<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 5/29/2019 9:06 AM, mayqel qunen'oS
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2c+AyZ8ybtwOyVdjkMpSSm4cdvUCc8osYFe-VYUeon82=w@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="auto">ok, now I understand what "to split infinitives"
is in english.
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">but how could I do that in klingon (even if I
wanted to) ?</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Klingon doesn't have infinitives, so you can't split one.</p>
<p>A verb is called <i>finite</i> if it has a subject. The subject
might be elided in some languages, but it's still identifiable.</p>
<p>An infinitive is a verb that has no subject. I don't mean an
indefinite subject like Klingon <b>-lu'</b> gives, but actually
no subject. A <i>mission to explore</i> has the verb <i>to
explore</i> without a subject: no one is the subject of the
exploring.</p>
<p>In English we usually conjugate infinitives with <i>to</i> in
front of them. The full infinitive form is not just <i>explore;</i>
it's <i>to explore.</i></p>
<p>Long ago, English grammarians started analyzing English according
to the rules of Latin, which was largely believed to be a nearly
perfectly formed language. For instance, Latin noun cases would be
applied to English nouns, even though English nouns rarely exhibit
case. The rules of good grammar, they claimed, must obey the rules
of Latin.</p>
<p>Latin verbs have their own infinitive conjugations. You don't add
anything like a <i>to</i> to the word. The Latin for the present
tense <i>to read,</i> for instance is <i>legere</i><i>.</i>
Since it's a single word, there's no way you could possibly put,
say, an adverb <i>inside</i> the verb. It has to go before or
after. But in English, you CAN put an adverb between <i>to</i>
and <i>read: to quickly read.</i></p>
<p>Nonono! shouted the grammarians. Latin's grammar is perfect, so
you must be doing it wrong. Don't split infinitives with other
words! Make English work the same as Latin!</p>
<p>This argument is nonsense. English quite happily splits
infinitives, and there are times when it is preferable to do so. <i>To
boldly go</i> sounds much more dramatic than <i>to go boldly</i>
or <i>boldly to go.</i></p>
<p>Another such Latin-is-perfect rule is the rule that you can't end
a sentence with a preposition. Of course you can end a sentence
with a preposition.</p>
<p>But even today you'll still find English teachers and grammarians
who insist that you mustn't split infinitives or end sentences
with prepositions, or any number of other rules that were imposed
unnaturally on the language by overzealous grammarians with
platforms.</p>
<p>Back to Klingon. It has no infinitive conjugation. Once in a
while we'll use a purpose clause in an infinitive way (e.g., <b>ghojmeH
taj</b><i> knife for learning,</i> where the verb has no
subject, explicit or implied), but there is no special form of the
verb to do this and no unique construction that requires a verb be
infinitive.</p>
<p>So even if you WERE worried about splitting infinitives in
Klingon, it has no infinitives for you to split.<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>