Place the adverb before or after “to”?Adverb position in perfect tensesWhy would you call “before” a...
Who won a Game of Bar Dice?
Is there a DSLR/mirorless camera with minimal options like a classic, simple SLR?
The Frozen Wastes
Can a human be transformed into a Mind Flayer?
Draw a line with an isolated and accumulation point in mathbb{R}
What are neighboring ports?
What differences exist between adamantine and adamantite in all editions of D&D?
Why is long-term living in Almost-Earth causing severe health problems?
What is the meaning of the Russian idiom "to taste tuna" ("отведать тунца")?
How creative should the DM let an artificer be in terms of what they can build?
Is this a bug in plotting step functions?
First sign that you should look for another job?
Why am I getting a strange double quote (“) in Open Office instead of the ordinary one (")?
Are polynomials with the same roots identical?
Why can I traceroute to this IP address, but not ping?
I have a problematic assistant manager, but I can't fire him
UTC timestamp format for launch vehicles
Is there a set of positive integers of density 1 which contains no infinite arithmetic progression?
How can one's career as a reviewer be ended?
Increase speed altering column on large table to NON NULL
How do free-speech protections in the United States apply in public to corporate misrepresentations?
Why did Intel abandon unified CPU cache?
Why Does Mama Coco Look Old After Going to the Other World?
C++ How to properly express two derived class functions with the same implementation
Place the adverb before or after “to”?
Adverb position in perfect tensesWhy would you call “before” a preposition when it precedes a clause?Is there a difference between “Who necessarily do not exist” or “who do not exist necessarily”?Adverb placement, before or after the verbOn vs in + placeWhich is more suitable? from or of?How to use dates with from and toApproach to vs. approach for“provide X to someone” vs “provide X for someone”
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
Take for instance these two sentences:
[...] to confirm to clients that they are eating food free from contaminants and disease-causing bacteria, but also to identify the properties of the dishes.
[...] to confirm to clients that they are eating food free from contaminants and disease-causing bacteria, but to also identify the properties of the dishes.
Which of the above sentences is using correct grammar?
prepositions adverb-position
asked 8 hours ago
Samuel FranciscoSamuel Francisco
112
New contributor
Samuel Francisco is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
Take for instance these two sentences:
[...] to confirm to clients that they are eating food free from contaminants and disease-causing bacteria, but also to identify the properties of the dishes.
[...] to confirm to clients that they are eating food free from contaminants and disease-causing bacteria, but to also identify the properties of the dishes.
Which of the above sentences is using correct grammar?
prepositions adverb-position
asked 8 hours ago
Samuel FranciscoSamuel Francisco
112
New contributor
Samuel Francisco is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
i know you didn't ask this, but the "that" is unnecessary.
– mike65535
8 hours ago
1
Pedants used to object to the Star Trek introduction ... "to boldly go where no man has gone before". Eventually they changed "no man" to "no one". But they didn't get rid of the split infinitive.
– GEdgar
6 hours ago
add a comment |
Take for instance these two sentences:
[...] to confirm to clients that they are eating food free from contaminants and disease-causing bacteria, but also to identify the properties of the dishes.
[...] to confirm to clients that they are eating food free from contaminants and disease-causing bacteria, but to also identify the properties of the dishes.
Which of the above sentences is using correct grammar?
prepositions adverb-position
asked 8 hours ago
Samuel FranciscoSamuel Francisco
112
New contributor
Samuel Francisco is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Take for instance these two sentences:
[...] to confirm to clients that they are eating food free from contaminants and disease-causing bacteria, but also to identify the properties of the dishes.
[...] to confirm to clients that they are eating food free from contaminants and disease-causing bacteria, but to also identify the properties of the dishes.
Which of the above sentences is using correct grammar?
prepositions adverb-position
prepositions adverb-position
asked 8 hours ago
Samuel FranciscoSamuel Francisco
112
New contributor
Samuel Francisco is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 8 hours ago
Samuel FranciscoSamuel Francisco
112
New contributor
Samuel Francisco is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 8 hours ago
Samuel FranciscoSamuel Francisco
112
New contributor
Samuel Francisco is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 8 hours ago
Samuel FranciscoSamuel Francisco
112
asked 8 hours ago
Samuel FranciscoSamuel Francisco
112
112
New contributor
Samuel Francisco is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Samuel Francisco is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
i know you didn't ask this, but the "that" is unnecessary.
– mike65535
8 hours ago
1
Pedants used to object to the Star Trek introduction ... "to boldly go where no man has gone before". Eventually they changed "no man" to "no one". But they didn't get rid of the split infinitive.
– GEdgar
6 hours ago
add a comment |
i know you didn't ask this, but the "that" is unnecessary.
– mike65535
8 hours ago
1
Pedants used to object to the Star Trek introduction ... "to boldly go where no man has gone before". Eventually they changed "no man" to "no one". But they didn't get rid of the split infinitive.
– GEdgar
6 hours ago
i know you didn't ask this, but the "that" is unnecessary.
– mike65535
8 hours ago
i know you didn't ask this, but the "that" is unnecessary.
– mike65535
8 hours ago
1
1
Pedants used to object to the Star Trek introduction ... "to boldly go where no man has gone before". Eventually they changed "no man" to "no one". But they didn't get rid of the split infinitive.
– GEdgar
6 hours ago
Pedants used to object to the Star Trek introduction ... "to boldly go where no man has gone before". Eventually they changed "no man" to "no one". But they didn't get rid of the split infinitive.
– GEdgar
6 hours ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
This depends on how formal you wish to be. By the content it sounds like you wish to be relatively formal.
The construction ''to identify'' is an infinitive in English. Traditional orthodoxy has it that infinitives should not be split, which is to say that no adverb should be interposed between ''to'' and the verb form (in this case ``identify''). If you are concerned about grammatical niceties it's probably best to be on the safe side and to go with your first formulation ''also to identify''. That is also the sentence that rings more naturally to my ears.
However, the prohibition on split infinitives doesn't always follow oral usage and there are contexts where it will read better to split the infinitive. My own preference would generally be to split the infinitive here if the only alternative sounds forced or unnatural. That said, when I'm writing formal papers I will generally look for a work-around rather as far as possible in preference to infinitive-splitting.
In your example ''but to also identify the properties of the dishes'' not only splits the infinitive but seems awkward to me, so I would strongly recommend the first sentence. The key is that, in my opinion, this is not an inviolable grammatical rule unless you are in a very particular context.
answered 7 hours ago
MarmitrobMarmitrob
413
New contributor
Marmitrob is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
Phonetically, but also to is much easier than but to also, because you've got two vowels together in the last one, while every syllable in the first one has a consonant on either side. That makes it trip off the tongue more easily, without any ugly gloʔʔal stops.
– John Lawler
5 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Samuel Francisco is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f501147%2fplace-the-adverb-before-or-after-to%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
This depends on how formal you wish to be. By the content it sounds like you wish to be relatively formal.
The construction ''to identify'' is an infinitive in English. Traditional orthodoxy has it that infinitives should not be split, which is to say that no adverb should be interposed between ''to'' and the verb form (in this case ``identify''). If you are concerned about grammatical niceties it's probably best to be on the safe side and to go with your first formulation ''also to identify''. That is also the sentence that rings more naturally to my ears.
However, the prohibition on split infinitives doesn't always follow oral usage and there are contexts where it will read better to split the infinitive. My own preference would generally be to split the infinitive here if the only alternative sounds forced or unnatural. That said, when I'm writing formal papers I will generally look for a work-around rather as far as possible in preference to infinitive-splitting.
In your example ''but to also identify the properties of the dishes'' not only splits the infinitive but seems awkward to me, so I would strongly recommend the first sentence. The key is that, in my opinion, this is not an inviolable grammatical rule unless you are in a very particular context.
answered 7 hours ago
MarmitrobMarmitrob
413
New contributor
Marmitrob is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
Phonetically, but also to is much easier than but to also, because you've got two vowels together in the last one, while every syllable in the first one has a consonant on either side. That makes it trip off the tongue more easily, without any ugly gloʔʔal stops.
– John Lawler
5 hours ago
add a comment |
This depends on how formal you wish to be. By the content it sounds like you wish to be relatively formal.
The construction ''to identify'' is an infinitive in English. Traditional orthodoxy has it that infinitives should not be split, which is to say that no adverb should be interposed between ''to'' and the verb form (in this case ``identify''). If you are concerned about grammatical niceties it's probably best to be on the safe side and to go with your first formulation ''also to identify''. That is also the sentence that rings more naturally to my ears.
However, the prohibition on split infinitives doesn't always follow oral usage and there are contexts where it will read better to split the infinitive. My own preference would generally be to split the infinitive here if the only alternative sounds forced or unnatural. That said, when I'm writing formal papers I will generally look for a work-around rather as far as possible in preference to infinitive-splitting.
In your example ''but to also identify the properties of the dishes'' not only splits the infinitive but seems awkward to me, so I would strongly recommend the first sentence. The key is that, in my opinion, this is not an inviolable grammatical rule unless you are in a very particular context.
answered 7 hours ago
MarmitrobMarmitrob
413
New contributor
Marmitrob is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
Phonetically, but also to is much easier than but to also, because you've got two vowels together in the last one, while every syllable in the first one has a consonant on either side. That makes it trip off the tongue more easily, without any ugly gloʔʔal stops.
– John Lawler
5 hours ago
add a comment |
This depends on how formal you wish to be. By the content it sounds like you wish to be relatively formal.
The construction ''to identify'' is an infinitive in English. Traditional orthodoxy has it that infinitives should not be split, which is to say that no adverb should be interposed between ''to'' and the verb form (in this case ``identify''). If you are concerned about grammatical niceties it's probably best to be on the safe side and to go with your first formulation ''also to identify''. That is also the sentence that rings more naturally to my ears.
However, the prohibition on split infinitives doesn't always follow oral usage and there are contexts where it will read better to split the infinitive. My own preference would generally be to split the infinitive here if the only alternative sounds forced or unnatural. That said, when I'm writing formal papers I will generally look for a work-around rather as far as possible in preference to infinitive-splitting.
In your example ''but to also identify the properties of the dishes'' not only splits the infinitive but seems awkward to me, so I would strongly recommend the first sentence. The key is that, in my opinion, this is not an inviolable grammatical rule unless you are in a very particular context.
answered 7 hours ago
MarmitrobMarmitrob
413
New contributor
Marmitrob is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
This depends on how formal you wish to be. By the content it sounds like you wish to be relatively formal.
The construction ''to identify'' is an infinitive in English. Traditional orthodoxy has it that infinitives should not be split, which is to say that no adverb should be interposed between ''to'' and the verb form (in this case ``identify''). If you are concerned about grammatical niceties it's probably best to be on the safe side and to go with your first formulation ''also to identify''. That is also the sentence that rings more naturally to my ears.
However, the prohibition on split infinitives doesn't always follow oral usage and there are contexts where it will read better to split the infinitive. My own preference would generally be to split the infinitive here if the only alternative sounds forced or unnatural. That said, when I'm writing formal papers I will generally look for a work-around rather as far as possible in preference to infinitive-splitting.
In your example ''but to also identify the properties of the dishes'' not only splits the infinitive but seems awkward to me, so I would strongly recommend the first sentence. The key is that, in my opinion, this is not an inviolable grammatical rule unless you are in a very particular context.
answered 7 hours ago
MarmitrobMarmitrob
413
New contributor
Marmitrob is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 7 hours ago
MarmitrobMarmitrob
413
New contributor
Marmitrob is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 7 hours ago
MarmitrobMarmitrob
413
answered 7 hours ago
MarmitrobMarmitrob
413
413
New contributor
Marmitrob is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Marmitrob is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
Phonetically, but also to is much easier than but to also, because you've got two vowels together in the last one, while every syllable in the first one has a consonant on either side. That makes it trip off the tongue more easily, without any ugly gloʔʔal stops.
– John Lawler
5 hours ago
add a comment |
1
Phonetically, but also to is much easier than but to also, because you've got two vowels together in the last one, while every syllable in the first one has a consonant on either side. That makes it trip off the tongue more easily, without any ugly gloʔʔal stops.
– John Lawler
5 hours ago
1
1
Phonetically, but also to is much easier than but to also, because you've got two vowels together in the last one, while every syllable in the first one has a consonant on either side. That makes it trip off the tongue more easily, without any ugly gloʔʔal stops.
– John Lawler
5 hours ago
Phonetically, but also to is much easier than but to also, because you've got two vowels together in the last one, while every syllable in the first one has a consonant on either side. That makes it trip off the tongue more easily, without any ugly gloʔʔal stops.
– John Lawler
5 hours ago
add a comment |
Samuel Francisco is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Samuel Francisco is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Samuel Francisco is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Samuel Francisco is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f501147%2fplace-the-adverb-before-or-after-to%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
i know you didn't ask this, but the "that" is unnecessary.
– mike65535
8 hours ago
1
Pedants used to object to the Star Trek introduction ... "to boldly go where no man has gone before". Eventually they changed "no man" to "no one". But they didn't get rid of the split infinitive.
– GEdgar
6 hours ago