[deleted]

[Jonathan Loesberg]

originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
How do you folks feel about split infinitives?

I hate them, never use them, and think an alternative placement of the adverb in question always stylistically more graceful. I also recognize this belief to be another one of my lost causes, carried on largely as a matter of crankiness.

 

[MLipton]

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:

originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
How do you folks feel about split infinitives?

I hate them, never use them, and think an alternative placement of the adverb in question always stylistically more graceful. I also recognize this belief to be another one of my lost causes, carried on largely as a matter of crankiness.

I adhere to Strunk and White's observation that the rule is a holdover from Latin grammar, where a split infinitive is impossible. I don't lose a lot of sleep over that one.

Mark Lipton

 

[SFJoe]

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:

originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
How do you folks feel about split infinitives?

I hate them, never use them, and think an alternative placement of the adverb in question always stylistically more graceful.

I was given electric shocks as a child while being shown sentences with split infinitives. So I agree in most cases with Prof. L.

 

[Jay Miller]

As someone who grew up with Star Trek I regard them as a valid stylistic choice so long as you know that you're doing it.

 

[Saina Nieminen]

originally posted by MLipton:

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:

originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
How do you folks feel about split infinitives?

I hate them, never use them, and think an alternative placement of the adverb in question always stylistically more graceful. I also recognize this belief to be another one of my lost causes, carried on largely as a matter of crankiness.

I adhere to Strunk and White's observation that the rule is a holdover from Latin grammar, where a split infinitive is impossible. I don't lose a lot of sleep over that one.

Mark Lipton

One of my lost causes is trying to make everyone see the light in that English is not Latin. Shakespeare and all other classical writers used the split infinitive - because it was natural for the language in some cases. Early grammarians tried to use Latin as a basis for English grammars but even some (e.g. John Wallace Grammatica Linguae Anglicanae 1653) accepted that Latin grammar wasn't quite suited English. Making English grammar fit Latin grammar is lunacy IMO, so I try to go by D. Adams's maxim: "to boldly go where no man has gone before; to boldly split infinitives no man has split before."

 

[Scott Kraft]

I'm a radical. If we can split an atom, we can split an infinitive. Next up: dangling participles.

 

[Ian Fitzsimmons]

originally posted by MLipton:


I adhere to Strunk and White's observation that the rule is a holdover from Latin grammar, where a split infinitive is impossible. I don't lose a lot of sleep over that one.

Mark Lipton

Actually, my question was kind of tongue in cheek, but S & W is my polar star, too. Form follows function, which, often, is too communicate.

 

[Brad Kane]

originally posted by Scott Kraft:
I'm a radical. If we can split an atom, we can split an infinitive. Next up: dangling participles.

I'm with Scott, though maybe not a radical.

I'm for splitting the difference, too.

 

[Carl Steefel]

I avoid splitting them wherever possible, because it sounds bad to me (e.g., "to boldly go". But it isn't a straightforward rule and seems to come down to whether the combination of the adverb and the verb really read as effectively one verb (presumably why people like the "boldly go", but I personally don't think of this as an example where the two go together).

 

[Sharon Bowman]

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:

originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
How do you folks feel about split infinitives?

I hate them, never use them, and think an alternative placement of the adverb in question always stylistically more graceful. I also recognize this belief to be another one of my lost causes, carried on largely as a matter of crankiness.

This is an accurate depiction of my stance, as well. Sometimes, you've just got to keep fighting those losing battles.

 

[SFJoe]

People like the "boldly go" from constant repetition and pleasant associations.

 

[Scott Kraft]

It's more complicated than that. We English speakers love iambs. Plenty of cultural conditioning there. Di-dah di-dah would become Dah dah dah-di or Dah di dah-di. A rhythm that's less familiar and, in this context, less Shakespearean. There's also the alternation of hard and soft consonants (T-B-L-D-L-G) which would become less lyrical (T-G-B-L-D-L).

One thing to add. There's no question as to the meaning of the phrase. By splitting the infinitive though, we get the stress on the important syllables: bold and go. Whereas the strict constructionists would have us stress the less meaningful bits: to and -ly. What sense does that make?

 

[Jonathan Loesberg]

The question is neither Latin nor grammar, but grace. Passive voices are also grammatically correct but they make all but a very few sentences sound worse and convey less information. Anyone who thinks to boldly go doesn't sound worse than to go boldly has been brainwashed. Our infinitives are separate words, but they are single units of meaning and it is preferable to qualify the whole meaning than to point out that it is made up of empty morphemes like "to." No doubt one can find examples from Shakespeare--and Ruskin and other Victorian prose writers. It is extremely dangerous to take one's stylistic cues from geniuses who transform the language. Unless you are as good as they are, you will just transmogrify it.

 

[Saina Nieminen]

I would rather say that anyone who is militantly against the split infinitive has been brainwashed by the Latinists. And why isn't it a question of grammar? And isn't grace a bit like any other aesthetic ideal - subjective?

 

[Jonathan Loesberg]

I don't speak Latin and have never taken lessons so it can't be a matter of brainwashing for me. In saying it isn't a matter of grammar, I was agreeing with you that split infinitives are not a grammatical error (some people can't take "yes" for an answer).

If you think that grace is subjective, then of course you have no interest in whether the sentences your write have that delusory quality. For you, I accept therefore, that stylistic disputes will have no interest. Others may think differently.

 

[Scott Kraft]

Consider me brainwashed. (Though I'm not a fan of passive voices either.)

Oddly, I agree it is a matter of grace and in this instance the split infinitive is both more meaningful and more sonorous.

If we don't take our stylistic cues from geniuses, who the fuck should we take them from? Lesser lights and grammar cops? That seems confining at best. I'd call it dangerous to a living language.

I'm not smart or knowledgeable enough to continue this argument. All I know is that the transmogrification of the English language is often proclaimed yet never comes. Sure there are horrors done to it - in every age. Yet on it goes and grows.

 

[Saina Nieminen]

I was alluding to the tradition, since the 17th C at least, of fitting English into Latin modes - one doesn't need to study Latin to be influenced or brainwashed by this deluded movement.

"'To' is no more an essential part of an infinitive than the definite article is an essential part of a nominative, and no one would think of calling 'the good man' a 'split nominative'." O. Jespersen

 

[Jonathan Loesberg]

We go in circles. If you think that to boldly go, with a modifier between an empty morpheme and a full one is better than to go boldly, for you the question is answered. Really, unless a split infinitive is more sonorous than an unsplit one, there is no reason to split it.

Otto keeps giving reasons why the grammatical rule against them is wrong and Latinate. No one is arguing that the rule is right and one ought to follow Latinate uses. The argument is simply whether splitting leads to better writing. Those who think it does will judge accordingly and be accordingly judged.

On following poets as one's model, I notice that no one cites Milton in the service of making English more Latinate and adding a distinction beween kinds of objective cases, as in "hee" and "he," or following Chaucer back to Middle English whan that April with his showres soote, The droughte of March hath perced to the roote." Or for that matter Ben Jonson's line, when told that Shakespeare never blotted a line: "Would that he had blotted a thousand." But of course Scott tells us both to follow Shakespeare and to go with language wherever it takes us.

Like all entities through history, the English language has both lost and gained. Generally it has added vocabulary and generally for the good. It has lost any number of worthwhile distinctions, for instance the one between disinterest and lack of interest, which is on its deathbed, not to mention Chris's pet peeve, the difference between begging the question and evading it. The fact that the language has gained in places or even overall is no reason not to fight against losses.

 

[Chris Coad]

not to mention Chris's pet peeve, the difference between begging the question and evading it.

Oh, I have a menagerie of pet peeves. If anything, "I could care less" drives me even battier than misuse of begging the question, an utterance so brainless as to mean the exact opposite of what the utterer intends. Yet my usual response of "If you could, why don't you?" seldom seems to lead to someone actually thinking through the words they're using. I'm with Jay on split infinitives, though.

It's hard out here for a pedant.

 

[Thor]

I don't have strong feelings about the split infinitive, but I very much agree with the professor's suggestion that if one is going to play games with the language, one had better do it from a foundation of skill and intent. And that, ultimately, is the core of my objection to the misuse of "varietal". Its misuse is almost always a result of indifference/ignorance rather than intent. If someone were to misuse the word in a playful, inventive, or clever way, I'd be much less aggravated.

"I could care less" drives me even battier

Agreed.