Editing Split infinitive (section)

== History of the controversy ==
{{Blockquote
|text = No other grammatical issue has so divided English speakers since the split infinitive was declared to be a [[solecism]] in the 19c [19th century]: raise the subject of English usage in any conversation today and it is sure to be mentioned.
|author = [[Henry Watson Fowler]]
|source = [[Fowler's Modern English Usage|''Pocket Fowler's Modern English Usage'']]<ref name=Fowler547>{{cite encyclopedia | editor = Robert Allen | encyclopedia = [[Fowler's Modern English Usage|Pocket Fowler's Modern English Usage]] (1926) | title = Split infinitive | year = 2002 | publisher = Oxford University Press | isbn = 0-19-860947-7 | page = [https://archive.org/details/pocketfowlersmod00alle/page/547 547] | url = https://archive.org/details/pocketfowlersmod00alle/page/547 }}</ref>}}

Although it is sometimes reported that a prohibition on split infinitives goes back to [[Renaissance]] times, and frequently the 18th century scholar [[Robert Lowth]] is cited as the originator of the prescriptive rule,<ref>Richard Lederer, ''A Man of My Words: Reflections on the English Language'', St. Martin's Press, 2003, {{ISBN|0-312-31785-9}}, p. 248: "The prohibition of that practice was created in 1762 by one Robert Lowth, an Anglican bishop and self-appointed grammarian." Similarly Peter Stockwell, ''Sociolinguistics: A Resource Book for Students'', Routledge, 2002, {{ISBN|0-415-23452-2}}, p. 98.</ref> such a rule is not to be found in Lowth's writing, and is not known to appear in any text before the 19th century.<ref name="BrownOgilvie2010p347">{{cite book|last1=Brown|first1=Keith|last2=Ogilvie|first2=Sarah|title=Concise Encyclopedia of Languages of the World|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=F2SRqDzB50wC&pg=PA347|year=2010|publisher=Elsevier|isbn=978-0-08-087775-4|page=347}}</ref><ref name="Hickey2010p81">{{cite book|last=Hickey|first=Raymond|title=Eighteenth-Century English: Ideology and Change|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=B-PKlIqH6EMC&pg=PA81|year=2010|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-1-139-48959-1|page=81}}</ref><ref name="OstadeWurff2009pp37-38">{{cite book|last1=Ostade|first1=Ingrid Tieken-Boon van|last2=Wurff|first2=Wim van der|title=Current Issues in Late Modern English|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=x91EUnnWwR8C&pg=PA37|year=2009|publisher=Peter Lang|isbn=978-3-03911-660-7|pages=37–38}}</ref>

Possibly the earliest comment against split infinitives was by the American [[John Comly]] in 1803.<ref name=MWnotes/>

<blockquote>An adverb should not be placed between the verb of the infinitive mood and the preposition ''to'', which governs it; as ''Patiently'' to wait—not To ''patiently'' wait.</blockquote>

Another early prohibition came from an anonymous American in 1834:<ref name="BrownOgilvie2010p347" /><ref name="OstadeWurff2009pp37-38" /><ref name="Kamm2015">{{cite book|last=Kamm|first=Oliver|title=Accidence Will Happen: The Non-Pedantic Guide to English Usage|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=mD8qAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT245|year=2015|publisher=Orion|isbn=978-0-297-87194-1|page=245}}</ref>

<blockquote>The practice of separating the prefix of the infinitive mode from the verb, by the intervention of an adverb, is not unfrequent among uneducated persons&nbsp;… I am not conscious, that any rule has been heretofore given in relation to this point&nbsp;… The practice, however, of not separating the particle from its verb, is so general and uniform among good authors, and the exceptions are so rare, that the rule which I am about to propose will, I believe, prove to be as accurate as most rules, and may be found beneficial to inexperienced writers. It is this :—''The particle, ''TO'', which comes before the verb in the infinitive mode, must not be separated from it by the intervention of an adverb or any other word or phrase; but the adverb should immediately precede the particle, or immediately follow the verb.''<ref name="Anon 1834">{{cite journal | author = P. | title= Inaccuracies of Diction. Grammar | pages = 467–470 | journal = [[The New-England Magazine]] | volume = 7 | issue = 6 |date=December 1834 | url = http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/moa/pageviewer?root=%2Fmoa%2Fnwen%2Fnwen0007%2F&tif=00479.TIF&cite=http%3A%2F%2Fcdl.library.cornell.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmoa%2Fmoa-cgi%3Fnotisid%3DABS8100-0007-131&coll=moa&frames=1&view=50 | access-date = 2006-10-26}}</ref></blockquote>

In 1840, Richard Taylor also condemned split infinitives as a "disagreeable affectation",<ref>{{cite book | last1 = Tooke | first1 = John Horne | last2= Taylor | first2= Richard | year = 1840 | title = The Diversions of Purley | location = London | publisher = Thomas Tegg | page = xxx | url = https://archive.org/details/epeapteroentaor01taylgoog | access-date = 2015-12-07 | quote=Some writers of the present day have the disagreeable affectation of putting an adverb between ''to'' and the infinitive.}}</ref> and in 1859, Solomon Barrett Jr., called them "a common fault."<ref>{{cite book | last=Barrett | first=Solomon Jr. | year = 1859 | title = Barrett's English Syntax | location = Boston | publisher = Bradley, Dayton, & Co. | page = 164 | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=93sQAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA164 | access-date = 2011-09-16}}</ref> However, the issue seems not to have attracted wider public attention until [[Henry Alford (theologian)|Henry Alford]] addressed it in his ''Plea for the Queen's English'' in 1864:
<blockquote>A correspondent states as his own usage, and defends, the insertion of an adverb between the sign of the infinitive mood and the verb. He gives as an instance, "''to scientifically illustrate.''" But surely this is a practice entirely unknown to English speakers and writers. It seems to me, that we ever regard the ''to'' of the infinitive as inseparable from its verb. And, when we have already a choice between two forms of expression, "scientifically to illustrate" and "to illustrate scientifically," there seems no good reason for flying in the face of common usage.<ref name="Alford 1864">[https://archive.org/stream/pleaforqueenseng00alfouoft#page/188/mode/2up ''A Plea for the Queen's English: Stray notes on Speaking and Spelling''],  Henry Alford, Strahan, 1866, page 188</ref><ref>Quoted by Hall (1882).</ref></blockquote>

Others followed, among them Bache, 1869 ("The ''to'' of the infinitive mood is inseparable from the verb");<ref>{{cite book | last = Bache | first = Richard Meade | year = 1869 | title = Vulgarisms and Other Errors of Speech | location = Philadelphia | publisher = Claxton, Remsen, and Haffelfinger | page = [https://archive.org/details/vulgarismsother00bachgoog/page/n165 145] | url = https://archive.org/details/vulgarismsother00bachgoog | quote = Richard Meade Bache vulgarisms. | access-date = 2006-10-31 | edition = second}}</ref> William B. Hodgson, 1889; and Raub, 1897 ("The sign ''to'' must not be separated from the remaining part of the infinitive by an intervening word").<ref>{{cite book | last = Raub | first = Robert N. | year = 1897 | title = Helps in the Use of Good English | location = Philadelphia | page = [https://archive.org/details/helpsinusegoode01raubgoog/page/n126 120] | url = https://archive.org/details/helpsinusegoode01raubgoog | quote = Raub helps. | access-date = 2006-11-13 | publisher = Raub & Co.}}</ref>

Even as these authorities were condemning the split infinitive, others were endorsing it: Brown, 1851 (saying some grammarians had criticized it and it was less elegant than other adverb placements but sometimes clearer);<ref>{{cite book | last = Brown | first = Goold | author-link = Goold Brown | title = The Grammar of English Grammars | year = 1851 | location = New York | url = http://www.gutenberg.org/files/11615/11615-8.txt | access-date = 2006-11-13}}</ref> Hall, 1882; Onions, 1904; Jespersen, 1905; and Fowler and Fowler, 1906. Despite the defence by some grammarians, by the beginning of the 20th century the prohibition was firmly established in the press. In the 1907 edition of ''The King's English'', the [[Henry Watson Fowler|Fowler]] brothers wrote:

<blockquote>The 'split' infinitive has taken such hold upon the consciences of journalists that, instead of warning the novice against splitting his infinitives, we must warn him against the curious superstition that the splitting or not splitting makes the difference between a good and a bad writer.</blockquote>

In large parts of the school system, the construction was opposed with ruthless vigour. A correspondent to the [[BBC]] on a programme about English grammar in 1983 remarked:

<blockquote>One reason why the older generation feel so strongly about English grammar is that we were severely punished if we didn't obey the rules! One split infinitive, one whack; two split infinitives, two whacks; and so on.<ref>Quoted by David Crystal, ''The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language'', p. 91</ref></blockquote>

As a result, the debate took on a degree of passion that the bare facts of the matter never warranted.{{POV statement|date=October 2023}} There was frequent skirmishing between the splitters and anti-splitters until the 1960s. [[George Bernard Shaw]] wrote letters to newspapers supporting writers who used the split infinitive and [[Raymond Chandler]] complained to the editor of ''[[The Atlantic]]'' about a [[proofreading|proofreader]] who interfered with Chandler's split infinitives:

<blockquote>By the way, would you convey my compliments to the purist who reads your proofs and tell him or her that I write in a sort of broken-down patois which is something like the way a Swiss-waiter talks, and that when I split an infinitive, God damn it, I split it so it will remain split, and when I interrupt the velvety smoothness of my more or less literate syntax with a few sudden words of barroom vernacular, this is done with the eyes wide open and the mind relaxed and attentive. The method may not be perfect, but it is all I have.<ref>{{cite book | last1 = Hiney | first1 = Tom | last2 = MacShane | first2 = Frank | year = 2000 | title = The Raymond Chandler Papers: Selected Letters and Nonfiction, 1909–1959 | location = New York | publisher = Atlantic Monthly Press | page = [https://archive.org/details/raymondchandlerp00raym/page/77 77] | isbn = 0-87113-786-0 | url = https://archive.org/details/raymondchandlerp00raym/page/77 }}</ref></blockquote>

Follett, in ''Modern American Usage'' (1966) writes: "The split infinitive has its place in good composition. It should be used when it is expressive and well led up to."<ref>Wilson Follett, ''Modern American Usage: A Guide'' (New York: Hill and Wang, 1966), 313.</ref> Fowler (Gowers' revised second edition, 1965) offers the following example of the consequences of refusal to split infinitives: "The greatest difficulty about assessing the economic achievements of the Soviet Union is that its spokesmen try ''absurdly to exaggerate'' them; in consequence the visitor may tend ''badly to underrate'' them" (italics added). This question results: "Has dread of the split infinitive led the writer to attach the adverbs ['absurdly' and 'badly'] to the wrong verbs, and would he not have done better ''to boldly split'' both infinitives, since he cannot put the adverbs after them without spoiling his rhythm" (italics added)?<ref>H. W. Fowler, ''Fowler's Modern English Usage'', 2nd ed., rev. and ed. by Sir Ernest Gowers (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1983), 582</ref> Bernstein (1985) argues that, although infinitives should not always be split, they should be split where doing so improves the sentence: "The natural position for a modifier is before the word it modifies. Thus the natural position for an adverb modifying an infinitive should be just&nbsp;… ''after'' the to" (italics added). Bernstein continues: "Curme's contention that the split infinitive is often an improvement&nbsp;… cannot be disputed."<ref>Theodore M. Bernstein, ''The Careful Writer'' (New York: Athenium, 1985), 424-27.</ref> Heffernan and Lincoln, in their modern English composition textbook, agree with the above authors. Some sentences, they write, "are weakened by&nbsp;… cumbersome splitting," but in other sentences "an infinitive may be split by a one-word modifier that would be awkward in any other position."<ref>James A. W. Heffernan and John E. Lincoln, ''Writing: A College Handbook—Annotated Instructor's Edition'', 4th ed., (New York: W. W. Norton, 1994), 284–285.</ref>