Editing Split infinitive (section)

=== 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>