But sometimes, it's more natural to split an infinitive than not to That is, split infinitives are no longer considered a. 0 i think in former times not to was commonly used and now it is common to use to not with no difference in meaning. I brought my luggage but i didn't bring my passport Which one of the following is equivalent I brought my luggage but not my passport
I brought my luggage but my passport. The normal form of a negative infinitive is not to x, in all contexts The form to not x is grammatical (notwithstanding the generations of people who have moaned about splitting the infinitive), but unusual, and would only be used in order to convey a special meaning So i try not to care would be normal, but i try to not care would be spoken with an emphasis on the not, and would. But that presumption does not remove the dissonance or the possibility of misunderstanding In the expression there is or ought to be a rule that where we are dealing with legal, scientific, technical or logical matters, precision trumps brevity and elegance.
Both are used in english Are there any situations where one is preferred over other? The be not construction is simply more poetic It hearkens back to lines like death be not proud from john donne in the 17th century, or shakespeare's be not afraid of greatness. in most contexts, do is strictly an auxiliary verb It's used colloquially in sentences like don't be alarmed, but doesn't actually carry any meaning. The noad defines nor as
Used before the second or further of two or more alternatives (the first being introduced by a negative such as neither or not) to indicate that they are each untrue or each do not happen They were neither cheap nor convenient | the sheets were never washed, nor the towels, nor his shirts Or should be used when the first of two or more alternatives is not a negative.
OPEN
