you have kindly provided

[arth...@yahoo.com]

Which is correct:

1-I appreciate the help you have KINDLY provided and continue to provide to me.
2-I appreciate the help you KINDLY have provided and continue to provide to me.

'1' sounds natural to me and '2' does not. However in '1' it seems that 'kindly' only modifies 'have provided' and does not modify 'continue to provide'.


Gratefully,
Navi.

[Peter T. Daniels]

(1) is better, but such formulaic expressions are generally frowned upon.
You should say something that pertains to the specific recipient.

[Robert Bannister]

I agree that 2. sounds strange. I think it might be because the two
verbs are in different tenses. "I appreciate the help you kindly offered
and provided in style yesterday" sounds all right to me, but the
"have...provided and continue" aren't really a pair.
--
Robert Bannister

[Peter T. Daniels]

The providing is an ongoing activity, not a one-time thing that happened
yesterday.

[Whiskers]

"Thank you for your continued kind help". "I appreciate ..." sounds too
formal for most situations, and there's a faint suggestion that there's a
"but ..." somewhere - possibly unstated.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

[Robert Bannister]

Interesting. I'd have thought "appreciate" was the right verb, but some
might prefer a passive "Your help was very much appreciated".

--
Robert Bannister

[fabzorba]

I don't know in what contexts such formulaic expressions "are generally frowned upon". They are obligatory in the Public Service, and their construction is taught in any class pertaining to the writing of formal epistles.

I am not inclined to believe that soon such letters will conclude with "How they hanging, Jed?"

[fabzorba]

On Saturday, 10 August 2013 17:10:03 UTC+10, arth...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Which is correct:
>
>
>
> 1-I appreciate the help you have KINDLY provided and continue to provide to me.
>
> 2-I appreciate the help you KINDLY have provided and continue to provide to me.
>

I would myself prefer "provide me" over "provide to me". I am a sworn enemy of unnecessary prepositions, as most of them are. If you wrote "Please provide me copies of the following documents..." it becomes apparent that no "to" is needed in matters of provision.

[Peter Moylan]

You have just hit a sore point. I grammar-checked a very long MS-Word
document today, and discovered that I disagreed with _every_one_ of its
recommendations. Are there any other grammar checkers out there that are
as bad as Microsoft's?

(Yet I still have to run the check, because every once in a blue moon it
discovers that I have two space characters instead of one. Even there,
though, it gets that rule wrong most of the time.)

--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

[John Briggs]

Except that there it needs a "with" - "Please provide me with copies of
the following documents..."
--
John Briggs

[Peter T. Daniels]

!! You're now claiming that an IO _doesn't_ need a preposition while
a DO _does_??

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 8:23:21 AM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:

> (Yet I still have to run the check, because every once in a blue moon it
> discovers that I have two space characters instead of one. Even there,
> though, it gets that rule wrong most of the time.)

Just do a Find-Replace, typing 2 spaces in the Find box and 1 space in the
Replace box, and repeat until it reports 0 changes.

[For Mr Moylan's benefit, would someone he hasn't killfiled be so kind
as to repeat this?]

[John Briggs]

I think I'm claiming that if you have both, then one of them does.

(I'm not sure that "Cry Me a River" is a valid counter-example...)
--
John Briggs

[Peter T. Daniels]

Grammatically, it is; though from whichever point of view case relations
are considered, "me" would be a benefactive rather than a dative, and that
distinction is probably grammaticalized in some language or other.

You don't like

"We bought our son three birthday presents last week, and we'll get him
several more before the party"?

[John Briggs]

That sounds fine - those verbs obviously don't cause a problem.
--
John Briggs

[Whiskers]

On 2013-08-10, arth...@yahoo.com <arth...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Is this a trick question to see if anyone reacts to the split
infinitive?

[Whiskers]

But not in classes that teach communication.

> I am not inclined to believe that soon such letters will conclude with
> "How they hanging, Jed?"

You really can't fail with 21st Century incremental projections. [1]

One sort of jargon is as bad as another.

[1] Product of the gobbledegook generator at
<http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/>

[Whiskers]

On 2013-08-10, arth...@yahoo.com <arth...@yahoo.com> wrote:

As you are specifying 'continue to provide', I don't think you need to
mention 'have provided'.

[Robert Bannister]

That's why I still use it - double spaces, a few silly typos, double
double words when they come at a line break, that sort of thing. First,
though, you have to tell it it to ignore all its so-called rules.

--
Robert Bannister

[Robert Bannister]

On 14/08/13 12:49 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 8:23:21 AM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
>
>> (Yet I still have to run the check, because every once in a blue moon it
>> discovers that I have two space characters instead of one. Even there,
>> though, it gets that rule wrong most of the time.)
>
> Just do a Find-Replace, typing 2 spaces in the Find box and 1 space in the
> Replace box, and repeat until it reports 0 changes.

In addition, find all examples of Space+Para Break and Para Break +
Space, and you need to do the 2 space thing several times in case you've
got 3 or more spaces by accident. I usually save this sort of thing for
when I'm converting a text-only file to proper, formatted text.
--
Robert Bannister

[Robert Bannister]

Well, you can certainly provide something, provide someone something as
well as provide someone with something. The 'with' makes it, perhaps,
less peremptory, but I don't see a great deal of difference.

--
Robert Bannister

[Peter T. Daniels]

I myself never type a Space before a Paragraph, but often I have authors who do, so of course I do Space + Para after I've taken care of multi-spaces. They don't generally open a paragraph with a space, but sometimes they use a Tab instead of setting the Indent margin, so I also delete all tabs.

[arth...@yahoo.com]

Thank you all very much.

Rest assured, I do not ask trick questions. I do like to get multiple replies on a question because sometimes different native speakers have different viewpoints on the same issue. But I never ask trick questions.

I think almost everybody agrees nowadays that split infinitives are OK, so asking a trick question about split infinitives would be particularly daft.

More importantly, as far as I can see, there are no split infinitives in my question at all.

Maybe your question is a trick question?

Gratefully,
Navi.

[Professor Redwine]

It is certainly more common to place the adverb between the auxiliary and the main verb in a sentence like this.

Perhaps if you were to consider the slight difference between kind provision of help and provision of kind help to be slight enough, you could avoid the problem thus:
I appreciate the kind help you have provided and continue to provide.

"to me" or "me with" would be optional extras, so to speak, and there is room for a whole new (or old and rehashed) argument about whether you should have a "which" or a "that" in there, and if so then which, and whether to use commas or not.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 6:38:45 AM UTC-4, arth...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Thank you all very much.
> On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 5:26:19 AM UTC-7, Whiskers Catwheezel wrote:
> > On 2013-08-10, arth...@yahoo.com <arth...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > 1-I appreciate the help you have KINDLY provided and continue to
> > > provide to me.
> > >
> > > 2-I appreciate the help you KINDLY have provided and
> > > continue to provide to me.
>

> > Is this a trick question to see if anyone reacts to the split
> > infinitive?
>

> Rest assured, I do not ask trick questions. I do like to get multiple replies on a question because sometimes different native speakers have different viewpoints on the same issue. But I never ask trick questions.
>
> I think almost everybody agrees nowadays that split infinitives are OK, so asking a trick question about split infinitives would be particularly daft.
>
> More importantly, as far as I can see, there are no split infinitives in my question at all.
>
> Maybe your question is a trick question?

There are indeed no "split infinitives" in your examples.

(Nor is "split infinitive" a rational concept in English grammar: the
"prohibition" is a fantasy invented by those who figured that, since
Latin infinitives are a single word (and thus unsplittable), English
ought also to have something that could be given the same label and
that would thereby also become unsplittable as well.)

[Robert Bannister]

Sometimes, I copy a piece of text from a web page, and apart from the
spelling, the spaces are often arbitrary too.

--
Robert Bannister

[Robert Bannister]

On 14/08/13 6:48 PM, Professor Redwine wrote:
> On Saturday, 10 August 2013 09:10:03 UTC+2, arth...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Which is correct:
>>
>>
>>
>> 1-I appreciate the help you have KINDLY provided and continue to provide to me.
>>
>> 2-I appreciate the help you KINDLY have provided and continue to provide to me.
>>
>>
>>
>> '1' sounds natural to me and '2' does not. However in '1' it seems that 'kindly' only modifies 'have provided' and does not modify 'continue to provide'.
>>
>>
> It is certainly more common to place the adverb between the auxiliary and the main verb in a sentence like this.

It depends a great deal on which adverb it is. "Often", for example,
will often be found in such a position. Unfortunately, I am unable to
provide you with a list of "insertable" adverbs.

--
Robert Bannister

[Whiskers]

On 2013-08-14, Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 6:38:45 AM UTC-4, arth...@yahoo.com
> wrote:
>> Thank you all very much. On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 5:26:19 AM
>> UTC-7, Whiskers Catwheezel wrote:
>> > On 2013-08-10, arth...@yahoo.com <arth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> > > 1-I appreciate the help you have KINDLY provided and continue to
>> > > provide to me.
>> > >
>> > > 2-I appreciate the help you KINDLY have provided and continue to
>> > > provide to me.
>>
>> > Is this a trick question to see if anyone reacts to the split
>> > infinitive?
>>
>> Rest assured, I do not ask trick questions. I do like to get multiple
>> replies on a question because sometimes different native speakers
>> have different viewpoints on the same issue. But I never ask trick
>> questions.

But you do sometimes ask tricky questions (which is a good thing).

>> I think almost everybody agrees nowadays that split infinitives are
>> OK, so asking a trick question about split infinitives would be
>> particularly daft.
>>
>> More importantly, as far as I can see, there are no split infinitives
>> in my question at all.
>>
>> Maybe your question is a trick question?

If it is, the trick seems to have worked. <grin>

> There are indeed no "split infinitives" in your examples.

What is the term for constructions such as "you have kindly provided"?
I know this isn't an infinitive, but the verb "you have provided" is
nonetheless split by "kindly".

> (Nor is "split infinitive" a rational concept in English grammar: the
> "prohibition" is a fantasy invented by those who figured that, since
> Latin infinitives are a single word (and thus unsplittable), English
> ought also to have something that could be given the same label and
> that would thereby also become unsplittable as well.)

I agree that the concept is not applicable to English. That doesn't
stop people arguing about it, and not only from the "Latin can't so
English mustn't" angle.

[arth...@yahoo.com]

Thank you all very much.

A tricky question is a good question. A trick question is not.
A question that seems tricky to you, is a lot more trickier to me!

I do appreciate all the replies that you have so kindly provided.

Respectfully,
Navi.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 6:29:17 PM UTC-4, Whiskers Catwheezel wrote:

> What is the term for constructions such as "you have kindly provided"?
> I know this isn't an infinitive, but the verb "you have provided" is
> nonetheless split by "kindly".

A verb phrase modified by an adverb?

[Whiskers]

On 2013-08-14, Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

As is "to boldly go"; the "split infinitive" is merely one example of
the general construction. Any objection to the split infinitive should,
logically, also apply to all "verb phrases". But as "logically,
also" demonstrates, English verb phrases are frequently and usefully
split.

Is the term "tmesis" appropriate for this sort of thing?

[Whiskers]

On 2013-08-14, arth...@yahoo.com <arth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Thank you all very much. On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 3:29:17 PM
> UTC-7, Whiskers Catwheezel wrote:
>> On 2013-08-14, Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 6:38:45 AM UTC-4, arth...@yahoo.com
>> > wrote:

[...]

>> >> Rest assured, I do not ask trick questions. I do like to get
>> >> multiple replies on a question because sometimes different native
>> >> speakers have different viewpoints on the same issue. But I never
>> >> ask trick questions.
>>
>> But you do sometimes ask tricky questions (which is a good thing).
>

> A tricky question is a good question. A trick question is not. A
> question that seems tricky to you, is a lot more trickier to me!

I don't object to trick questions. They can be useful.

> I do appreciate all the replies that you have so kindly provided.
>
> Respectfully, Navi.

Thank you for your entertaining challenges.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 8:15:05 PM UTC-4, Whiskers Catwheezel wrote:
> On 2013-08-14, Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 6:29:17 PM UTC-4, Whiskers Catwheezel
>
> > wrote:
>
> >> What is the term for constructions such as "you have kindly
> >> provided"? I know this isn't an infinitive, but the verb "you have
> >> provided" is nonetheless split by "kindly".
>
> > A verb phrase modified by an adverb?
>
> As is "to boldly go"; the "split infinitive" is merely one example of
> the general construction. Any objection to the split infinitive should

> logically, also apply to all "verb phrases". But as "logically,
> also" demonstrates, English verb phrases are frequently and usefully
> split.
>
> Is the term "tmesis" appropriate for this sort of thing?

That refers specifically to interrupting a word, as in abso-bloomin'-lutely.

[Peter Moylan]

[Excess blank lines removed to make sense of the posting.]

On 14/08/13 20:38, arth...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Thank you all very much.
>
> On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 5:26:19 AM UTC-7, Whiskers Catwheezel wrote:
>> On 2013-08-10, arth...@yahoo.com <arth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Which is correct:
>>
>>> 1-I appreciate the help you have KINDLY provided and continue to
>>> provide to me. 2-I appreciate the help you KINDLY have provided and
>>> continue to provide to me.
>>
>>> '1' sounds natural to me and '2' does not. However in '1' it seems
>>> that 'kindly' only modifies 'have provided' and does not modify
>>> 'continue to provide'.
>>

>> Is this a trick question to see if anyone reacts to the split
>> infinitive?
>

> Rest assured, I do not ask trick questions. I do like to get multiple replies on a question because sometimes different native speakers have different viewpoints on the same issue. But I never ask trick questions.
> I think almost everybody agrees nowadays that split infinitives are OK, so asking a trick question about split infinitives would be particularly daft.
> More importantly, as far as I can see, there are no split infinitives in my question at all.
> Maybe your question is a trick question?

I was trying to figure out the trick myself. I think the answer is that
"have kindly provided" is a split present perfect, a very distant
relative of the split infinitive. As far as I know, nobody has ever
tried to invent a rule banning these.

And, in fact, most editors would take your "kindly have provided" and
correct it to "have kindly provided".

[Whiskers]

Some further roaming across the web has introduced me to "split verbs",
which seems to be the usage I'm referring to, and "The Texas Law Review
Manual on usage and Style" which promoted abhorrence of such practices.

[Mike L]

I have a vague memory that once on one of these recurrent "split
infinitive" outings we couldn't actually find a prohibition based on
Latin. And I see no just cause or impediment why one of Latin's many
periphrastic (i.e. expressed with two or more words) infinitives could
not have been "split" - but I still can't think of an example.

Those who argue that the "to" infinitive isn't a real infinitive at
all are, in my opinion, probably defending an arbitrary position not
based on usage.

Of course, we place our adverbs wherever we think they'll do most
good.

--
Mike.

[Robert Bannister]

On 15/08/13 6:29 AM, Whiskers wrote:
> On 2013-08-14, Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 6:38:45 AM UTC-4, arth...@yahoo.com
>> wrote:

> What is the term for constructions such as "you have kindly provided"?
> I know this isn't an infinitive, but the verb "you have provided" is
> nonetheless split by "kindly".

"You have provided" is presumably something like a 'compound verb'. No
doubt, there is some more specialised term, but even Latin uses this
form to make the Passive Perfect tenses.

>
>> (Nor is "split infinitive" a rational concept in English grammar: the
>> "prohibition" is a fantasy invented by those who figured that, since
>> Latin infinitives are a single word (and thus unsplittable), English
>> ought also to have something that could be given the same label and
>> that would thereby also become unsplittable as well.)
>
> I agree that the concept is not applicable to English. That doesn't
> stop people arguing about it, and not only from the "Latin can't so
> English mustn't" angle.
>

I think we need a Latinist, because I am not at all sure that it is
forbidden to add a word between "amata" and "est".

--
Robert Bannister

[Peter T. Daniels]

... which isn't an infinitive ...

[Robert Bannister]

Which is not in dispute, but "Whiskers" asked: "What is the term for

constructions such as "you have kindly provided"? I know this isn't an
infinitive, but the verb "you have provided" is nonetheless split by
"kindly"."

I was trying to point out that even in Latin, they weren't that stupid,
but I wasn't completely sure.

--
Robert Bannister

[fabzorba]

On Wednesday, 14 August 2013 00:45:57 UTC+10, John Briggs wrote:
> On 13/08/2013 06:06, fabzorba wrote: > On Saturday, 10 August 2013 17:10:03 UTC+10, arth...@yahoo.com wrote: >> Which is correct: >> >> >> >> 1-I appreciate the help you have KINDLY provided and continue to provide to me. >> >> 2-I appreciate the help you KINDLY have provided and continue to provide to me. >> > I would myself prefer "provide me" over "provide to me". I am a sworn enemy of unnecessary prepositions, as most of them are. If you wrote "Please provide me copies of the following documents..." it becomes apparent that no "to" is needed in matters of provision. Except that there it needs a "with" - "Please provide me with copies of the following documents..."

My bad, as they say, and your good. I had a senior moment. Yes, it must be with a 'with'.

[Whiskers]

As I posted earlier, the term "split verb" seems to be applicable where
an adverb is placed between components of a verb phrase. In English,
the infinitive is usually a verb phrase, so the "split infinitive" is
merely an example of a "split verb" - which generally seems to be
perfectly acceptable, even recommended, other than by the prescribers
of the "Texas Law Review Manual on Usage & Style" or whoever inspired
them.

<http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4385> "Language Log » The true
history of the split verb rule" is a treasure found for me by
<https://ixquick.com/eng/?> "Ixquick Search Engine", my preferred
alternative to the ubiquitous Google.