In a very famous poem John Donne the 17th century poet wrote: Go and catch a falling star…

Notice the construction: Go and. But go can also have a following verb without any connective. Go hang yourself / Go see what Mom is doing.

There is no systematic explanation of why this is so.  Most definitely it is not a property of English verbs in general. Pick choose, think act, sign seal the letter — these are all impossible structures.

It is not just some verbs that can immediately follow go.  Nouns too behave in the same way with go. : go places, go home, and go west. It is possible to argue that home, west are adverbs here. But they are all undoubtedly nouns.

Now we find an extension of this usage: Go Google.

Are Yahoo and Google being used as verbs these days? Or are they just nouns and the usage is to be explained as being on par with go home, go places, etc? The latter explanation is rather difficult to maintain.
2. Regardless (adverb) has much the same meaning as nevertheless. He was denied a ticket by his party. Nevertheless he contested—as an independent. As you can see nevertheless means something like ‘in spite of’ the fact’ (mentioned earlier).

Nevertheless can appear in initial or final position. He contested, nevertheless.

Regardless is usually found with the phrase which tells what it is that was the inhibiting factor and in spite of which something (usually contrary to it) followed. Regardless of the fact that he was denied a ticket, he decided to contest the election on his own as an independent.

Suppose this inhibiting fact is given in the previous sentence. He was denied a ticket.  He decided to contest the election, regardless. Note the end position of regardless. 

Sometimes regardless may be found in initial position. The best scenario for him (Musharraf) will be to hold a general election soon and find an honourable exit route. Regardless, Pakistan’s future looks extremely grim (IndiaToday, Nov. 19, 2007). The adverb more often used in this position is nevertheless.

3. It is better to build talent than to bury (heading of an article in The Hindu, May 22, 2007).

Bury what? The answer of course is talent. But this is not necessarily given by the structure. Nothing should be omitted which cannot be recovered mechanically from the structure. As it is the structure can be completed in ever so many ways: better to build talent than to bury talented people. Nothing in the structure forces us to understand it after bury.

The writer could have achieved the sane economy (and preserved sense) if he had written Better to build talent than to bury it.

4. For forty years the international community has failed adequately to address the Israeli-Palestine problem — DH, June 5, 2007.

The verb with to is called the infinitive.  There is a traditional rule against ‘splitting’ the infinitive.  Nothing should intervene between to and the verb.

This rule can hardly be called a rule of syntax. At best it is a rule of style.  Examples can easily be multiplied where splitting the infinitive results in awkwardness.  I try to constantly do that (A. Choudhury: Count your chickens before they hatch-Vikas, 2001, p.130). To not take the force of the question seriously is…to be in the grip of…blinkered thinking — Indian Express, Dec. 29, 2004.  It is important for us to therefore quickly recognise the new upsurge in group thinking (S. Mohanty, DH, Feb. 26, 2002, p.8)

Why I try to constantly  do and not I constantly try to do? The second version is definitely better.  The last citation given above clearly shows why, at least in some cases, the infinitive should not be split. Therefore it is important for you to recognise quickly…is clearer with none of the awkwardness of the original.

But the point about not splitting the infinitive should not become a fetish.  The citation at the beginning of this section clearly shows the absurdities to which one can be led by trying to avoid splitting the infinitive. For 40 years the international community has failed adequately…? This is ridiculous. If you put adequately after the infinitive you get for 40 years the international community has failed to address adequately. This gives a totally wrong impression until you come to adequately. The best solution is to split the infinitive: has failed to address adequately….

Moral: It doesn’t matter whether you split the infinitive or not as long as you don’t land in awkwardness or worse.

Contact the writer at ksyadurajan@yahoo.com