I generally don't split infinitives in English. There's one case that I'm stuck on, though, because I'm not sure if there's another way to indicate the difference I have in mind: "not to do X" versus "to not do X." The former implies that X is not done, but possibly through inattention or accident; the latter, a usage borrowed mostly from the speech habits of computer scientists, implies that the not doing of X is a primary objective of one's actions.
Is there a more correct way to say this? It feels clunky every time I say it.
(What brought this to mind was a news article about the Clintons' married life, where they say that Mr. Clinton "has told friends that his No. 1 priority is not to cause her any trouble." When I read that, it seemed that "not" was modifying "is" rather than "cause," which would suggest that his next line ought to be "It's to make sure other people do! Wahahahaha!")
May 23 2006, 19:46:23 UTC 9 years ago
The split-infinitive rule is a holdover (along with not ending sentences with prepositions) from efforts to Latinize English and "rescue" it from its Anglo-Saxon/German roots. It has left us with a legacy of awkward construction problems and a bunch of More Grammatical Than Thou smugness (I admit it, I'm guilty of this as well, but for other reasons).
I do agree that the original example raises the question of intent. This can be resolved contextually, or again, by rephrasing the sentence so that the meaning and intent is clear.
There are plenty of times when splitting infinitives *is* in its own way awkward, and therefore not recommended.
May 24 2006, 00:06:55 UTC 9 years ago
See?
The "Never split an infinitive" thing is dopey.
May 24 2006, 00:12:07 UTC 9 years ago
May 24 2006, 00:18:54 UTC 9 years ago