If splitting the infinitive is wrong, how come it feels so right?

Because its not wrong. Some shitter in the 1700's decided that because you can't do it in latin you can't do it in English. You do it all the time in speech because its natural and mutually intelligible with any other English speaker.

Beautiful, senpai. Not to derail, but look at how they used the preposition, also. That always bothered me.
>to boldly go where no man has gone before
instead of
>to boldly go where no man has gone previously
or
>to boldly go where no man has previously gone
I am so brainwashed to use prepositions inappropriately that the corrected version sounds clunky to me, though it is a more precise version. I have compiled close to thirty common colloquialisms that use prepositions outside of prepositional phrases. I will launch a thread on this topic when I have refined my argument a bit regarding how this is chipping at the color of the language. Orwell predicted this well, though the modes are different from the Newspeak that he predicted.

And it was decided purely due to phonetic aesthetics? For example
"it feels so right?"
"'so' in that sentence means 'much' or 'a lot' or 'very'."

But it is wrong to say: "It feels much right"

(there is no real reason that is wrong, besides arbitrary conditioning? Or is there some deep natural level that makes it wrong? Like how/why the a/an distinction was made?

If children were taught "It feels much right" and "do you want a apple" were acceptable, would it be? Or would a strong natural inclination after much use urk and eek itself out into a rule?)

Even though very = much = a lot

Which makes very much quite redundant, and very much a lot quite very much a lot redundant

>I have compiled close to thirty common colloquialisms that use prepositions outside of prepositional phrases.
post a few examples here please if you dont mind.

The differences you highlight is the difference between beauty/poetry/rhythm/texture/balance/form/syllable/time and .... idk....

The meaning is equivelent, the rules are arbitrary, the meaning is contained in the words:

3+2= 5
2+3= 5
2+2+1=5
1+1+3=5
3+3-1=5

>to boldly go where no man has gone before
Is the best version do to smooth flow, temporal balance, distant alliterations, the word previously is a mouth full in that statement.

There are other synonyms for before and previously too, and you can plug them in, just like my number example. Before means previously. Not more precise.

I'm assuming you've never studied another language. In english our infinitive form of a verb is "to [present 1st person form]", with the exception of "to be". It's called splitting the infinitive because you put the adverb between the two parts of the infinitive. This is perfectly fine english, and the only reason it was introduced was because 19th century people were retarded, but it is definitely a split infinitive and carries a different meaning than the normal "to go boldly".

though to correct: it doesnt make it redundant: because its implying an increase of magnitude:

I have much marbles, 30

I have very much marbles, 70

I have very much a lot of marbles, 200

itt fucking idiots

What is the difference in meaning between:

to go boldly

and

to boldly go

Sorry, I was misinformed. In my head I was hearing the stresses so that the former was stressing the adverb modifying the verb, and the other was using it as an adjective on the subject doing the going, just in a different formation. There isn't any difference between the two I'm aware of.

>Not more precise.
I meant more precisely with reference to following the rules regarding use of prepositions withing their phrases. I am the sperg that benefits from proper use of prepositions. When people use them outside of their phrases, I anticipate the phrase and lose some level of comprehension. Give me a moment to list a few prepositions. My biggest complaint is when one of these broken phrases gets used for multiple purposes. If an additional word is neglected then the meaning can be left totally ambiguous because the error correction that is built into the language is not present.

>following the rules regarding use of prepositions withing their phrases. I am the sperg that benefits from proper use of prepositions. When people use them outside of their phrases, I anticipate the phrase and lose some level of comprehension. Give me a moment to list a few prepositions. My biggest complaint is when one of these broken phrases gets used for multiple purposes.
yea thats why I prefaced my response by saying there is beauty/poetry with language and there is 'made up sperg rules'

You see, it's just like sucking cock.

there is manual and logic and scientific writing and there is creative writing. Stories/tv shows may include the latter

>pick up
>meaning alternately "to lift", "to retrieve", or to "provide transportation" - depending on context

>showed up
>meaning alternately "arrived" or "bested" - depending on context

>make up
>meaning alternately "compensate" or "fabricate" - depending on context

I am planning an analysis of the list, once completed, to develop a defense of the proper use of prepositions. I am fully prepared to get flamed for it by the plebs.

>'made up sperg rules'
I also use radio communications, so I appreciate the error correction that proper grammar encodes. There is benefit to proper use.

so your problem is the concept of homographs?

I didnt say there wasnt. But I thought the initial discussion was: What is improper about splitting the infinitive?

And what is improper about:
To boldy go where no man has gone before?

There is a place no man has gone before, boldly go there.

>there is manual and logic and scientific writing and there is creative writing. Stories/tv shows may include the latter
I understand entirely. I wrote technical documents professionally for several years because I was in the right place at the right time and my natural inclinations were appreciated by a test engineering department at a manufacturing facility. I have, however, also written lyrics for music and creative non-fiction regarding events that I personally witnessed. Overall, I find the most value in what I was taught formally to be correct.

"To boldy go where no man has gone before?"

if anything I would think one could argue the 'before' is redundant.

To boldy go where no man has gone

implies, contains, the concept of 'before', the before is an artistic flourish if anything

>But I thought the initial discussion was:
You are absolutely correct. I sidebarred. If I am derailing the thread then I will BTFO.

>implies, contains, the concept of 'before', the before is an artistic flourish if anything
As a follower of Strunk, I totally agree.

well its fine, because we assume OP was a bait troll anyway, trying to drum up any discusson semi related to the topic, and if your intrigue is educational and interesting and cousinally related then its fine by me. I just didnt exactly grasp what exactly you were getting at, besides the homographs, multiple meanings depending on context, which I think would be quite rare: but maybe if anything would be relevant and present in your radio activities considering the possibilities of tuning in in the middle of a sentence or static disrupting sentences and only catching some words here and there

I dont think its bad though...

To boldly go where no man has gone...

We can never know if we prefer the before tacked on the end solely because we are conditionedly used to it or because it naturally meterically suggests it: as a balanced harmonic melodic musical phrase

>I dont think its bad though...
I was agreeing with you for the reasons you state. Frankly, I prefer your version over mine.

>which I think would be quite rare
Guess again. Make a conscious effort to notice this and you will see that we are swimming in it.