Split-Infinitives.com

Claims That Split Infinitives Are Wrong

Split infinitives became more common in the 19th century, and general awareness seems to have started when Henry Alford condemned them in Plea for the Queen's English, published in 1866. Alford's condemnation was on the basis of common usage. By the end of the 19th century, the prohibition was firmly established in the press and popular belief. The first known use of the term “split infinitive” was in 1897.

The full infinitive as a prerequisite:
In English grammar we distinguish the bare infinitive do from the full infinitive to do, and often use the full infinitive as the citation form. This is probably because the English infinitive lacks any distinctive inflection, in contrast to French and German, where the bare infinitive by itself is recognisable as such. This means that in English, the preposition to is conceptualised as part of the infinitive, whereas in French and German, à/de and zu are not. French grammarians would analyze décider de faire as décider de + faire, whereas English grammarians break down decide to do into decide + to do. The difference is purely one of analysis, as the constructions are parallel, but the English perspective on this was a prerequisite for the idea that there is such a thing as a full infinitive which can be split.

The argument from classical languages:
It is speculated that the rule against split infinitives developed around the beginning of the English Renaissance, as English grammarians, trained to look to Ancient Greek and Latin as ideal languages, took a closer look at their own mother tongue. In Greek and Latin, it is impossible to split infinitives because these languages never use their infinitives together with a preposition. At a time when European intellectuals saw Classical culture and language as more perfect than their own, this represented a powerful precedent. Some language historians see this as the deciding factor. For example, the American Heritage Book of English Usage (1996) states: “The only rationale for condemning the construction is based on a false analogy with Latin.”

The argument from Germanic languages:
On the other hand, there are those who dislike the split infinitive on the grounds that it is not a natural construction in a Germanic language. This of course is a weak argument today, as standard English has very many constructions which are novelties within the Germanic language family. However, in fairness to the renaissance grammarians, it must be said that the further we go back in English language history, the more English is typically Germanic, and it is possible that in the 14th century the split infinitive was still uncommon enough to sound foreign.

The descriptivist objection:
Although most English speakers do use split infinitives, it should be noted that some do not, not because they follow a prescriptivist rule but simply because it is not part of the language as they acquired it as children. One may of course speculate that they are influenced by prescriptivist thinking in the previous generation. Nonetheless, a complete picture of the debate must allow that there are those who are uncomfortable with the construction because their descriptivist observation of their own usage leads them to feel that it does not belong in their language.

Some of those who avoid split infinitives differentiate according to type and register. Clearly, “I decided to not go” is not nearly as lumpish as “I decided to by bus on Wednesday go”; that is, it makes a big difference what kinds of adverbials are inserted, and the boundaries of normality are subjective. Again, split infinitives are far more common in speech than in academic writing, and a sense of what makes good formal style is likewise subjective. Thus an attempt to avoid the construction need not be based entirely on prescriptivist rules; it can draw simultaneously on a descriptivist observation that certain split infinitives are not usual in certain situations.

Copyright © 2005-2010 Split-Infinitives.com. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled “GNU Free Documentation License”.