To be a transitive verb ; or not to be a verb ?To instead be, yes, a split infinitive, and an intransitive verbal, but can I do that ;is the real question?
To answer it, one must determine what the predicate is, and if the semantic meaning and interpretation of emperia, experience,through aisthetia,perceived things, determines it to be so; or not.
If the adjunct, being predicate, determines it to be done to or for someone or something, then it is transitive. It will have a direct object oblique, and / or an indirect object argument.
If the action or state of being, in it's extent, is perfect, unto itself, and does no action, to, or for another person, place or thing, then it is intransitive, because it has no direct object case, oblique,constituent argument, or indirect object, possessive case extent of constituent valence to an argument thetan, fact or element, for semantic purpose predicate of being who the action was done to or for, or given to or done for, if at all?
To be an advocate, for a client. (Transitive) (Conceit)
To be an advocate, a lawyer. (Intransitive) (Concept)
To instead be, a split infinitive, a transitive verbal and not a verb, can I split it?
If I want to say:
I want to go, quickly to the store.
That has "I want to go " as a subject, topic theme, focus, I , and want, to go, as want is my verb, and to go quickly to the store, is part of the predicate.
Can I split to go? Yes.
I can do so, I can split it, but, it is correct, but only because if the focus of my communication is to say ; I want to go quickly that should be my focus. How quickly I go , will be my emphasis.
I can, split, the oblique, the constituent parts, adjunct to the word instead, therefore, topicalizing it to the forefront of the sentence, or segment of syntax, to rheme and cause focus on it as topic.
I used hyperbatton, to add instead, the predicate, which adds semantic meaning for interpretation to the relevant left valency, instead of the usual relevant right, as by doing so , it then rhemes, focuses attention on the theme and topic I want to highlight for your notice.
In that situation I can do so as a "split infinitive" is a concept, an intransitive verbal noun like thing, a concept standing on it's own basis as extent.
However, if I were to say:
" I am going, to quickly go, to the store now."
Can I "split" the finitive verbs, if it is a conceit, an action, yes!
Will it change the structure, YES! If split, it will no longer remain an infinitive, the segment of syntax in grammar will alter!
I can do so, because by splitting it, I am trying to rheme it, to focus your attention on the topic of the sentence which I want you to take notice of; and that is, that I go quickly.
In the above , it still doesn't focus on how quickly I went, when I split it, to say, to quickly go, the, I am going, was in the right position as constituent so it made it the highest focus.
I go quickly, is a sentence fragment by itself, but at the end of the previous sentence I used to go as an infinitive verbal description adjunct rhemed to the relevant right of quickly, so going, is a thing, a noun, that I did, an action, but it is not a verb in that instance, am going, as it is describing the verb in the end sentence dependent clause, that can not stand on it's own but is subordinate to main independent clause.
So in that case, when I used the words, to quickly go, as a "thing" a noun, then it is an infinitive a verbal, not a verb and in that case can not be split!
"To quickly", is the new infinitive, it is a noun, a thing, I did, going, quickly.
An adjective modifier, adjunct to go.
So when, to go , or, to be or any words, like it , to quickly, are used in that way they can not be split.
They are an adjective description of another segment, and as a verbal, now a noun, a thing it can not be split, if it is split, and technically I showed it can be done, but in doing so alters the structure and the segments of syntax and their parts and constituents and changes and alters how the interpretation of the sentence is understood.
However, if it is used as a constituent, to the verb as a modifer, as adjective, again a verbal, a noun now, to quickly, the new infinitive, and go being the verb referrent back to am going.
I am splitting to go, by inserting quickly, it becomes like, an adjective describing go, a noun referrent, because, becomes, it's constituent,adjective, description, when I do so.
To joins then, as part of quickly, and, to quickly, became the infinitive, and not to go.
Go changes to the verb refferent noun,while, to quickly is topicalized as the modifier, to the relevant right moving it there using hyberbattan, to focus the importance on how quickly I go, instead of saying , I go quickly, and going being the important fact and quickly only an after thought.
But I want the emphasis and focus to be on going, quickly. So I still want to edit it more and change it structure again.
So decide, what do you want the reader to focus on? What key point or fact is the most important for them to know?
Move the important points to the right side and the after thought, of secondary importance to the left side as an adjunct, modifier, being either and adjective or adverb, a constituent to the segment of syntax, it's argument.
Arguments being either the subject noun, sometimes the topic or theme (the agent/actor doing said action) the action being the verb, and the person whom the action is done to the patient, and the instrument being the item used to do the action.Those are also sometimes the topic or theme.
Highlight the focus on the topic or theme by moving it to the front of the sentence, or the front of that part or segment of syntax of phrase structure grammar.
In this case I want to focus on how quickly I went, and make that fact dramatic and clear that the fact I went quickly is my point.
Here is how it is hyperbattaned, topicalizing the theme, my point, to the front of the sentence.
Quickly, I go, now, to the store. Active. Urgent.
That sentence changed the focus.
Quickly is the adjective, topicalized, to the relevant right to highlight it, and I go, becomes active, in the moment, rather than saying to go, which is passive and a in the first sentence I want, to go, to the store is more passive, casual, not urgent, the tone is different when the infinitive verbal is used instead of the active urgent in the moment structure.
If I split the first sentence we alter it's structure.
Can we yes, but splitting the infinitive changed it.
The "want to go" with to go, was changed to "to quickly go", can I do this?
Yes, but when I did, to go was no longer the infinitive, so it is a trick question!
You can't split an infinitive, because in doing so , it alters its form and becomes a different element of syntax in the phrase structure of grammar if you do!
So full answer, yes you can do so, but it alters the whole meaning of the sentence and will not remain an infinitive if you do!
If you need it to remain an infinitive then do not split it!
You can split it but then it will no longer be an infinitive, then in the next attempt , the "to quickly" became the infinitive, a verbal, a noun, as it is a thing, I did ,to quickly, is describing go, which changed to the verb referrent, go then became a noun, a thing, so the "trick" of the question, is can you split the infinitive, yes, but not without altering and changing it, because then go became the verb referrent, back to , am going, as the verb!
Splitting it changes, the phrase structure and the semantic meaning. So if you need to communicate that exact thing, then do not alter it.
You can and should try to edit and alter it to see if there is a more effective way to write it , to communicate the focus and tone.
Show what is really important to you, to the reader, and signal what you want them to understand as being most important to you.
Put that on the right hand side as a constituent, and the less important to the relevant left side constituent of the segment.
Each segment of syntax in grammar, can be topicalized, but altering it does change it's semantic meaning.
If the "Subject Agent/Actor" is at the front then the voice and style , it is an active sentence and a formal.
If the " Patient, Direct Object Person/Place /Thing" , the action is done to or for, or the "Instrument" it is done with, the indirect object, obliques, constituents, then if those are moved to the front, to the relevant right of the sentence then the voice or style of writing is said to be passive and informal.
Quickly going now, to the store. Passive. Casual.
See how altering it changes tone? Mood. Semantic meaning!
See how I used hyperbattan to move the subject to the front again in this sentence, if it is the subject, the topic, I want to highlight, and by raising it to the fore, moving it to the relevant right side as a constituent to a segment of grammar then I focus the attention to it.
Most, adjuncts, being modifiers, adjectives, and adverbial modifiers,normally go to the relevant left side as a constituent to the argument, a fact, an element of the sentence, whether that element is the subject, the topic,the theme, or the subject as being focused on the agent the actor doing the action, to or for the direct object, whom, has the action done to it, as an oblique, objective case segment of syntax, or the thing which is used as an instrument to do it to them, the indirect possessive case argument, and it's constituents.
When it has one direct object or both direct and indirect objects then it is a transitive verb being the action!
Each argument can have one or more constituent descriptive adjunct modifiers for each argument, a fact, each segment of syntax has it's own relevant left side and more important focus of attention and cause of notice and impact to the semantic meaning understanding and helps the interpretation of the whole part, is the relevant right side constituent adjunct!
Usually each modifier, goes to the left, but to highlight it and move it to the relevant right side of the part of the sentence you want highlighted and to have people take notice topicalize it to the right, fore front of the segment of syntax.
https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/606/01/
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/sentences.htm
https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/scholarlyvoice/sentencestructure
http://individual.utoronto.ca/ajhicks/grammar_html.html
"TO BE" IS A CONCEIT AS IT IS CIETO KINEO TO SHAPE OR FORM OR RENDER DESIGN ,TO ACT OR DO OR BE,TO SOMEONE OR SOMETHING,OR FOR SOMEONE OR SOMETHING AN ACTION OR BEING OR DOING TO THEM SOMETHING; WHERE AS "NOT TO BE" IS A CONCEPT AS IT IS APART SEPARATE LAYERS OF DETAILS,EXPOSITION OF THETAN, FACTS, ELEMENTS PERCEIVED, OF, A PERSON,PLACE OR THING, BUT IS NOT ACTING, OR BEING,OR DOING, ANYTHING TO, OR FOR, ANOTHER; SO "NOT TO BE" AS A CONCEPT IS INTRANSITIVE WITH NO DIRECT OR INDIRECT OBJECT IT ACTS TOWARDS OR FOR; AND "TO BE" IS A CONCEIT AND IS ACTION CHARGE, VALUE, DETERMINATION, CON TOGETHER CIETO/KINEO MOTION AND MOVEMENT TOWARDS, OR FOR, A PERSON, PLACE, OR THING, DIRECT OBJECT, OR INDIRECT OBJECT, AND IS TRANSITIVE CHANGING FORM, BEING, DOING, MOTION MOVEMENT, ACTION, TO OR FOR, SOMEONE OR SOMETHING, SO TRANSITIVE IS WHAT TO BE IS CONSIDERING, IN THE DECISION OF PREDICATE.
PREDICATE; PRE BEFORE, DI TWO, CATE AFTER, SO AS KANT WOULD SAY, COMPARE AND CONTRAST,THE EXTENT, REFLECT, DOES IT UPON REFLECTION COMPARE LIKEN TO A GROUP LATIVE TO SOMEONE OR SOMETHING, A CONCEIT, OR APART APO AWAY ABLATIVE CASE, A CONCEPT, WHEN REFLECTING UPON WHAT PHRASE STRUCTURE TO USE AS PART OF GRAMMAR WHEN DECIDING, DISPOCITO, STRUCTURE AND STYLE, PLACEMENT OF TYPE AND KIND OF PHRASE,AS ARISTOTLE'S POETICS EDUCATES US , WHEN COMPOSING, IN THE INSTANCE, WRITING AND DOCUMENTING FACTS EXPOSITION, NARRATIVE DETAIL AND WHEN BEING FLUENT, EASILY DETERMINING PARTS OF SYNTAX,DETERMINING PHRASES, DE OF, TERM TO SHAPE FORM CALL INTO BEING, IN IT'S ESSENCE AND NATURE,THE INATE FACTS, BORN OF,AND FROM, SEMIOTICS SIGNS, SYNEDOCHE REPRESENTATION NOMINALIZATION OF, IVUS IZE TO SHAPE TO FORM, INTO PHRASES,THE CONSTITUENTS ,OF THE MAIN ARGUMENTS, AS I SAY OR THINK AND BELIEVE IT IS UNDERSTOOD OR EXPERIENCED THROUGH EMPERIA OR AISTHETIA PERCEPTIBLE THINGS.
~KRISTA KAUFMAN 2018-02-12
To answer it, one must determine what the predicate is, and if the semantic meaning and interpretation of emperia, experience,through aisthetia,perceived things, determines it to be so; or not.
If the adjunct, being predicate, determines it to be done to or for someone or something, then it is transitive. It will have a direct object oblique, and / or an indirect object argument.
If the action or state of being, in it's extent, is perfect, unto itself, and does no action, to, or for another person, place or thing, then it is intransitive, because it has no direct object case, oblique,constituent argument, or indirect object, possessive case extent of constituent valence to an argument thetan, fact or element, for semantic purpose predicate of being who the action was done to or for, or given to or done for, if at all?
To be an advocate, for a client. (Transitive) (Conceit)
To be an advocate, a lawyer. (Intransitive) (Concept)
To instead be, a split infinitive, a transitive verbal and not a verb, can I split it?
If I want to say:
I want to go, quickly to the store.
That has "I want to go " as a subject, topic theme, focus, I , and want, to go, as want is my verb, and to go quickly to the store, is part of the predicate.
Can I split to go? Yes.
I can do so, I can split it, but, it is correct, but only because if the focus of my communication is to say ; I want to go quickly that should be my focus. How quickly I go , will be my emphasis.
I can, split, the oblique, the constituent parts, adjunct to the word instead, therefore, topicalizing it to the forefront of the sentence, or segment of syntax, to rheme and cause focus on it as topic.
I used hyperbatton, to add instead, the predicate, which adds semantic meaning for interpretation to the relevant left valency, instead of the usual relevant right, as by doing so , it then rhemes, focuses attention on the theme and topic I want to highlight for your notice.
In that situation I can do so as a "split infinitive" is a concept, an intransitive verbal noun like thing, a concept standing on it's own basis as extent.
However, if I were to say:
" I am going, to quickly go, to the store now."
Can I "split" the finitive verbs, if it is a conceit, an action, yes!
Will it change the structure, YES! If split, it will no longer remain an infinitive, the segment of syntax in grammar will alter!
I can do so, because by splitting it, I am trying to rheme it, to focus your attention on the topic of the sentence which I want you to take notice of; and that is, that I go quickly.
In the above , it still doesn't focus on how quickly I went, when I split it, to say, to quickly go, the, I am going, was in the right position as constituent so it made it the highest focus.
I go quickly, is a sentence fragment by itself, but at the end of the previous sentence I used to go as an infinitive verbal description adjunct rhemed to the relevant right of quickly, so going, is a thing, a noun, that I did, an action, but it is not a verb in that instance, am going, as it is describing the verb in the end sentence dependent clause, that can not stand on it's own but is subordinate to main independent clause.
So in that case, when I used the words, to quickly go, as a "thing" a noun, then it is an infinitive a verbal, not a verb and in that case can not be split!
"To quickly", is the new infinitive, it is a noun, a thing, I did, going, quickly.
An adjective modifier, adjunct to go.
So when, to go , or, to be or any words, like it , to quickly, are used in that way they can not be split.
They are an adjective description of another segment, and as a verbal, now a noun, a thing it can not be split, if it is split, and technically I showed it can be done, but in doing so alters the structure and the segments of syntax and their parts and constituents and changes and alters how the interpretation of the sentence is understood.
However, if it is used as a constituent, to the verb as a modifer, as adjective, again a verbal, a noun now, to quickly, the new infinitive, and go being the verb referrent back to am going.
I am splitting to go, by inserting quickly, it becomes like, an adjective describing go, a noun referrent, because, becomes, it's constituent,adjective, description, when I do so.
To joins then, as part of quickly, and, to quickly, became the infinitive, and not to go.
Go changes to the verb refferent noun,while, to quickly is topicalized as the modifier, to the relevant right moving it there using hyberbattan, to focus the importance on how quickly I go, instead of saying , I go quickly, and going being the important fact and quickly only an after thought.
But I want the emphasis and focus to be on going, quickly. So I still want to edit it more and change it structure again.
So decide, what do you want the reader to focus on? What key point or fact is the most important for them to know?
Move the important points to the right side and the after thought, of secondary importance to the left side as an adjunct, modifier, being either and adjective or adverb, a constituent to the segment of syntax, it's argument.
Arguments being either the subject noun, sometimes the topic or theme (the agent/actor doing said action) the action being the verb, and the person whom the action is done to the patient, and the instrument being the item used to do the action.Those are also sometimes the topic or theme.
Highlight the focus on the topic or theme by moving it to the front of the sentence, or the front of that part or segment of syntax of phrase structure grammar.
In this case I want to focus on how quickly I went, and make that fact dramatic and clear that the fact I went quickly is my point.
Here is how it is hyperbattaned, topicalizing the theme, my point, to the front of the sentence.
Quickly, I go, now, to the store. Active. Urgent.
That sentence changed the focus.
Quickly is the adjective, topicalized, to the relevant right to highlight it, and I go, becomes active, in the moment, rather than saying to go, which is passive and a in the first sentence I want, to go, to the store is more passive, casual, not urgent, the tone is different when the infinitive verbal is used instead of the active urgent in the moment structure.
If I split the first sentence we alter it's structure.
Can we yes, but splitting the infinitive changed it.
The "want to go" with to go, was changed to "to quickly go", can I do this?
Yes, but when I did, to go was no longer the infinitive, so it is a trick question!
You can't split an infinitive, because in doing so , it alters its form and becomes a different element of syntax in the phrase structure of grammar if you do!
So full answer, yes you can do so, but it alters the whole meaning of the sentence and will not remain an infinitive if you do!
If you need it to remain an infinitive then do not split it!
You can split it but then it will no longer be an infinitive, then in the next attempt , the "to quickly" became the infinitive, a verbal, a noun, as it is a thing, I did ,to quickly, is describing go, which changed to the verb referrent, go then became a noun, a thing, so the "trick" of the question, is can you split the infinitive, yes, but not without altering and changing it, because then go became the verb referrent, back to , am going, as the verb!
Splitting it changes, the phrase structure and the semantic meaning. So if you need to communicate that exact thing, then do not alter it.
You can and should try to edit and alter it to see if there is a more effective way to write it , to communicate the focus and tone.
Show what is really important to you, to the reader, and signal what you want them to understand as being most important to you.
Put that on the right hand side as a constituent, and the less important to the relevant left side constituent of the segment.
Each segment of syntax in grammar, can be topicalized, but altering it does change it's semantic meaning.
If the "Subject Agent/Actor" is at the front then the voice and style , it is an active sentence and a formal.
If the " Patient, Direct Object Person/Place /Thing" , the action is done to or for, or the "Instrument" it is done with, the indirect object, obliques, constituents, then if those are moved to the front, to the relevant right of the sentence then the voice or style of writing is said to be passive and informal.
Quickly going now, to the store. Passive. Casual.
See how altering it changes tone? Mood. Semantic meaning!
See how I used hyperbattan to move the subject to the front again in this sentence, if it is the subject, the topic, I want to highlight, and by raising it to the fore, moving it to the relevant right side as a constituent to a segment of grammar then I focus the attention to it.
Most, adjuncts, being modifiers, adjectives, and adverbial modifiers,normally go to the relevant left side as a constituent to the argument, a fact, an element of the sentence, whether that element is the subject, the topic,the theme, or the subject as being focused on the agent the actor doing the action, to or for the direct object, whom, has the action done to it, as an oblique, objective case segment of syntax, or the thing which is used as an instrument to do it to them, the indirect possessive case argument, and it's constituents.
When it has one direct object or both direct and indirect objects then it is a transitive verb being the action!
Each argument can have one or more constituent descriptive adjunct modifiers for each argument, a fact, each segment of syntax has it's own relevant left side and more important focus of attention and cause of notice and impact to the semantic meaning understanding and helps the interpretation of the whole part, is the relevant right side constituent adjunct!
Usually each modifier, goes to the left, but to highlight it and move it to the relevant right side of the part of the sentence you want highlighted and to have people take notice topicalize it to the right, fore front of the segment of syntax.
https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/606/01/
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/sentences.htm
https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/scholarlyvoice/sentencestructure
http://individual.utoronto.ca/ajhicks/grammar_html.html
"TO BE" IS A CONCEIT AS IT IS CIETO KINEO TO SHAPE OR FORM OR RENDER DESIGN ,TO ACT OR DO OR BE,TO SOMEONE OR SOMETHING,OR FOR SOMEONE OR SOMETHING AN ACTION OR BEING OR DOING TO THEM SOMETHING; WHERE AS "NOT TO BE" IS A CONCEPT AS IT IS APART SEPARATE LAYERS OF DETAILS,EXPOSITION OF THETAN, FACTS, ELEMENTS PERCEIVED, OF, A PERSON,PLACE OR THING, BUT IS NOT ACTING, OR BEING,OR DOING, ANYTHING TO, OR FOR, ANOTHER; SO "NOT TO BE" AS A CONCEPT IS INTRANSITIVE WITH NO DIRECT OR INDIRECT OBJECT IT ACTS TOWARDS OR FOR; AND "TO BE" IS A CONCEIT AND IS ACTION CHARGE, VALUE, DETERMINATION, CON TOGETHER CIETO/KINEO MOTION AND MOVEMENT TOWARDS, OR FOR, A PERSON, PLACE, OR THING, DIRECT OBJECT, OR INDIRECT OBJECT, AND IS TRANSITIVE CHANGING FORM, BEING, DOING, MOTION MOVEMENT, ACTION, TO OR FOR, SOMEONE OR SOMETHING, SO TRANSITIVE IS WHAT TO BE IS CONSIDERING, IN THE DECISION OF PREDICATE.
PREDICATE; PRE BEFORE, DI TWO, CATE AFTER, SO AS KANT WOULD SAY, COMPARE AND CONTRAST,THE EXTENT, REFLECT, DOES IT UPON REFLECTION COMPARE LIKEN TO A GROUP LATIVE TO SOMEONE OR SOMETHING, A CONCEIT, OR APART APO AWAY ABLATIVE CASE, A CONCEPT, WHEN REFLECTING UPON WHAT PHRASE STRUCTURE TO USE AS PART OF GRAMMAR WHEN DECIDING, DISPOCITO, STRUCTURE AND STYLE, PLACEMENT OF TYPE AND KIND OF PHRASE,AS ARISTOTLE'S POETICS EDUCATES US , WHEN COMPOSING, IN THE INSTANCE, WRITING AND DOCUMENTING FACTS EXPOSITION, NARRATIVE DETAIL AND WHEN BEING FLUENT, EASILY DETERMINING PARTS OF SYNTAX,DETERMINING PHRASES, DE OF, TERM TO SHAPE FORM CALL INTO BEING, IN IT'S ESSENCE AND NATURE,THE INATE FACTS, BORN OF,AND FROM, SEMIOTICS SIGNS, SYNEDOCHE REPRESENTATION NOMINALIZATION OF, IVUS IZE TO SHAPE TO FORM, INTO PHRASES,THE CONSTITUENTS ,OF THE MAIN ARGUMENTS, AS I SAY OR THINK AND BELIEVE IT IS UNDERSTOOD OR EXPERIENCED THROUGH EMPERIA OR AISTHETIA PERCEPTIBLE THINGS.
~KRISTA KAUFMAN 2018-02-12
No comments:
Post a Comment