Split Infinitives

How about:

""We've really gotta go all out from the getgo, if we're gonna make the playoffs this year."

Almost the same meaning, but there's no split infinitive here, so I had to write it the original way in my earlier post.

>>How about:

""We've really gotta go all out from the getgo, if we're gonna make the playoffs this year."

Almost the same meaning, but there's no split infinitive here, so I had to write it the original way in my earlier post.<<

That's closer, but still a bit different to me at least, as "really" is intensifying "got to" here and not "go" - that is, what is being emphasized is the necessity of "going all out", and not the degree of "going all out" that is necessary.

My question is: are split infinitives always ok? For example, in the following sentences, I think not splitting sounds better. What do you think?

It is important not to insist too much on that.
It is important to not insist too much on that. (split version)

It is important not to keep making this stupid mistake.
It is important to not keep making this stupid mistake. (split version)

Try not to look up every word, and see if you understand anyway.
Try to not look up every word, and see if you understand anyway. (split version)

They're always wrong, and incorrect. I notice that in America it is less of a concern, but I hate it here in Britain

>>My question is: are split infinitives always ok? For example, in the following sentences, I think not splitting sounds better. What do you think?

It is important not to insist too much on that.
It is important to not insist too much on that. (split version)

It is important not to keep making this stupid mistake.
It is important to not keep making this stupid mistake. (split version)

Try not to look up every word, and see if you understand anyway.
Try to not look up every word, and see if you understand anyway. (split version)<<

Of all these examples above, the normal uses here are those with "to not", with those using "not to" sounding quite conservative. In particular "try not to" comes off to me as being very conservative and formal due to "to" being separated from the finite verb "try" (even though the restriction upon "to" being separated from the finite verb is weaker in this case than in cases involving more strongly grammaticalized quasimodals such as "have to").

<<My question is: are split infinitives always ok? For example, in the following sentences, I think not splitting sounds better. What do you think?

It is important not to insist too much on that.
It is important to not insist too much on that. (split version)

It is important not to keep making this stupid mistake.
It is important to not keep making this stupid mistake. (split version)

Try not to look up every word, and see if you understand anyway.
Try to not look up every word, and see if you understand anyway. (split version)<<

Around here, I'd say that the pairs here are roughly the same in acceptabliity. But I'm a lot older than Travis (I think), so maybe I'm just an old fuddy-duddy.

I would not be surprised at all if age were the factor here, as the stricter restrictions on word order with respect to adverb placement and the positioning of "to" seem to be more typical of more progressive NAE dialects and younger speakers thereof than more conservative ones and older speakers thereof. In more conservative NAE it seems that the restriction primarily applies to a limited number of highly grammaticalized quasimodals, whereas in more progressive NAE it is far more general (especially with respect to normal realization as opposed to perception of grammaticality, which generally tends to be somewhat more permissive overall with respect to such).

Well, I'm 15 and I find it very very annoying, incorrect and common!

>>Well, I'm 15 and I find it very very annoying, incorrect and common!<<

Obviously you have taken the prescriptivist types too seriously, it seems...

<<Well, I'm 15 and I find it very very annoying, incorrect and common! >>

How can it be incorrect, if it's common? I suppose it can still be annoying, though. Consider the following sentences, which are fast becoming correct (but are still annoying):

"Today is more hot than yesterday." [instead of hotter]

" We insist that all attendees are in their seats prior to 9:00AM." [instead of be]

>>How can it be incorrect, if it's common? I suppose it can still be annoying, though. Consider the following sentences, which are fast becoming correct (but are still annoying):

"Today is more hot than yesterday." [instead of hotter]

" We insist that all attendees are in their seats prior to 9:00AM." [instead of be]<<

I think Caspian was using the particular English English derisive sense of "common" as meaning "lower class" which has been largely lost in everyday spoken NAE, not the normal usage found today in at least NAE meaning "widespread" and "frequently encountered".

Yes, Travis, I was! Sorry, I didn't know it was sparse where you are.

Yes, those annoy me as well - especially the lack of the subjunctive.

>>How can it be incorrect, if it's common? I suppose it can still be annoying, though. Consider the following sentences, which are fast becoming correct (but are still annoying):

"Today is more hot than yesterday." [instead of hotter]

" We insist that all attendees are in their seats prior to 9:00AM." [instead of be]<<

On that note, I do note that such forms do intuitively annoy me a bit, not because of any prescriptivist views on my part but rather because they just rub me the wrong way with respect to my intuitive sense of grammaticality (which is normally in reference to my own dialect and the local variety of GA). Of course, an important factor here is that my dialect is one that largely conserves the subjunctive, as modern English dialects go, so I even find the non-use of the subjunctive in otherwise quite formal usage in English Engilsh to be rather strange subjectively (even though I know that such is because many if not most English English dialects have largely lost the subjunctive altogether).

"How can it be incorrect, if it's common? I suppose it can still be annoying, though. Consider the following sentences, which are fast becoming correct (but are still annoying):

'Today is more hot than yesterday.' [instead of hotter]

'We insist that all attendees are in their seats prior to 9:00AM.' [instead of be]'"

Further to Travis's comments, this usage annoys you because it doesn't "sound right"; you are accustomed to hearing the subjunctive verb form here.

But, if, as its use becomes more prevalent, it becomes the only form you are accustomed to, then it does not sound wrong (because it is not being mentally "compared" to another form) and is no longer annoying.

This is true of all new usages that successfully establish themselves in the language. Otherwise languages would not evolve.

<<'Today is more hot than yesterday.' [instead of hotter]

'We insist that all attendees are in their seats prior to 9:00AM.' [instead of be]'"
>>

The above are fast becoming correct???--where? not in my neck of the woods.

Not only is the second sentence grammatically incorrect, but BOTH sounds weird to me. And I am not a prescriptivist at all.