Negarse en redondo

Negarse en redondo
 

To negarse en redondo literraly to refuse in round, means that there´s not a single chance that he would change his mind.

to categorically refuse

to fully refuse
to completely refuse

a flat-out denial

I know I am in the minority here, but anybody learning British English should know that splitting the infinitive is not regarded as very good. (The infinitive in English is two words, and splitting the infinitive is to put an adverb between them, such as to categorically refuse). To me, this sounds terrible, and I would say to refuse categorically.

hi perikles - i couldn't agree more, technically, on split infinitives.
i learned english grammar in the U.S., and recall clearly many teachers
making reference to "colloquially acceptable" usage and "correct English".
i always kept that in mind when writing essays in the high school/college years.

good advice - hermit

Perikles, would you mind to explain to me what "splitting infinitive" means? :thinking: Thanks :) I guess that that means to write something between "to" and the verb (because of the context, but that's all)

Splitting infinitives is gramatically incorrect.
example:
to love is an infinitave
to freely love is a split infinitive (grammar teachers will tell you this is incorrect):bad:
to love freely - is gramatically correct

There are some instances in which splitting the infinitive sounds better, and in those instances the gramatically correct method is harder to understand.
example: to fully disagree (sounds better but according to the gramatical law it's incorrect.:thumbsup::thumbsdown:
to disagree fully:thumbsup:(but it sound wierd)

right - north american usage takes lyrical license when it sounds better.

hermit

@Poli has explained it well. It does not really depend on the context, it is a general rule. The infinitive of any verb in English is two words, to love, to shoot, to fight, to think. The idea is that these two words may not be split, they must stay together. You may not put a word between 'to' and 'fight', so you may not say 'to bravely fight' (which sounds terrible to me!) but you have to say 'to fight bravely'

(P.S. would you mind to explain :bad: would you mind explaining :good:) :)

I suppose it is what you are used to. To me, to disagree fully sounds completely natural, but to fully disagree sounds really awful.

I certainly can get used to not splitting my infintitives--or should I have said I can certainly get used to -- or I can get certainly used to:thinking:
What is your opinion of dangling prepositions? I assume you are more tolerant of those.

Decir que no se puede partir un infinitivo es una tontería preceptista rechazada por autoridades como los hermanos Fowler y grandes autores como George Bernard Shaw (que no dudó en llamar idiota a un subeditor que no lo permitía) y Oscar Wilde. La realidad es que hacerlo es muy común y la mayoría de los hablantes nativos no encontraría rara, por ejemplo, la frase I'm going to quickly pop down to the shops.

OK, I understand (maybe it's more common in American English :thinking: ). Thanks everybody and Perikles for your corrections :)

But now... what are those "dangling" prepositions? :confused:

I guess you must mean prepositions which do not stand before a noun, but left 'dangling' such as

What did you do that for?
What are you going to stick that label on?
I don't know which platform my train leaves from.

Nobody sane would say

On what are you going to stick that label?

even though it is theoretically correct. There is the well-known sentence:

A preposition is the wrong word to end a sentence with.

Is that what you mean by 'dangling'?

It's common everywhere. None of my examples above is American.

Prepositions at the ends of sentences.

Perikles tiene razón. En general es mejor no meter un averbio entre to y
el verbo. Es contra una ley gramática y suena mál a la gente que hace caso a las reglas gramáticas. No obstante hay gente que mete
el adverbio o sea ilegalmente:lol: en inglaterra tambien, porque inglés como todos los idiomas es muy flexible.

Me parece (pero no estoy seguro) que se ve esta infracción en documentos oficiales desde los años de Thomas Jefferson.

Cuando una persona decide por su propia autoridad escribir una ley de gramática que está en contra de la manera de hablar de la mayoría, ¿quién tiene la razón?

Entiendo tu argumento. Los idiomas siempre están en metamórfosis. Sin embargo me gusta saber y tener la opción de seguir las reglas para agarrar algo sólido en un mundo tan líquido como el mundo de idioma. Hay gente que no tiene esa
opcion porque no saben las reglas.

Pues no creo que hayas entendido mi argumento. Si una construcción lingüística aparece en documentos formales durante dos siglos, es utilizada por gente en la calle y por escritores profesionales, y es defendida explícitamente por éstos, decir que es una regla del idioma que esa construcción no se permite puede ser dos cosas: ignorancia o arrogancia. Las opiniones deben ajustarse a la realidad porque el revés es poco posible.