To Intentionally Offend (Part II)

(CAUTION: If this is your first visit to The Solipsist. . . where the hell have you been?!? At any rate, welcome, but be sure to read yesterday's post first, or you'll be hopelessly lost.)

As for the intriguing but disingenuous, some say splitting the infinitive confuses readers by describing the manner in which something is done before describing the done-thing itself. Thus, for example, if President Obama declares that it is the government's intention "to quickly divest" itself of any ownership stake in General Motors, a reader might conceivably be brought up short, wondering what President Obama could be doing "quickly" before being enlightened by the next word.

Now, we are in favor of anything that makes reading smoother--clarity is job one. But do proponents of this argument truly believe that anyone is confused by this? Perhaps a four-year-old just learning to decode letters might be put off, but for most readers, who do not sound out one word at a time, any conceivable confusion will be subconscious and momentary. Experienced readers--who despite prescriptivists' best efforts are commonly exposed to split infinitives--know to simply move off of the adverb to find out what is being done. (See what we did there?)

The complaint seems to be that splitting the infinitive puts added emphasis on the adverb. To which we say, precisely! As Sloppist Susan Ruda commented yesterday, "I am frequently guilty of using the split infinitive [which] emphasizes the meaning of an adverb within a sentence. That usage is acceptable. I find in proofing my written work that I too often split an infinitive when that emphasis is unwarranted." In other words, it's a matter of style: If you want to emphasize the adverb, do it--split away! If not, don't.

What makes this quibble especially disingenuous is that the purist complains that splitting the infinitive--"to quickly divest"--places undue emphasis on the adverb at the expense of the verb; however, this same purist would presumably have no problem with the phrasing "quickly to divest" which places even greater emphasis on the adverb even earlier in the sentence.

Another factor to consider when debating whether to split the infinitive is mellifluousness: When does it just sound better? In fact, we think that this is the primary reason for the classic Kirkism "to boldly go." Consider the phrase in its entirety:

"To boldly go where no man has gone before"

Certainly, there would have been nothing wrong with "boldly to go" or "to go boldly." But check this out:

First, humor the Solipsist: Change "no man" to "none." We hope you will agree that this maintains the meaning and even avoids the taint of sexism that was subsequently remedied by "no one." At any rate, the emphasis in the original falls strongly on "no," so we think this is acceptable. Now, read it out loud:

"To boldly go where none has gone before."

You know what you've got there? Iambic pentameter. The rhythm of Shakespeare. And if splitting an infinitive gives a writer a touch of the Bard, we hope that they will choose to freely split.