Split infinitive: Difference between revisions

A split infinitive occurs in English when an adverb or adverbial phrase is inserted between to and a verb in its infinitive form. One very famous example is from the science fiction series Star Trek: "To boldly go where no man has gone before." Here, the infinitive verb form of "go" is "to go", and the adverb "boldly" has been inserted, creating a split infinitive.

In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, some grammatical authorities argued that split infinitives should not be allowed in English, by an analogy with Latin (where they are usually impossible). Most authorities from the last 100 years, however, agree that this rule was mistaken, and indeed that split infinitives can sometimes reduce ambiguity compared to an unsplit form.

The admissibility of split infinitives has been controversial since the 18th century. Split infinitives are common in English, and have been in use since the thirteenth century. The earliest prohibition of the usage was in 1762, when Robert Lowth argued that because a split infinitive was not permissible in Latin, it should not be permissible in English.

This is a fine point of Latin grammar: although ordinary present-tense Latin infinitives are impossible to split because they are simply a verb suffix (e.g. amare is "to love"), Latin also contains other infinitive tenses that are two words (e.g. the future infinitive amaturus esse, "to be about to love", or the passive perfect infinitive, amatus esse, "to have been loved").

Some authorities (for example, Jespersen and the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage) claim that the English infinitive is also a single word. The modern English infinitive is derived from the Middle English infinitive, which was marked by the endings -e and -en. The use of to with the infinitive in Middle English almost exactly matched its use in modern English; that is, sometimes it was used, and sometimes not. See the article on the infinitive for examples of the infinitive without to in modern English.

The split infinitive wasn't used much in the eighteenth century, so Lowth's prohibition didn't attract much attention. Split infinitives became more common in the nineteenth century, and general awareness seems to have started with Henry Alford's condemnation of them in Plea for the Queen's English, published in 1866. By the end of the century, the prohibition was firmly established in the press and popular belief. During certain treaty negotiations with the United States, the British government went so far as to issue instructions to its representatives allowing them to make concessions on fishing rights and reparations, but forbidding them to accept a treaty in which an adverb separated to from an infinitive. The first known use of the term "split infinitive" was in 1897.

However, just as the prohibition against the split infinitive was becoming part of popular culture, there was a reaction against it among leading writers and grammarians. For example, 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."

The reaction against this "superstition" was based on grammatical, historical, and stylistic considerations. Grammatically, the prohibition of split infinitives was thought to be a nonsensical application of Latin grammar to a Germanic language. There are good grounds to argue that to is not part of the infinitive in English (for example, its German cognate zu is not considered part of the infinitive in German, either, although a number of sentences use it the same way as English uses to). Historically, English writers have been separating to from the infinitive at least since Layamon in 1250. And, stylistically, the careful placement of another word between to and the infinitive sometimes avoids ambiguity or ugliness.

The old prohibition on split infinitives is even more surprising when one observes that there are a number of expressions in English that are weakened considerably by avoiding the split infinitive. The phrase "I plan to really enjoy the party" is more natural and rhythmic than alternatives such as "I plan really to enjoy the party" and "I plan to enjoy really the party". The final possible alternative "I plan to enjoy the party, really" actually possesses a slightly different meaning. (The otherwise perfectly acceptable variation "I really plan to enjoy the party" is not relevant to this particular discussion, as the adverb modifies the indicative verb "plan" rather than the infinitive "enjoy".)

There was frequent skirmishing between the splitters and anti-splitters up until the 1960s. George Bernard Shaw wrote letters to newspapers supporting writers who used the split infinitive, and Raymond Chandler complained to his publisher about a proofreader who changed Chandler's split infinitives.

Even as some grammarians (Alford, cited above; Bache, 1869; Hodgson, 1889) were condemning the split infinitive, others (Brown, 1851; Onions, 1904; Jespersen, 1905; Fowler and Fowler, cited above) were endorsing it. In the present day, all reference texts of grammar deem simple split infinitives unobjectionable. (Compound split infinitives still remain controversial.)

H. W. Fowler later wrote, in his 1926 Dictionary of Modern English Usage, that writers who avoid split infinitives are "bogy-haunted creatures". 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. The American Heritage Book of English Usage (1996) states: "The only rationale for condemning the construction is based on a false analogy with Latin."

Nevertheless, a surprising number of teachers of English still admonish students for using split infinitives. Because of the many people who have been taught to object to the construction, 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."

The meaning of other expressions can be changed completely by avoiding the split infinitive. The sentence "He failed to completely understand the book" suggests that the understanding is not complete, whereas "He failed completely to understand the book" implies that no understanding was achieved at all. Another alternative, "He failed to understand the book completely", is ambiguous, as it is not certain whether the adverb is attached to "failed" or to "understand". Finally, the adverb is sometimes placed after the infinitive, as in "He failed to understand completely the book", a construction that can be, according to Fowler, "unnatural".

Split infinitives are also often employed to provide a necessary emphasis in conversation:

Student A: "I'm going to do better next year."

Student B: "I'm going to really do better next year."

Perhaps the worst problem caused by the belief that infinitives should not be split, however, is that it leads to a wholly groundless avoidance of splitting in other compound verb forms. For example, people will contort sentences to avoid placing an adverb in its usual position between the auxiliary verb and the participle, leading to constructions such as, "The argument originally had been used..." instead of "The argument had originally been used", which is more natural for most speakers.

Compound split infinitives (where more than one adverb is employed) are still contentious; as recently as 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." The panel was not entirely consistent however, as 87% deemed "We expect our output to more than double in a year" to be acceptable.

There are rare examples of nonadverbial insertions into infinitives, as in "It was their nature to all hurt one another."

Splitting infinitives with negations, such as in the phrase "I want to not see you any more", is generally considered awkward or ungrammatical — the phrasing, "I don't want to see you any more" is preferred (although its literal meaning is slightly changed, from expressing an active desire to a lack thereof), or "I want not to see you any more".

• alt.english.usage FAQ entry on split infinitives