Download To Moderately Split an Infinitive

To Moderately Split an Infinitive
Jill Michelle Moore
April 30, 2006
The source of much debate throughout the writing world, the split
infinitive is the instance when an adverb separates the “to” and the infinitive
verb it governs; to practically ignore, for example, is a split infinitive. The
anti-split-infinitive alliance vehemently opposes this sentence structure, often
citing its use as barbaric and juvenile. Writers who support, or at least don’t
combat, the split infinitive don’t seem to be as strongly opinionated on the
subject. This could be because one of the first grammar rules writers learn is
never to split an infinitive, and perhaps any violation of this rule
unconsciously initiates a little guilt in writers. It’s clear that the split
infinitive causes headaches for some and trepidation for others, so what’s the
big deal?
The strong resistance to the split infinitive is believed to have
stemmed from influential British socialites’ aspiration in the late sixteenth
century to reflect the political success of the Roman Empire through imitation
(Einsohn 338). For England to achieve the Romans’ success, it was reasoned
that its language had to mirror Latin in form and style. Verbs in Latin, and
most other languages, are only one word and thus, by nature, cannot be
split. This concept, whether logical or not, was applied to the English
language and writers were encouraged to treat the infinitive as one word.
Many grammar authorities argue that infinitive-splitting is a desecration of
the English language. Some insist that infinitives are not split in speech, and
therefore should never be in writing. True to their penchant for succinct
writing, William Strunk Jr. and E.B. White state in The Elements of Style that
the practice should be avoided “unless the writer wishes to place unusual
stress on the adverb” (58). They do state, however, that some violations are
inoffensive and barely perceptible, and even that some infinitives seem to
improve on being split (78).
Supporters of the split infinitive go beyond reasoning that some
violations are harmless – they argue the split necessary in some cases. The
Chicago Manual of Style states that the split infinitive is now widely
acknowledged as sometimes justifiable and can be used to accent a verb or
to produce a more natural sound through a sentence’s construction (5.106,
5.160). Sometimes the adverb placed anywhere else could make a
sentence’s meaning unclear or create an awkward and unnatural rhythm. In
The Copyeditor’s Handbook, Amy Einsohn offers advice from Theodore
Bernstein’s The Careful Writer in which he presents three instances when
splitting the infinitive is preferable; in cases of ambiguity, impossible-toavoid structures, and clumsy or artificial arrangements, splitting the infinitive
is often favorable (351-2). The sentence, “The obstacle was sure to suspend
further races,” is an example of ambiguity; in this sentence, it is unclear
whether further is modifying suspend or races. Sometimes it is almost
impossible to avoid splitting an infinitive; for example, “He decided to all but
give up on his dream,” would be a difficult sentence to arrange without
splitting. Ungainly constructions may arise when a writer will do anything to
avoid a split infinitive, as in the case of the sentence, “The restoration is
expected almost to double the company’s budget deficit.” Constance Hale
defends the use of the split infinitive in her book, Sin and Syntax. “Even
though pedagogues trying to apply Latin grammar to our Anglo-Saxon
tongue insist the split infinitive is a no-no, they’re dead wrong” (72).
Though both sides of the argument contend that their position is
absolute, it’s a combination of both that best answers the question of split
infinitives. In this grammar issue, moderation is key. When a sentence can
be reconstructed without altering the meaning or weakening the rhythm and
sound, it is acceptable to avoid splitting. Frequent use of the split infinitive
in a short paragraph or piece may begin to sound clumsy and can break
down the natural rhythms of the sentences. Many times inserting the adverb
mid-infinitive is completely unnecessary, and the sentence would be stronger
without it. But sometimes its use can enhance a verb or an entire sentence.
This is an advantage of a language with two-word infinitives – these
constructions often stylize and add finesse and variety to otherwise
systematic sentences. The split infinitive can also be valuable in connection
with euphony, emphasis, and clarity. Whether or not to employ this
treatment is a matter of recognizing when it will be useful and when it will be
ineffective. Strunk and White refer to the split as “another trick of rhetoric in
which the ear must be quicker than the handbook” (78). It is a matter of
judgment on the part of the writer. Whether a writer chooses to split or not,
the truth is that language is constantly changing and evolving, and grammar
rules and standards should be flexible, and should aim to accommodate
these changes. Writers and editors should be open-minded about split
infinitives, and consider each instance on a case-by-case basis. Either way,
it is not a high crime to split an infinitive, and should not be treated as such.
Works Cited
Chicago Manual of Style, The. 15th ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press, 2003.
Einsohn, Amy. The Copyeditor’s Handbook. Berkeley and Los Angeles:
University of California Press, 2000.
Hale, Constance. Sin and Syntax: How to Craft Wickedly Effective Prose.
New York: Random House, Inc., 2001.
Strunk Jr., William, and E.B. White. The Elements of Style. 4th ed. Needham
Heights, MA: Longman, 2000.