To Intentionally Offend

And now, because we can't think of anything better to do, our long-awaited commentary on split infinitives.

First, in case you don't know, an "infinitive" is a verb in its "pure" state--verb qua verb, if you will. In English, the infinitive is formed by placing the preposition "to" in front of the base form of the verb, e.g., "to be," "to dance," "to sing," "to laugh," "to love," etc. An infinitive is action or state of being unbounded by time or place--unlimited by subject.

Of course, infinitives are of limited usefulness. After all, when we think of actions, we usually think about them being done by someone (or something) at a particular time. Thus, we conjugate verbs to link them to subjects and place the action they describe in the present, past or future. In other words, a conjugated verb loses its "infinite" quality.

Now, a "split infinitive" is an "error" that occurs when one places an adverb between the preposition ("to") and the verb. Perhaps the most famous split infinitive of all time is Captain Kirk's--and later Captain Picard's--description of the Enterprise's mission: "to boldly go where no man/one has gone before."

You may reasonably ask, "Well, what's wrong with that?" The answer depends on whether you adopt a descriptivist or prescriptivist approach to grammar. Descriptivists, who as their name implies "describe" the way language works, would say there is nothing wrong with split infinitives. Prescriptivists, who prescribe rules, say split infinitives are signs of ignorance (at best) or the apocalypse (at worst). But astute members of Solipsist Nation will still ask, "Why?" Whence sprang this prescriptivist antipathy toward the humble split infinitive?

We have heard two rationales--one inane; the other intriguing, but disingenuous.

The inane: Grammarians back in the day observed that English adopted much of its language--particularly its vocabulary--from Latin. Furthermore, these lovers of language considered Latin a superior language: the language of culture, knowledge, classicism. Since Latin and other Romance languages (Spanish, French, Italian, etc.) have no split inifinitives--nor for that matter does English's closer relative, German--then split infinitives must have no placen in English.

What makes this argument inane is that Romance languages have no split infinitives because they can't: Infinitives in these languages are single words. The Spanish word "hablar," for example, translates as "to speak" in English. There's nowhere to stick an adverb ("habienblar"?). Basing modern conventions on the limitations of previous eras and foreign places, seems ill-advised. The Romans didn't have flush toilets or television, either.

TOMORROW: The disingenous. Plus: When to properly use split inifinitives (hint, that ain't it!)