Split infinitive

A split infinitive or cleft infinitive is an English-language grammatical construction in which a word or phrase, usually an adverb or adverbial phrase, occurs between the marker to and the bare infinitive (uninflected) form of a verb. One of the most famous split infinitives occurs in the opening sequence of the Star Trek television series: "to boldly go where no man has gone before." Here, the adverb "boldly" splits the full infinitive "to go."

As the split infinitive became more popular in the 19th century, some grammatical authorities sought to introduce a prescriptive rule against it. The construction is still the subject of disagreement among native English speakers as to whether it is grammatically correct or good style. Fowler wrote in 1926, "No other grammatical issue has so divided English speakers since the split infinitive was declared to be a solecism in the 19c: raise the subject of English usage in any conversation today and it is sure to be mentioned." However, most experts on language now agree that the split infinitive is sometimes appropriate.

History of the construction

Middle English

In Old English, most infinitives were single words ending in -an (compare modern German -en), but about one quarter were "to" followed by a verbal noun in the dative case, which ended in -anne or -enne. In Middle English, the bare infinitive and the infinitive after "to" took on the same uninflected form. The "to" infinitive was not split in Old or Early Middle English. The first known example in English, in which a pronoun rather than an adverb splits the infinitive, is in Layamon's Brut (early 13th century):

and he cleopede him to; alle his wise cnihtes.

for to him reade;

And he called to him all his wise knights / to advise him.

This may be a poetic inversion for the sake of meter, and therefore says little about whether Layamon would have felt the construction to be syntactically natural. However, this reservation does not apply to the following prose example from Wycliffe (14th century):

For this was gret unkyndenesse, to this manere treten there brother.

For this was great unkindness, to treat their brother in this manner.

Modern English

After its rise in Middle English, the construction became rare in the 15th and 16th centuries. William Shakespeare used only one, and it is a special case as it is clearly a syntactical inversion for the sake of rhyme:

Root pity in thy heart, that when it grows

Thy pity may deserve to pitied be (Sonnet 142).

Edmund Spenser, John Dryden, Alexander Pope, and the King James Version of the Bible used none, and they are very rare in the writing of Samuel Johnson. John Donne used them several times, though, and Samuel Pepys also used at least one. No reason for the near disappearance of the split infinitive is known; in particular, no prohibition is recorded.

Split infinitives reappeared in the 18th century and became more common in the 19th. Daniel Defoe, Benjamin Franklin, William Wordsworth, Abraham Lincoln, George Eliot, Henry James, and Willa Cather are among the writers who used them. Now "people split infinitives all the time without giving it a thought".

Origins

Athough it is difficult to say for certain why the construction developed in Middle English, or why it revived so powerfully in Modern English, a number of theories have been postulated.

Historical linguistics has seen its origins in the context of the influence of Old French. The split infinitive appeared after the Norman Conquest, when English was borrowing widely from French. Among other Germanic languages, German still does not permit an adverb to fall between an infinitive and its particle (preposition), but in others such as Swedish the construction is frequent. It is also frequent in French and other Romance languages. Compare modern German, French, and English:

Ich beschließe, etwas nicht zu tun.

I decide not to do something.

Je décide de ne pas faire quelque chose.

I decide to not do something.

Thus the English split infinitive ("I decide to not do something") may have arisen under the influence of French. However, grammarians of the Romance languages do not use the term "split infinitive" to describe the phenomenon, since the preposition is not considered a part of the infinitive form, and despite the surface-level similarity there are significant syntactical differences between the English and French constructions.

A traditional grammarian has suggested that the construction appeared because people frequently place adverbs before finite verbs ("If the adverb should immediately precede the finite verb, we feel that it should immediately precede also the infinitive…"), as in "She gradually got rid of her teddy bears" or "She will gradually get rid of her teddy bears." (The future tense in the latter example can be analysed as containing a bare infinitive.) A transformational grammarian has attributed the construction to a re-analysis of the role of to.

History of the term

It was not until the very end of the 19th century that terminology emerged to describe the construction. According to the main etymological dictionaries, the earliest use of the term split infinitive on record dates from 1897, with infinitive-splitting and infinitive-splitter following in 1926 and 1927 respectively. The now rare cleft infinitive is slightly older, attested from 1893.

This terminology implies analysing the full infinitive as a two-word infinitive, which not all grammarians accept. As one who used "infinitive" to mean the single-word verb, Otto Jespersen challenged the epithet: "'To' is no more an essential part of an infinitive than the definite article is an essential part of a nominative, and no one would think of calling 'the good man' a split nominative'." However, no alternative terminology has been proposed.

History of the controversy

Possibly the earliest comment against split infinitives was by an anonymous American in 1834:

I am not conscious, that any rule has been heretofore given in relation to this point […] The practice, however, of not separating the particle from its verb, is so general and uniform among good authors, and the exceptions are so rare, that the rule which I am about to propose will, I believe, prove to be as accurate as most rules, and may be found beneficial to inexperienced writers. It is this :—The particle, TO, which comes before the verb in the infinitive mode, must not be separated from it by the intervention of an adverb or any other word or phrase; but the adverb should immediately precede the particle, or immediately follow the verb.

In 1840, Richard Taylor also condemned split infinitives as a "disagreeable affectation". However, the issue seems not to have attracted wider public attention until Henry Alford addressed it in his Plea for the Queen's English in 1864:

But surely, this is a practice entirely unknown to English speakers and writers. It seems to me that we ever regard the to of the infinitive as inseparable from its verb. And, when we have already a choice between two forms of expression, 'scientifically to illustrate' and 'to illustrate scientifically,' there seems no good reason for flying in the face of common usage.

Even as Alford and some other grammarians (Bache, 1869: "The to of the infinitive mood is inseparable from the verb"; William B. Hodgson, 1889; Raub, 1897: "The sign to must not be separated from the remaining part of the infinitive by an intervening word.") were condemning the split infinitive, others (Brown, 1851, lukewarmly: "The right to place an adverb sometimes between _to_ and its verb, should, I think, be conceded to the poets: as, 'Who dared to nobly stem tyrannic pride.'—BURNS: C. Sat. N." Hall, 1882; Onions, 1904; Jespersen, 1905; Fowler and Fowler, cited above) were endorsing it. Despite the defence by some grammarians, by the beginning of the 20th century the prohibition was firmly established in the press and popular belief. In the 1907 edition of The King's English, the Fowler brothers wrote:

"The 'split' infinitive has taken such hold upon the consciences of journalists that, instead of warning the novice against splitting his infinitives, we must warn him against the curious superstition that the splitting or not splitting makes the difference between a good and a bad writer."

In large parts of the school system, the construction was opposed with ruthless vigour. A correspondent to the BBC on a programme about English grammar in 1983 remarked:

"One reason why the older generation feel so strongly about English grammar is that we were severely punished if we didn't obey the rules! One split infinitive, one whack; two split infinitives, two whacks; and so on."

As a result, the debate took on a degree of passion which the bare facts of the matter never warranted. There was frequent skirmishing between the splitters and anti-splitters until the 1960s. George Bernard Shaw wrote letters to newspapers supporting writers who used the split infinitive, and Raymond Chandler complained to the editor of The Atlantic Monthly about a proofreader who changed Chandler's split infinitives:

"By the way, would you convey my compliments to the purist who reads your proofs and tell him or her that I write in a sort of broken-down patois which is something like the way a Swiss-waiter talks, and that when I split an infinitive, God damn it, I split it so it will remain split, and when I interrupt the velvety smoothness of my more or less literate syntax with a few sudden words of barroom vernacular, this is done with the eyes wide open and the mind relaxed and attentive. The method may not be perfect, but it is all I have."

Principal objections to the split infinitive

The descriptivist objection

Like most linguistic prescription, disapproval of the split infinitive was originally based on the descriptive observation that it was not in fact a feature of the prestige form of English which those proscribing it wished to champion. This is made explicit in the anonymous 1834 text, the first known statement of the position, and in Alford's objection in 1864, the first truly influential objection to the construction, both cited above. Still today, many English speakers avoid split infinitives not because they follow a prescriptive rule, but simply because it was not part of the language that they learned as children.

Many of those who avoid split infinitives differentiate according to type and register. Infinitives split by multi-word phrases ("compound split infinitives") and those split by pronouns are demonstrably less usual than the straight-forward example of an infinitive split by an adverb. Likewise, split infinitives are far more common in speech than in, say, academic writing. Thus, while an outright prohibition on the split infinitive is no longer sustainable on descriptive grounds (as it was in 1834), the advice to avoid it in formal settings, and to avoid some types in particular, remains a tenable position. The prescriptive rule of thumb draws on the descriptive observation that certain split infinitives are not usual in certain situations.

The argument from the full infinitive

A second argument is summed up by Alford's statement "It seems to me that we ever regard the to of the infinitive as inseparable from its verb."

The to in the infinitive construction, which is found throughout the Germanic languages, is originally a preposition before the dative of a verbal noun, but in the modern languages it is best regarded as a particle which serves as a marker of the infinitive. In German, this marker (zu) precedes the infinitive, but is not regarded as part of it. In English, on the other hand, it is traditional to speak of the "bare infinitive" without to and the "full infinitive" with it, and to conceive of to as part of the full infinitive. If we work with the concept of a two-word infinitive, this can reinforce an intuitive sense that the two words belong together. For instance, the usage writer John Opdycke argued that to go is "logically" one word because its closest French, German, and Latin translations are each one word.

However the two-part infinitive is disputed, and some linguists would say of English too that the infinitive is a single-word verb form, which may or may not be preceded by the particle to. And even if we accept the concept of the full infinitive, it does not necessarily follow that two words which belong together grammatically need be adjacent to each other. They usually are, but counter-examples are easily found, such as an adverb splitting a two-word finite verb ("will not do", "has not done").

The argument from classical languages

Opdycke's mention of Latin above leads to a frequently discussed argument: that opposition to split infinitives in English is based on the impossibility of splitting them in Latin and Greek. Although it is not clear that this argument has ever been common among prescriptivists (with Richard Bailey, a professor of English, supposing arguments from other languages are "part of the folklore of linguistics"), many of those who accept split infinitives ascribe such an argument to their opponents. One example is in the American Heritage Book of English Usage: "The only rationale for condemning the construction is based on a false analogy with Latin." In more detail, the usage author Marilyn Moriarty states:

The rule forbidding a split infinitive comes from the time when Latin was the universal language of the world. All scholarly, respectable writing was done in Latin. Scientists and scholars even took Latin names to show that they were learned. In Latin, infinitives appear as a single word. The rule which prohibits splitting an infinite [sic] shows deference to Latin and to the time when the rules which governed Latin grammar were applied to other languages.

Thus the argument implies an adherence to the humanist idea of the greater purity of the classics, an idea which modern linguistics rejects. Those who state the argument often refute it immediately. First, as the American Heritage Book of English Usage goes on to remark, "English is not Latin." Another rebuttal is that as Latin has no marker, it does not model either solution to the question of where to place one: "But there is no precedent in these languages for condemning the split infinitive because in Greek and Latin (and all the other romance languages) the infinitive is a single word that is impossible to sever."

In any case, Moriarty seems to be in error when she dates the prohibition to a time when Latin rules were applied to other languages. As shown above, none of the prescriptivists who began the split-infinitive controversy mentioned Latin in this connection. Of the writers cited here (and the many others consulted) who ascribe the split-infinitive prohibition to Latinism, none cite a source, and as Bailey says this ascription may be "folklore".

Current views

Present reference texts of usage deem simple split infinitives unobjectionable. (Compound split infinitives remain controversial; see Special situations below.) For example, Curme's Grammar of the English Language (1931) says that not only is the split infinitive correct, but it "should be furthered rather than censured, for it makes for clearer expression". The Columbia Guide to Standard American English (1993) notes that the split infinitive "eliminates all possibility of ambiguity", in contrast to the "potential for confusion" in an unsplit construction. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary says, "there has never been a rational basis for objecting to the split infinitive."

Nevertheless, many teachers of English still admonish students against using split infinitives. Because the prohibition has become so widely known, the Columbia Guide (1993, above) recommends that writers "follow the conservative path [of avoiding split infinitives when they are not necessary], especially when you're uncertain of your readers' expectations and sensitivities in this matter."

Avoiding split infinitives

Those writers who choose to avoid split infinitives can either place the splitting element elsewhere in the sentence (as noted in the 1834 proscription) or reformulate the sentence, perhaps rephrasing it without an infinitive and thus avoiding the issue. Clearly, since many English speakers throughout history have not known the construction, or have known it only passively, there can be no situation in which it is a necessary part of natural speech. However, people who avoid it deliberately in obedience to prescribed rules may produce an awkward or ambiguous sentence. Fowler (1926) stressed that, if a sentence is to be rewritten to remove a split infinitive, this must be done without compromising the language:

It is of no avail merely to fling oneself desperately out of temptation; one must so do it that no traces of the struggle remain; that is, sentences must be thoroughly remodelled instead of having a word lifted from its original place & dumped elsewhere:...

In some cases, moving the adverbial creates an ungrammatical sentence or changes the meaning. R.L. Trask uses this example:

• She decided to gradually get rid of the teddy bears she had collected.

"Gradually" splits the infinitive "to get." But if we were to move it, where would it go?

• She decided gradually to get rid of the teddy bears she had collected.

This might imply that the decision was gradual.

• She decided to get rid of the teddy bears she had collected gradually.

This implies that the collecting process was gradual.

• She decided to get gradually rid of the teddy bears she had collected.

This would sound awkward to most native speakers of English.

• She decided to get rid gradually of the teddy bears she had collected.

This is almost as awkward as its immediate predecessor.

The sentence can be rewritten to maintain its meaning, however, using a noun or a different grammatical aspect of the verb:

• She decided to get rid of her teddy bear collection gradually.
• She decided she would gradually get rid of her teddy bear collection.

This last sentence is probably most natural in this case. Fowler notes that the option of rewriting is always available but questions whether it is always worth the trouble.

Special situations

Compound split infinitives, in which more than one adverb is employed, and other multi-word insertions are still contentious. In 1996 the usage panel of The American Heritage Book of English Usage were evenly divided for and against such sentences as I expect him to completely and utterly fail. More than three-quarters of the panel rejected We are seeking a plan to gradually, systematically, and economically relieve the burden. Here the problem appears to be the breaking up of the verbal phrase to be seeking a plan to relieve: a segment of the head verbal phrase is so far removed from the remainder that the listener or reader must expend greater effort to understand the sentence. By contrast, 87 percent of the panel deemed acceptable the multi-word adverbial in We expect our output to more than double in a year.

Splitting infinitives with negations, as in the phrase I want to not see you anymore, remains one of the most complicated areas of contention. Even those who are generally tolerant of split infinitives may draw the line at infinitives split by negation, labeling them awkward or ungrammatical. Indeed, a Web or Usenet search will demonstrate that such phrases as told you not to still (as of 2006) greatly outnumber their split counterparts such as told you to not. The problem is that the relative inflexibility of negation, especially of certain verbs, makes reformulating such sentences difficult. Whereas I want to happily run can easily be altered to I want to run happily, I want to see you not is simply not modern English prose. There are multiple possibilities for altering this sentence, each with its own disadvantages: Moving the not immediately preceding the to-infinitive (I want not to see you any more) sounds awkward to most people. Negating the verb rather than the desire (I don't want to see you anymore) is in fact the most commonly used alternative, but in writing might appear ambiguous: if stressed on want, it implies no particular desire but no objection either. The simplest construction, I want to see you no more, is perfectly acceptable in written English but sounds stilted and is thus rarely found in the spoken language.

There are rare examples of non-adverbial phrases participating in the split-infinitive construction. In verse, poetic inversion for the sake of meter or of bringing a rhyme word to the end of a line often results in abnormal syntax, as with Layamon's and Shakespeare's split infinitives (cited above), in which the infinitive is split by a pronoun and a past participle respectively. However, clearly these would never have occurred in a prose text by the same authors. On the other hand, colloquial examples are to be found in recent literature. A modern example with a pronoun is It was their nature to all hurt one another.

References

• Bryson, Bill (2001) [1990]. The Mother Tongue: English and How It Got That Way. HarperCollins. ISBN 0-380-71543-0.
• Fowler, H. W. (1926). Modern English Usage. Clarendon Press. {{cite book}}: Text "Oxford" ignored (help); Text "location" ignored (help)
• Hall, Fitzedward (1882). "On the Separation, by a Word or Words, of to and the Infinitive Mood". American Journal of Philology. 3 (9): pp. 17–24. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
• Nagle, Stephen (1994). "Infl in Early Modern English and the status of to". In Dieter Kastovsky (Ed.) (ed.). Studies in Early Modern English. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter. pp. pp. 233–242. ISBN 3-11-014127-2. Retrieved 2006-10-27. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)

Further reading

• Huddleston, Rodney D. and Pullum, Geoffrey K. (2002). The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-43146-8. (See especially pp. 581–582.)
• alt.english.usage FAQ entry on split infinitives
• The Columbia Guide to Standard American English