Split infinitives...

I don’t know who writes Cecil’s headlines, but…

Doesn’t s/he know how to correctly write a sentence? To badly screw up English grammar causes my head to quickly get sore. I hope the headline-writer is going to earnestly try to properly write headlines in the future. Don’t get me wrong: to occasionally split an infinitive is okay as long as correct constrution is going to badly grate on the modern readers’ ears.

(For all those wondering, it should have been “Is there a way to silence somebody’s loud car stereo permanently?” or some variant thereof. My apologies to mods if this should have been placed in the pit.)

Yes, he does. Are you aware that your views on split infinitives are outdated?
[

](Split infinitive - Wikipedia)

Do you even know what a split infinitive is?

It should be :-

And since when has a split inifinitive been wrong? (1834 if you must know.)

So, did the shockwave mess your hair up? :wink:

Thanks for beating me to it.

As far as outdated views on split infinitives, I immediately went for my MLA guide and, alas, was disappointed: no wisdom on the topic. The best I can say in support of my view is that unnecessarily split infinitives still cost me points on essays in my university’s English department five years ago. So there are still some islands of civility left in this world. I agree that only idiots will jump on split infinitives where “correct” construction is confusing or grates on the ear, but there is no reason to split infinitives like the one in question. There are those of us (English teachers, writers, editors, many dopers who don’t immediately get irony) who will stumble over such phrasing.

Originally posted by Raymond Chandler

I don’t know if you were doing it on purpose for irony, but I rhink there were a couple of split infinitives in your first post.

Seven, in fact.

Didn’t I already say that?

Poor English instruction is not civility. Your own example from school only shows how our English teachers should be taught actual linguistics to avoid these instances where they allow their own unfounded language prejudices to seep into their grading. The split infinitive has been perfectly grammatical for over six centuries. Forget that hogwash you were unfortunate enough to be exposed to.

If they stumble, they do so deliberately in order to have something to complain about. Natural English discourse contains split infinitives in abundance, sometimes by grammatical necessity and sometimes just for stylistic flair. If you don’t like them, don’t use them, but don’t pretend that your own language taste is somehow a better arbiter of “correct” English than the well respected usage of countless other people. Just because you prefer to not make the split when it isn’t necessary doesn’t mean that others should follow in your example or that they are somehow wrong when they take advantage of the choices our language has to offer.

You should have sued. The so-called “split infinitive rule” is an impudent lie that has nothing to do with English grammar. It was never valid. It is to the English language what Lysenkoism was to evolution. It is, in C. S. Lewis’s fine phrase, “a Frenchified schoolroom superstition”.

I assume you did this intentionally (my bolding) to further the discussion. So back I come.

I agree that there are reasons to split infinitives.

  1. Clarity. As wiki exemplifies: “She decided to gradually get rid of the teddy bears she had collected.” (see Q.E.D.'s cite) Unless one completely rearranges the sentence (as some purists would have one do), the infinitive must remain split.

  2. Emphasis. An adverbial phrase splitting the infinitive will draw a closer relationship between the phrase and the verb it modifies.

But I maintain that avoiding split infinitives in all other cases makes writing smoother and easier to read. I may be alone in this thread in my opinion, but I am not alone in the academic world. Read the whole wiki on the subject and you’ll note that most of it centers around the robust ongoing debate on the subject.

So getting back to your phrase, we’ve got two choices:

Yours (with infinitive split):

…and mine (without infinitive split):

Read each one aloud, and decide for yourself which one sounds more correct to you. Be honest.

I know some idiots find their way to this board, but consider: EVERY infinitive in the OP (that complains about split infinitves) is split. I mean, come on: give me come credit.

The one without the split reads more smoothly and naturally, but I wouldn’t go so far as to say it sounds more correct than the other way. It’s the exact opposite with the Wiki reference to the Star Trek opening line: the split infinitive, To boldly go where no man… sounds much more natural than the “correct” way, To go boldly where no man…

I would argue that the very fact that it reads more naturally is what makes it “more” correct. Or rather, it is the method by which you can test for your “degree o’ correctness”. Something wrong is going to sound wrong, and something right is going to sound right.

In that vein, I agree with your Star Trek point. As I said above, one of the situations in which a s.i. can be considered appropriate is when it is used for emphasis. Picard is clearly trying to emphasize “boldly,” and it does sound wrong arranging it in the “correct” way.

Boldly to go… [bzzt]
To go boldly… [bzzt]
To go where no man has gone before. But in a bold fashion… [bzzt] :wink:

Yes, but it has nothing to do with it being an infinitive, split or otherwise, and everything to do with the way certain sounds, well, sound in juxtaposition. It’s a question of aesthetics, not grammar.

The position the original poster is taking would have some validity if it was backed by authority. It is not. Therefor, it is a position without merit. As has been pointed out, it is simply a bugaboo with certain professors who think they know what they are talking about, when, in fact, they do not. Ending such stupidity is a large part of the mission of this Message Board. :slight_smile:

And I still maintain that split infinitives are impossible, at least in anything that vaguely resembles English. “To boldly go where no man has gone before” does not contain a split infinitive. “Go” is, of course, a verb, whose infinitive is “to go”. But “boldly go” is also a perfectly valid verb: In this case, a compound verb constructed from the adverb “boldly” and the primitive verb “go”. And the infinitive form of the verb “boldly go” is “to boldly go”. Likewise, for all of the other constructions which are claimed to be split infinitives.

I’m trying, but it’s not working. :wink:

Yeesh. I’m starting to wonder if this is going to get moved to GD with all the contention flying around here.

First off, we have to go on a little hijack:

When I was your age, a college education was worth something, and you were allowed to cite from lectures. Like it or not, the construction of the English language is formalized in the university lecture hall. The professors with your “bugaboo” are the same professors who determine the rules of grammar we’re so hotly debating. Granted, the issue is not settled, as some posters on this thread would have you believe, and the “s.i.s-are-okay” crowd do seem to outnumber the old-fashioned crowd. But issues like these are settled through consensus, not vote. Calling me or my professors “stupid” just becaue we hold a (quite valid) minority opinion is [insert variant of “stupid” here].

Next:

I disagree. There are certain words that sound better in juxtaposition because they are an infinitive. This is part of my objection to s.i.: keeping the infinitive together sounds better, and splitting it can sometimes (sometimes!) lead to a wonky-sounding sentence. Shakespeare didn’t write “To be or to not be, that is the question.” “To not be” sounds silly because you’re splitting the infinitive, and infinitives belong together.

Finally: I’m sorry I’m wasting people’s brain juice on this. And I swear I’m not trying to play the I-get-the-last-word-game. But, like many people on this board I’m sure, being called stupid gets my dander up.