IS A SPLIT INFINITIVE A MISTAKE ?
To quickly answer: no. In his book The Mother Tongue, Bill Bryson points out that virtually all recognized authorities on English (from Theodore Bernstein and Henry W. Fowler to Eric Partridge and Ernest Gowers) agree there is no reason to put the needs of the infinitive above the needs of the adverb. Still some people cling to the idea. The problem, of course, is the troublesome tradition of imposing rules of Latin on English. While it's true an infinitive is never split in Latin, there's a simple reason: it's one word. For example, amare (to love) and crescere (to grow).
Sometimes slipping an adverb in the middle of the infinitive can soften a thought, emphasize an idea, or improve a sentence's rhythm. Roddenberry's Star Trek opening includes two untouched infinitives, to explore and to seek, that set up the split one nicely. Such constructions may be carefully planned or purely accidental, the result of last-minute composition to meet a deadline.
I don't want to know that Isaac Asimov complained about split infinitives.Why not? He was an author. It figures that he would notice a grammatical issue repeated in every opening of a show he liked a lot
I don't want to know that Isaac Asimov complained about split infinitives.
« Older "Yesterday, I went to court. I was there for the ... | A hapless painter is endowed w... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt