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/
)

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

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/