Scott,
Yours is an excellent example of what the split infinitive offers us as writers. English is not Latin, nor is it German. It is a popular language that has evolved to serve the purpose of precise communication. "To" suggests intention. If your intention is to boldly split the infinitive rather than to split the infinitive and do so in a bold manner, then you should be permitted to state it that way.
Thanks for your bold example,
Gregg
On Dec 14, 2014, at 8:29 AM, Scott Catledge wrote:
> I avoid splitting infinitives and advise my students/friends to do likewise unless the construction is awkward: clarity is the key. When I first took College English at Mississippi Southern College in the mid-'50s, the split infinitive was identified as one of the fatal errors--any two of which would earn the paper a failing grade. For decades I have used the expression "To boldly split the infinitive"--a phrase that is almost always recognized by Star Trek fans. I shall request "The Lexicographer's dilemma" as soon as UCF starts back. Yes, I have audited a class with Professor Young and am looking forward to another class Spring term.
> Scott Catledge
> Professor Emeritus
> ---- ATEG automatic digest system <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> There are 2 messages totaling 917 lines in this issue.
>>
>> Topics of the day:
>>
>> 1. To Split an Infinitive and Beyond (2)
>>
>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>>
>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 15:22:17 +0000
>> From: Beth Young <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Re: To Split an Infinitive and Beyond
>>
>> Another great book on the topic of the 18thc decriers is Jack Lynch's _The Lexicographer's Dilemma_. His chapter on Priestley addresses the split infinitive explicitly, e.g.,
>>
>> "Were they [the 18th-century grammarians] really the supervillains that appear in so many descriptions? It turns out that many of the rules routinely attributed to the eighteenth-century grammarians were never discussed by anyone in the eighteenth century. The split infinitive is a favorite example, perhaps *the* paradigmatic rule: many people with an interest in the language know that it's wrong to split infinitives, even if they're a little vague on what an infinitive is or how it might be split. And many modern sources tell us that it was the wicked eighteenth-century grammarians who brainwashed us into this bizarre superstition . . . ." (94-95)
>>
>> And then Lynch goes on to set the record straight.
>>
>> It was an eye opener for me, too! I learned in graduate school that Priestley, Lowth, Murray, & co. were responsible for many of our prescriptive rules, but the real story is apparently more nuanced.
>>
>> Beth
>>
>> Dr. Beth Rapp Young
>> Associate Professor, English
>> [log in to unmask]
>>
>> University of Central Florida
>> "Reach for the Stars"
>> ________________________________
>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Prof. Richard Grant WAU [[log in to unmask]]
>> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 10:18 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: To Split an Infinitive and Beyond
>>
>> Thanks, Herb.
>>
>> I’ll have to take a look at Mulroy’s book. I must say, this comes as a bit of a shock after reading in so many texts that the antagonism goes back to the 18th c. decriers.
>>
>> I have since read a short piece by Tom Freeman on the topic of split infinitives, and—to his knowledge—the earliest reaction against their use. While the article he cites may not be all out War Against Grammar, it’s certainly an opening (or early) shot of a battle. It dates back further than 1865 and has a sizeable list of examples of split infinitives from the 14th c. on.
>>
>> Here’s the link: https://stroppyeditor.wordpress.com/2013/10/28/to-helpfully-clarify-to-better-communicate-a-history-of-the-split-infinitive/
>>
>> Time to carefully revise some of the notes I use in class.
>>
>> Richard
>>
>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stahlke, Herbert
>> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 9:40 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: You all probably know this, but what the heck . . .
>>
>> David Mulroy, in his superb _War Against Grammar_ notes that the injunction against splitting infinitives dates back no farther than 1865. I used to blame it on the 18th c. crowd too, until David pointed out the error of my ways.
>>
>> Herb
>>
>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Prof. Richard Grant WAU
>> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 9:35 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Re: You all probably know this, but what the heck . . .
>>
>> Thanks for sharing that example, Nick.
>>
>> To my knowledge, split infinitives have never been a problem of English grammar; rather, they are a matter of style—which, over the centuries, has shifted. The well-intentioned philologists in the 17th and 18th centuries observed the linguistic incongruities of English (lack of standardized/standardised spelling, changes in grammatical forms, large influxes of new lexical items, etc.) and wanted to reign in the changes that English was undergoing. By looking to Latin as an example of linguistic consistency (dead languages have that quality, which some evidently find redeeming), they tried to do the impossible: force inorganic changes onto English’s wonderfully unwieldy structure. No prepositions at the end of sentences, they declared (since that wasn’t done in Latin). No split infinitives they demanded (since that couldn’t be done in Latin).
>>
>> And here we are, a couple of centuries on, still mired in the mess—with many still trying to hold back the tide of natural usage/flexibility that English has allowed.
>>
>> Richard
>>
>>
>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Nick Carbone
>> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 9:36 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: You all probably know this, but what the heck . . .
>>
>> In article that praises George Curme's 100 year old “Origin and Force of the Split Infinitive” (Modern Language Notes 29 (2), 41–45), Geoffrey K. Pullum draws this gem from Curme:
>>
>> Curme makes one observation that I had thought much more recent: that in some cases infinitives must be split (unless you simply abandon the attempt to use the adjunct). He cites an example containing the phrase sufficient to more than offset the losses. It cannot be recast as *sufficient more than to offset the losses or *sufficient to offset the losses more than: These are ungrammatical.
>>
>> (from htttp://chronicle.com/blogs/linguafranca/2014/12/11/george-curme-21st-century-grammarian/<http://chronicle.com/blogs/linguafranca/2014/12/11/george-curme-21st-century-grammarian/>)
>> I like a good split infinitive and sometimes, by way of exercise, ask students to as widely as they can, and keeping to the guideline that what they come up with has to be intelligible only, split infinitives with glee.
>> But this is the first time I've seen an example of one where it had to be split.
>>
>> --
>> nick.carbone at gmail dot com
>> http://ncarbone.blogspot.com<http://ncarbone.blogspot.com/>
>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
>>
>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>> _____
>> This email has been scanned by WAU 3-Tier Anti-Virus/Anti-Spam System.
>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
>>
>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>
>> _____
>> This email has been scanned by WAU 3-Tier Anti-Virus/Anti-Spam System.
>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
>>
>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>
>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
>>
>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>
>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>>
>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 16:07:40 +0000
>> From: "Stahlke, Herbert" <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Re: To Split an Infinitive and Beyond
>>
>> Thank you for that link. An excellent survey of the construction. I was especially pleased that the author pointed out that the particle “to” is not really a part of the infinitive. It did occur in OE, but it became much more frequent after English lost infinitive endings in Late Middle English. But he’s right that the infinitive is the bare verb that occurs after modals and verbs like “make,” “let,” and verbs of sensory perception.
>>
>> Herb
>>
>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Prof. Richard Grant WAU
>> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 10:19 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: To Split an Infinitive and Beyond
>>
>> Thanks, Herb.
>>
>> I’ll have to take a look at Mulroy’s book. I must say, this comes as a bit of a shock after reading in so many texts that the antagonism goes back to the 18th c. decriers.
>>
>> I have since read a short piece by Tom Freeman on the topic of split infinitives, and—to his knowledge—the earliest reaction against their use. While the article he cites may not be all out War Against Grammar, it’s certainly an opening (or early) shot of a battle. It dates back further than 1865 and has a sizeable list of examples of split infinitives from the 14th c. on.
>>
>> Here’s the link: https://stroppyeditor.wordpress.com/2013/10/28/to-helpfully-clarify-to-better-communicate-a-history-of-the-split-infinitive/
>>
>> Time to carefully revise some of the notes I use in class.
>>
>> Richard
>>
>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stahlke, Herbert
>> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 9:40 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Re: You all probably know this, but what the heck . . .
>>
>> David Mulroy, in his superb _War Against Grammar_ notes that the injunction against splitting infinitives dates back no farther than 1865. I used to blame it on the 18th c. crowd too, until David pointed out the error of my ways.
>>
>> Herb
>>
>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Prof. Richard Grant WAU
>> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 9:35 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Re: You all probably know this, but what the heck . . .
>>
>> Thanks for sharing that example, Nick.
>>
>> To my knowledge, split infinitives have never been a problem of English grammar; rather, they are a matter of style—which, over the centuries, has shifted. The well-intentioned philologists in the 17th and 18th centuries observed the linguistic incongruities of English (lack of standardized/standardised spelling, changes in grammatical forms, large influxes of new lexical items, etc.) and wanted to reign in the changes that English was undergoing. By looking to Latin as an example of linguistic consistency (dead languages have that quality, which some evidently find redeeming), they tried to do the impossible: force inorganic changes onto English’s wonderfully unwieldy structure. No prepositions at the end of sentences, they declared (since that wasn’t done in Latin). No split infinitives they demanded (since that couldn’t be done in Latin).
>>
>> And here we are, a couple of centuries on, still mired in the mess—with many still trying to hold back the tide of natural usage/flexibility that English has allowed.
>>
>> Richard
>>
>>
>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Nick Carbone
>> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 9:36 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: You all probably know this, but what the heck . . .
>>
>> In article that praises George Curme's 100 year old “Origin and Force of the Split Infinitive” (Modern Language Notes 29 (2), 41–45), Geoffrey K. Pullum draws this gem from Curme:
>>
>> Curme makes one observation that I had thought much more recent: that in some cases infinitives must be split (unless you simply abandon the attempt to use the adjunct). He cites an example containing the phrase sufficient to more than offset the losses. It cannot be recast as *sufficient more than to offset the losses or *sufficient to offset the losses more than: These are ungrammatical.
>>
>> (from htttp://chronicle.com/blogs/linguafranca/2014/12/11/george-curme-21st-century-grammarian/<http://chronicle.com/blogs/linguafranca/2014/12/11/george-curme-21st-century-grammarian/>)
>> I like a good split infinitive and sometimes, by way of exercise, ask students to as widely as they can, and keeping to the guideline that what they come up with has to be intelligible only, split infinitives with glee.
>> But this is the first time I've seen an example of one where it had to be split.
>>
>> --
>> nick.carbone at gmail dot com
>> http://ncarbone.blogspot.com<http://ncarbone.blogspot.com/>
>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
>>
>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>> _____
>> This email has been scanned by WAU 3-Tier Anti-Virus/Anti-Spam System.
>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
>>
>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>
>> _____
>> This email has been scanned by WAU 3-Tier Anti-Virus/Anti-Spam System.
>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
>>
>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
>>
>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>
>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>>
>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.or
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> End of ATEG Digest - 11 Dec 2014 to 12 Dec 2014 (#2014-68)
>> **********************************************************
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
|
