The English-speaking world may be divided into (1) those who neither
know nor care what a split infinitive is; (2) those who do not know,
but care very much; (3) those who know and condemn; (4) those who know
and approve; and (5) those who know and distinguish.
- Those who neither know nor care are the vast majority, and are a
happy folk, to be envied by most of the minority classes. 'To really
understand' comes readier to their lips and pens than 'really to
understand'; they see no reason why they should not say it (small
blame to them, seeing that reasons are not their critics' strong
point), and they do say it, to the discomfort of some among us, but
not to their own.
- To the second class, those who do not know but do care, who would
as soon be caught putting their knives in their mouths as splitting
an infinitive but have only hazy notions of what constitutes that
deplorable breach of etiquette, this article is chiefly addressed.
These people betray by their practice that their aversion to the
split infinitive springs not from instinctive good taste, but from
tame acceptance of the misinterpreted opinion of others; for they
will subject their sentences to the queerest distortions, all to
escape imaginary split infinitives. 'To really understand' is a
s.i.; 'to really be understood' is a s.i.; 'to be really understood'
is not one; the havoc that is played with much well-intentioned
writing by failure to grasp that distinction is incredible. Those
upon whom the fear of infinitive-splitting sits heavy should
remember that to give conclusive evidence, by distortions, of
misconceiving the nature of the s.i. is far more damaging to their
literary pretensions than an actual lapse could be; for it exhibits
them as deaf to the normal rhythm of English sentences. No sensitive
ear can fail to be shocked if the following examples are read aloud,
by the strangeness of the indicated adverbs. Why on earth, the
reader wonders, is that word out of its place? He will find, on
looking through again, that each has been turned out of a similar
position, viz between the word be and a passive participle.
Reflection will assure him that the cause of dislocation is always
the same all these writers have sacrificed the run of their
sentences to the delusion that 'to be really understood' is a split
infinitive. It is not; and the straitest non-splitter of us all can
with a clear conscience restore each of the adverbs to its rightful
place: He was proposed at the last moment as a candidate likely generally
to be accepted. / When the record of this campaign comes dispassionately
to be written, and in just perspective, it will be found that ... /
New principles will have boldly to be adopted if the
Scottish case is to be met. / This is a very serious matter, which
dearly ought further to be inquired into. / The Headmaster
of a public school possesses very great powers, which ought most
carefully and considerately to be exercised. / The time to get
this revaluation put through is when the amount paid by the State to
the localities is very largely to be increased.
- The above writers are bogy-haunted creatures who for fear of
splitting an infinitive abstain from doing something quite
different, i.e. dividing be from its complement by an
adverb; see further under POSITION OF ADVERBS.
Those who presumably do know what split infinitives are, and condemn
them, are not so easily identified, since they include all who
neither commit the sin nor flounder about in saving themselves from
it all who combine a reasonable dexterity with acceptance of
conventional rules But when the dexterity is lacking disaster
follows. It does not add to a writer's readableness if readers are
pulled up now and again to wonder Why this distortion? Ah, to
be sure, a non-split die-hard! That is the mental dialogue
occasioned by each of the adverbs in the examples below. It is of no
avail merely to fling oneself desperately out of temptation; one
must so do it that no traces of the struggle remain. Sentences must
if necessary be thoroughly remodelled instead of having a word
lifted from its original place and dumped elsewhere: What
alternative can be found which the Pope has not condemned, and which
will make it possible to organise legally public worship ? /
It will, when better understood, tend firmly to establish
relations between Capital and Labour. / Both Germany and England
have done ill in not combining to forbid flatly hostilities.
/ Every effort must be made to increase adequately
professional knowledge and attainments. / We have had to shorten
somewhat Lord D's letter. / The kind of sincerity
which enables an author to move powerfully the heart would
... / Safeguards should be provided to prevent effectually
cosmopolitan financiers from manipulating these reserves.
- Just as those who know and condemn the s.i. include many who are
not recognisable, since only the clumsier performers give positive
proof of resistance to temptation, so too those who know and approve
are not distinguishable with certainty. When a man splits an
infinitive, he may be doing it unconsciously as a member of our
class 1, or he may be deliberately rejecting the trammels of
convention and announcing that he means to do as he will with his
own infinitives. But, as the following examples are from newspapers
of high repute, and high newspaper tradition is strong against
splitting, it is perhaps fair to assume that each specimen is a
manifesto of independence: It will be found possible to
considerably improve the present wages of the miners without
jeopardizing the interests of capital. / Always providing that the
Imperialists do not feel strong enough to decisively assert
their power in the revolted provinces. / But even so, he seems to
still be allowed to speak at Unionist demonstrations. / It is
the intention of the Minister of Transport to substantially
increase all present rates by means of a general percentage. /
The men in many of the largest districts are declared to
strongly favour a strike if the minimum wage is not conceded.
It should be noticed that in these the separating adverb
could have been placed outside the infinitive with little or in most
cases no damage to the sentence-rhythm (considerably after
miners, decisively after power, still
with clear gain after be, substantially after rates,
and strongly at some loss after strike), so that
protest seems a safe diagnosis.
- The attitude of those who know and distinguish is something like
this: We admit that separation of to from its infinitive is
not in itself desirable, and we shall not gratuitously say either
'to mortally wound' or 'to mortally be wounded', but we are not
foolish enough to confuse the latter with 'to be mortally wounded',
which is blameless English nor 'to just have heard' with 'to have
just heard', which is also blameless. We maintain, however, that a
real s.i., though not desirable in itself, is preferable to either
of two things, to real ambiguity, and to patent artificiality. For
the first, we will rather write 'Our object is to further cement
trade relations' than, by correcting into 'Our object is further to
cement ...', leave it doubtful whether an additional object or
additional cementing is the point. And for the second, we take it
that such reminders of a tyrannous convention as 'in not combining
to forbid flatly hostilities' are far more abnormal than the
abnormality they evade. We will split infinitives sooner than be
ambiguous or artificial; more than that, we will freely admit that
sufficient recasting will get rid of any s.i. without involving
either of those faults, and yet reserve to ourselves the right of
deciding in each case whether recasting is worth while. Let us take
an example: 'In these circumstances, the Commission, judging from
the evidence taken in London, has been feeling its way to
modifications intended to better equip successful candidates for
careers in India and at the same time to meet reasonable Indian
demands.' To better equip ? We refuse 'better to equip' as a shouted
reminder of the tyranny; we refuse 'to equip better' as ambiguous (better
an adjective?); we regard 'to equip successful candidates better' as
lacking compactness, as possibly tolerable from an anti-splitter,
but not good enough for us. What then of recasting? 'intended to
make successful candidates fitter for' is the best we can do if the
exact sense is to be kept, it takes some thought to arrive at the
correction; was the game worth the candle?
After this inconclusive discussion, in which, however, the author's
opinion has perhaps been allowed to appear with indecent plainness,
readers may like to settle the following question for themselves. '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.' Has dread
of the s.i. led the writer to attach his adverbs 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? Or are we to give him the benefit of the doubt, and suppose
that he really meant absurdly to qualify try and badly
to qualify tend?
It is perhaps hardly fair that this article should have quoted no
split infinitives except such as, being reasonably supposed (as in 4)
to be deliberate, are likely to be favourable specimens. Let it
therefore conclude with one borrowed from a reviewer, to whose
description of it no exception need be taken: 'A book ... of which the
purpose is thus with a deafening split infinitive stated
by its author: "Its main idea is to historically, even
while events are maturing, and divinely from the Divine point
of view impeach the European system of Church and
States".'