Marquette University Law School Marquette Law Scholarly Commons

Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship

12-1-2008 Dispelling Grammar Myths: 'To Split' or 'Not to Split' the Rebecca K. Blemberg Marquette University Law School, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/facpub Part of the Law Commons Publication Information Rebecca K. Blemberg, Dispelling Grammar Myths: 'To Split' or 'Not to Split' the Infinitive, Wis. Law., Dec. 2008, at 37. Reprinted with permission of the December 2008 Wisconsin Lawyer, the official publication of the State Bar of Wisconsin, and the author.

Repository Citation Blemberg, Rebecca K., "Dispelling Grammar Myths: 'To Split' or 'Not to Split' the Infinitive" (2008). Faculty Publications. Paper 195. http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/facpub/195

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Dispelling Grammar Myths: 'To Split' or 'Not to Split' the Infinitive by Rebecca K. Blernberg Most mode rn grammar guides give writers permission to split infinitive ve rbs if doing so enhances clarity, eloquence, or precision in writing. A DEBATE ABOUT SPLIT has raged for decades. The controversy is whether a writer may grammar guides classified split infini- that linguists drew inspiration from insert a word or words between "to" tives as grammatical error. Accordingly, in their attempts to impose dis- and a verb, splitting the infinitive form. a grammar-savvy lawyer might ask this cipline and rules on English. r; In Latin, Perhaps the most famous example question: Should I split an infinitive "to" is inherent in the verb; "to" is not of a split infinitive comes from Star knowing that someone reading my expressed separately. For example, "to Trek: "To boldly go where no man has work might think I have made a gram- be" in English is "esse" in Latin. "To gone before." Here, "boldly" splits the matical error? love" in English is "amare" in Latin. infinitive verb form "to go." The phrase Yes. Writers should split infinitives Because "to" is inherent in Latin verbs, "to boldly go" is strong, inspiring, and if doing so enhances clarity, eloquence, mid-19th century English-language rhythmical. But is it correct? Another or precision in writing. The writer scholars reasoned that "to" should not example of a split infinitive is found should know why he split the infini- be separated from verbs in English, and in this adage: "To really get to know tive form , and he should understand thus arose the proscription against split a lawyer, litigate against her." Here, that some readers might believe th e infinitives . "really" splits the infinitive verb form split construction to be incorrect. If Most grammarians now believe split "to get. " the split infinitive is not the clearest infinitives are grammatical. Sometimes, construction for the sentence however in fact, splitting an infinitive form Most modern grammar guides give I writers permission to split infinitive the writer should abandon the split ' precisely conveys a writer's meaning. verbs. 1 For example, Oxford University infinitive gladly, without hesitation, Consider this example: Our research and vvith the knowledge that he will people need to be trained to quickly Press declares, "In standard English, ! the principle of allowing split infinitives avoid distracting readers unwilling to communicate th eir.findings to sales is broadly accepted as both normal and embrace split-infinitive construction. representatives.' This example contains useful. "2 The Gregg Reference Manual Until about the mid-19th century, split-infinitive construction, "to quickly states that splitting infinitives is "no the practice of splitting infinitives communicate." In using the split longer considered incorrect. ":3 Gen- was not frowned upon. Many well- infinitive, the writer makes clear that erations of Engli sh-speaking people, respected writers, including Daniel "quickly" modifies "communicate." If however, have been taught that splitting Defoe, John Donne, Benjamin the writer moves "quickly" somewhere infinitives is improper. Historically, Franklin, Samuel Johnson, and Samuel else in the sentence, the meaning Pepys, split infinitive verb forms:1 is altered, or the sentence becomes Then, in 1864, Henry Alford published awkward: Rebecca K. Blem- the book, A Plea for the Queen's En g- Our research people need to be berg, New York Univ. lish, in which he admonished against trained quickly to communicate their 2000, is an assistant separating "to" from th e corresponding findin gs to sales representatives. This professor of legal verb. Several other English gramrnar revised sentence does not contain writing at Marquette guides that cam e out after Alford's a split infinitive, but the meaning is University Law forbade the split infinitive, and the ambiguous. "Quickly" seems to modify School. Although she "trained" instead of "communicate." hopes she is not too proscription persisted as the norm until 5 schoolmarmish, she relatively recently: Althouah linguists Our research people need to be does have immense respect for language debate why the rule against split trained to communicate their find- purists, and she is not bothered by split- infinitives gained force in the mid-19th ings to sales representatives quickly. infinitive construction. century, many grammarians believe This sentence does not contain a split

December 2008 - Wisconsin Lawyer - 37 Legal Writing

infinitive, but the writer loses the example ruins the rhythmic force, just tury."9 To an extent, English speakers emphasis on "quickly" from the original as revisions would ruin the rh ythmic are still divided. The authorities, how- sentence, and the sentence is slightly force of "to boldly go where no man ever, squarely hold it proper to split awkward. has gone before" or "To really get to infinitive forms in the name of clarity Also consider the follovving know a lawyer, litigate against her." and precision. Webster's Dictionary example, in which the writer uses split- Writers should use split infini- goes so far as to say, "Traditionalits', infinitive construction: He decided to tives when split-infinitive construction purists', and other schoolmarmish styl- gradually release the hostages. Possible most clearly, precisely, or eloquently ists' objections notwithstanding, there revisions change the meaning of the expresses meaning. At the same time, is nothing wrong with a split-infinitive sentence or make it ambiguous: there is no reason to split infinitive in English."10 He decided gradually to release forms if doing so does not enhance As we meticulously proofread our the hostages. This revision changes meaning. Often, keeping the "to" and next written product, we should feel the meaning of the sentence. Here, the verb next to one another is the confident about using split infinitives "gradually" seems to modify "decided," most precise, clear, or eloquent way when th e split infinitive construction so the sentence means that "he" made to communicate. For example, the enhances sentence clarity, precision, the decision "gradually. " lawyer wanted to use lan gllage pre- or eloquence. While checking verb He decided to release the hostages cisely is precise and clear. Changing forms , however, we should make cer- gradually. This revision renders mean- word order does not enhance preci- tain not to overuse , words that ing somewhat ambiguous. A reasonable sion, clarity, or eloquence: The lawyer modify verbs that sometim es come reader could interpret "gradually" to wanted to precisely use language. between "to" and the verb. Strong, modify "decided" or "release" or even Because some readers are distracted vivid verbs are much more effective both words. Only the original sentence by split infinitives, when a cancan than adverbs, but, alas, over- makes absolutely clear that "gradually" choose between a clear sentence with load is a topic for another column. modifies just "release." a split infinitive and a clear sentence Yet another example, penned by without a split infinitive, the writer Endnotes vVallace Hice in 1937, is as follows: "Try should choose the sentence without re-writing this: 'To more than compen- th e split infinitive. 1"lt is exceedingly difficult to find any authority sate him for his sacrifice is impossible, In 1926, the venerable H.W. who condemns the sp li t in finit ive--Theodore Bernstein , H.W. Fowler, Ernest Gowers, Eric to less than compensate him would Fowler wrote, "No other grammatical Partridge, Rudolph Flesch, Wil so n Fo ll ett, be a crime, to quite compensate him issue has so divided English speakers Roy H. Coperud, and others too tedious to demands equal sacrifice from us ."'8 since the split infinitive was declared enumerate here all agree that there is no logical reason not to split an infinitive." Bill Attempted revision of Hice's to be solecism in the nineteenth cen- Bryson, Th e Mother Tongue: English and How It Got that Way 144 ( 1990). 2Th e New Oxford Dictionary of English ( 1998). 1William A. Sabine, Th e Gregg Reference Column Solves Vexing Legal ManualI 046 (McGraw- Hill Irwin , I Oth ed. 2005). Writing Issues 4 Wallace Rice, Usage Counsel: Th e Split Infinitive The Eng li sh Journal, Vol. 26, No . 3, March 1937 at 238. Through this column, the legal writing faculty at Marquette University Law School and 5/d. at 238-39. other contributors will help solve your vexing legal writing questions with practical guid- 6"No plausible rationale has ever been advanced for the rul e [proscribing split infini- ance. Topics may range from broader issues, such as dispelling grammar myths and the tives], though it may arise from a hazy notion value of revision, to more narrow topics, such as correctly using commas and other vital that because the Latin infinitive is a single punctuation and employing precise words to make your point explicit and powerful. We word, the equivalent Eng li sh construction must be treated as if it were indi visible." The may even tackle how to cite with authority. American Heritage College Dictionary 13 14 Although the MU writing faculty will contribute regularly, the Wisconsin Lawyer wel- (Houghton Mifflin Co., 3d ed. 1997); see also comes columns submitted from other legal writing aficionados. The column will appear Anne Enqu ist & Laurel Currie Oates, Just Writing: GrammarPunctuation, and Style for at least quarterly. Upcoming topics include using updated language, writing concisely, the Legal Writer 20 (Aspen 2001 I). and taking time for revision. 7This example comes from Sabine, supra note Ask a legal writing expert. We welcome readers' questions about anything 3, at 9l I 046. related to legal writing and topic suggestions for future columns. Your question will be HRice, supra note 4, at 239. answered directly by the MU writing faculty and may appear in a future column . Please 9Pocket Fowler's Modern English Usage 547 (Oxford Univ. Press 2002). send your comments, questions, and topic suggestions to: [email protected], sub- 10 Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Diction- ject line: legal writing. Wisconsin Lawyer editors ary of th e 1373 (Random House Co. 1989).

38 -Wisconsin Lawyer - December 2008

~ .