Present style and usage manuals deem simple split infinitives unobjectionable.
For example, Curme's Grammar says that not only is the split infinitive
correct, but it "should be furthered rather than censured, for it makes for
[Griceian] clearer expression" – i.e. devoid of a potential clumsy implicature.
The Columbia Guide to Standard Lingo notes that the split infinitive
"eliminates all possibility of ambiguity" (cfr. Grice’s maxim, ‘avoid
ambiguity’) in contrast to the "potential for confusion" in an unsplit
construction.
Merriam–Webster's Dictionary of Usage says: "the objection to the split
infinitive has never had a rational basis,” but then neither has economy
according to the Nobel Prize.
According to Mignon Fogarty, "today almost everyone agrees that it is o-kay to
split infinitives".
Nevertheless, many philosophers still admonish their tuttees against using
split infinitives because of this or that ‘unwanted implicature.’
Because the prohibition has become so widely known, the Columbia Guide
recommends that writers "follow the conservative path of avoiding split
infinitives when they are not necessary, especially when the utterer is
uncertain of his addressee’s expectations and sensitivities on this matter".
Likewise, the dictionaries do not regard the split infinitive as ill-formed or
unsyntactical, but on balance consider it likely to produce a implicature-laden
style and advise against its use.
Burchfield's revision of Fowler's Modern Usage goes farther (quoting
Burchfield's own “The Spoken Word”):
"Avoid splitting infinitives whenever possible, but do not suffer undue remorse
if a split infinitive is unavoidable for the completion of a sentence already
begun."
Still more strongly, the style guide of “The Economist” says:
"Happy the man who has never been told that it is wrong to split an infinitive.”
“The ban is pointless.”
“Unfortunately, to see it _flouted_ can be so annoying to so many people that
you should observe it."
As well as register, tolerance of split infinitives varies according to type.
While most authorities accept split infinitives in general, it is not hard to
construct an example which any utterer would reject.
Interestingly, Wycliff's compound split would, if transferred to the modern
vernacular, be regarded by most philosopher as not a wff (well-formed formula),
but ill-formed and un-syntactical (“It was most unkind to in this manner treat
their brother.”) and thus non-evaluable in terms of truth-conditions.
Attempts to define the boundaries of normality are, granted, controversial.
The usage panel of The Heritage Book is evenly divided for and against such
sentences as:
i. I expect Popper to completely and utterly fail.
but more than three-quarters of the panel rejected the following:
ii. Grice is seeking a plan to gradually, systematically, and
economically relieve the burden that implicature may cause.
Here the problem appears to be the breaking up of the verbal phrase to be
seeking a plan to relieve: a segment of the head verbal phrase is so far
removed from the remainder that the addressee must expend greater effort to
understand the utterance (never mind work out the implicature).
By contrast, 87% of the panel deems acceptable the multi-word adverbial in
iii. Grice expect his output to more than double in a year.
not surprisingly perhaps, because here there is no other place to put the words
more than without substantially recasting the sentence.
Although the usage of 'not' in splitting infinitives is an issue that has not
attracted much attention from the utterers, contemporary syntax puts the phrase
into the same category.
This appears to be because the traditional idiom, placing “not” before the
marker, as in:
iv. I soon learned not to provoke her.
or with verbs of desire, negating the finite verb, as in
v. I do not want to see you anymore.
remains easy and natural, and is still overwhelmingly the more common
construction.
On the other hand, in other cases, a search on the corpus of contemporary
displays a different aspect.
Its usage is more commonly found in these context, where we can find at least
2,200 cases of the usage of 'not' in splitting infinitives.
Some argue that the two forms have different meanings or implicatures, while
others see a syntactic (‘formation’) difference, but most utterers (even
Griceian ones) do not make such a distinction.
Utterers who avoid splitting infinitives either place the splitting element
elsewhere in the utterance or reformulate the utterance, perhaps rephrasing it
without an infinitive and thus avoiding the issue.
However, an utterance, such as
vi. to more than double.
must be completely rewritten to avoid the split infinitive.
It is ungrammatical to put the words "more than" anywhere else in the utterance.
While split infinitives may be avoided, an utterer must be careful not to
produce an awkward or ambiguous sentence, Grice forbid!
Fowler stresses that, if a sentence is to be rewritten to remove a split
infinitive, this must be done without compromising the language:
“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; that is, sentences must be
thoroughly remodeled instead of having a word lifted from its original place
and dumped elsewhere.”
Cheers,
Speranza
