effect could be very different. I might just be imagining things, but bear with me for a moment.

I suspect the intended meaning is to suggest things which are best avoided in life.
If, on the other hand, we were to say, "How to not live your life", I might interpret it more as suggesting how to avoid living your life. Thinking about it a little more though it becomes clear that effective intonation could make both meanings immediately clear. I wonder if any other native speakers might agree with my interpretation.

Perhaps at this point I'm trying too hard....


----------



## miguel64086

Yo tengo otra forma de ver este dilema:
This causes the program *to not* go back to LOOP label

Generalmente, uno diría: "this causes the program to" such and such...
so in this case, the causation is to "not go back".  It would lose meaning if you change the order.

I think the infinitive is split to add emphasis.


----------



## planito

waggledook said:


> sorry guys, I had no intention of upsetting anyone with my "daring". It was simply meant in jest!


 
Sorry waggledook, that was only a joke.



waggledook said:


> I suspect the intended meaning is to suggest things which are best avoided in life.
> 
> If, on the other hand, we were to say, "How to not live your life", I might interpret it more as suggesting how to avoid living your life. Thinking about it a little more though it becomes clear that effective intonation could make both meanings immediately clear. I wonder if any other native speakers might agree with my interpretation.


 
Yo solo puedo decirte que aun no siendo nativo puedo comprender esta duda ya que, ciertamente, parecen tener significados diferentes.

Sin embargo creo que la causa de que tenga dos significados es el uso diferente que hacéis del "split infinitive", de tal manera que en español no podemos hacer ese juego de palabras porque no tenemos "split infinitive".

La traducción al español sería:
"How not to live your life"= "Cómo no debes vivir tu vida" (may be "How you shouldn't live your life")

"How to not live your life"= literally "Cómo no vivir tu vida" 
(Although I've had to edit my post because when I read it again I realized that in Spanish you could understand "cómo no vivir tu vida" as "cómo no debes vivir tu vida", and maybe the reason is that it makes no sense to say "Cómo no vivir tu vida" since it is a contradiction, so we are reluctant to give it that meaning)


----------



## NewdestinyX

Pero,
Mantengo -- y tengo que insistir en que no hay nada de diferencia entre los dos en ningún contexto. La versión con el 'split infinitive' o sin él quiere decir exactamente lo mismo que la otra. 

Buena discusión,
Grant


----------



## planito

NewdestinyX said:


> Pero,
> Mantengo -- y tengo que insistir en que no hay nada de diferencia entre los dos en ningún contexto. La versión con el 'split infinitive' o sin él quiere decir exactamente lo mismo como el otro.


 

La versión con el 'split infinitive' o sin él quieren decir exactamente lo mismo.

La versión con el 'split infinitive' quiere decir exactamente lo mismo que la otra (sin 'split infinitive').

Never lo mismo como but lo mismo que. You can say "the same like" but in spanish it sounds as repetition. The reason is that "como" is an adverb that has inside the meaning of "the same". On the other hand, "que" is simply a conjunction.

Posiblemente la palabra COMO sea la que tiene acepciones más dispares y complicadas del diccionario español.

Un saludo.


----------



## NewdestinyX

planito said:


> La versión con el 'split infinitive' o sin él quieren decir exactamente lo mismo.
> 
> La versión con el 'split infinitive' quiere decir exactamente lo mismo que la otra (sin 'split infinitive').
> 
> Never lo mismo como but lo mismo que. You can say "the same like" but in spanish it sounds as repetition. The reason is that "como" is an adverb that has inside the meaning of "the same". On the other hand, "que" is simply a conjunction.
> 
> Posiblemente la palabra COMO sea la que tiene acepciones más dispares y complicadas del diccionario español.
> 
> Un saludo.


Thanks for the lesson. Se me había olvidado eso.

Grant


----------

