Editing Split infinitive (section)

== Principal objections to the split infinitive ==
Objections to the split infinitive fall into three categories, of which only the first is accorded any credence by linguists.

=== The descriptivist objection ===
One of the earliest arguments against the split infinitive, expressed by an anonymous contributor to the ''New-England Magazine'' in 1834, was based on the impression that it was not an observable feature of English as used by "good authors."<ref name="Anon 1834"/>
[[Henry Alford (theologian)|Henry Alford]], in his ''Plea for the Queen's English'' in 1864 went further, stating that use of the "split infinitive" was "a practice entirely unknown to English speakers and writers."<ref name="Alford 1864"/>
In principle there is a consensus that language teachers should advise on usage on the basis of what is observed to be current practice in the language. If the early critics of the construction did not observe it to be usual in (the prestige variety of) English as they knew it, their advice was legitimate. However it would be difficult to argue that way today, as the split infinitive has become very common.

=== The argument from the full infinitive ===
A second argument is summed up by Alford's statement "It seems to me that we ever regard the ''to'' of the infinitive as inseparable from its verb."

The ''to'' in the infinitive construction, which is found throughout the Germanic languages, is originally a preposition before the dative of a verbal noun, but in the modern languages it is widely regarded as a particle that serves as a marker of the infinitive. In German and Dutch, this marker (''zu'' and ''te'' respectively) sometimes precedes the infinitive, but is not regarded as part of it. In English, on the other hand, it is traditional to speak of the "[[Infinitive#Uses of the bare infinitive|bare infinitive]]" without ''to'' and the "full infinitive" with it, and to conceive of ''to'' as part of the full infinitive. (In the sentence "I had my daughter clean her room," ''clean'' is a bare infinitive; in "I told my daughter to clean her room," ''to clean'' is a full infinitive.) Possibly this is because the absence of an ''inflected'' infinitive form made it useful to include the particle in the citation form of the verb, and in some nominal constructions in which other Germanic languages would omit it (e.g., ''to know her is to love her''). The concept of a two-word infinitive can reinforce an intuitive sense that the two words belong together. For instance, the rhetorician John Duncan Quackenbos said, "''To have'' is as much one thing, and as inseparable by modifiers, as the original form ''habban'', or the [[Latin]] ''habere''."<ref>{{cite book | last = Quackenbos | first = John Duncan | year = 1896 | url = https://archive.org/details/practicalrhetor00quacgoog | title = Practical Rhetoric | publisher = American Book Company | page = [https://archive.org/details/practicalrhetor00quacgoog/page/n228 222] }}</ref> The usage writer John Opdycke based a similar argument on the closest French, German, and Latin translations.<ref>{{cite book |last=Opdycke |first=John B. | title = Get it Right! A Cyclopedia of Correct English Usage | year = 1941 | publisher = Funk and Wagnalls | page = 174}}</ref>

However, the two-part infinitive is disputed, and some linguists argue that the infinitive in English is a single-word verb form, which may or may not be preceded by the particle ''to''. Some modern [[generative grammar|generative]] analysts classify ''to'' as a "peculiar" [[auxiliary verb]];<ref>{{cite book |last1=Sag |first1=Ivan A. |last2=Wasow |first2=Thomas |last3=Bender |first3=Emily M. | year = 2003 | title = Syntactic Theory: A Formal Introduction | publisher = Center for the Study of Language and Information | page = 361 | isbn = 1-57586-400-2}}</ref> other analysts, as the infinitival [[Subordination (linguistics)|subordinator]].<ref>{{cite book | last = Huddleston | first = Rodney | author-link = Rodney Huddleston | year = 2002 | title = The Cambridge Grammar of the English language | editor = Huddleston, Rodney |editor2=[[Geoffrey Pullum|Pullum, Geoffrey K.]] | chapter = Non-finite and verbless clauses | publisher = Cambridge University Press | pages = 1183–1187 | isbn = 978-0521431460 }}</ref>

Besides, even if the concept of the full infinitive is accepted, it does not necessarily follow that any two words that belong together grammatically need be adjacent to each other. They usually are, but counter-examples are easily found, such as an adverb splitting a two-word finite verb ("will not do", "has not done").

=== The argument from classical languages ===
A frequent argument of those who tolerate split infinitives is that the split-infinitive prohibition is based solely on a misguided comparison with [[Latin]].<ref name=Bailey>{{cite news
  | last = Bailey
  | first = Richard
  | title = Talking about words: Split Infinitives
  | work = Michigan Today News-e
  | publisher = [[University of Michigan]] News Service
  | date = June 2006
  | url =http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/html/2027.42/62004/words.html
  | access-date = 2006-11-29
}}</ref> However, the argument from the classical languages may be a [[straw man]] argument, as the most important critics of the split infinitive never used it. Although many writers who support the split infinitive suggest that this argument motivated the early opponents of the construction, there is little primary source evidence for this; indeed, Richard Bailey has noted that, despite the lack of evidence, this theory has simply become "part of the folklore of linguistics".

An infinitive in Latin or Greek is never used with a marker equivalent to English ''to'', and a Latin infinitive cannot be split. The argument would be that the construction should be avoided because it is not found in the classics. The claim that those who dislike split infinitives are applying rules of Latin grammar to English is asserted by many authorities who accept the split infinitive. One example is in the ''American Heritage Book of English Usage'': "The only rationale for condemning the construction is based on a false analogy with Latin."<ref name = AHBEU/> The assertion is also made in the ''Oxford Guide to Plain English'',<ref>{{cite book |title=Oxford Guide to Plain English|edition= Third|last= Cutts|first= Martin|year= 2009|publisher= Oxford University Press|location= Oxford|isbn= 978-0-19-955850-6|page=111}}</ref> ''Compact Oxford English Dictionary'',<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://languages.oup.com/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060417081625/http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/splitinfinitive?view=uk|url-status=dead|title=Oxford Languages &#124; The Home of Language Data|archive-date=April 17, 2006|website=languages.oup.com}}</ref> and [[Steven Pinker]]'s ''[[The Language Instinct]]'',<ref>{{cite web|url=http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/1994_01_24_thenewrepublic.html |title=Steven Pinker. Grammar Puss |publisher=Pinker.wjh.harvard.edu |date=1992-10-04 |access-date=2011-02-21 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140430100146/http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/1994_01_24_thenewrepublic.html |archive-date=2014-04-30 }}</ref> among others.<ref>{{cite book
  | last = Lyons
  | first = John L.
  | year = 1981
  | title = Language and Linguistics: An Introduction
  | publisher = Cambridge University Press
  | isbn = 0-521-23034-9
  | page = [https://archive.org/details/languagelinguist0000lyon/page/50 50]
  | url = https://archive.org/details/languagelinguist0000lyon
  | url-access = registration
  | access-date = 2007-01-16
}}</ref><ref>{{cite book
  | last = Hill
  | first = Alette Olin
  | year = 1997
  | chapter = Pronoun Envy
  | title = Counterbalance: Gendered Perspectives on Writing and Language
  | editor = Carolyn Logan
  | publisher = Broadview Press
  | isbn = 1-55111-127-6
  | chapter-url = https://books.google.com/books?id=SAY5idFoyS8C&pg=PA104
  | access-date = 2007-01-16
}}</ref><ref>{{cite book
  | last = Kroeger
  | first = Paul R.
  | year = 2004
  | title = Analyzing Syntax: A Lexical-Functional Approach
  | page = 4
  | publisher = Cambridge University Press
  | isbn = 0-521-81623-8
  | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=ps1M-uXTrj4C&pg=PA4
  | access-date = 2007-01-16
}}</ref>

The argument implies an adherence to the humanist idea of the greater purity of the classics,<ref>{{cite book | last = Bryson | first = Bill | author-link = Bill Bryson | orig-year = 1990 |year=2001 | title = The Mother Tongue: English and How It Got That Way | publisher = HarperCollins | isbn = 0-380-71543-0}}, p.137.</ref> which, particularly in Renaissance times, led people to regard as inferior aspects of English that differed from Latin. Today no linguist would accept an argument that judges the usage of one language by the grammar of another. Besides, if Latin has no equivalent of the marker ''to'', it provides no model for the question of where to put it, and therefore supports neither splitting nor not-splitting. As Richard Lederer puts it: "there is no precedent in these languages for condemning the split infinitive because in Greek and Latin (and all the other [[Romance verbs#Modern languages|Romance languages]]) the infinitive is a single word that is impossible to sever."<ref>{{cite book |last=Lederer  |first=Richard | title = A Man of My Words: Reflections on the English Language | publisher = St. Martin's Press | year = 2003 | page = [https://archive.org/details/manofmywordsrefl00lede/page/n265 248] | isbn = 0-312-31785-9 | url = https://archive.org/details/manofmywordsrefl00lede |url-access=registration  |quote=split infinitive Lowth.  | access-date = 2007-01-27}}</ref>