To boldly split...

Cadet. "'SCUSE ME, SIR—ARE YOU A DOCTOR? THERE'S A BOY FAINTED."
Doctor. "AH—FATIGUE, I SUPPOSE?"
Cadet. "No, SIR. THE SERGEANT SPLIT AN INFINITIVE."
Punch, Vol. 156, April 30, 1919

Johnson bemoans the rule in the Economist style guide, which reads:

Happy the man who has never been told that it is wrong to split an infinitive: the ban is pointless. Unfortunately, to see it broken is so annoying to so many people that you should observe it.

The ban seems to have appeared during the 19th century, after at least six centuries of happy infinitive splitting. Since it made its way into school grammar texts, it has been memorised as a fixed rule, even though it makes no sense and isn't part of formal English grammar.

Theodore Bernstein said hopefully in Miss Thistlebottom’s Hobgoblins (1971) that “within the near future the split-infinitive bugaboo will be finally laid to rest.” Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage describes the resistance to the construction as having “established itself in that subculture existing in the popular press and in folk belief.” Garner’s Modern American Usage includes the split infinitive in the entry Superstitions. John Bremner wrote in 1980, “This so-called rule has no foundation in grammar, logic, rhetoric or common sense.”(John E. McIntyre: You don't say]

So, for more than 100 years, style books written for professional writers give similar advice to the Economist: there is nothing wrong with splitting an infinitive, but don't do it because some people will think you've made a mistake. Johnson refers to an article on Language Log, 'Crazies Win'. Arnold Zwicky comprehensively demolishes both the split infinitive 'rule' itself, and the style guide ban. He says:

Whether teachers proscribe split infinitives because they believe in [No Split Infinitives] NSI or because they think that's the easy route around [Split Infinitives as Last Resort] SILR, their students grow up thinking that split infinitives are a Bad Thing. If, later in life, they come across SILR in the advice literature, what are they to make of it? What was once banned is now permissible, but in what circumstances? How to know when the alternatives are worse?

The advice givers have tacitly acquired their own tastes in the matter, but they can't assume that their readers (already) share these tastes. In fact, by formulating principles like NSI and SILR, they have failed to teach their readers anything useful about how they might judge different versions of infinitival verbal phrases.

In other words, Zwicky believes that the ban perpetuates the myth that there is something wrong with split infinitives. He finishes:

The objective fact is that split infinitives are standard English. So my advice is: split an infinitive if it suits you (or don't, if that suits you). Good writers do it. And you don't even have to have a defense for it; do it because it sounds right for you. Don't let the crazies win.

Colourful answers

Tibetan has a marvellous expression for a phenomenon that pervades politics: Gadrii Nombor Shulen Jongu, which translates as giving a green answer to a blue question.

Gadrii Nombor Shulen Jongu is number five of nine entries in Cracked's list of 9 Foreign Words the English Language Desperately Needs. I found the list through Johnson, the Economist's language blog. Johnson's favourite was number one on the list: pilkunnussija, a Finnish word that does not translate politely, but which means someone who is obsessive about minor details. Johnson says:

Punctuation and other matters of mechanics and usage are certainly important if you want people to take your writing seriously. But to have a pen on hand at all times so you can correct ill-written shop signs is to miss the fascinating forest of language for its most boring trees.

(I haven't linked to Cracked, because their juvenile humour is sometimes expressed in language that may offend - and you might want to stay clear of this particular Johnson post, too. However, if you want to proceed despite the coarse language warning, Johnson does have a link to Cracked.)

Blogs we like

We've just added two more entries to our blog roll.

We've posted before on articles from Johnson, The Economist's blog on language. Saturday's post announced that The Economist's Style Guide is online again, and refers to several entries, including one on journalese and slang. Here's a taste:

Try not to be predictable, especially predictably jocular. Spare your readers any mention of mandarins when writing about the civil service, of their lordships when discussing the House of Lords, and of comrades when analysing communist parties. Must all stories about Central Asia include a reference to the Great Game? Must all lawns be manicured? Must all small towns in the old confederacy be called the buckle on the Bible belt? Are drug-traffickers inevitably barons? Must starlets and models always be scantily clad? Is there any other kind of wonk than a policy wonk?

Resist saying This will be no panacea. When you find something that is indeed a panacea (or a magic or silver bullet), that will indeed be news. Similarly, hold back from offering the reassurance There is no need to panic. Instead, ask yourself exactly when there is a need to panic.

I'm looking forward to looking around the other entries.

The other new listing is Tom Murphy - Murphy's Law. Tom's most recent post is on grammar. It includes a story about his grandmother, a video clip of Stephen Fry talking about language purists, and a plea for plain, clear, English instead of buzzword madness:

Today well written, simple, plain English is the exception. Too often we descend to the lowest common denominator where we all proactively leverage robust, strategic solutions to global world-leading paradigm shifts.