Quick and Dirty Tips Podcasts

Episode Transcript

Email This Page

Splitting Verbs
Episode 154: January 23, 2009

View Comments (33) | Add Comment |

Subscribe to Comment

Grammar Girl here.

Today's topic is how a verb and an adverb messed up the inauguration.

I took a break from work Tuesday to watch Barack Obama's inauguration, and like millions of other people, I saw a bit of confusion between Chief Justice John Roberts and Obama during the oath of office. Roberts started reading the oath for Obama to repeat: I Barack Hussein Obama." And then there was a problem. Obama started to repeat him at the same time Roberts started to give the next part of the oath: do solemnly swear. Roberts seemed a little unsettled and then put the adverb "faithfully" in the wrong place in the next part of the oath. Obama seemed to know it was wrong, paused, and seemed to urge Roberts to try again. Roberts got it right the second time, but Obama repeated it the incorrect way Roberts had said it the first time.

Here's what it sounded like:

There are two grammar issues going on with the misplaced "faithfully": modifier placement and verb splitting.

Modifier Placement

The first question is does it change the meaning of the sentence to put the adverb "faithfully" at the end of the sentence instead of right before the word "serve"? Does it matter whether Obama swore that he would faithfully execute the office of the president or would execute the office of the president faithfully? Just looking at the meaning of the sentence, it doesn't matter. It means the same thing whether the adverb is right before the verb or at the end. Some grammarians say it's better to put the modifier directly before the verb (1), so they would prefer "to faithfully execute," but it's more of a style issue than a hard-and-fast rule.

Sometimes a modifier at the end of the sentence can impart a surprising meaning, although that isn't the case with the oath. But imagine an oath where someone swore to uphold the office of the president secretly or humorlessly. It would be weird to hear someone say they would humorlessly uphold the office of the president, but it would pack more of a surprising punch if the oath taker said he would uphold the office of the president humorlessly. You'd hear that "humorlessly" at the end and you'd probably do a double take, thinking "What did he just say." So placing a modifier at the end of a sentence is a stylistic tool you can sometimes use to achieve surprise in your writing.

I think it's an interesting side note that although the mixed up oath didn't have an altered meaning, and the U.S. Constitution doesn't seem to require the new president to take the oath (2), Roberts and Obama went through the oath a second time in front of a small group of reporters to make sure no legal problems would arise from their flub. But back to grammar.

Verb Splitting

The second topic we can think about is verb splitting. Most of you have probably heard of the grammar myth that you can't split infinitives. It's a myth, and if you haven't heard it or disagree, you can check out Grammar Girl Episode 9, which is only available on the quickanddirtytips.com website. It's not on the feed anymore.

Now if Obama were promising to faithfully execute the office, then "faithfully" would be splitting the infinitive "to execute." But the exact phrasing of the oath isn't "to faithfully execute," instead it's "I will faithfully execute the office." So it's not a split infinitive because there's no "to." It's called a split verb phrase, but the concept is exactly the same as a split infinitive and it's also OK to do it, just as it's OK to split an infinitive. The verb phrase is "will execute." "Will" is an auxiliary verb. To say you will faithfully execute uses the word "faithfully" to split the verb phrase "will execute."

The famous psychologist and linguist Stephen Pinker had an interesting op-ed piece in the New York Times yesterday in which he noted that even though it's not against the rules to split a verb phrase, Chief Justice Roberts has shown a tendency in past writings to avoid it (3). I want to stress that it's not a rule (4); it's fine to split verb phrases, but it seems as if Roberts thinks it's a rule, and Pinker speculates that when Roberts was thrown off by the interruption, he rephrased the oath in his head to fit his view of how sentences should be written.

We'll never really know what was going through Obama's and Roberts' heads during the inauguration. The bottom line is that it's fine to split verb phrases, but some people -- powerful people like the Chief Justice -- think it's not. It's just like splitting infinitives and other grammar myths: If you're going to do it, you should be prepared to defend yourself.

So, who would have thought that the inauguration would lead to an interesting grammar discussion? Grammar pops up everywhere. If you go to the transcript of this episode on the Grammar Girl website you can find the YouTube video of Obama taking the oath and watch it for yourself again; and if you want to go on a hunt, Dianne Feinstein also made a small gaffe that jumped out at me, but I can't find a video of it anywhere. I think it was during the transition between music and Obama's speech, but I'm not certain.

Administrative

I'm Mignon Fogarty, author of Grammar Girl's Quick and Dirty Tips for Better Writing, which is available where all fine books are sold. If you like this podcast, you might also enjoy my free email newsletter which contains daily grammar tips. You can sign up on the Grammar Girl page at quickanddirtytips.com.

That's all. Thanks for listening.

References

1. "Modifier Placement" The Guide to Grammar and Writing. http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/modifiers.htm (accessed January 22, 2009).

2. Morrison, P. " Chief Justice Roberts gives the oath of office. Really?" Los Angeles Times, January 20, 2009, http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2009/01/chief-justice-r.html (accessed January 22, 2009).

3. Pinker, S. "Oaf of Office." New York Times, January 21, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/opinion/22pinker.html?_r=1&em (accessed January 22, 2009).

4. O'Connor, P., "The Living Dead: Let Bygone Rules Be Gone," Grammarphobia.com, http://www.grammarphobia.com/grammar.html (accessed January 22, 2009).

Cite This Article

APA Style

Fogarty, M. (2009, January 22) Splitting Verbs. Grammar Girl's Quick and Dirty Tips for Better Writing. Retrieved Jan. 22, 2009, from http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/splitting-verbs.aspx

Chicago Style

Mignon Fogarty, “Splitting Verbs,” Grammar Girl's Quick and Dirty Tips for Better Writing, January 22, 2009, http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/splitting-verbs.aspx (accessed Jan. 22, 2009).

MLA Style

Fogarty, Mignon. “Splitting Verbs.” Grammar Girl's Quick and Dirty Tips for Better Writing (accessed Jan. 22, 2008). <http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/splitting-verbs.aspx>.

Comments (33) for Splitting Verbs | Subscribe to Comment

Tom Says:
9/25/2009 11:01:33 AM

I noticed you used the phrase "exactly the same" when talking about verb splitting. Redundant?

Gregg on Lorraine Blvd. Says:
4/16/2009 6:54:00 PM

John from Lorain doesn't seem to understand that language is a living entity and as such changes over time. The miracle of language is its inherent creativity, and our interaction with language creates our reality. It's obvious that reality changes, so it makes sense that "rules" of language also change. We've all noticed that literature changes throughout history, just look at the changes during the second half of the 20th century. To ask "why" a rule exists is of the highest displays of "respect" for a language--I don't know who John's neighbors are so I can't comment on that. To know why a rule exists brings us closer to language and thereby increases our understanding of it; increases our appreciation (and respect) for it. To respect language we must acknowledge that it changes whether we like it or not. If we become too attached to the mechanics of language at a particular point in time we'll miss its aliveness. It's like dissecting a bird to understand how it flies. We learn a lot of things but the bird no longer flies. To end our understanding there "is truly barbaric." Grammar is not a method of autopsy, it's an illumination.

RAcc Says:
2/15/2009 9:35:57 PM

To John from Lorain "Rpmason does not have the right to invent a rule (such as the one quoted) and to impose it on the English-speaking world. The rule that rpmason opposes is a valid one, and I will follow it." But you, JfL, have the right to insist that people use the rules YOU like, refusing to recognize that there are a number of respected linguists and grammarians who make a case in favor of splitting an infinitive. Would you argue with H.W. Fowler regarding his division of people into classes: (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. You seem to prefer living in category 3, which is your right. But it doesn’t mean that your strict adherence to rules is the only way to be correct in this matter. And you may find it enlightening (or maddening, I suppose) to read the section on split infinitives in Garner’s Modern American Usage. And, finally, to address your comments: “As soon as he tried to speak off the cuff, however, he usually hemmed, hawed, fumbled, and made a mess of things. Being the "media darling," however, his gaffes (and those of his running mate) were hidden from the public as much as possible. His political "handlers," realizing the candidate's lack of mental agility when "off script" and his inability to speak spontaneously without gaffes, made sure that such occasions were kept to a minimum. Since taking the oath of office, he has already refused to answer a question posed by a friendly member of the press corps. We are in for a long four years (in, oh, so many ways) Oh, yes. And Bush was such a fine off-the-cuff speaker. I’ll wait for the first volume of Obamaisms.

rpmason Says:
1/30/2009 1:14:16 PM

I'm not sure how to avoid awkwardness and write "flatly to state". Splitting the infinitive allows the adverb to directly modify the verb within the infinitive. Or should I write ...to modify the verb directly within the infinitive? Um, no.

Jerry from NY Says:
1/30/2009 11:52:59 AM

It seems, John from LORAIN, you are merely following the rule because it is a rule, but for no other reason. The evolution of grammar is intrinsic. Just as the rule of avoiding prepositions at the end of a sentence is slowly going the way of the buffalo, so will, I venture to say, the rule of avoiding split infinitives. It is not a "barbarism" for language to change. It is the natural way of things. Blindly following antique rules is just as ignorant as you say I am.

John from Lorain Says:
1/30/2009 8:13:23 AM

From rpmason: "In a language where the infinitive is made up of two words, like English, it can be split." Rpmason does not have the right to invent a rule (such as the one quoted) and to impose it on the English-speaking world. The rule that rpmason opposes is a valid one, and I will follow it. I also disagree with his/her comment about the position of "flatly," which can be before [usually the better choice] or after the infinitive -- and without losing the desired connotation. PS: The fact that rpmason considers at least one airport security rule to be "inane" further helps us to realize that he/she is having trouble thinking clearly and evaluating things.

rpmason Says:
1/29/2009 1:16:04 PM

"...no 'rule is inane.'" I went through US airport security several times during the past week. I am thankful for slip-on shoes.

rpmason Says:
1/29/2009 12:14:06 PM

I stand by my wording. In a language where the infinitive is made up of two words, like English, it can be split. In a language where the infinitive is made up of a single word, like Latin and some other languages, it obviously cannot be split. Sometimes the adverb within the infinitive provides a clearer meaning or avoids an awkward construction. For example, 'to flatly state' and 'to state flatly' have completely different meanings.

John from Lorain Says:
1/29/2009 11:03:19 AM

John B writes (speaking of me): "To congratulate John Roberts for rearranging the words of a constitutional oath because they offended his sensibilities is the height of arrogance." I did no such "congratulat[ing]." For John B to misquote me "is the height of" injustice. Written by rpmason: "I'm generally in the prescriptive camp but this rule is inane." This too is an improper comment, because no "rule is inane." The word, "inane," means, "lacking in sense or substance." A rule never would have become a rule if it lacked sense or substance. The fact that various people desire to disobey a rule cannot cause the rule suddenly to lack sense or substance. (I will resist the temptation to say that a violator of a rule lacks sense and substance!)

rpmason Says:
1/29/2009 10:28:17 AM

I left town for a week and came back to find this dead horse was beaten--again. Let's bury the poor thing so the worms can eat what is left. Too many people follow rules blindly without applying brainpower. Aside: I'm generally in the prescriptive camp but this rule is inane.

John B Says:
1/28/2009 1:44:35 PM

Now here's a REAL barbarism for you: in his op-ed column in today's Washington Post, Michael Gerson described the Bush administration's aid to Africa for HIV/AIDS prevention as "the most staggeringly successful" program of its kind. In other words, other programs have been as successful, but have caused less staggering. I think. And this guy was a presidential speechwriter.

John B Says:
1/28/2009 1:38:19 PM

"We should just ignore him"? Doesn't this fit your definition of a barbarism?

John B Says:
1/28/2009 1:35:14 PM

John from Lorain is a language pedant who fails to appreciate, or even grasp, the evolution of language. Some of the greatest writers in the English language routinely break the rules that JFL deems sacrosanct. Some people think that a rigid adherence to "the rules" makes one a good writer. They're wrong. To congratulate John Roberts for rearranging the words of a constitutional oath because they offended his sensibilities is the height of arrogance.

John from Lorain Says:
1/28/2009 10:59:12 AM

Isabella, please don't worry about "Jerry from NY." Some people have been raised improperly and lack respect for others. Jerry shows his poor character by intentionally misspelling my city's name (writing "Lorraine" instead of "Lorain"). He desires to break grammatical rules, so he tries to insult me. We should just ignore him.

Isabella Says:
1/28/2009 6:05:35 AM

Dear Jerry from NY, Do you have any reasons to call John from Lorain 'ridiculous'?

Jerry from NY Says:
1/27/2009 1:23:57 PM

John from Lorraine, you're ridiculous.

Heidi Says:
1/27/2009 10:20:46 AM

The phrase "exact same" drives me nuts. Please tell me we can banish it. When isn't "same" the same and it needs to be more exact? Isn't this like true fact?

John from Lorain Says:
1/27/2009 9:31:46 AM

Andrew from Evansville, you wrote: "I'm not sure why we're calling splitting an infinitive a barbarism. There are things much worst than this. ... Please reserve the word 'barbarism' for something that is truly barbaric." I would do so, Andrew, if the definition of "barbarism" called for such a "reserv[ing]," but it does not. I believe that you may be confusing "barbarity" with "barbarism." The definition of "barbarism" is "the use of words, forms, or expressions considered incorrect or unacceptable." The fact that I called splitting an infinitive a "barbarism" does not imply that there are not "things much worse than this." (Nor does it imply that splitting an infinitive is "barbarity.") Andrew, you also wrote: "I greatly appreciate the rules of grammar; however, there are some rules I do not understand, as far as why they are rules, and why people get so upset about them. Splitting infinitives is one such rule." Andrew, it may be interesting to know "why" each rule exists, but it is not really necessary to know why. What IS necessary, however, is for us to obey each rule, because obedience shows respect for the language and our neighbors.

Juliana Romauli Says:
1/27/2009 8:19:01 AM

this site is so great. I like to buy the book but I don't know how the way.

Brinkley Says:
1/26/2009 9:40:59 PM

I have heard a lot of comments about the word "faithfully" being misplaced here, but I haven't heard about another mistake. I've listened to it several times, and I would swear that Justice Roberts says "President TO the United States" instead of "President OF the United States." Fortunately, Obama didn't say that. I would think that could have a much bigger impact on the validity of the oath. Just what would he have been swearing to do?

Andrew from Evansville Says:
1/26/2009 12:21:36 PM

I'm not sure why we're calling splitting an infinitive a barbarism. There are things much worst than this. I, myself, and somewhat of a prescriptivist. I greatly appreciate the rules of grammar; however, there are some rules I do not understand, as far as why they are rules, and why people get so upset about them. Splitting infinitives is one such rule. I have yet to understand WHY this rule causes such contention. Please reserve the word "barbarism" for something that is truly barbaric.

Philip Says:
1/25/2009 5:11:43 PM

As others have noted, U.S. Const., art. II, § 1, cl. 8, does specify that the president SHALL take the oath "Before he enter on the Execution of his Office." As mentioned in Episode 119, legal grammar deems that word "shall" mandatory, not permissive. The opinion piece cited in note 2 above may therefore have been incorrect. That editorial writer probably relied on the twentieth amendment, which provides that the term of the previous president ends at noon on January 20th. However, the new president still may not have authority to act until after taking the oath. An interesting wikipedia article on the subject has some good links.[1] One source it cites is a New York Times article from November 15, 1916, quoting an 1821 letter by Chief Justice John Marshall.[2] There, the Chief Justice expressed the view that the executive power was suspended until the president takes his oath. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_President_of_the_United_States#cite_note-NYT1916-1 [2] http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9C00E3D7143BE633A25756C1A9679D946796D6CF

John from Lorain Says:
1/25/2009 11:56:46 AM

President Obama has "pulled the wool over your eyes," SF Susan, if you really believe these words of yours: "... but it always surprises me in someone whose mastery of the language is so sound." Anyone who VERY closely followed the two-year campaign (2007-2008) knows that "BHO" merely displayed an impressive physical appearance and a pleasant speaking voice that was used to read speeches that had been well-written for him. As soon as he tried to speak off the cuff, however, he usually hemmed, hawed, fumbled, and made a mess of things. Being the "media darling," however, his gaffes (and those of his running mate) were hidden from the public as much as possible. His political "handlers," realizing the candidate's lack of mental agility when "off script" and his inability to speak spontaneously without gaffes, made sure that such occasions were kept to a minimum. Since taking the oath of office, he has already refused to answer a question posed by a friendly member of the press corps. We are in for a long four years (in, oh, so many ways).

Mike Coleman Says:
1/25/2009 9:04:22 AM

Yep, I can't believe it but GG didn't check her sources on the Constitution. Maybe that's why she hedged and said seems with emphasis. Oh well can't all be perfect!

SF Susan Says:
1/25/2009 1:13:25 AM

Definitely a tempest in a teapot, but at least it's made people think about grammar. Regarding Feinstein, it's funny that her error was using "an" before "unique." President Obama consistently makes the opposite error in interviews and press conferences when he's not speaking from a prepared text: He uses "a" rather than "an" before vowel sounds. I suppose it's a product of having to think of what he's saying as he goes along, so the "a" gets said before he's decided that the next word will begin with a vowel sound, but it always surprises me in someone whose mastery of the language is so sound.

Charlotte Ward Says:
1/24/2009 7:39:31 PM

Dear Mignon, thank you for many succinct tips. Because I write and edit, I enjoy reading and listening about grammar and punctuation. I was startled to hear two sentences on Grammar Girl's Quick and Dirty Tips CD. I would appreciate learning your take on them: The first was in your introduction you used "more clearly." Often I see or hear "more deeply." The dictionary lists only "-er" and "-est" forms. The second was near the end of your CD when you used a sample sentence that began "I've got...." As your pet peeve is "while-although," mine is "got," which comes out of the mouths of almost everyone on TV and in private conversation. I long to hear "I have." Please comment. Perhaps I am behind the times; democratization of language seems to be proceeding at a rapid pace. Stanford--what a lovely background to feed your love of the language. My daughter Lolly graduated from Stanford with undergraduate and graduate degrees in English. I particularly admire the works of Karen Elizabeth Gordon for the witty examples and the wonderful vintage illustrations. Best, Charlotte

Publius Says:
1/24/2009 6:48:57 PM

You are wrong to state that the Constitution doesn't seem to require the oath. Article II Section 8 states: "Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

John from Lorain Says:
1/24/2009 7:25:18 AM

Andrew from Evansville writes: "What makes it bad? Just because it was a rule before, and people have now gone past the rule?" There was not merely "a rule before." There always has been a rule, and it continues to exist. It is not accurate to say that "people have now gone past" a rule; rather, they are VIOLATING a rule. If I drive at 60 miles per hour in a 35-miles-per-hour zone, I do not merely "go past a rule." I violate the law. One cannot justify barbarisms by using a euphemism about them ("go past a rule"). Andrea from Raleigh writes: "Split infinitives ... have existed in the English language since at least the fourteenth century, and never has there been a rule against them." Andrea's own words contradict her. It should have been obvious to her that, if (as she claimed) there was a starting point for this barbarism, people had followed the rule against it up to that point! Now it is OUR turn to follow it. Grammar rules, including the two being discussed here, make for clearer communication and more pleasant reading. Andrea also wrote: "The superstition first began in the mid-nineteenth century ...". This is a sheer fiction, designed to twist readers' minds through the use of a false, but powerful, slur ("superstition"). The selective advocacy of barbarisms at this site (both by GG and other visitors) is symptomatic of the general slovenliness in the world today. There is a 20th/21st-Century laziness and lack of self-discipline that the greatest writers of prior centuries would have condemned. Let us learn from them not to be so sloppy and careless of our readers. Thank you.

nhan hong Says:
1/24/2009 3:37:02 AM

I am a person whose English is foreign language. I feel that the problem of communication lies in something other than the misplacement of an adverb or the splitting of a verb. Is there a rule against splitting? Does splitting obstruct understanding or cause any misunderstanding? Somebody please clarify this!

Andrea from Raleigh Says:
1/23/2009 9:00:09 PM

Sen. Feinstein made the following gaffe before the musicians played at the Obama inauguration: "It is my pleasure to introduce an unique musical performance." Sen. Feinstein should have said, "It is my pleasure to introduce a unique musical performance." Split infinitives are not a barbarism. They have existed in the English language since at least the fourteenth century, and never has there been a rule against them. The superstition first began in the mid-nineteenth century, when certain grammarians argued against it because a split infinitive is not used in Latin. This is faulty logic, however. Latin infinitives are one word, and therefore cannot be split. Moreover, English is not Latin, and so is not subject to its rules. They myth was debunked early in the twentieth century, yet persists among those whose education in grammar is incomplete.

Andrew from Evansville Says:
1/23/2009 12:34:21 PM

- In the first sentence paragraph before the heading "Verb Splitting," it says "...didn't have..." - I do not think splitting infinitives is a bad thing. What makes it bad? Just because it was a rule before, and people have now gone past the rule? In my opinion, if splitting an infinitive does not cause confusion, why would anyone care? It adds meaning. I think it probably comes down to stylistic choice, though.

John from Lorain Says:
1/23/2009 11:10:08 AM

"It's called a split verb phrase, but the concept is exactly the same as a split infinitive and it's also OK to do it, just as it's OK to split an infinitive. ... I want to stress that it's not a rule ... ; it's fine to split verb phrases, but it seems as if Roberts thinks it's a rule ...". No, it is not "OK" to do these things. The splitting of infinitives and the splitting of multi-word verb forms are barbarisms -- i.e., grammatical errors accidentally committed out of ignorance, or grammatical violations deliberately committed out of a lack of respect for the rules. Chief Justice Roberts knows this to be true, so he does his best to avoid doing what is wrong. Let us now imitate him.

SAM Says:
1/23/2009 10:39:27 AM

GG: you wrote the following: "The famous psychologist and linguist Stephen Pinker had an interesting op-ed piece in the New York Times yesterday in which he noted that even though it's not against the rules to split a verb phrase, Chief Justice Roberts has shown a tendency in past writings to avoid it (3). I want to stress that it's not a rule (4); it's fine to split verb phrases, but it seems as if Roberts thinks it's a rule, and Pinker speculates that when Roberts was thrown off by the interruption, he rephrased the oath in his head to fit his view of how sentences should be written." Roberts certainly flubbed, but I submit that he innocently misspoke. I don't think it's grounds to criticize his command of Standard English. Indeed, in two posts, a National Review contributor dismantled Pinker's criticism of Roberts. http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OGUyNmVjYjJmZDlkMzhlOWQyMDhlMTNhMTFiMjEzZTc= http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjZmMGNjYzhmZGQ4NzA3NWRiYThiMTI2M2Y1N2MwYzI=