Episode Transcript

Split Infinitives
Episode 9: September 01, 2006

Grammar Girl here.

 

Today, I'm gonna get crazy. I said that if people wrote reviews at iTunes, I would split infinitives, and you wrote a lot of reviews. So, to say thank you, I'm going to purposefully split as many infinitives as I can!

 

My secret, though, is that splitting infinitives actually isn't such a wild and woolly endeavor. I know it might come as a surprise, but Grammar Girl isn't actually that adventurous. So although you've probably heard that it's bad to split infinities, it just isn't true. You could even call it a grammar myth.

 

To understand, we first have to clearly define the word infinitive. Wikipedia defines infinitive as the unmarked form of a verb, but you really need examples to understand what that means. In English, there are two kinds of infinitives: full infinitives and bare infinitives. Bare infinitives are the kind of verbs you usually see in a dictionary, such as

  • go

  • make

  • run

  • define

  • split

 

On the other hand, full infinitives are made up of two words, usually putting the word to in front of the bare verb. For example:

  • to go

  • to make

  • to run

  • to define

  • to split

The logic behind the 19th-century rule about not splitting infinitives rests on comparing English to Latin, because in Latin there is no two-word form of the infinitive. They don't have to deal with full verbs versus bare verbs. Therefore, it's impossible to split infinitives in Latin. For some reason, many grammarians in the 19th century got the notion that because it is impossible to split infinitives in Latin, it shouldn't be done in English either.

 

But notions change over time, and today almost everyone agrees that it is OK to split infinitives, especially when you would have to change the meaning of the sentence or go through writing gymnastics to avoid the split. English isn't Latin after all.

So here's an example of a sentence with a split infinitive:

 

EXAMPLE: Steve decided to quickly remove Amy's cats.

 

In this case, the word quickly splits the infinitive to remove: to quickly remove.

 

If you try to just unsplit the verb, you actually change the meaning. For example,you might try to say:

 

EXAMPLE: Steve decided quickly to remove Amy's cats.

 

Now, instead of saying that Steve removed Amy's cats quickly (zip zip) while she stepped out for a minute, you're saying that he made the decision to remove the cats quickly.

 

You could rewrite the sentence without the split infinitive to make the same point. For example:

 

EXAMPLE: Steve decided to grab Amy's cats and set them free before she got back from the corner market.

 

But that isn't really necessary. The bottom line is that you can usually avoid splitting infinitives if you want to, but there's no reason to go out of your way to avoid it, and certainly don't let anyone tell you that it's forbidden.

 

And here's a bonus bit: If you want to remember what a split infinitive is, just remember what might be the most famous example: Star Trek's “to boldly go where no man has gone before.” To boldly go, is a split infinitive.

 

That's all. As always, this is Grammar Girl, striving to be your friendly guide in the writing world. You'll find a transcript of this podcast at www.quickanddirtytips.com. In this transcript split infinitives are in italics. If you'd like to call in with a question or comment the number is 206-338-GIRL.

 


Comments (44) for Split Infinitives |  Subscribe to Comment

Andrew Says:
10/29/2009 8:42:00 PM
To those who insist on doing things the way they were done before, or to write and speak the way people spoke before: I hate to say this, but language evolves. We don't speak or write in old or middle English anymore. I doubt those who claimed we've butchered the language want to go back to old English. The meanings of words change. The way the words are used changes. So what if at one point it was incorrect to split an infinitive? Many people do it, and I have to agree that sometimes the infinitive needs to be split, sometimes for no other reason than emphatic emphasis. Just thought I'd add my two cents, which is actually a colloquialism, so that means we shouldn't use it because it's not "correct," right? *sarcasm*
SA Says:
8/24/2009 11:04:56 AM
It is strange to see your quoting from wikipedia without any other "more credible" sources.
alcohol addiction treatment centers Says:
5/20/2009 11:40:48 AM
Hi all. We owe something to extravagance, for thrift and adventure seldom go hand in hand. I am from Iran and too poorly know English, give true I wrote the following sentence: "Finding the right drug and alcohol rehab program is critical for long term.Alcohol and addiction treatment programs." Thank ;) Tobit.
Kate Says:
5/14/2009 10:09:28 AM
Good with grammar -- not so good with proofreading. Of course, there might be something called "infinities" [next to last sentence, second paragraph).
Vidracula Says:
3/25/2009 11:46:36 PM
well, couldn't the splitting word (in the sentence about steven and amy's cats) just get shoved into the back? eg: Steve decided to move amy's cats quickly. right?....i dont know, i think its a good idea
nelson Says:
3/20/2009 11:39:41 AM
A friend mentioned that the expression "to faithfully defend" in the Presiential oath is a split infinitive and that it should be "defend faithfully. is this true? If so shouldn't "solemnly swear be "swear solemnly?"
Andrew Says:
2/11/2009 1:06:18 PM
Oops! I meant to write "reasonable to think that the 'rule' in English. . ."
Andrew Says:
2/11/2009 12:55:21 PM
Regarding Latin infinitives, while it is true that Latin has some infinitive forms that are made up of two words (I am now having spasms remembering indirect speech in Latin), I think it is reasonable that the "rule" in English was applied by extension from the "atomic" nature (a little joke for those who know Greek) of the Latin present active infinitive, which is one word (just as it it is in French and Italian, the two Romance languages in which I am illiterate). Fun discussion.
snikerdoodle Says:
2/4/2009 1:49:24 PM
u r my idle!!!!!!
snikerdoodle Says:
2/4/2009 1:46:55 PM
this is great piece of information grammar girl byyyye let's have fun next time snikerdoodle out
James Enge Says:
1/26/2009 1:07:39 PM
This is great! One detail, though: Latin does have two-word infinitives (e.g. future active infinitives and perfect passive infinitives). Whenever they occur they can be split--by adverbs, noun phrases, what have you. The whole Latin thing is a canard, which was probably begun by people whose knowledge of Latin was even weaker than their knowledge of English.
Jeril Nadar Says:
1/26/2009 2:17:29 AM
Nicely explained Grammar Girl. Keep it up
G. Charles Says:
1/24/2009 12:52:57 PM
"Steve decided to quickly remove Amy's cats." Why not add the adverb (quickly) after the object of the action verb (cats), instead of before the preposition (to)?
John from Lorain Says:
10/30/2008 9:13:03 AM
I have been studying (American) English since 1956, Latin since 1965, and Spanish since 1969. I agree with those who have said that infinitives should never be split. Sorry, Grammar Girl, but your laxness on this matter is surprising and disappointing. Please change your mind, thus correcting yourself. [Contrary to what our modern world mistakenly thinks, there really are "right" and "wrong" actions in life.] The quotation from "Star Trek" is a barbarism. Here is a (meaningful) example of the proper handling of an infinitive: "Grammar Girl ought never to choose to quote a Hollywood screenwriter as an authority on proper English usage!" When possible, the adverb should be placed before the word, "to," for this produces the best "sound" and helps the reader to grasp the meaning as early as possible. [In the sentence about Amy's cats, though, "quickly" had to be placed at the end, to avoid ambiguity.] May I give my two cents about tangential matters that were raised? 1. One should always use a comma before "and" in a series of three or more terms. 2. One should use "man/woman/boy/girl" -- and never "person" -- when the sex of the individual is known. When there are two or more people of the same sex, one should use "men/women/boys/girls," rather than "people" or "persons."
Jacob Says:
10/16/2008 10:48:28 PM
What about: to never mention Is it 'to never mention' or 'never to mention'?
Audrey Says:
9/8/2008 8:24:36 PM
When do you use "persons", "people", "peoples", and "person". I see this these words used in everyway imaginable; how do you use them in the correct sense? Thanks!
Andrew Says:
8/27/2008 8:19:09 PM
The mp3 download link is broken. Please fix it asap. Thanks a lot.
Laura Sakamoto Says:
8/9/2008 1:59:13 AM
You help me a lot!!! Thank you, Gramma girl!!! XOXO from Brazil
Ktk Says:
6/20/2008 2:07:52 AM
Grammar girl- Instead of splitting the infinitives, shall we use the 'splitting word' after the verb. Eg: Steve decided to remove Amy's cats quickly.
Omar Says:
3/7/2008 6:38:09 PM
And not to be a curmudgeon, but I would argue that the premise of your site is faulty as well. Tips for better writing should be neither quick nor dirty, as this one certainly is.
Omar Says:
3/7/2008 6:35:18 PM
To say that he decided to remove the cats quickly means exactly the same thing as deciding to quickly remove the cats. There are two ways to look at this: One is that "remove the cats quickly," as a whole, is the prepositional object of the word "to" after "decide." The other is that by putting the adverb at the end, it modifies only the verb that's closest to it in the sentence. He decided to remove the cats. He decided to remove the cats how? In what manner? Quickly. He decided to remove the cats quickly. I've never been convinced of the necessity of the split infinitive by people who try to shove two verbs into a sentence and demand that the adverb be crammed directly in front of the verb. That's not how people speak, and it's certainly not how people should write.
dongba Says:
3/3/2008 2:00:51 PM
very good!
FloatingBones Says:
1/14/2008 3:51:01 PM
Douglas Adams has a great riff on Captain Kirk's famous line: "In those days men were real men, women were real women, small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri were real small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri. And all dared to brave unknown terrors, to do mighty deeds, to boldly split infinitives that no man had split before - and thus was the Empire forged." On the radio version of the books, which I first heard in my youth in the 70s, the magic phrase was uttered in a very Captain Kirkish kind of way. I saw you at the Podcast Expo last fall, Mignon. Thanks for your playful pontifications on this topic. --Phil
magnus Says:
5/15/2007 6:08:30 PM
Norwegian also!
Charles Hodgson Says:
4/3/2007 9:39:59 AM
(Shameless self-promotion warning) Rick mentions podictionary "the podcast for word lovers" at www.podictionary.com and on iTunes.
Rick Says:
4/2/2007 7:39:16 PM
I ate up podictionary, and then went on to your 'cast because I just love words, wordplay and writing. I truly learned something from this episode, as I have always spoken as well as I could, the split infinitive always bothered me. How to define it, and how to avoid it every time. This is helpful to finally have set to rights the feeling I had that sometimes it's just not worth the effort to do so.
Nick Says:
3/30/2007 7:05:27 AM
It seems that two word infinitives are a trend in the family of Germanic languages. Apart from English and German, all of the Scandinavian languages use two word infinitives. In Swedish, "to be" would be "att vara."
John Says:
3/26/2007 11:43:48 PM
I wouldn't want to read a dictionary that gives want only certain people think a word's meaning should be.

I think The American Heritage Dictionary does a good job: it is descriptive, but it also has a usage panel that votes on whether they find a certain usage acceptable. This way, readers will know how other people feel about the word.
Bear Says:
3/26/2007 11:24:11 PM
Sure, clearly, dictionaries have to reflect usage, but they also, ideally, influence it. In a case like that of "nonplussed," in which people regularly make mistaken inferences about the meaning of the word, I don't think it's out of line for dictionaries to note that people regularly make mistaken inferences about the meaning of the word. By admitting the mistaken definition as "not yet standard," they perpetuate its use rather than acting as a useful corrective.
Anonymous Says:
3/26/2007 10:01:38 PM
It's true. Dictionaries are descriptive. For information on how words get in the dictionary, it'd be helpful to visit www.m-w.com (Merriam Webster's website). In short though, when words and phrases are used ubiquitously in a certain way, they become included in the dictionary. If the dictionary were merely prescriptive, then entries would never become labeled "archaic" or "obsolete" and would perpetually be considered current. But that would, essentially, cause the dictionary itself to become obsolete and archaic because it wouldn't be relevant and reflective of current society--as it should be.
John Says:
2/8/2007 7:37:27 PM
The reason dictionaries are "giving in" is because they are usually descriptive documents. And this makes sense; dictionaries are word stores selling all the words in the language, not just the "best" words or the "right" words. So users can choose the words they want to use.

It also makes sense for dictionaries to mark certain words or usages as nonstandard. But it doesn't make sense for them to call some usages wrong. If they are common enough to be listed in a dictionary, how can they be mistakes? In other words, how do we determine the meanings of words, if not by looking at how they are used?
Bear Says:
1/24/2007 7:17:03 PM
So, to push this in a slightly more productive direction, the whole split-infinitive issue definitely raises the question of whether grammarians should be prescriptive or descriptive, right? The case against being prescriptive is that you lose touch with how people actually speak, and the case against being descriptive is that you end up pandering to popular delusions. I tend to be of the opinion that the latter is the worse sin, given how many times I've heard "beg the question" and "nonplussed" used in situations that suggest that they're intended to mean precisely the opposite of what they actually mean. Worse, dictionaries are starting to give in: my computer's dictionary includes the new meaning of "nonplussed" and notes that it is "not yet standard."

Perhaps a compromise is in order, one in which dictionaries and grammar books list new trends but, instead of calling some usage "not yet standard," come out and call them "wrong."
E Hood Says:
1/24/2007 5:57:51 PM
Most grammar texts still consider split infinitives incorrect. The English language has been butchered enough without resorting to putting everything into the vernacular. You might as well teach Ebonics or Sponics or whatever.

Either stick to the rules or shut up is my answer. Don't bother to get your dander up! Mine has been up longer than yours could ever be. I have a closed mind on this subject!

I HATE to (not) verb or to (never) verb. Why not Not to (verb) or VNever to (verb)? It is just downright laziness and lack of caring for what is correct. Just because you hear it every day, does not make it right.
Anonymous Says:
1/22/2007 10:35:57 PM
CNN has changed your advice. At http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/internet/01/22/grammar.girl/index.html in the Tips sidebar they say that you said "The most famous split infinitive is 'to boldly go where no one has gone before.' "

They changed "man" to "one".
Rob Says:
1/22/2007 6:03:03 PM
Dear Grammar Girl,

What is the difference between Grammar and Mechanics? I teach ESL. I have found that when I am talking about Grammar, I am referring more to the idea of Subjects, Objects and Verbs. When students who speak other languages try to translate their language to English, they have to majorly move around these parts of speech.
Mechanics, however, is more of an English only issue. For example, where do we put the comma in a series. People often argue about whether a comma should be placed following the final word before "and" and others argue against it. Some languages don't even USE commas, so they have to start from stratch in learning English. Since this is the case, comma usage does not qualify as a grammar point.
In my opinion, grammar and mechanics are different topics. What do you think?

Rob from KC, MO
Paul Says:
1/22/2007 5:45:36 PM
German has two word infinitives (e.g., "zu gehen" means "to go").
Rich Says:
12/14/2006 9:28:53 PM
I have to admit that the split infinitive debate was blown apart by Star Trek. Captain Kirk had boldly split infinitives where no split infinitive had been split before. It is strange that the Latin route is still alive; it is a crass notion of the Roman Empire was like the British Empire and thus the great linguistic likeness, otherwise known as balderdash!

English was a patois of German and French; German first then French add on, followed by other influences (including Greek, Latin, Turkish, Indian etc). Note all the basic words: water, food, hungry, house, land, hand, hound, cat, cow, sheep, fish etc and the French: menu, tenancy, agreement, pork, beef, etc. Even the days of the week have a Germanic route, English could not be more Germanic, even its name gives it away: Angle Terre (Land of the Angles or England) and the word German is from the Latin as France is from the German (Franks).

GG you could do an article on George Orwell and English usage, it would compliment this section very much.
Grammar Girl Says:
10/30/2006 6:34:50 PM
I don't know! Sorry. Maybe someone else will help you out and post an answer.
Jesse Says:
10/30/2006 4:47:39 PM
Grammar Girl:

I've always wondered whether English is the only language with two-word infinitives. Do you know?
Grammar Girl Says:
9/6/2006 4:17:46 PM
Hi Bear,

It's certainly gramatically correct to say, "Steve decided to remove Amy's cats quickly."

It seems to me that splitting infinitives is often a question of style. I think the sentence, "Steve decided to quickly remove Amy's cats," sounds more active and emphasizes the quickness better, but, as in all matters of style, good people can often agree to disagree.

(I know this is a complete aside, but your word choice (gauche) reminded me of a stone wall outside of Pleasure Pizza in Santa Cruz, California. When it went up, some people loved it and other people called it gaudy. I was in the gaudy camp, but it grew on me.)

GG
Bear Says:
9/6/2006 1:52:41 PM
GG: First of all, great podcast -- keep it up! Second, a question: why wouldn't you write, "Steve decided to remove Amy's cats quickly?" That would capture the essence of what you were trying to say, wouldn't it? (Confession: I still own the 12th edition of the Chicago Manual of Style, in large part because it is the last edition to prohibit infinitive splitting. I don't consider it to be absolutely against the rules, but it does seem, well, gauche.)
Luis Peaze Says:
9/4/2006 3:59:42 PM
G Girl, I one g word to say to you: Great! Being Latin (Brazilian) and translator of "For Whom the Bell Tolls" from Ernest Hemingway (Eglish into Portuguese) who has beaten so much the English form of writing you QDNow is a great place to browse every once in a while. Hi from Clinica Literaria that is www.clinicaliteraria.com.br my garden of words. Tchau. Peaze
Grammar Girl Says:
9/2/2006 4:00:36 AM
Thanks Andrew! It would be great if you directed your teachers to the podcast. Also, three cheers for Seattle -- I was an undergrad at Puget Sound and the UW. It's beautiful there this time of year.

Mignon
Andrew Gray Says:
9/1/2006 6:07:31 PM
Grammar Girl - at long last I can tell my Latin teacher the very truth of the matter! Hope you don't mind if I direct her—and a few other teachers—to your podcast!

--Andrew from Seattle

Add Comment

 *
 *
 *
  Image to deter spam submissions
  To deter spam submissions, please type the letters from the image into the box below:
 *
 
  Fields marked with "*" are required