Splitting an infinitive.
Naftali
Some linguists speak of the uselessness of not splitting infinitives. They offer as a counter example the famous "to Boldly Go". And they claim that the rule is a mindless mimicry of infinitives in earlier languages, which are expressed with one word.
I am not so sure that the mimicry is either mindless or useless. And I do not pretend to know why the rule developed.
But at any rate, it seems to me that the rule is rational: I think that in most cases it's wise not to separate an infinitive's components. An adverb or adverbial phrase is notionally dependent on its object. Without the object, an adverb has no concrete meaning in so far as the context of the housing grammatical element (the phrase or clause).
So with a split infinitive and the reader arriving at the adverbial element before its object, the mind does not have anything notionally concrete to hold onto. When the reader, then, moves on to the object, the mind uses the non-concrete data contained in it's memory to define the notionally concrete object, thereby arriving at a more complex concrete idea.
In other words: (non-concrete data = '0'; concrete data = '1'; complex concrete idea = '2')
With a split infinitive, at step one (reading the adverb) the mind stores '0', and at step two (reading the object) he arrives, through adding '0' to '1', at '2'.
With a unified infinitive, at step one (reading the object) the mind stores '1', and at step two (reading the adverbial element) arrives, through adding '1' to '0', at '2'.
Therefore, if one holds, as I do, that it is more taxing on the mind to hold onto non-concrete data ('0') than it is for it to hold onto concrete data ('1')--it follows that unifying the elements of the infinitive is a more efficient way to communicate content, since it either does not require the readers mind to hold onto non-concrete data ('0') or requires it for less time.
To illustrate: The reader's mind being what it is, a writer can get away with "To boldly go". But it would seem more problematic for him to write, "To--boldly and swiftly, eyes frontward and never looking back--go.
"To go boldly and swiftly, eyes frontward and never looking back" is more easily understood.
Accordingly, it would seem logical to place adverbial elements after their respective objects generally; I do not know the rule on that.
Also, it would seem (?) to follow that adjectival elements should follow their respective objects as well. We rarely if ever do that it English, but, interestingly, that is the norm in Hebrew.
The following was added after the original posting:
After looking at the post, it occurred to me that according to the forgoing explanation not splitting infinitives is merely an instance of not placing adverbial elements before their respective objects.
In reality, however, splitting an infinitive is worse than placing (at least) one adverb before its object, as the "to" of the infinitive is at least as non-concrete as the adverb itself. And since, when reading a split infinitive, it takes as least one more step to resolve the non-concrete "to", the mind has to hold onto it for that much longer.
Therefore, splitting an infinitive is, according to this explanation, roughly equivalent to placing two adverbs before their object.
However, if "to" is even less concrete and thus harder to hold onto than an adverb, as I think it is, then splitting an infinitive is worse.
After reading the sample phrases mentioned earlier in the post, it also occurred to me that a split infinitive presents a unique difficulty in combining the language components to render their complex referent: (the 'to' element of the infinitive = '0'; the verb element of the infinitive = '1' ; the adverbial element = '2'; the complex idea = '3')
Resolving "To go boldly" requires the mind to add thusly: '0' + '1' + '2' = '3'. At step two the mind is able to perform '0' + '1', and thereby needs only to hold onto the product. At step three, the mind adds thusly: (presolved product of '0' + '1') + 2 to arrive at '3', the complex idea.
Similarly, resolving "boldly going" requires the mind to add thusly: '1' + '2' = '3'
Resolving "to boldly go", however, requires the mind to add '0' + '1' + '2' = '3', but receives the data in the order of '0' + '2' + '1' = '3'. So not only must the mind hold onto '0' + '2' as separate data entities until step three, at step three it must rearrange the data into '0' + '1' + '2' to arrive at '3'.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Splitting an infinitive.
- More On the Grammarian Madness
- Grammarian Silliness
"To go boldly and swiftly, eyes frontward and never looking back" is understood more easily.
Heh.
In reality, however, splitting an infinitive is worse than placing at least one adverb before its object, as the "to" of the infinitive is at least as non-concrete as the adverb itself. And since, when splitting the infinitive, it takes as least one more step to resolve the non-concrete "to", the mind has to hold onto it for that much longer.
Accordingly, splitting an infinitive is, according to this explanation, roughly equivalent to placing two adverbs before its object. But if "to" is even less concrete and thus harder to hold onto than an adverb, as I think it is, then splitting an infinitive is worse.
The best question is which statement is the more muscular statement? 'To boldly go' or 'To go boldly' is equally muscular and is appropriate to the ear. All of the rest that you added is impedimentia that gets in the way of the statement.
To split an inifinitive in English depends on how far apart is the splitting going to happen? A short one does not harm comprehensibility or linguistic vigor, a long one does.
Keep your writing in the active voice; keep your speech muscular. Unless you are using the passive voice or a flamboyant style for a certain effect; then go ahead and use them.
Another good example is the serial, or "Oxford," comma. There are cases where a sentence can be ambiguous without it. (The classic example: "This book is dedicated to my parents, Ayn Rand and God.") It is not incorrect to omit the serial comma, and the lack of it is not even really considered bad style, but if you always use it, you never have to stop and think: do I need a comma here? And when adding an item to the list, you can safely get in the habit of always adding a comma after it without worrying about whether it is the penultimate one. The decision has already been made, and made in the way that lessens the chance of ambiguity and makes the writer's life slightly easier.
Also, with a sensible collection of rules trained into your writing mind, everything you write will have largely the same voice and tone, which is an advantage as a writer.
These are the kinds of rules I approve of: policies for writing. The rules can be changed or circumvented when needed, but memorizing them allows you to make a baseline level of clarity largely unconscious.
According to my understanding, it does not necessarily harm comprehensibility, but it does require more mental resources. Whether or not we are conscious of the strain is neither here nor there. It might not matter, if the content is simple, as is most modern content, but if the content is complex or deep or if the text is massive it might, even if unconsciously so.
Of course one can deviate from the rule, or, to say it differently, command more of the readers resources to make the point, but logically, I think, one would do well to know to what effect.
For example 'to go boldly' or 'to boldly go' are the same notionally. But the latter places the stress on the boldness. If one wishes that effect
it worth commanding the resources.
If one does it because his teachers were too foolish to hand the rule down to him even though they didn't understand it, He is simply inefficient.
The second sentence shows the speaker is more adamant and proactive about not seeing the person he is addressing. There is a difference between "not seeing" and making a determined effort "to not see."
If you're going to look at the Star Trek line, for example, consider this:
"To BOLDly GO where NO man has GONE beFORE."
It has a certain rhythm to it, no?
Try this:
"To go BOLDly where NO man has GONE beFORE."
Not as rhythmic. On top of that, I find that not splitting infinitives and verb phrases can lead to awkward and stilted language.
I have also found that individuals who focus on split infinitives and split verb phrases tend to put on little editing filters that prevent them from seeing other, more serious errors in work they review. Think major factual errors and major spelling. But, by God, they removed the split infinitives!
A final thought: Language evolves over time. Prohibitions against such things as split infinitives can fall by the wayside as other conventions in writing and speaking arise. To needlessly focus on such archaisms as the rule on split infinitives is to exceed the role of conserving language and become a linguistic fuddy-duddy incurably smitten with a grammatical past that almost certainly never was.
--|PW|--
If English were more like German, perhaps we'd have no problem with that deferral, anticipating that things will resolve when the final very--usually at the end of the sentence--is revealed.
Or it could be even worse! German is considered an agglutinative language, tacking on new elements to modify words. Some, all derived from Ural-Altaic languages (Turkish, Hungarian, Finnish, Estonian) just keep tacking and tacking until you can get words that are 40+ letters long. The meaning is utterly clear as long as you understand the elements and the grammar rules used to put them together. If you don't, it's total gibberish.
That's why splitting the infinitive is more emphatic on the adverb.
Dave, that reminds me of an old story.
To know we know not ever
Whatever we knew that not,
Is better to the mind mistaken
Than that the end forgot,
So when you speak like gentlemen
As dressed like grace you be,
Remember last what you first knew
And make your points agree,
For language is a fickle dame
So precious when extolled,
And yet she strangles off all aim -
Misdirection she controls,
A secret's secret ever lost
Can make men sing lament,
But put that in your story friend
And where's the secret went?
Once spilt like blood upon the page
Our words are scattered far,
And split unto infinitive
Impressions quite bizarre,
But all is well when well is done
By cunning, craft, and lore,
For having learned the mystery
The lesser is the more...
Thanks for the response and insight into the function of 'to'. But not only do I not think it effects my calculation, I think it strengthens it.
Even when we revise and say that 'to' ('0') requires the mind to store an "instruction" regarding how to modify '1', the mind still stores a non-concrete data point.
Furthermore, in the case of a split infinitive the mind has to alter the instruction upon arriving at the adverbial element, as the original cannot be implemented, and more adverbial elements require yet more adjustments. And we cannot leave out that the instruction must first be tested. If the mind, however, gets used to no-rule writing, the instruction will be undefined do begin with, but it would require a test at every stage before its ultimate implementation. In short, more resources are required.
This is also why growing up knowing multiple languages is rather useful. While extreme relativism--the idea that certain ideas can only exist if they have language to support them--is silly, it's also true that knowing more than one language helps you clearly see things that are a bit harder to see if you're only schooled in one language.
I'm certain that someone who is fluent in Hebrew sees certain things, especially in the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible, much more easily than someone who only speaks and reads English.
Thanks for the insight. I think it makes sense.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.