Wisconsin
Lawyer
Vol. 81, No. 12, December
2008
Legal Writing
Dispelling Grammar Myths: ‘To Split’ or ‘Not to
Split’ the Infinitive
Most modern grammar guides give
writers permission to split infinitive verbs if doing so enhances
clarity, eloquence, or precision in writing.
by Rebecca K. Blemberg
Sidebar:
A debate about split
infinitives has raged for decades. The controversy is whether a writer
may insert a word or words between “to” and a verb,
splitting the infinitive form. Perhaps the most famous example of a
split infinitive comes from Star Trek: “To boldly go where
no man has gone before.” Here, “boldly” splits the
infinitive verb form “to go.” The phrase “to boldly
go” is strong, inspiring, and rhythmical. But is it correct?
Another example of a split infinitive is found in this adage: “To
really get to know a lawyer, litigate against her.” Here,
“really” splits the infinitive verb form “to
get.”
Most modern grammar guides give writers permission to split
infinitive verbs.1 For example, Oxford
University Press declares, “In standard English, the principle of
allowing split infinitives is broadly accepted as both normal and
useful.”2 The Gregg Reference
Manual states that splitting infinitives is “no longer
considered incorrect.”3 Generations of
English-speaking people, however, have been taught that splitting
infinitives is improper. Historically, grammar guides classified split
infinitives as grammatical error. Accordingly, a grammar-savvy lawyer
might ask this question: Should I split an infinitive knowing that
someone reading my work might think I have made a grammatical error?
Yes. Writers should split infinitives if doing so enhances
clarity, eloquence, or precision in writing. The writer should know why
he split the infinitive form, and he should understand that some readers
might believe the split construction to be incorrect. If the split
infinitive is not the clearest construction for the sentence, however,
the writer should abandon the split infinitive gladly, without
hesitation, and with the knowledge that he will avoid distracting
readers unwilling to embrace split-infinitive construction.
Rebecca K. Blemberg, New York Univ. 2000, is an
assistant professor of legal writing at Marquette University Law School.
Although she hopes she is not too schoolmarmish, she does have immense
respect for language purists, and she is not bothered by split-
infinitive construction.
Until about the mid-19th century, the practice of splitting
infinitives was not frowned upon. Many well-respected writers, including
Daniel Defoe, John Donne, Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Johnson, and Samuel
Pepys, split infinitive verb forms.4 Then,
in 1864, Henry Alford published the book, A Plea for the
Queen’s English, in which he admonished against separating
“to” from the corresponding verb. Several other English
grammar guides that came out after Alford’s forbade the split
infinitive, and the proscription persisted as the norm until relatively
recently.5 Although linguists debate why the
rule against split infinitives gained force in the mid-19th century,
many grammarians believe that linguists drew inspiration from Latin in
their attempts to impose discipline and rules on English.6 In Latin, “to” is inherent in the
verb; “to” is not expressed separately. For example,
“to be” in English is “esse” in Latin. “To
love” in English is “amare” in Latin. Because
“to” is inherent in Latin verbs, mid-19th century
English-language scholars reasoned that “to” should not be
separated from verbs in English, and thus arose the proscription against
split infinitives.
Most grammarians now believe split infinitives are grammatical.
Sometimes, in fact, splitting an infinitive form precisely conveys a
writer’s meaning. Consider this example: Our research people
need to be trained to quickly communicate their findings to sales
representatives.7 This example
contains split-infinitive construction, “to quickly
communicate.” In using the split infinitive, the writer makes
clear that “quickly” modifies “communicate.” If
the writer moves “quickly” somewhere else in the sentence,
the meaning is altered, or the sentence becomes awkward:
- Our research people need to be trained quickly to communicate
their findings to sales representatives. This revised sentence does
not contain a split infinitive, but the meaning is ambiguous.
“Quickly” seems to modify “trained” instead of
“communicate.”
- Our research people need to be trained to communicate their
findings to sales representatives quickly. This sentence does not
contain a split infinitive, but the writer loses the emphasis on
“quickly” from the original sentence, and the sentence is
slightly awkward.
Also consider the following example, in which the writer uses
split-infinitive construction: He decided to gradually release the
hostages. Possible revisions change the meaning of the sentence or
make it ambiguous:
- He decided gradually to release the hostages. This
revision changes the meaning of the sentence. Here,
“gradually” seems to modify “decided,” so the
sentence means that “he” made the decision
“gradually.”
- He decided to release the hostages gradually. This revision
renders meaning somewhat ambiguous. A reasonable reader could interpret
“gradually” to modify “decided” or
“release” or even both words. Only the original sentence
makes absolutely clear that “gradually” modifies just
“release.”
Yet another example, penned by Wallace Rice in 1937, is as
follows: “Try re-writing this: ‘To more than compensate him
for his sacrifice is impossible, to less than compensate him would be a
crime, to quite compensate him demands equal sacrifice from
us.’”8
Attempted revision of Rice’s example ruins the rhythmic
force, just as revisions would ruin the rhythmic force of “to
boldly go where no man has gone before” or “To really get to
know a lawyer, litigate against her.”
Writers should use split infinitives when split-infinitive
construction most clearly, precisely, or eloquently expresses meaning.
At the same time, there is no reason to split infinitive forms if doing
so does not enhance meaning. Often, keeping the “to” and the
verb next to one another is the most precise, clear, or eloquent
way to communicate. For example, the lawyer wanted to use language
precisely is precise and clear. Changing word order does not enhance
precision, clarity, or eloquence: The lawyer wanted to precisely use
language. Because some readers are distracted by split infinitives,
when a writer can choose between a clear sentence with a split
infinitive and a clear sentence without a split infinitive, the writer
should choose the sentence without the split infinitive.
In 1926, the venerable H.W. Fowler wrote, “No other
grammatical issue has so divided English speakers since the split
infinitive was declared to be solecism in the nineteenth
century.”9 To an extent, English
speakers are still divided. The authorities, however, squarely hold it
proper to split infinitive forms in the name of clarity and precision.
Webster’s Dictionary goes so far as to say,
“Traditionalits’, purists’, and other schoolmarmish
stylists’ objections notwithstanding, there is nothing wrong with
a split-infinitive in English.”10
As we meticulously proofread our next written product, we should
feel confident about using split infinitives when the split infinitive
construction enhances sentence clarity, precision, or eloquence. While
checking verb forms, however, we should make certain not to overuse
adverbs, words that modify verbs that sometimes come between
“to” and the verb. Strong, vivid verbs are much more
effective than adverbs, but, alas, adverb overload is a topic for
another column.
Endnotes
Wisconsin Lawyer
