Quote:That delayed Benko looks suspiciously like the Blumenfeld (which, see). Don't you just love the way English follows Latin forms even when they don't make any sense?! It took almost five hundred years for us to realise that the English infinitive is formed by two words, not one. That realization means that "to boldly go" is at least as correct as "to go boldly". Ok, enough ramblings on English grammar. School starts tomorrow, can't you tell? ???
Assuming that the King's English is somewhat related to the King's Indian, I will rejoin you on the subject of English grammar.
I am somewhat impatient with notions of correctness in English, since there are so many registers of English speech, not to mention regional variants. Correctness is a fine notion for non-English-speakers, but otherwise "correct English" is a Victorian conception that should give way to
effective, and the latter, of course, depends on the audience.
Here in central Ohio, nobody says "The barn needs
to be painted" or "The lawn needs
to be mown." We say, "The barn
needs painted" and, "The lawn
needs mowed". Anything else would sound funny. I'm not sure, but I think that this may echo a German construction -- there was a big ethnic German immigration here, complete with German-language newspapers, German churches and even German street names, but this culture was lost after anti-German riots in 1917.
Having said all that, I do think that the split infinitive has a clumsy sound. "To boldly go" -- blah! If the intention is to emphasize "boldly,"
Boldly to go is much more resonant, and a much better utterance for a Star Captain!