Go boldly, or split infinitives?

Split at will; you're not writing in Latin.

The split infinitive superstition is idiotic, and bears no relationship to reality. If you want to split, then I urge you to boldly go where others have been before you, beginning with tenth century Old English prose.

I agree with Medievalist. Sometimes split infinitives sound much more interesting, particularly in literary prose.

I remember once being corrected by my boss's wife for writing (it was non-fiction natural history) about "the first man to successfully breed the platypus in captivity". My boss's wife, who is English, insisted I make it "the first man to breed successfully the platypus in captivity" to remove the split infinitive. To me, that just sounds darn weird. I ended up changing the sentence entirely to appease her, but I stand by the original. We don't speak or write Latin, which is where the bugbear comes from, so I say split at your leisure.

Split 'em-- as long as doing so doesn't confuse the reader.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Just because it comes from Latin does not mean splitting an infinitive always works in English. You have to take it on a case by case basis. Sometimes it works well, sometimes it results in horrible writing.

It all depends. At work, we try to keep 'em together. Anywhere else, it depends on the story, sentence structure, etc.

In formal language, especially if writing nonfiction, I would advise against it. Unfortunately, split infinitives are being used more and more because of the poor grammar skills used by sloppy editors in televised media.

On a side note, if a fictional character does it within the confines of certain dialogue choices, the character may very well need to use a split infinitive to sound authentic.

I do not use them, but that is my choice.

Gene Roddenberry was an exception and that particular split infinitive has become a part of our culture.

They're like split ends: we seem to get them whether we want them or not.

I likes them, purely because I find descriptive language more colourful than the 'thou shalt not split 'finitives' version. And they do seem to have become part of normal, everyday usage (and if you're reflecting naturally occuring language in dialogue...) But as for using them, register (acad, news, fiction etc) usually guides there.

So, a choice between 'boldy to go', or 'to boldy friggin' go...' the 'tbfgs' are ok in my humble opinion.

Grammatically... what Medievalist said. It's one of those things like "don't start a sentence with a conjunction." It's more of a style thing.

I try not to use it, but sometimes it depends on the cadence, rhythm, etc. Some may argue "to go boldly" doesn't sound as good as "to boldly go" especially when the emphasis is on the adverb.

reneeporter said:

In formal language, especially if writing nonfiction, I would advise against it. Unfortunately, split infinitives are being used more and more because of the poor grammar skills used by sloppy editors in televised media.

Click to expand...

There's nothing in English grammar that prohibits a split infinitive.

One may begin a sentence with certain conjunctions. These conjunctions may precede independent clauses. They are called coordinating conjunctions and there are seven of them: and, but, for, nor, or, so, yet.

maestrowork said:

Grammatically... what Medievalist said. It's one of those things like "don't start a sentence with a conjunction." It's more of a style thing.

I try not to use it, but sometimes it depends on the cadence, rhythm, etc. Some may argue "to go boldly" doesn't sound as good as "to boldly go" especially when the emphasis is on the adverb.

Click to expand...

reneeporter said:

One may begin a sentence with certain conjunctions. These conjunctions may precede independent clauses. They are called coordinating conjunctions and there are seven of them: and, but, for, nor, or, so, yet.

Click to expand...

This seems to imply that one cannot begin a sentence with a subordinating conjunction. If this is true, sentences like this are impossible.

People begin sentences with subordinating conjuctions all the time. As long as an independent clause is added, this is fine.

And let's not forget how ellipses can even mess with Ferret's excellent point:

If you feel so strongly about it...

Initial-position start with subordinator, but the sentence is left incomplete for tension.

If only I had thought of that.

It's okay to split the to-infinitive between the "to" and the verb: "to boldly go", but I'd generally advise against splitting the bare infinitive: "I made him g boldly o". (Well, you could do it for effect, but be sure not to make that mistake accidently.)

Dawnstorm, incredibly helpful.

Fallen said:

And let's not forget how ellipses can even mess with Ferret's excellent point:

If you feel so strongly about it...

Initial-position start with subordinator, but the sentence is left incomplete for tension.

Click to expand...

Good point. I hadn't even thought of ellipses. Also, even though a dependent clause on its own is a fragment, fragments can be useful. Conversations would be awfully stiff without them.

Dawnstorm said:

It's okay to split the to-infinitive between the "to" and the verb: "to boldly go", but I'd generally advise against splitting the bare infinitive: "I made him g boldly o". (Well, you could do it for effect, but be sure not to make that mistake accidently.)

Dawnstorm, incredibly helpful.

Click to expand...

Just between you and me, I think a writer should split infinitives whenever they want--even if it's just to boldly discard superstitions about grammar!

maestrowork said:

If only I had thought of that.

Click to expand...

LMAO. But Kipling does the whole if scene better. Not only did he write a whole poem beginning 'if', but he titled it 'if' too. Now that would get the prescriptivists moaning.

Medievalist said:

There's nothing in English grammar that prohibits a split infinitive.

Click to expand...

This!

Dawnstorm said:

It's okay to split the to-infinitive between the "to" and the verb: "to boldly go", but I'd generally advise against splitting the bare infinitive: "I made him g boldly o". (Well, you could do it for effect, but be sure not to make that mistake accidently.)

Dawnstorm, incredibly helpful.

Click to expand...

gboldlyo?

It almost sounds like something from a folk song.

maestrowork said:

Grammatically... what Medievalist said. It's one of those things like "don't start a sentence with a conjunction." It's more of a style thing.

I try not to use it, but sometimes it depends on the cadence, rhythm, etc. Some may argue "to go boldly" doesn't sound as good as "to boldly go" especially when the emphasis is on the adverb.

Click to expand...

Who wrote that Star Trek intro? Gene Roddenberry? I wonder if this came up back then with NBC or anyone before the show's first airing. This has surely become the most famous split infinitive.

I certainly remember English pedants back then! Not very many years before Star Trek there were cigarette ads such as Winston's "Tastes Good Like A Cigarette Should" on radio and TV, and it even became part of their advertising that "people have been writing us saying we should say Winston tastes good AS a cigarette should." Then the ad dismissed proper grammar with the 1960's equivalent of "What Ever."

benbradley said:

Who wrote that Star Trek intro? Gene Roddenberry? I wonder if this came up back then with NBC or anyone before the show's first airing. This has surely become the most famous split infinitive.

Click to expand...

I can tell you this--having asked Roddenberry. It didn't come up; he didn't pass the teaser screen through the network because he was afraid it would trigger a series of memos.

Speaking of which, there's a series of genuine memos from network executives about the Spock character that are quite genuine, and freakin' hysterical in that particular OMG-I-can't-believe-they-worried-about-that-way that network memos often generate, regarding race, sex, gender roles, and grammar.

benbradley said:

I certainly remember English pedants back then! Not very many years before Star Trek there were cigarette ads such as Winston's "Tastes Good Like A Cigarette Should" on radio and TV, and it even became part of their advertising that "people have been writing us saying we should say Winston tastes good AS a cigarette should." Then the ad dismissed proper grammar with the 1960's equivalent of "What Ever."

Click to expand...

Please allow me to put on my snooty officially recognized English Grammar Expert hat for a minute:

[mumble mumble curse Old English curse Old English curse curse]

I can't find the damned hat.

But 90% of the things people assert--including teachers--that are "Grammar rules" with respect to English are made-up bullshit.

Most of the actual inherent-in-the-language grammatical rules and principles within English as she is spoken and written are notable not for the rigidity of the rule, but for the number of exceptions to the damn rule.

If you ever get a chance, look at the texts used for ESL/EFL students; they will blow your mind. My personal favorites are by Celce Murcia, especially her books on teaching English grammar to non-native speakers.

Medievalist said:

But 90% of the things people assert--including teachers--that are "Grammar rules" with respect to English are made-up bullshit.

Click to expand...

What pees me off is all the different English Lang teaching methods/psycholing' approaches being passed around by UK schools (THRASS, Jolly Phonics, ERR...etc). My daughter's school went through three in as many years. It got to the point where even the teachers couldn't get a grasp on the different rules and regs of each one passing under their noses.

On one parent-teacher 'learning day', handing out the thrass phonics chart, the teacher was left scratching her head as to why there was two 'th' fricatives being represented. Both headteacher and teacher bit back and left me stumbling a butload of 'butbutbutbut...' when I mumbled there may be a voiced/voiceless connection (I'm terrified of teachers, lol). I got a 'No, we're positive both are voiced as Jolly Phonics makes no such phonetic distinction.". Luckily another parent stepped in and said the obvious:

'But if it's a phonetic chart, then surely by printing two 'th's' they're saying there's a difference in the way they're both spoken?'

No wonder a good percentage of English kids are walking away from secondary school with next to no reading and writing skills.

reneeporter said:

In formal language, especially if writing nonfiction, I would advise against it. Unfortunately, split infinitives are being used more and more because of the poor grammar skills used by sloppy editors in televised media.

On a side note, if a fictional character does it within the confines of certain dialogue choices, the character may very well need to use a split infinitive to sound authentic.

I do not use them, but that is my choice.

Gene Roddenberry was an exception and that particular split infinitive has become a part of our culture.

Click to expand...

reneeporter said:

One may begin a sentence with certain conjunctions. These conjunctions may precede independent clauses. They are called coordinating conjunctions and there are seven of them: and, but, for, nor, or, so, yet.

Click to expand...

Bah. Prescriptive grammar is as stupid as it is unhelpful.