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

 

 

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 18^th 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 14^th 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

 

 

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

 

 

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 17^th and 18^th 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]
Subject: You all probably know this, but what the heck . . .

 

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/