NocturnalLogic

[Camel]

├───[linux users]
    ├───[need to]:
        ├───give up the animosity
        ├───[AND]
        ├───save their hatred

How's that?

The 'to' comes from the infinitive form of 'give;' you've split it.

Way to split iago's infinitive.

[iago]

├───[linux users]
    ├───[need to]:
        ├───give up the animosity
        ├───[AND]
        ├───save their hatred

How's that?

Bad, it doesn't work like that. "give" and "save" are both verbs, which need to be preceded by "to".

[Newby]

In my case, they're suggestions or commands.

"You need to clean the dishes, vacuum the floor, and mow the lawn."

Nobody says "you need to clean the dishes, to vacuum the floor, and to mow the lawn."

[Camel]

In my case, they're suggestions or commands.

"You need to clean the dishes, vacuum the floor, and mow the lawn."

Nobody says "you need to clean the dishes, to vacuum the floor, and to mow the lawn."

In writing, you should! The spoken word often breaks rules that you should otherwise follow.

[edit] Also, that sentence is bad, as the semicolon breaks the link to need.

[edit2] "to need" is not the infinitive form in edit1, where as "to clean" is the infinitive form in your sentence.

[Newby]

I write like I speak. It works out pretty well, usually; I never got anything less than an A+ on non-book-based writing assignments.

But yeah, "to" should, in theory, go before each of the verbs. :P

[Newby]

[edit] Also, that sentence is bad, as the semicolon breaks the link to need.

[edit2] "to need" is not the infinitive form in edit1, where as "to clean" is the infinitive form in your sentence.

??? Where is a semicolon?

[Camel]

I write like I speak. It works out pretty well, usually; I never got anything less than an A+ on non-book-based writing assignments.

But yeah, "to" should, in theory, go before each of the verbs. :P

Actually, you write as you speak! ;)

Only in the infinitive forms. That is, when the verb is not the action that the subject is taking.

[Newby]

Only in the infinitive forms. That is, when the verb is not the action that the subject is taking.

It was implied that I was talking about the infinitive form of the verbs. At least, I knew I was talking about them. :P

[Camel]

??? Where is a semicolon?

You'll never believe this, but there's actually a spec of dust on my laptop screen that lines up perfectly with the first comma in this sentence to form a semicolon:

Nobody says "you need to clean the dishes, to vacuum the floor, and to mow the lawn."

[Ender]

├───[linux users]
    ├───[need to]:
        ├───give up the animosity
        ├───[AND]
        ├───save their hatred

How's that?

Bad, it doesn't work like that. "give" and "save" are both verbs, which need to be preceded by "to".

Nah, the jury's out on this one. I think most authorities are leaning towards allowing the split infinitive, if used properly, since it can often eliminate confusion in sentences.

Your sentence, "Linux users need to give up the animosity and save their hatred" is okay grammar IMO. Grammar should and tends to have a logical basis, not a pedantic one, and if the reader doesn't have to expend any more energy on understanding the sentence then it should be fine.

[rabbit]

I write like I speak. It works out pretty well, usually; I never got anything less than an A+ on non-book-based writing assignments.

But yeah, "to" should, in theory, go before each of the verbs. :P

Actually, you write as you speak! ;)

Only in the infinitive forms. That is, when the verb is not the action that the subject is taking.

Like works well in that situation, since he probably doesn't type exactly the same as he talks (I know I don't).

[Hitmen]

wtf is all this english shit dont we have an off topic forum

[Ender]

wtf is all this english shit dont we have an off topic forum

Stop being a troll.

[Camel]

Nah, the jury's out on this one. I think most authorities are leaning towards allowing the split infinitive, if used properly, since it can often eliminate confusion in sentences.

Your sentence, "Linux users need to give up the animosity and save their hatred" is okay grammar IMO. Grammar should and tends to have a logical basis, not a pedantic one, and if the reader doesn't have to expend any more energy on understanding the sentence then it should be fine.

It's not a split infinitive; that was a joke that isn't all that funny anyways, but won't make any sense unless you actually know what a split infinitive is. "To boldly go where no one has gone before" is an example where the word 'boldly' splits the infinitve 'to go;' it's done exclusively for emphasis.

I tend to agree that grammar is focused on logic, but this is not purely academic. The reader for which Grammar is designed is the most naive fluent reader. In the above example, the split infinitive is poor grammar because it will trick a naive reader in to thinking the verb is 'to bodly;' an irrecoverable mistake. It's important to follow the rules when you're writing, because it's not a trivial operation for the reader to say "what did you mean by that?"

Grammatically, iago's sentence makes no sense without the second 'to,' as it changes the tense of the second phrase, after a rather confusing shuffle. To a native speaker, it's intuitively obvious what the intention was. Someone who is not a native speaker, even if they are fluent, is apt to read the sentence literally and become confused.

I write like I speak.

Actually, you write as you speak! ;)

Like works well in that situation, since he probably doesn't type exactly the same as he talks (I know I don't).

Wrong. It's a simile. You can't put the word like there; its grammatically invalid.

[Ender]

Linux users need to give up the animosity and save their hatred

The emboldened words split "save" from "to", hence split infinitive. (Though you may more generally be addressing parallel construction.)

Analogously, do you think people should write, "I will go outside and I will play basketball" versus "I will go outside and play basketball"? The former sentence has a slightly different meaning, after all.