* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download To Moderately Split an Infinitive
Chinese grammar wikipedia , lookup
Udmurt grammar wikipedia , lookup
Untranslatability wikipedia , lookup
Pipil grammar wikipedia , lookup
Lithuanian grammar wikipedia , lookup
Construction grammar wikipedia , lookup
Sanskrit grammar wikipedia , lookup
Chichewa tenses wikipedia , lookup
Cognitive semantics wikipedia , lookup
Semantic holism wikipedia , lookup
Ukrainian grammar wikipedia , lookup
Yiddish grammar wikipedia , lookup
Sentence spacing wikipedia , lookup
Modern Hebrew grammar wikipedia , lookup
Kannada grammar wikipedia , lookup
Transformational grammar wikipedia , lookup
Junction Grammar wikipedia , lookup
English clause syntax wikipedia , lookup
Turkish grammar wikipedia , lookup
Polish grammar wikipedia , lookup
Ancient Greek verbs wikipedia , lookup
Spanish verbs wikipedia , lookup
Spanish grammar wikipedia , lookup
Portuguese grammar wikipedia , lookup
Finnish grammar wikipedia , lookup
Ancient Greek grammar wikipedia , lookup
Latin syntax wikipedia , lookup
German verbs wikipedia , lookup
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.