Food & Drink1 min ago
Which Is Correct...?
13 Answers
Good Morning Across The Channel!
I am trying to clear something here.
Is it...
1. - Do you see each other often?
or
2. - Do you often see each other?
I thought the first version is correct, a teacher said the first is American, therefore "wrong" (well.......), while 2. is correct.
Can you help, please?
Thanks and have a nice Sunday, Helena
I am trying to clear something here.
Is it...
1. - Do you see each other often?
or
2. - Do you often see each other?
I thought the first version is correct, a teacher said the first is American, therefore "wrong" (well.......), while 2. is correct.
Can you help, please?
Thanks and have a nice Sunday, Helena
Answers
1 to 13 of 13
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ChasonetteH. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Purists and pedants detest 'split infinitives', claiming that they aren't 'proper English'.
For example, the introduction to 'Star Trek' infuriated many people by using the phrase "to boldly go". They pointed out that placing a word between 'to' and 'go' was splitting the infinitive form of the verb 'to go', which traditional textbooks state should never be done.
Similarly, purists would argue that 'to see' (or 'I see','you see', 'he sees', etc) must not be 'split' by including a central word. Hence (according to the purists) "you often see" is incorrect (because of the split infinitive).
However recently published guides to the use of English (including that followed by The Times journalists) argue that 'splitting infinitives' is perfectly acceptable.
So the answer to your question may well depend upon whether you're a 'traditionalist' or a 'modernist'. Unlike French, which has rules laid down by the 'Académie française', there is no official body which lays down formal rules for English. Everyone is free to adopt whichever convention suits them
(and, of course, their readers!).
Chris
For example, the introduction to 'Star Trek' infuriated many people by using the phrase "to boldly go". They pointed out that placing a word between 'to' and 'go' was splitting the infinitive form of the verb 'to go', which traditional textbooks state should never be done.
Similarly, purists would argue that 'to see' (or 'I see','you see', 'he sees', etc) must not be 'split' by including a central word. Hence (according to the purists) "you often see" is incorrect (because of the split infinitive).
However recently published guides to the use of English (including that followed by The Times journalists) argue that 'splitting infinitives' is perfectly acceptable.
So the answer to your question may well depend upon whether you're a 'traditionalist' or a 'modernist'. Unlike French, which has rules laid down by the 'Académie française', there is no official body which lays down formal rules for English. Everyone is free to adopt whichever convention suits them
(and, of course, their readers!).
Chris
This teacher prefers 2, yet pedants objected to the intrusive adverb, be it in the infinitive or not. What was the reason for this supposed rule ? That breaking it makes for misunderstanding, or that the result looks or sounds ugly?
Two examples of how nuance, emphasis, meaning are changed by the position of the adverb:
" I happily overestimate" and "I overestimate happily" convey different meanings; the nuance of the first is that overestimating ,itself, is something I am proud of, and certainly happy about, whereas "I overestimate happily" conveys no more than that I'm happy while I'm doing it.
The intrusive adverb brings emphasis: "I boldly go" is drawing attention to me as ' I am bold and I am going', emphasising my boldness; but " I go boldly" lessens that as "I am going and in a bold manner".
Sometimes it just sounds better to have the adverb in the middle, it 'scans' better, sometimes it doesn't
And 'Do you come here often?' has been the cliched polite introduction to small talk for a very long time. It has not been 'Do you often come here?', perhaps because that puts too much emphasis on 'you' and 'often', as though the enquiry was about 'your' eccentric or odd behaviour in attending frequently!
Two examples of how nuance, emphasis, meaning are changed by the position of the adverb:
" I happily overestimate" and "I overestimate happily" convey different meanings; the nuance of the first is that overestimating ,itself, is something I am proud of, and certainly happy about, whereas "I overestimate happily" conveys no more than that I'm happy while I'm doing it.
The intrusive adverb brings emphasis: "I boldly go" is drawing attention to me as ' I am bold and I am going', emphasising my boldness; but " I go boldly" lessens that as "I am going and in a bold manner".
Sometimes it just sounds better to have the adverb in the middle, it 'scans' better, sometimes it doesn't
And 'Do you come here often?' has been the cliched polite introduction to small talk for a very long time. It has not been 'Do you often come here?', perhaps because that puts too much emphasis on 'you' and 'often', as though the enquiry was about 'your' eccentric or odd behaviour in attending frequently!
I suppose a lot depends upon where you put the comma also. (Or should that be, It also depends............etc?)
Such as that age-old song, 'What is this thing called love?'
What is this thing called,love?
What, is this thing called love?
What is this, thing called love?
What is this thing, called love?
And so on.
Such as that age-old song, 'What is this thing called love?'
What is this thing called,love?
What, is this thing called love?
What is this, thing called love?
What is this thing, called love?
And so on.
1 to 13 of 13
