Recently, I read an article about that discussed Steven Pinker's contention that the prescription against splitting infinitives is a bogus rule, and that there is no reason to have it. I would argue that, not only is that rule bogus, and that it represents a blatant Latinism, but that most of the time, when you can split an infinitive, you should.
The example that is most commonly given is the phrase from Star Trek, which should tell you something about how recent this form of misplaced grammatical pedantry actually is. It is argued that the phrase "...to boldly go..." should be written "...boldly to go..." or "...to go boldly...".
In Latin, and in many other languages, there is a part of speech called an infinitive. In English, we don't genuinely have such a thing. English has what you could call an "infinitive phrase". Like a prepositional phrase, it begins with a short work, "to", but unlike a prepositional phrase, it ends with a verb instead of a noun. Since it has a beginning marker and an ending, it can encompass any number of modifying words without confusion or ambiguity.
If that were the entire story, it would be enough to simply throw out the rule against splitting infinitives. But there is more. In English, and in many other languages, there is also a rule demanding that modifying words not be separated more than necessary from the words that they modify. In the simple case, this means that if we follow the prohibition against cleft infinitives, we are at least adding the separation of a "to" in the case where we move the descriptor forward. If we place it after the verb, it threatens to separate the verb from its object, where there is one. This may be entirely reasonable, if the modifier is meant to apply to the association between the verb and its object "to go boldly to war" as opposed to "to boldly go to war", but there is a slight semantic nuance to the association by position (describing how you go versus how you go to war).
For that reason, I would argue that placing a modifier for an infinitive in front of the "to" should be considered either wrong, or at least less than ideal. People who are learning English who place the modifier in front of the "to" should be gently corrected. Split your infinitives, people.
Here's the article:
http://www.motherjones.com/environm...minds-steven-pinker-style-bogus-grammar-rules
The example that is most commonly given is the phrase from Star Trek, which should tell you something about how recent this form of misplaced grammatical pedantry actually is. It is argued that the phrase "...to boldly go..." should be written "...boldly to go..." or "...to go boldly...".
In Latin, and in many other languages, there is a part of speech called an infinitive. In English, we don't genuinely have such a thing. English has what you could call an "infinitive phrase". Like a prepositional phrase, it begins with a short work, "to", but unlike a prepositional phrase, it ends with a verb instead of a noun. Since it has a beginning marker and an ending, it can encompass any number of modifying words without confusion or ambiguity.
If that were the entire story, it would be enough to simply throw out the rule against splitting infinitives. But there is more. In English, and in many other languages, there is also a rule demanding that modifying words not be separated more than necessary from the words that they modify. In the simple case, this means that if we follow the prohibition against cleft infinitives, we are at least adding the separation of a "to" in the case where we move the descriptor forward. If we place it after the verb, it threatens to separate the verb from its object, where there is one. This may be entirely reasonable, if the modifier is meant to apply to the association between the verb and its object "to go boldly to war" as opposed to "to boldly go to war", but there is a slight semantic nuance to the association by position (describing how you go versus how you go to war).
For that reason, I would argue that placing a modifier for an infinitive in front of the "to" should be considered either wrong, or at least less than ideal. People who are learning English who place the modifier in front of the "to" should be gently corrected. Split your infinitives, people.
Here's the article:
http://www.motherjones.com/environm...minds-steven-pinker-style-bogus-grammar-rules
chuckle
