Common Usage Dilemmas: Split Infinitives: To Boldly Go Where Everyone Else Goes The Good, the Bad, the Ugly As their motto proves, the crew of the USS Enterprise split their infinitives along with their atoms. The motto should read: “To Go Boldly …” They're not alone. Remember that a split infinitive occurs when an adverb or adverbial phrase is placed between to and the verb. People who feel strongly about their split infinitives really feel strongly about their split infinitives. A famous New Yorker cartoon shows Captain Bligh sailing away from the Bounty in a rowboat and shouting, “So Mr. Christian! You propose to unceremoniously cast me adrift?” The caption beneath the cartoon reads: “The crew can no longer tolerate Captain Bligh's ruthless splitting of infinitives.” You Could Look It Up A split infinitive occurs when an adverb or adverbial phrase is placed between to and the verb. Even though some people get their pencils bent out of shape over this matter, there is no authoritative grammar and usage text that expressly forbids it. Famous writers have been splitting their infinitives with abandon for centuries.

George Bernard Shaw, the brilliant Irish playwright, once sent this letter to the Times of London: “There is a busybody on your staff who devotes a lot of time to chasing split infinitives: I call for the immediate dismissal of this pedant. It is of no consequence whether he decides to go quickly or to quickly go or quickly to go. The important thing is that he should go at once.” Quoth the Maven The twentieth-century writer and cartoonist James Thurber had this to say to the editor who rearranged his infinitive: “When I split an infinitive, it is going to damn well stay split!” What should you do? While I do not advocate that you go around town splitting infinitives with abandon, there's no point in mangling a sentence just to avoid a split infinitive. Good writers occasionally split infinitives to create emphasis, achieve a natural word order, and avoid confusion. If splitting an infinitive makes it possible for you to achieve the precise shade of meaning you desire, you have my blessing to split away. Excerpted from The Complete Idiot's Guide to Grammar and Style © 2003 by Laurie E. Rozakis, Ph.D..

All rights reserved including the right of reproduction in whole or in part in any form. Used by arrangement with Alpha Books, a member of Penguin Group (USA) Inc. To order this book direct from the publisher, visit the Penguin USA website or call 1-800-253-6476. You can also purchase this book at Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble . What is a Split Infinitive: Grammar Guide What is a Split Infinitive: Grammar Guide Updated on December 12, 2013 Original Star Trek Cast To Boldly Go Where No Man Has Gone Before I received an email regarding split infinitives. Our fellow Hubber wrote: Will you write a Hub on split infinitives? "I think they're okay; a friend of mine insists they're not. We decided to let you settle the score." What pressure! In this Hub, I'll give you the basics; tell you what the experts say; give you my two cents; and then let you decide. One of the most famous split infinitives is the Star Trek saying, "To boldly go where no man has gone before".

First, let's start off with a definition of split infinitive, then we'll analyze the Star Trek statement and see if it's grammatically correct. Definition Infinitive: an infinitive is the basic part of a verb, e.g., to dance, to sing, to play, to go. Split infinitive: a split infinitive occurs when an infinitive (to dance, to sing, to play, to go) is split in two by an adverb (a word that modifies the verb). For example: to gracefully dance (The infinitives are in bold and the adverbs are underlined.) What do the experts say? The American Heritage Book of English Usage: A Practical and Authoritative Guide to Contemporary English Fifty percent of grammarians on the American Heritage panel believe that the split infinitive is okay, the other half do not. The majority do agree that more than one adverb in between an infinitive is not advised. Here is their example, "We are seeking a plan to gradually, systematically, and economically relieve the burden." They do not like the use of this split infinitive. This organization advises a writer to be wary of using split infinitives unless it decreases ambiguity.

They use the example of these three sentences: The driver is instructed periodically to check the oil level The driver is instructed to periodically check the oil level. The driver is instructed to check the oil level periodically. Do you know which sentence is the split infinitive? The second sentence is the split infinitive because "periodically" is splitting the infinitive "to check". Although, the second sentence is the split infinitive, it is the most unambiguous; is the driver told to check the oil periodically, or is he physically checking the oil periodically. In this example, they believe the split infinitive is the best choice. The Oxford Dictionary calls split infinitives a myth. They believe they are "poor style" but not grammatically incorrect. What I think... For many years grammarians have noted that split infinitives are incorrect. Their reasoning: in Latin an infinitive is one word, thus splitting it would be incorrect. However, although our language is based in Latin, it is not Latin, and in English an infinitive is two words. I think split infinitives are okay if used with caution.

In the Star Trek statement, "To boldly go where no man has gone before," the sentence would not have the same effect if it were worded differently. E.g., "To go boldly where no man has gone before," or "To go where no man has gone before boldly". These last two sentences just don't have the same effect. But beware: In some instances, the split infinitive makes a sentence sound awkward. To gracefully dance is an art form. (An awkward split infinitive sentence.) To dance gracefully is an art form. (Grammatically correct and better sounding.) Last note: English grammar is incredibly dynamic. Grammarians disagree with one another on a consistent basis. This is evident when English usage panels are split on correct usages. In some of my hubs I have had comments disagreeing with my explanations or usage. This is absolutely fine; I just love the dialogue. I'm sorry if I didn't settle the disagreement in the original email, but I hope I was able to shed a bit of light on the subject. (And educate a few of you on what a split infinitive actually is.;)) Please feel free to use the comment box if you want to leave your two cents.

More by this Author A guide with definitions and examples to help understad the degrees of adjectives: positive, comparative and superlative. 24 A guide to understanding proper sentence structure with examples and definitions. 117 Symptoms, treatments and different reactions for bee stings, and photos of the different stages of a bee sting to the eye. What do you think? 26 comments J 4 years ago Wow... I never realised there was such heated debate in respect of this matter... Personally, I agree with a previous post that the most important thing is that your point is understood by your audience. However, my overriding thought interesting though the subject is, is that you people have too much time on your hands. Speaking for myself, I do have too much time on my hands.....hence this post! Thanks for reading Allons-y 5 years ago Thank you for clearing up the confusion for me! I had wondered about split infinitives for a long time. However, I also noticed that, under the experts section, there should not be a comma after _although_ in "Although, the second sentence is the split infinitive, it is the most unambiguous . .

." _Although_ is used as a subordinate conjunction, not an interjection, and the sentence should be "Although the second sentence is the split infinitive, it is the most unambiguous . . ." Ron 5 years ago Split infinitive, as a rule, is a red herring. The purpose of writing anything is for the reader to understand exactly what you mean. This means putting the adverb, and any other words, in the correct order so as to ensure no ambiguity. Therefore if the only way to achieve this is to use the split infinitive, that must be the correct thing to do as any other arrangement of the words would be either ambiguous, or misleading. It's not a case of should I/shouldn't I use the split infinitive; it's does my word arrangement accurately represent that which I want the reader to understand. Emilia 5 years ago How about the negation of a verb?

I am bothered by "I told him to not go there, boldly or otherwise." It sounds much better to to say "I told him not to go there, boldly or otherwise." David S 5 years ago Just a note on why "To boldly go ..." has more impact than the phrase "To go boldly ..." - The former phrasing more closely follows the rule of poetic meter: To BOLD-ly GO where NO MAN has GONE be-FORE This phrase is in iambic pentameter (five iambs - a short followed by long syllable), with a single exception. The latter phrasing would result in two exceptions - "To GO BOLD-ly where NO MAN has GONE be-FORE" - thereby reducing its poetic impact. DS Pye 5 years ago Split infinitives rule is ridiculous and based on Latin rules. You really have to think about whether these things actually make any sense. ;-) Oxford, my best friend. kjudd66 6 years ago These are very useful. I have begun to post them to my Facebook page, to the continued enlightenment/indifference of my FB friends.

Wayne Tilden 6 years ago from Roseville, California I had hoped truly that this hub would set it all finally straight. I guess not. I seem to not understand what I had already thought I had grasped. Nevertheless, I do often find myself breaking this, and other, rules of grammar. But only ocasionally and for good reasons. Amen [so be it] Mark Jenner 6 years ago Thanks - I write reports for a living for use in court and counsel has just criticised my use of the split infinitive - type the words into google and I got the answer here - nicely put! I will remove my si as counsel is a bit old fashioned. fail 6 years ago ummm... so you are writing a column on grammar and you used "weary" (This organization advises a writer to be weary of using split infinitives unless it decreases ambiguity) in the place of wary. Unless you are advising us to be tired of using split infinitives you kind of blew it. Sal 6 years ago I just came across this in my wanderings. Robin, this is a great service you have done. Keep up the good work! Izzy Anne 7 years ago Good answer.

I am doomed to notice more and more split infinitives on the BBC. I wish I had never learnt that rule. Adam 7 years ago To thoroughly exploit the subtleties of English grammar and usage, one must be convinced of the consistent disagreement of grammarians. Beth 8 years ago "This organization advises a writer to be weary of using split infinitives ..." We do get weary of the misuse of English words. I do believe the advice here would be to be wary. Jon 9 years ago Regarding the section above titled "What I think...." I can only hope it was just a typo that you used four dots rather than three? ;-) Robin 9 years ago from San Francisco Author Evan, Yes, English is Germanic in grammar; however, 60% of our language is rooted in Latin.Â The split infinitive falls into the category of a Latin rule.Â Thanks for the comment. Evan 9 years ago English is not based in Latin, it is germanic. Many Latin words have been added because, in my opinion, of either a failure of nerve or snob value. Robin 10 years ago from San Francisco Author Ha! I love it, Wajay.

wajay_47 10 years ago Great hub, Robin. Not an easy subject to explain, I'm sure. I am definitely guilty of using them! I figure that if fifty percent of grammarians use them and fifty percent don't, then the worst case scenario is that I'm half right. Thanks. Robin 10 years ago from San Francisco Author Ha! I probably tricked you with the title. I agree with you completely. I saw your hub, I'll link to it on my hub if my readers are interested in more information. Thanks! StuartJ 10 years ago from Christchurch, New Zealand Oh dear, I thought this was one I might beat you to... I have an unpublished hub on the split infinitive. My approach is that this is a non-rule -- a myth or superstition. The rule that should be followed is to simply put the adverb where it makes for the most clarity. If that means splitting the infinitive, split it. It is true that some split infinitives are ugly and awkward, like the one in the hub: "To gracefully dance". But most literate native speakers wouldn't write it that way, anyway, irrespective of whether they knew it was a split infinitive.

I think native speakers could simply forget about the "rule" and just follow just their instincts about where to put the adverb. Robin 10 years ago from San Francisco Author Sorry! I appreciate the readership, even if it's a painful read. LOL ;) Drax 10 years ago from NYC.... yes Robin you continue to mercilessly punish us :-) George 10 years ago I'm glad that you did the split infinitives. Now, your audience knows about them, and that to break the rule would be advisable only for increased clarity. Robin 10 years ago from San Francisco Author Ha!! You're the son of an English teacher, so you should have no problems. Plus, I'm not judging. ;) jamestedmondson 10 years ago from San Francisco As the biggest grammar nerd on Hubpages (or possibly the world), are you aware of the pressure you put on your readers to clearly write a grammatically correct comment? Grammar Girl : Split Infinitives :: Quick and Dirty Tips ™ to scientifically illustrate If you want to remember what a split infinitive is, just remember what might be the most famous example: Star Trek's to boldly go where no one has gone before.

To boldly go is a split infinitive. Boldly splits to go. The Origin of the Split Infinitive Rule The idea that you shouldn’t put an adverb in the middle of an infinitive was mentioned earlier but was most prominently introduced by Henry Alford, the Dean of Canterbury, in his 1864 book The Queen’s English. Through the magic of Google Books, you can see the entry yourself . Alford didn’t state it a rule though. Instead, in response to a correspondent who liked phrases such as “to scientifically illustrate,” he said he saw “no good reason” to split the infinitive. One reason Alford gave for his belief was that nobody was doing it (“. . . this practice is entirely unknown to English speakers and writers.”), but the Oxford English Dictionary disagrees, reporting that split infinitives were widespread at the time. In fact, many respected writers, both before and after Alford’s time, have employed split infinitives, including Thomas Cromwell, Daniel Defoe, Lord Byron, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Elizabeth Gaskell, Benjamin Franklin, and Elizabeth Barrett Browning.

The Fowler Brothers on the Split Infinitive Rule From this shaky start, Alford’s opinion about split infinitives somehow made its way into the general consciousness and English school books, and it was taught as a rule to generations of children—and journalists, according the Fowler brothers, authors of the popular and enduring 1907 style guide The King’s English. Although the Fowlers found the split infinitive “ugly,” they nevertheless felt that prohibitions had gone too far.

They 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." 'To boldly go where no man has gone before' - the meaning and origin of this phrase Famous Last Words Browse phrases beginning with: To boldly go where no man has gone before Origin This introductory text was spoken at the beginning of many Star Trek television episodes and films, from 1966 onward: Space: The final frontier These are the voyages of the Starship, Enterprise Its 5 year mission To explore strange new worlds To seek out new life and new civilizations To boldly go where no man has gone before This line reinvigorated the last-lasting debate over split infinitives. These are infinitives that have an adverb between 'to' and the verb. Those grammarians who still cared about this in the 1960s complained that 'to boldly go' should have been 'to go boldly'. The debate had been simmering on and off for the best part of a century.

As early as 1897, Academy magazine suggested that an insistence that split infinitives were incorrect was somewhat pedantic: "Are our critics aware that Byron is the father of their split infinitive? 'To slowly trace', says the noble poet, 'the forest's shady scene'." Most authorities now accept Star Trek into the grammatical fold and no longer care, or at least rarely publicly complain, about 'to boldly go'. By 1966, people cared more about implied sexism than doubtful grammar and the show's producers received criticism for the 'no man' part of the speech. Despite some recourse to the tradition defence of the use of 'man' to mean 'human', that is, 'man embraces woman', by the time Star Trek: The Next Generation was aired, in 1987, the shows producers had opted for the more politically correct last line - "Where no one has gone before". In that series the hirsutely challenged Patrick Stewart took on the role of the Star Trek's commander and wags could hardly miss the 'to baldly go' quip at his expense. split infinitive split infinitive This Grammar.com article is about split infinitive — enjoy your reading!

Every verb has a base infinitive form. We think of the infinitive as the verb with the preposition to in front of it: as in to have, to hold, to love, to honor, to cherish. Infinitives appear in the language in three ways: (1) they appear alone to show some of the tenses, as in I write, You write, We write, They write; (2) they join auxiliary verbs to form other tenses or conditions, as in I will write, He could write; and (3) they are used to form infinitive phrases , which can act as nouns , adjectives , or adverbs . Controversy rages over whether you may split an infinitive by putting other words between the to and the infinitive verb. The short answer is yes. The so-called rule against split infinitives is simply not a rule. For a thorough discussion and a press release by the Oxford English Dictionary, study the section on Verbs in Parts of Speech on Grammar.com. Click here for the beginning of that discussion.

The following are correct: 9 famous quotes that are (technically) grammatically incorrect 9 famous quotes that are (technically) grammatically incorrect "The game isn’t over till it’s over." -Yogi Berra AP Photo April 24, 2013 10 things you need to know today Today's best articles Daily business briefing 1. To boldly go where no man has gone before. This line (and its newer version, with no one in place of no man) is as famous for being "wrong" as it is for being from the intro to each episode of Star Trek. What's "wrong"? It's a "split infinitive," with boldly improperly between to and go. Is it really wrong? No. The "rule" against split infinitives is just a grammatical superstition. It was invented in the 1700s by a grammarian who wanted to "improve" the language along Latin lines. English, however, is not Latin, and the option of putting words between to and the verb root has always existed and has often been made use of by respected authors.

There are times when a sentence works better if you don't do it, sure; that doesn't make it a rule, and the Star Trek line is not one of those times, either. "Boldly to go"? "To go boldly"? No. 2. The woods are lovely, dark and deep. / But I have promises to keep, / And miles to go before I sleep, / And miles to go before I sleep. This is from "Stopping by the Woods on a Snowy Evening," by Robert Frost. What's "wrong"? It starts a new sentence right before a conjunction ("But..."). Is it really wrong? No. It has always been an option in English to start sentences with conjunctions, and the most respected authors in the language have done so on occasion to good effect. 3. This was the most unkindest cut of all. Marc Antony says this in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. What's "wrong"? Double superlative: most unkindest. Is it really wrong? It is now, but it wasn't when Shakespeare was writing. What happened between now and then? Those grammarians of the 1700s set out to "improve" English.

Many of their "improvements" didn't really stick, except as superstitions, but the laws they laid down against double negatives, double comparatives, and double superlatives did. 4. We are such stuff as dreams are made on; and our little life is rounded with a sleep. Prospero says this in The Tempest by William Shakespeare. What's "wrong"? Ending a sentence (or a clause) with a preposition ("on"), and using a semicolon between two conjoined clauses. Is it really wrong? The "rule" against ending sentences or clauses with prepositions is another fake rule, invented a century after Shakespeare died. It has been ignored to good effect by respected writers throughout English history. Just try rephrasing the line to avoid it without making a mess. The semicolon is an error in the standard English of our time, but the rules of punctuation were looser in Shakespeare's time. 5. Well, back to the old drawing board. This is from a cartoon by Peter Arno showing a designer walking away from a crashed plane. What's "wrong"? This sentence has no verb. Is it really wrong?

As covered in " It's totally okay to write incomplete sentences ," there are sentences that can use an adverb as the predicate rather than filling extra space needlessly with added verbs. It's usually a bit less formal, but it's misguided to say it's actually wrong. Many an erudite reader has read "And so to bed" in the diary of Samuel Pepys without emitting a peep about it — and that begins with a conjunction too. 6. The game isn't over till it's over. This is attributed to Yogi Berra. What's "wrong"? Tautology; use of till. Is it really wrong? Logical tautology — the game is over when it's over, obviously — is not a grammatical error, and it can be quite useful as a rhetorical device, because it trades on the different uses of a word. Would you rather Berra had said "Do not believe at any point that the remainder of the game is a foregone conclusion"? As to till rather than until or 'til, that is in fact not an error at all; till is even older than until, and is still accepted in common use.

In fact, until was formed from und (an Old Norse word meaning "as far as, up to") plus till. Since till means "up to" (it's different from "till the soil" or "cash in the till"), until is actually a bit redundant. 7. Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. Rhett Butler says this to Scarlett O'Hara in Gone with the Wind. What's "wrong"? Not the damn; profanity is not ungrammatical, just impolite. No, it's the frankly, because he's not saying "I don't give a damn frankly" as opposed to giving it some other way. The best-known infraction of this "rule" involves the use of hopefully. Is it really wrong? No, not at all. Adverbs used at the beginning of a sentence to describe the speaker's attitude are called sentence adverbs and have been used in English for a very long time: frankly, obviously, really, clearly, sadly, seriously, obviously, hopefully… 8. A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

This is the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. What's "wrong"? It has commas in places where they are not allowed by the rules of current English. Is it really wrong? It would be if they were writing it today, unless the core sentence were "A well-regulated militia shall not be infringed" and the other clauses were appositives — but that's not the standard reading. As long as the subject of the verb is "the right," the problem is that there's a comma between it and the verb "shall." Also, the comma after "militia" appears to be in the middle of a clause — but there are disputes about that too. The problem is that rules for commas were a bit looser at the time. It's not that the Founding Fathers didn't know English; it's that they didn't know what it would become more than two centuries later. 9. You ain't heard nothin' yet, folks. Al Jolson said this in the first talking motion picture, The Jazz Singer. He probably wasn't the first to say it and he definitely wasn't the last. What's "wrong"?

Use of ain't, use of a double negative, and "dropping the g." Is it really wrong? See above regarding double negatives. "Dropping the g" is an inaccurate way of referring to the fronting of the "ng" sound to "n" (there is no "g" in the sound; we just write it with g because we don't use a nice single standard letter such as ŋ for it). This was in fact the standard way of saying –ing for quite a long time and is reflected even in respected poetry from the 1600s and 1700s. But schoolteachers in the 1800s started teaching a spelling pronunciation, and you know how it is with things you're taught in school: even if you don't do them yourself, they're burned in your mind as "correct." As to ain't, this is a word that now exists in English especially for the purpose of being "wrong," informal, slangy. It first came about in the 1700s and 1800s from contractions for am not, are not, and have not.

It was commonly used in casual speech at many levels of society for a time, and by educated speakers in some areas as late as the turn of the 20th century, but prescriptive grammarians didn't like it and banned it. Once that happened, it secured its place as a distinct marker of pointedly nonstandard speech. You may feel certain that Al Jolson said what he said precisely because it was not standard English. Can you imagine a jazz singer saying, "You haven't heard anything yet?" Where's the groove in that? Split infinitives - Grammarist Grammarist Grammar Split infinitives Contrary to what some grammarians say, there is no rule against using split infinitives in English. One might use them with care, but splitting an infinitive is sometimes the best way to clearly express a thought. What are split infinitives? An infinitive is the uninflected form of a verb along with to—for example, to walk, to inflect, to split. A split infinitive is created by placing an adverb or adverbial phrase between the to and the verb—for example, to boldly go, to casually walk, to gently push.

Although split infinitives have been widely condemned in grade-school classrooms, they’re common in writing of all kinds. When you’re in doubt, avoiding the split can’t hurt, but don’t ruin a perfectly clear and natural-sounding sentence just to adhere to an arbitrary antisplitting rule. When to avoid split infinitives When moving the adverb to the end of a phrase doesn’t cause confusion or change the sentence’s meaning, it’s a good idea to keep the infinitive intact—for example: He urged me to casually walk up and say hello. There’s no reason why this sentence couldn’t be, He urged me to walk up casually and say hello. It’s also a good idea to avoid splitting infinitives too widely: This software allows your company to quickly, easily, and cost-effectively manage all tasks. One possible revision: How to Avoid Split Infinitives | Grammar Lessons - YouTube How to Avoid Split Infinitives | Grammar Lessons Want to watch this again later? Sign in to add this video to a playlist. Need to report the video? Sign in to report inappropriate content. The interactive transcript could not be loaded. Loading... Rating is available when the video has been rented. This feature is not available right now. Please try again later.

Published on Apr 21, 2014 Watch more Grammar Lessons videos: I'm going to talk to you about how and why you should avoid split infinitives in your writing and I can't talk about split infinitives without talking about the Start Trek TV show. You may know the famous phrase, "To boldly go where no man has gone before." It s a great TV show but a grammatically incorrect phrase and I'll show you why. So, a split infinitive happens when we have the infinitive form of the verb, like "to go" broken up by an adverb like "boldly." So, you can see in this case, to boldly go creates a split infinitive. The way to fix this is to simply rearrange the words so that your infinitive stays together, "to go". And "boldly," your adverb, comes after the infinitive. I like to think of infinitives as being connected by super glue. You want to keep them stuck together so that nothing comes between then and the adverb can typically go after or even sometimes before. Let's fix another sentence with a split infinitive.

This time we have, "If you are gong to quickly eat, be careful." in this sentence to eat is our infinitive verb which essentially means a verb that has not yet been conjugated. Whenever you see the word "to" in front of a verb, chances are you are dealing with an infinitive and you don't want to split it up. In this case, our infinitive is split up by the word "quickly." So, how do we fix this? Well, it's a simple rewrite. By super-gluing our infinitive, "to eat" together and kicking "quickly" to the curb, or essentially kicking it outside of the infinitive "to eat" so that it comes after or before, we avoid the split infinitive and we have a grammatically correct sentence. In this case, if you are going to eat quickly, be careful. So, the reason why we don't want to split apart infinitives is because we don't want our verbs to go wandering off; we want to keep them together because it keeps the meaning of the sentence clear. Quickly has no sense of confusing the action which is "to eat," so that verb stays strong.

I hope that that clears up the issue of split infinitives for you and I hope I haven't offended any Star Trek fans out there. Category Split Infinitive — Grammar Tips and Resources ﻿ Would you convey my compliments to the purist who reads your proofs and tell him or her that I write a sort of broken-down patois which is something like the way a Swiss waiter talks, and that when I split an infinitive, God damn it, I split it so it will stay split...—Raymond Chandler, American novelist, in a letter to his publisher regarding a proofreader who had changed all of his split infinitives. Welcome to Compass Rose Horizons. We offer expert proofreading, editing, book design, and transcription services. Split Your Infinitives? Yes You Can! Vintage advertisement for Underwood portable typewriters. Underwood typewriters were the choice of writers and editors everywhere; both F. Scott Fitzgerald and William Faulker were known to use Underwoods, and Jack Kerouac composed the manuscript for On the Road using an Underwood portable. The original Underwood typewriter was invented by Franz Xaver Wagner, who sold his company to John Thomas Underwood in the late nineteenth century.

By 1939, the Underwood Typewriter Company had manufactured five million machines. A split infinitive is a grammatical construction in the English language where a word or phrase, usually an adverb or adverbial phrase, occurs between the marker “to” and the bare infinitive (uninflected) form of the verb. The construction is particularly notable because of some controversy as to whether it is grammatically correct. One famous example is from the opening credits of the television series Star Trek, which proclaims the crew is “to boldly go where no man has gone before.” Here, the presence of the adverb “boldly” between the parts of the infinitive “to” and “go” creates a split infinitive. The construction can often be avoided by placing the intervening words after the verb or before the “to” marker.

For example “to go boldly where no man has gone before” or “boldly to go where no man has gone before.” However, these two rephrasings do not have identical meanings—the former attaches the boldness to the manner of going, while the latter attaches the boldness to the complete act of going “where no man has gone before.” Descriptively speaking, split infinitives are common in most varieties of English. However, their status as part of the standard language is controversial. In the 19th century, some grammatical authorities sought to introduce a prescriptive rule that split infinitives should not be used in English. Over the last 100 years, however, most language experts agree that this rule was misguided, and indeed that the split infinitive construction can sometimes help to convey one’s intended meaning more accurately. Captain Kirk had it right all along. Early History It is likely that the split infinitive originally entered the English language from the French; at any rate, it first appears after the Norman Conquest when English was borrowing very widely from French. Germanic languages (including Old English) do not permit an adverb to fall between an infinitive and its preposition.

Compare German: Ich beschließe, etwas nicht zu tun. I decide not to do something. (Literally, I decide something not to do.) Romance languages, on the other hand, do separate infinitives from their prepositions, though grammarians of those languages do not normally use the term “split infinitive” to describe the phenomenon, since the preposition is not considered a part of the uninflected infinitive form. Compare French: Je décide de ne pas faire quelque chose. I decide to not do something. English writers have been splitting infinitives at least since Layamon in 1250. However, by the 16th century the construction was still rare in the work of some of the most notable authors of the English language. In all of William Shakespeare’s work it can only be found once. Edmund Spenser, John Dryden, Alexander Pope, and the King James Version of the Bible do not have any. Notable authors who have used them at least once include John Donne, Samuel Pepys, Daniel Defoe, Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Johnson, William Wordsworth, Abraham Lincoln, George Eliot, Henry James, and Willa Cather.

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 the bare infinitive “do” is distinguished from the full infinitive “to do,” and “to do” is often used 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 recognizable as such. This means that in English, the word “to” is conceptualized as part of the infinitive, whereas in French and German, “à/de” and “zu” are not.

The difference is subjective, as the constructions are parallel, but the perspective on this that begat the admonition not to split infinitives was a prerequisite for the idea that there is such a thing as a full infinitive that 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 Then there are those who dislike the split infinitive on the grounds that it is not a natural construction in a Germanic language. This 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 Most English speakers use split infinitives. Some do not, and not because they follow a prescriptivist rule, but simply because it was not part of the language that they learned 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. Some of those who avoid split infinitives differentiate according to type and register. Clearly, “I decided to not go” is not nearly as awkward 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 proper 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. Counterarguments 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 for arguing that “to” is not part of the infinitive in English.

Neither its German cognate “zu” nor its Dutch cognate “te” is considered part of the infinitive in their respective languages, although many sentences use them the same way as English uses “to” in constructions. And while German and Dutch never allow an adverbial to fall between the preposition and the infinitive, Swedish does. 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: “Would you convey my compliments to the purist who reads your proofs and tell him or her that I write a sort of broken-down patois which is something like the way a Swiss waiter talks, and that when I split an infinitive, God damn it, I split it so it will stay split and when I interrupt the velvety smoothness of my more or less literate syntax with a few sudden words of bar-room vernacular, that is done with the eyes wide open and the mind relaxed and attentive.

The method may not be perfect, but it is all I have.” Current Views Even as some grammarians were condemning the split infinitive, others were endorsing it. In the present day, all reference texts of grammar deem simple split infinitives unobjectionable. 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 quoted above also opposes the condemnation. Nevertheless, many teachers of English still admonish students against using split infinitives.

Because the prohibition has become so widely known, the Columbia Guide 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.” When, in a given situation, the only alternatives to a split infinitive are either awkward and unnatural-sounding or change the intended meaning, it is often possible to reformulate the sentence (perhaps by rephrasing it without an infinitive) and thus avoid the issue altogether. Problems Caused by Trying to Avoid the Split Infinitive Stylistically, the careful placement of another word between “to” and the bare infinitive sometimes avoids ambiguity or ugliness. The old prohibition on split infinitives is particularly surprising when one observes that there are a number of expressions in English that are weakened considerably by avoiding the split infinitive. R.L. Trask uses this example: She decided to gradually get rid of the teddy bears she had collected. Clearly, what is implied here is she took a decision to get rid of her teddy bears, and the disposal would happen over time. ‘Gradually’ splits the infinite “to get.” But if we were to move it, where would it go?

Consider the following: She decided gradually to get rid of the teddy bears she had collected. This implies that the decision was gradual. She decided to get rid of the teddy bears she had collected gradually. This implies that the collecting process was gradual. She decided to get gradually rid of the teddy bears she had collected. This is just bad English. She decided to get rid gradually of the teddy bears she had collected. This is almost as awkward as its immediate predecessor. Not only does the original example sound right to a native speaker, it is also the only semantically sound possibility. In other instances, use of a split infinitive is for many people the most natural way to add certain kinds of emphasis in conversation: Student A: “I’m going to do better next year.” Student B: “I’m going to really do better next year.” On a historical level, it is possible that years of attacks against split infinitives by prescriptive grammarians have cowed some people into needless reluctance to split 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. It is probably not possible to disentangle this argument from the modality of English grammar. Typically, in a phrase such as “I am going to,” the verbal construct “to be going to” acts as a modal verb, analogous to other standard modal verbs “will,” “could,” “can,” etc. In this sense, it becomes apparent that the preposition “to” does not belong to the infinitive verb, but rather to the modal verb. In this case, it becomes impossible to split an infinitive. The fourteen-ton giant Underwood Master typewriter at the New York World’s Fair, 1939. From a vintage postcard.

Special Situations Compound split infinitives (where more than one adverb is employed) and other multi-word insertions 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.” On the other hand, 87% of the panel deemed acceptable the multi-word adverb in “We expect our output to more than double in a year.” Here the problem appears to be the breaking up of the verbal phrase “to be seeking a plan to relieve.” By placing part of the head verbal phrase so far away from the rest of it, the brain has to work harder to understand the sentence. The rule of thumb should always be to make it easier for the reader or listener to understand. Splitting infinitives with negations, as in the phrase “I want to not see you any more,” is one of the trickiest areas of contention. Some people who are generally tolerant towards split infinitives draw the line at those split by negation, calling them awkward or ungrammatical.

However, the relative inflexibility of negation makes it hard to reformulate such sentences. While “I want to happily run” can easily be altered to “I want to run happily,” “I want to see you not” is not modern English. The possibilities are moving up the “not” to immediately before the to-infinitive (“I want not to see you any more”), which sounds awkward to most people, or negating the verb rather than the desire (“I don’t want to see you anymore”), which, some might object, entirely alters the meaning of the sentence, or simply “I want to see you no more.” There are rare examples of non-adverbial phrases participating in the split infinitive construction, as in Shakespeare’s split infinitive, a poetic inversion: “Thy pity may deserve to pitied be” (Sonnet 142). Modern examples are “It was their nature to all hurt one another” or “It was her destiny to one day assume the throne.” These have endured the same shifts of opinion and gradual acceptance as adverbs.

Our View of Split Infinitives at Compass Rose Horizons For the most part, our editors view split infinitives as a matter of style, not grammar, and agree with Toni Boyle and K.D. Sullivan, authors of The Gremlins of Grammar, when they wrote: “That’s right. It’s perfectly fine to wantonly split the infinitive. If you want to coldheartedly separate the verb from its introductory word, you go right ahead. Whew! One less rule to needlessly worry about.” Proofreading and Editing Specialists E-mail editor@compassrose.com for all your proofreading or editing needs. We won't hassle you about using split infinitives in your manuscript! Academic Word List 15 - Split Infinitives | EFLnet Home / Academic Word List 15 - Split Infinitives (from Wikipedia.org) A split infinitive is a grammatical construction in the English language where a word or phrase, usually an adverb or adverbial phrase, occurs between the marker to and the bare infinitive (uninflected) form of the verb. The construction is particularly notable because of some controversy as to whether it is "grammatically correct".

One famous example is from the television series Star Trek : " to boldly go where no man has gone before." Here, the presence of the adverb boldly between the parts of the infinitive, to and go , creates a split infinitive. The construction can often be avoided by placing the intervening words after the verb or before the to marker: "to go boldly where no man has gone before" or "boldly to go where no man has gone before." However, these two rephrasings do not have identical meanings — the former attaches the boldness to the manner of going, while the latter attaches the boldness to the complete act of going "where no man has gone before." Descriptively speaking, split infinitives are common in most varieties of English. However, their status as part of the standard language is controversial. In the 19th century, some grammatical authorities sought to introduce a prescriptive rule that split infinitives should not be used in English. Most experts on language from the last 100 years, however, agree that this rule was misguided , and indeed that the split infinitive construction can sometimes help to convey one's intended meaning more accurately (as in the case of "to boldly go").

Question: Grammatically speaking, the phrase "to boldly go" is a split __________
Answer: Infinitive