SPLIT INFINITIVES
What’s a split infinitive, then? Sounds a bit painful, in a vaguely science-fiction kind of way.
Speakers of non-English European languages will know what an infinitive is. It’s a verb in its pure, unaltered form. For example:
French: aller
English: to go
French: chanter
English to sing
See the difference there? The French infinitive is one word, the English is two: “to” + “the verb”. In French and other languages, notably Latin, it’s impossible to split the infinitive; it’s either the infinitive form or it isn’t. That’s where the problem lies with English, because it is possible to split the infinitive.
Traditionalists prefer to think of the to and the verb as joined in an invisible embrace. And they shake with anger at the thought of anything coming between the two.
But why, really, should it matter? English is not Latin and it’s not French. One of the reasons English has flourished over any of its European cousins is its capacity to evolve, to change its shape to better serve its users and to not get too obsessed with tradition taking precedence over being understood.
In other words, take it easy. Often a split infinitive will just sound better and more powerful than its more tradition-bound twin:
The most famous example of the form I’m talking about is one you will all know. It was how James Tiberius Kirk described his five-year mission in the classic series Star Trek:
“To boldly go where no man has gone before!”
He didn’t say “To go boldly”. But just imagine if he had…
“To explore strange new worlds… To seek out new life and new civilizations… To go boldly where no man has gone before!”
Nah, that just sounds weak.
What’s more, splitting the infinitive can make the meaning of what you want to say more clear. Compare the following:
In the first example, we’re not really sure of the tone of voice. Did he tell her to stop talking in a kindly way (”Come on, love, be an angel and stop talking now, eh?”), or did he say “Kindly stop talking”, which sounds much more terse and much less, well, kind.
The second example makes it clear. He wasn’t talking to her in a kindly way. He was basically saying “Shut up!”
So what do you do? Go with a non-split infinitive that follows tradition but which may occasionally sound unnatural or even make your meaning slightly obscure, or choose something that flows better but which runs the risk of having the reader think (wrongly) you’re making a grammatical error?
I tend to just go with what sounds best to my ear and maybe that’s what you should do, too. Read aloud what you’ve written (or whisper aloud, if you’re in an office and you’re worried people might think you’re a freak). Listening to the words you’ve written will help you decide whether it’s okay or not.
If you still can’t work out whether to split or not to split, why not re-work the whole sentence and avoid the problem completely?
You’re very welcome to reprint any of these articles on your website and/or newsletters free of charge, provided:
Daniel O'Connor is a website, SEO and marketing copywriter using the name Daniboy. He can be contacted here. Visit http://www.daniboy.com for further details of his services.
Speakers of non-English European languages will know what an infinitive is. It’s a verb in its pure, unaltered form. For example:
French: aller
English: to go
French: chanter
English to sing
See the difference there? The French infinitive is one word, the English is two: “to” + “the verb”. In French and other languages, notably Latin, it’s impossible to split the infinitive; it’s either the infinitive form or it isn’t. That’s where the problem lies with English, because it is possible to split the infinitive.
Traditionalists prefer to think of the to and the verb as joined in an invisible embrace. And they shake with anger at the thought of anything coming between the two.
But why, really, should it matter? English is not Latin and it’s not French. One of the reasons English has flourished over any of its European cousins is its capacity to evolve, to change its shape to better serve its users and to not get too obsessed with tradition taking precedence over being understood.
In other words, take it easy. Often a split infinitive will just sound better and more powerful than its more tradition-bound twin:
The most famous example of the form I’m talking about is one you will all know. It was how James Tiberius Kirk described his five-year mission in the classic series Star Trek:
“To boldly go where no man has gone before!”
He didn’t say “To go boldly”. But just imagine if he had…
“To explore strange new worlds… To seek out new life and new civilizations… To go boldly where no man has gone before!”
Nah, that just sounds weak.
What’s more, splitting the infinitive can make the meaning of what you want to say more clear. Compare the following:
- He told her kindly to stop talking in class
- He told her to kindly stop talking in class
In the first example, we’re not really sure of the tone of voice. Did he tell her to stop talking in a kindly way (”Come on, love, be an angel and stop talking now, eh?”), or did he say “Kindly stop talking”, which sounds much more terse and much less, well, kind.
The second example makes it clear. He wasn’t talking to her in a kindly way. He was basically saying “Shut up!”
So what do you do? Go with a non-split infinitive that follows tradition but which may occasionally sound unnatural or even make your meaning slightly obscure, or choose something that flows better but which runs the risk of having the reader think (wrongly) you’re making a grammatical error?
I tend to just go with what sounds best to my ear and maybe that’s what you should do, too. Read aloud what you’ve written (or whisper aloud, if you’re in an office and you’re worried people might think you’re a freak). Listening to the words you’ve written will help you decide whether it’s okay or not.
If you still can’t work out whether to split or not to split, why not re-work the whole sentence and avoid the problem completely?
You’re very welcome to reprint any of these articles on your website and/or newsletters free of charge, provided:
- you don’t change the article in any way
- you include the writing credit below (including all website links)
Daniel O'Connor is a website, SEO and marketing copywriter using the name Daniboy. He can be contacted here. Visit http://www.daniboy.com for further details of his services.
