To occasionally split infinitives... or not?

[Steve Curtis]

I confess to being a fan of the oft-quoted Star Trek "to boldly go" line (preferring to do my best Patrick Stewart imitation in reciting it) - yet I have also used it, of course, as evidence of a grammatically incorrect split infinitive. These days, as an author, I am constantly beating myself up over my occasional use of the dreaded Split "I". Yet, common vernacular seems to have utterly abandoned this (and perhaps most) rules of grammar in favor of "quick speak" (IYKWIM). As a truly "old school" grammarian, I am even inclined to abide by the Oxford comma rule. However, I am seriously considering a capitulation to cultural precedent and a corresponding indiscriminate usage of split infinitives.
What say ye? Is it inappropriate to recklessly entertain such a consideration?

 

[greenbaggins]

Funny you should mention this. I have thought rather a lot about the split infinitive as well. It seems clunky to me. However, it does not introduce any lack of clarity. Sometimes it sounds better than the alternatives. Those wishing to avoid the split infinitives often face the prospect of sounding too hoity-toity. By now, I take it on a case by case basis, and it seems good to me to be aware of the various possibilities. Something similar happens with ending a sentence with a preposition. Sometimes it seems the right thing to do. I am never one to throw out the old rules altogether, though. Otherwise, we wind up distorting language, as in Calvin and Hobbes's discussion of "verbing," wherein Calvin remarks, "Verbing weirds language."

 

[Jake]

A lot of grammar rules are arbitrary and never emerged out of normal English speech patterns anyway. Even though I am generally one to follow rules, I also like the spirit of linguists who insist on codifying language based on usage. That's the brilliance of works like the Luther Bible: they captured what the common people spoke, rather than trying to conform their way of speaking to certain standards.

That said, I think the Oxford Comma is really common nowadays. I would consider it more a newer grammatical rule than one marking the "old school grammarian." My parents weren't raised with it, while I was. Maybe I'm missing the broader history of it, though.

 

[jomawh]

As far as I'm concerned split infitives and the silly rule about not ending a sentence on a preposition are arbitrary carry-overs from a time when folks were needlessly importing Latin rules into English.

"Where are you from?" sounds much more native to English ears than "From where do you come?".

 

[Parmenas]

Grammar and language standards are not arbitrary, it is the opposite which is so.

See the essay "Politics and the English Language" by George Orwell.

 

[Jack K]

Too often, grammar sticklers take a piece of general wisdom for effective writing and treat it like a commandment from Sinai, as if writing were all science and no art. The "rule" against split infinitives should be treated as a general principle rather than as a hard rule. Most often, a sentence will sound better if the split infinitive is avoided, but sometimes a writer can use it with great effect. The Star Trek line is an example of an excellent use of a split infinitive.

 

[jomawh]

Grammar and language standards are not arbitrary, it is the opposite which is.

No one has argued that grammar and language standards are arbitrary, only that certain rules are arbitrary. To say that it's improper to end a sentence with a preposition begs the question: "Says who?".

It reminds me of the distain which Victorian grammarians had for the word like, or the question of whether or not contractions constitute "proper" English; does "y'all" constitute a violation of language standards? Whose standard?

 

[Parmenas]

No one has argued that grammar and language standards are arbitrary, only that certain rules are arbitrary. To say that it's improper to end a sentence with a preposition begs the question: "Says who?".

It reminds me of the distain which Victorian grammarians had for the word like, or the question of whether or not contractions constitute "proper" English; does "y'all" constitute a violation of language standards? Whose standard?

Forgive me of any misunderstanding. My question is, how does one determine if a rule is "arbitrary" and unworthy of retention? It seems to be a rather *arbitrary* judgment to me; many seem to have different standards when it comes to the matter.

Do not mistake me for a hyper-pedantic reactionary, or a grammar stickler as Jack K. put it. I understand language is both a logical and intuitive system; it is not a programming code.

It should be noted and considered that most cultures (in my knowledge) with written languages have a "spoken" and "literary" form of speech.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

Too often, grammar sticklers take a piece of general wisdom for effective writing and treat it like a commandment from Sinai, as if writing were all science and no art. The "rule" against split infinitives should be treated as a general principle rather than as a hard rule. Most often, a sentence will sound better if the split infinitive is avoided, but sometimes a writer can use it with great effect. The Star Trek line is an example of an excellent use of a split infinitive.

It is also good enough for the presedential oath of office, which states "I will faithfully execute the office of the President of the United States.

 

[jomawh]

Forgive me of any misunderstanding. My question is, how does one determine if a rule is "arbitrary" and unworthy of retention?

I'm of the opinion that convention determines grammar, and that convention, being an organic process, is not arbitrary. The reason we use the pronoun you to express the second-person singular, and no longer thou or the even more ancient þū, is the result of convention. The difference between this, which was and is an organic, native process common to all languages, and the rules spoken of here is that they are altogether inorganic, foreign, and not the result of the convention of English-speakers. If arbitrariness is that which is done according to random choice or personal whim, apart from reason, then such rules qualify. English's native grammar, the result of culture, organic innovation, invasions, and such, are just in a different category than say, "Latin does this, so ought English in order to be proper".

In Mandarin, for example, there is no verb conjugation, while first, second, and third person pronouns are "inflected" for number on the basis of adding the qualifier "men". "They are my dogs" is "Ta men shi wo de gao", which literally translates as "He/she/It [plural] be [third-person plural is implied] I [possessive] dog [Plural is implied]". Almost nonsense in English, in Chinese grammar, the result of their own convention, this makes complete sense and they would find our rules to be just as silly.

It should be noted and considered that most cultures (in my knowledge) with written languages have a "spoken" and "literary" form of speech.

Certainly- but does a language's literary form determine its spoken form, or the other way around? To whom does a language belong?

 

[Steve Curtis]

"Where are you from?" sounds much more native to English ears than "From where do you come?".

Or, "Whence comest thou?"

 

[Ben Zartman]

It is my opinion as a writer that the rules ought to be followed unless they are broken in seeking a certain effect (as in the Star Trek motto). It's a shame when they are broken in ignorance and then become part of common usage. The most egregious, presently (to me) is the using "lay" in place of "lie," even by people who claim to be grammarians. As in, "Lay down on your back," or "I'm going to go lay down." I always want to ask: "Lay down what?"
This one drives me nuts far more than any other grammatical sin.

 

[jomawh]

Or, "Whence comest thou?"

Hail! Pray tell me of thy hearth and place- whence cometh a man of such sound stock and race.

It's a shame when they are broken in ignorance and then become part of common usage.

Isn't it true, however, that even rules native to English grammar were at one time deviations from what was once standard? English and Dutch are sisters of a mother tongue, Anglo-Frisian, and were once much closer than they are today (thanks to the Normans), but being isolated from the European continent resulted in a significant shift in English grammar. The result is that Anglo-Saxon is closer to Dutch, grammatically (and often lexically), than Modern English.

 

[Herald]

Too often, grammar sticklers take a piece of general wisdom for effective writing and treat it like a commandment from Sinai, as if writing were all science and no art. The "rule" against split infinitives should be treated as a general principle rather than as a hard rule. Most often, a sentence will sound better if the split infinitive is avoided, but sometimes a writer can use it with great effect. The Star Trek line is an example of an excellent use of a split infinitive.

Writing is about communicating. I like writers who paint pictures with their words, even if doing so makes grammarians have conniption fits.

 

[Joshua]

Well why don't we divide by zero why we're at it?!?!??!!!?!?!!

 

[Herald]

Grammatical wormhole.

 

[bookslover]

Languages are always changing, so split those infinitives and end sentences with prepositions to your heart's content!

I'm a big fan of the Oxford comma. It really helps with clarity.

The one that makes me grind my teeth: "the man that went on vacation" should be "the man who went on vacation." I see the wrong way used all the time - even in the Bible. It's a losing battle to get folks to use who, though.

 

[VictorBravo]

begs the question

Speaking of wormholes and sidetracks--"begs the question" originally didn't mean what it sounds like (as in, demands the question), but it's often used that way nowadays.

Originally, and technically, it meant assuming the thing you are trying to prove.

BTW, I often prefer to sharply split infinitives for rhetorical effect, but it depends upon the target I am aiming at....

 

[jomawh]

Speaking of wormholes and sidetracks--"begs the question" originally didn't mean what it sounds like (as in, demands the question), but it's often used that way nowadays.

A "moot point" was originally something important worth talking about.

 

[Parmenas]

The one that makes me grind my teeth: "the man that went on vacation" should be "the man who went on vacation." I see the wrong way used all the time - even in the Bible. It's a losing battle to get folks to use who, though.

I presume by "the Bible" you refer to the Authorized Version.

The Biblical English of the Authorized Version is based upon Early Modern English (the English speakers of 1611 did not speak or write the Authorized Version's English). In Early Modern English, it was correct to use "that" in reference to nouns with gender. Therefore, it is not used wrongly in the Authorized Version.

However, such usage is needless archaism in Modern English.

 

[Parmenas]

I'm of the opinion that convention determines grammar, and that convention, being an organic process, is not arbitrary. The reason we use the pronoun you to express the second-person singular, and no longer thou or the even more ancient þū, is the result of convention. The difference between this, which was and is an organic, native process common to all languages, and the rules spoken of here is that they are altogether inorganic, foreign, and not the result of the convention of English-speakers. If arbitrariness is that which is done according to random choice or personal whim, apart from reason, then such rules qualify. English's native grammar, the result of culture, organic innovation, invasions, and such, are just in a different category than say, "Latin does this, so ought English in order to be proper".

I agree with you. You should read the Orwell essay I linked.

However, language is more than an organic growth; it is an instrument of communication.

Isn't it true, however, that even rules native to English grammar were at one time deviations from what was once standard?

Could it be that the English language has ceased to develop and begun to fossilize in this day and age? Great standardization has occurred as a result of technological progress.

 

[jomawh]

I agree with you. You should read the Orwell essay I linked.

I saved it to my Kindle. I rather liked his Homage to Catalonia.

However, language is more than an organic growth; it is an instrument of communication.

There's no dichotomy here; language is an instrument of communication subject to organic growth.

Could it be that the English language has ceased to develop and begun to fossilize in this day and age? Great standardization has occurred as a result of technological progress.

As long as slang and subcultures exist, both of which are present almost of necessity with every language (because humans are inventive), fossilization of a language will be impossible short of language death (See Classical Latin, Classical Chinese, etc). The kind of standardization that you're here referring to is the result of fiat on the part of the academy with regard to what constitutes a written and verbal standard and, surprise surprise, the literati and well-to-do decided their own was "correct". Even it isn't stable, and again, who gets to decide the standard? English doesn't have a regulatory body like, say, French or Hebrew, and why would it?

It was decided that the correct pronunciation of British English ought to be based upon the accent and dialect of English spoken amongst the upper-classes of southeastern England, Japanese is supposedly standardized around the accent and dialect of Japanese spoken amongst the upper-classes of Tokyo, and so on. There's nothing intrinsically better about these dialects, and neither are they necessarily more deserving of being the basis of standardization, but the class-oriented power-plays that established these "standards" were quite real and often arbitrary.

The notion that English has ceased to develop is, to be frank, funny, as technological progress has arguably sped up the rate of language change. Sure, one might call the slang found online just plain incorrect- but slang eventually becomes dialects, and languages, as once said, are just dialects with an army. My great-grandmother, then one-hundred and two, complained about how difficult it was to understand people under the age of twenty, and this was a woman who grew up in urban, middle-class Cincinnati in its heyday- not neck-deep in a holler with a car that needs warsh'd.

French, Italian, Portuguese, etc were all once lower-class Vulgar Latin which the literati mocked as not being proper Latin. Sanskrit continued to be the literary standard (by what standard?) and what constituted proper speech for thousands of years while its vulgar varieties split and became modern Hindi, Bengali, Punjabi, etc. My point in giving all of these examples is to demonstrate that language change happens and is inevitable, and that's alright.

Bigly fake news is doubleplusungood.

 

[py3ak]

There is a difference between the rule about not ending a sentence with a preposition, and about splitting infinitives. The first was an imposition of an alien convention on English by fiat, and one never much observed by writers; but it's rarer to find examples of split infinitives in writing until relatively recently (125 years, or so). You may find some in Burton or Johnson, but they are not frequent. Of course, there may well be a reason to split an infinitive, but not so often or so widely as to render the verbal form actually doubtful. And of course, there was a time when a great deal in English was not standardized, as the conditions for standardization did not yet exist. This unsettled state seems to have survived longest in questions of orthography, as when Sir Thomas Browne with somewhat amusing hypocrisy instructed his son: "point your letters."

A regular use of the Oxford comma is nearly the only way to maintain clarity about conjoined items on a list (the alternative is to place conjoined items in the middle of a list, rather than at the end, which will often offend against the sense of rhythm and euphony).

Many factors influence the development of language, and its change is inevitable. But Theodore Dalrymple explodes the notion that maintaining a standard of correctness is unkind. People with a sketchy grasp on the rules are likely to turn to those with a firm grasp on the rules, not merely for help in correctness but in order to understand what is being said.
https://www.city-journal.org/html/gift-language-12972.html

 

[Steve Curtis]

I often prefer to sharply split infinitives

Nicely done. I am increasingly convinced that, in order to effectively and engagingly tell a story, infinitives must make way for expressiveness.

 

[Edward]

but it depends upon the target I am aiming at.

But it depends upon the target at which I am aiming

 

[Jack K]

But it depends upon the target at which I am aiming

No, it depends on my target.

 

[VictorBravo]

But it depends upon the target at which I am aiming

I was hoping my gratuitous use of ellipses would tip off that my terminal preposition was a prank.

 

[KMK]

As Mr. Joel said, "You may be right. I may be crazy."

All you need is a hit song to change English grammar forever.

 

[bookslover]

I presume by "the Bible" you refer to the Authorized Version.

The Biblical English of the Authorized Version is based upon Early Modern English (the English speakers of 1611 did not speak or write the Authorized Version's English). In Early Modern English, it was correct to use "that" in reference to nouns with gender. Therefore, it is not used wrongly in the Authorized Version.

However, such usage is needless archaism in Modern English.

Actually, I had the ESV in mind.