(TIL) the rule [Don't split infinitives] comes from the Victorian grammarian Alford's usage book (1864)

[HenHanna]

TIL (Today I Learned) that...

the rule [Don't split infinitives] comes from the Victorian
grammarian Alford --

"[A Plea for] The Queen's English" by Henry Alford, D.D.,
published in 1864.


______________

His (pet-peeve) example was "to scientifically illustrate".

___________

The rule against splitting infinitives is often attributed to
Victorian grammarian Henry Alford, who argued that doing so could
disrupt the flow of a sentence.

Today, a famous example of a split infinitive is "to boldly
go," where "boldly" separates the infinitive "to go."

Despite its historical roots, many modern linguists and style
guides accept split infinitives as a natural part of English usage. The
emphasis is now on clarity and readability rather than strict adherence
to this rule.

[Anton Shepelev]

Post by HenHanna
the rule [Don't split infinitives] comes from the Victorian
grammarian Alford --
"[A Plea for] The Queen's English" by Henry Alford, D.D.,
published in 1864.

What nonsense -- as if prior to 1864 great writers were
splitting their inifinitives. The rule is based on the
principle of cohesion, or the keeping of related elements
together. The stronger the relation, the closer they should
be to one other, even to the detriment of weaker
connections. A violation of this rule produces ugly
results in language and elsewhere, because cohesion is a
universal principle in complex systems.

Post by HenHanna
Despite its historical roots, many modern
linguists and style guides accept split infinitives as a
natural part of English usage. The emphasis is now on
clarity and readability rather than strict adherence to
this rule.

The modern linguist is like the science-minded doctor,
impassively recording the progress of a disease with no mind
to helping the patient. Think Dr. Mengele.

[Hibou]

Post by Anton Shepelev

Post by HenHanna
the rule [Don't split infinitives] comes from the Victorian
grammarian Alford --
"[A Plea for] The Queen's English" by Henry Alford, D.D.,
published in 1864.

What nonsense -- as if prior to 1864 great writers were
splitting their inifinitives. The rule is based on the
principle of cohesion, or the keeping of related elements
together. The stronger the relation, the closer they should
be to one other, even to the detriment of weaker
connections. A violation of this rule produces ugly
results in language and elsewhere, because cohesion is a
universal principle in complex systems.

Post by HenHanna
Despite its historical roots, many modern
linguists and style guides accept split infinitives as a
natural part of English usage. The emphasis is now on
clarity and readability rather than strict adherence to
this rule.

The modern linguist is like the science-minded doctor,
impassively recording the progress of a disease with no mind
to helping the patient. Think Dr. Mengele.

Doing the splits (for what it's worth):
<https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=to+_ADV_+be%3Aeng_us%2Cto+_ADV_+be%3Aeng_gb%2C%28to+split+infinitives+*+3000%29&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3>

[Anton Shepelev]

Post by Hibou
<https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=to+_ADV_+be%3Aeng_us%2Cto+_ADV_+be%3Aeng_gb%2C%28to+split+infinitives+*+3000%29&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3>

So, the infinitive-splitting began to grow circa 1970 and
exploded circa 2000, reflecting the two (anti-)cultural
revolutions.

[jerryfriedman]

Post by Anton Shepelev

Post by HenHanna
the rule [Don't split infinitives] comes from the Victorian
grammarian Alford --
"[A Plea for] The Queen's English" by Henry Alford, D.D.,
published in 1864.

What nonsense

It's not too far off. Wikipedia cites four writers
condemning split infinitives before Alford, but
Alford was the one who made the condemnation well
known.

(I added at least one of those citations to the
Wikiparticle, and contributed a lot of other things
to it.)

Post by Anton Shepelev
-- as if prior to 1864 great writers were
splitting their inifinitives.

Oh, is that what you meant? Split infinitives had
indeed almost disappeared, but they became more
common in the late 18th and the 19th century.
Wikipedia mentions Daniel Defoe, Benjamin Franklin,
William Wordsworth, Abraham Lincoln, George Eliot,
and Robert Burns.

Post by Anton Shepelev
The rule is based on the
principle of cohesion, or the keeping of related elements
together. The stronger the relation, the closer they should
be to one other, even to the detriment of weaker
connections. A violation of this rule produces ugly
results in language and elsewhere, because cohesion is a
universal principle in complex systems.

..

From that you can conclude that the adverb is often
connected to the verb more closely than the "to" is.
Compare "I will not go", for example.

Actually, other things than cohesion are involved
in word order. For instance, at least in English,
long sentence elements tend to go to the end.

--
Jerry Friedman

--

[Anton Shepelev]

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by Anton Shepelev
What nonsense

It's not too far off. Wikipedia cites four writers
condemning split infinitives before Alford, but Alford was
the one who made the condemnation well known.

This is true. What I called nonsense, however, is the

Post by jerryfriedman
The rule against splitting infinitives is often attributed
to Victorian grammarian Henry Alford

The rule had been in effect for hundreds of years prior,
although not explicitly stated, because universally (albeit
subconsciously ant intuitively) understood by careful
speakers of English. The condemnations appeared as a
reaction to increeping violations of that rule.

Yes, there are several more or less famous condemners of the
split infinitive, but their arguments are either subjective
(e.g. appealing to taste) or otherwise doubtful (e.g.
appealing to Latin grammar).

Post by jerryfriedman
(I added at least one of those citations to the
Wikiparticle, and contributed a lot of other things to
it.)

Thanks, it is good work indeed.

Post by jerryfriedman
Split infinitives had indeed almost disappeared,

But those early examples do not mention the split infinitive
in the narrow sense, with a -ly adverb as the wedge, nor
does the Shakespeare quote, /to pitied be/, which sounds great
to me: strong and hard.

Post by jerryfriedman
but they became more common in the late 18th and the 19th
century. Wikipedia mentions Daniel Defoe, Benjamin
Franklin, William Wordsworth, Abraham Lincoln, George
Eliot, and Robert Burns.

The Burns quote, /to nobly stem/, is a genuine split
infinitive. Having read and enjoyed /Robinson Crusoe/, as
well as some selected sermons of Donne, I cannot recall a
single split infinitive there. It must be /very/ rare in
those writers. I seem to remember dangling participle in
/Crusoe/, yet I think thewe are not due to any sloppiness.

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by Anton Shepelev
The rule is based on the principle of cohesion, or the
keeping of related elements together.

I From that you can conclude that the adverb is often
connected to the verb more closely than the "to" is.

I never see it that way. The infinitive is the basic
syntatic framework, to which the adverb may be added as a
decoration as it were, eiher from behind or in the front,
but never in the middle.

Post by jerryfriedman
Compare "I will not go", for example.

Here, /not/ is tightly bound to /will/. In /I love you
not/, however, the /not/ is negating the preceding sentence
entire.

Post by jerryfriedman
Actually, other things than cohesion are involved in word
order.

Indeed, not to mention that cohesion itself is a many-layered
thing, permeating speech from word level all the way up to
the general outline of the composition.

Post by jerryfriedman
For instance, at least in English, long sentence elements
tend to go to the end.

I think that tendency has intensified only in the last 100
years, so that the logically worded question "Of what is it a
picture?" has become "What is it a picture of?"

[Peter Moylan]

I From that you can conclude that the adverb is often connected to
the verb more closely than the "to" is.

I never see it that way. The infinitive is the basic syntatic
framework, to which the adverb may be added as a decoration as it
were, eiher from behind or in the front, but never in the middle.

For quite some time sloppy writers have used the term "split infinitive"
to describe a situation where a word comes between "to" and the
infinitive. That shows an ignorance of English grammar. Strictly
speaking, the "to" never was part of the infinitive. The "to" is a
particle that is often, but not always, attached to an infinitive, in
the same way that an article is often, but not always, attached to a
noun. Would you say that "the big man" is a split noun because "big" has
been inserted into the noun "the man"? In the phrase "to boldly go", the
infinitive is "go", not "to go".

Here's a true example of a split infinitive:
"You should not sfuckingplit an infinitive".

[HVS]

Post by Peter Moylan

I From that you can conclude that the adverb is often connected
to the verb more closely than the "to" is.

I never see it that way. The infinitive is the basic syntatic
framework, to which the adverb may be added as a decoration as it
were, eiher from behind or in the front, but never in the middle.

For quite some time sloppy writers have used the term "split
infinitive" to describe a situation where a word comes between
"to" and the infinitive. That shows an ignorance of English
grammar. Strictly speaking, the "to" never was part of the
infinitive. The "to" is a particle that is often, but not always,
attached to an infinitive, in the same way that an article is
often, but not always, attached to a noun. Would you say that "the
big man" is a split noun because "big" has been inserted into the
noun "the man"? In the phrase "to boldly go", the infinitive is
"go", not "to go".
"You should not sfuckingplit an infinitive".

Well put; I agree with this entirely.

[Joy Beeson]

Post by Peter Moylan
For quite some time sloppy writers have used the term "split infinitive"
to describe a situation where a word comes between "to" and the
infinitive. That shows an ignorance of English grammar. Strictly
speaking, the "to" never was part of the infinitive. The "to" is a
particle that is often, but not always, attached to an infinitive, in
the same way that an article is often, but not always, attached to a
noun. Would you say that "the big man" is a split noun because "big" has
been inserted into the noun "the man"? In the phrase "to boldly go", the
infinitive is "go", not "to go".

Moreover, the "to" is attached to the helping verb, rather than to the
infinitve: "I must eat", "I have to eat".

[Anton Shepelev]

Post by Joy Beeson
Moreover, the "to" is attached to the helping verb, rather
than to the infinitve: "I must eat", "I have to eat".

It is attached to the verb in the infinitive mood.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Joy Beeson
Moreover, the "to" is attached to the helping verb, rather than to the
infinitve: "I must eat", "I have to eat".

I simply have to.

[Anton Shepelev]

Post by Peter Moylan
For quite some time sloppy writers have used the term
"split infinitive" to describe a situation where a word
comes between "to" and the infinitive.

I object to the adjective. No, this is a clanger. I demur
the adjective, for not all errors are due to sloppiness.

Post by Peter Moylan
That shows an ignorance of English grammar. Strictly
speaking, the "to" never was part of the infinitive. The
"to" is a particle that is often, but not always, attached
to an infinitive,

Yes, one can view it that way as well, but the concept of
/infitive/ and /bare infinitive/ are in wide use and not
totally wrong. At least, it provides a name for a single
entity governed by a non-modal verb, e.g. in /I lurve to
drive/ the verb /lurve/ governs the infinitive /to drive/.
With the terminology you defend, no such single entity
exists.

I, however, have disliked the term /infinitive/ as including
the /to/ since school and have found it confusing. But I
did not know about an alternative view (and terminology).

Post by Peter Moylan
in the same way that an article is often, but not always,
attached to a noun. The "to" is a particle that is often,
but not always, attached to an infinitive, in the same way
that an article is often, but not always, attached to a
noun.

I fear it is rather hard to defend this claim in its narrow
meaning, but it if was meant as an analogy, then I agree.

Post by Peter Moylan
Would you say that "the big man" is a split noun because
"big" has been inserted into the noun "the man"? In the
phrase "to boldly go", the infinitive is "go", not "to
go".

So it was not just an analogy. No, I disagree on the ground
of wrong analogy (which may go only thus far). Whereas the
noun is not a verb and the particle not the article (despite
the rhyme), the relation between article and noun is not the
same as that between /to/ (particle or whatever it has been
variously called) and the verb.

Post by Peter Moylan
In the phrase "to boldly go", the infinitive is "go", not
"to go".

OK. What does the omitted preceeding verb (e.g. /decided/)
govern -- the particle or the infinitive?

Post by Peter Moylan
the rule [Don't split infinitives] comes from the
Victorian grammarian Alford's usage book (1864)

In addition to being overprimitive (as observed in a prior
post) in ascribing the rule to a single author, this
statement makes the false impression that the rule is based
on Victorian grammar(s) considering /to/ as part of the
infinitive (and therefore un-splittable), whereas many
grammars not only follow this rule without explicitely
stating it, but also state it while not including /to/ into
the infinitive. The last book where I have encountered it,
although not a exactly grammar, but still a work about
Enlgish -- /Words; Their Use and Abuse/, by William
Mathews:

To extremely maltreat.
This phrase from /Trench/ is an example of a very
common solecism. /To/, the sign of the infinitive,
should never be separated from the verb. Say "to
maltreat extremely," or "extremely to maltreat."

For another example, Goold Brown in his /The Grammar of
English Grammars/ does not consider /to/ as part of the
infiniive and calls it a preposition putting the following
verb into the infinitive mood. Yes he never ever inserts
any word beween that preposition and the verb.

[jerryfriedman]

Post by Anton Shepelev

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by Anton Shepelev
What nonsense

It's not too far off. Wikipedia cites four writers
condemning split infinitives before Alford, but Alford was
the one who made the condemnation well known.

This is true. What I called nonsense, however, is the

Post by jerryfriedman
The rule against splitting infinitives is often attributed
to Victorian grammarian Henry Alford

The rule had been in effect for hundreds of years prior,
although not explicitly stated, because universally (albeit
subconsciously ant intuitively) understood by careful
speakers of English. The condemnations appeared as a
reaction to increeping violations of that rule.
Yes, there are several more or less famous condemners of the
split infinitive, but their arguments are either subjective
(e.g. appealing to taste) or otherwise doubtful (e.g.
appealing to Latin grammar).

Post by jerryfriedman
(I added at least one of those citations to the
Wikiparticle, and contributed a lot of other things to
it.)

Thanks, it is good work indeed.

Thanks. It needs a lot more work, in my opinion.
One thing that's simply wrong is that the line
"The Cottar's Saturday Night" is standard
English, not Scots.

Post by Anton Shepelev

Post by jerryfriedman
Split infinitives had indeed almost disappeared,

But those early examples do not mention the split infinitive
in the narrow sense, with a -ly adverb as the wedge, nor
does the Shakespeare quote, /to pitied be/, which sounds great
to me: strong and hard.

Post by jerryfriedman
but they became more common in the late 18th and the 19th
century. Wikipedia mentions Daniel Defoe, Benjamin
Franklin, William Wordsworth, Abraham Lincoln, George
Eliot, and Robert Burns.

The Burns quote, /to nobly stem/, is a genuine split
infinitive. Having read and enjoyed /Robinson Crusoe/, as
well as some selected sermons of Donne, I cannot recall a
single split infinitive there. It must be /very/ rare in
those writers. I seem to remember dangling participle in
/Crusoe/, yet I think thewe are not due to any sloppiness.

A lot of these examples come from an article by one
Fitzedward Hall in the /American Journal of
Philology/ in 1882. The ones from Donne are all
from his translation from Aristeus, specifically
"'To judicially weigh,' 'to strongly sustaine,' 'to
always have,' 'to well rule or governe,' 'to well
rule one’s selfe.', Rev. Dr. John Donne (died 1631),
/Auncient History of the Septuagint/ (ed. 1633),
pp. 47, 51. 107, 127."

https://archive.org/stream/americanjournal314unkngoog/americanjournal314unkngoog_djvu.txt

https://www.jstor.org/stable/287307?seq=5

Although I found reputable people saying that there
were many examples in Donne's sermons, and that he
was "specially addicted" to the construction, I
looked through a good chunk of extracts from his
sermons without finding any examples.

Hall's example from Defoe is "'To just waft them over.'
Defoe, /A New Voyage/, etc. (1725), p. 152 (ed.
1840)."

He has many pages of examples.

Post by Anton Shepelev

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by Anton Shepelev
The rule is based on the principle of cohesion, or the
keeping of related elements together.

I From that you can conclude that the adverb is often
connected to the verb more closely than the "to" is.

I never see it that way. The infinitive is the basic
syntatic framework, to which the adverb may be added as a
decoration as it were, eiher from behind or in the front,
but never in the middle.

To me, the important connection is between the two
elements with meaning--though it's often natural for
me to put the adverb at the end, after the complement
of the verb.

Theoretical questions aside, this construction is
now part of English idiom and is sometimes the best
way to say something.

Post by Anton Shepelev

Post by jerryfriedman
Compare "I will not go", for example.

Here, /not/ is tightly bound to /will/. In /I love you
not/, however, the /not/ is negating the preceding sentence
entire.

I don't believe there's any such distinction.

Post by Anton Shepelev

Post by jerryfriedman
Actually, other things than cohesion are involved in word
order.

Indeed, not to mention that cohesion itself is a many-layered
thing, permeating speech from word level all the way up to
the general outline of the composition.

True, and that in a linear sentence, you may
not be able to have things next to each
other that go together.

Post by Anton Shepelev

Post by jerryfriedman
For instance, at least in English, long sentence elements
tend to go to the end.

I think that tendency has intensified only in the last 100
years, so that the logically worded question "Of what is it a
picture?" has become "What is it a picture of?"

Again, "of" goes with both "What" and "picture",
and I'd say "of" goes more with the meaningful
word than with the merely grammatical one. But
again (again), this construction has been part
of English idiom for many centuries and is
often a good way to say something, though it's
not as useful as split infinitives.

--
Jerry Friedman

--

[Anton Shepelev]

Post by Anton Shepelev
But those early examples do not mention the split infinitive
in the narrow sense, with a -ly adverb as the wedge

My brain stumbed. /any/ adverb characterising the action denoted
by the verb fits, e.g.: /always/

[Hibou]

Post by Anton Shepelev

Post by HenHanna
the rule [Don't split infinitives] comes from the Victorian
grammarian Alford --
"[A Plea for] The Queen's English" by Henry Alford, D.D.,
published in 1864.

What nonsense -- as if prior to 1864 great writers were
splitting their inifinitives. The rule is based on the
principle of cohesion, or the keeping of related elements
together. The stronger the relation, the closer they should
be to one other, even to the detriment of weaker
connections. A violation of this rule produces ugly
results in language and elsewhere, because cohesion is a
universal principle in complex systems. [...]

I don't split infinitives myself. My mental style sheet advises against
it, because it is not necessary and it will distract readers who care
about them. The question rarely arises anyway in tight writing, shorn of
unnecessary adjectives and adverbs. I have some sympathy with the
semantic unit idea, while observing with some astonishment that I am
quite happy to do as the French, and plop words into the middle of a
passé composé (Je suis /tout de suite/ allé... etc.).

... it's five-year mission... to go where no man has gone before

That's already bold enough. To say so explicitly smacks of immodesty.

[jerryfriedman]

Post by Hibou

Post by Anton Shepelev

Post by HenHanna
the rule [Don't split infinitives] comes from the Victorian
grammarian Alford --
"[A Plea for] The Queen's English" by Henry Alford, D.D.,
published in 1864.

What nonsense -- as if prior to 1864 great writers were
splitting their inifinitives. The rule is based on the
principle of cohesion, or the keeping of related elements
together. The stronger the relation, the closer they should
be to one other, even to the detriment of weaker
connections. A violation of this rule produces ugly
results in language and elsewhere, because cohesion is a
universal principle in complex systems. [...]

I don't split infinitives myself. My mental style sheet advises against
it, because it is not necessary and it will distract readers who care
about them.

It may not be necessary, but for me it's sometimes
the best method.

I think there are far more readers in Britain
than in the U.S. who dislike split infinitives
as such.

Post by Hibou
The question rarely arises anyway in tight writing, shorn of
unnecessary adjectives and adverbs. I have some sympathy with the
semantic unit idea, while observing with some astonishment that I am
quite happy to do as the French, and plop words into the middle of a
passé composé (Je suis /tout de suite/ allé... etc.).

I've always been willing to do that in English,
at least with one-word modifiers.

Post by Hibou
... it's five-year mission... to go where no man has gone before
That's already bold enough. To say so explicitly smacks of immodesty.

One can go cautiously where no man/one has gone
before. That might even be the best way to go,
if one wants one's mission to last five years
and one has no plot armor.

--
Jerry Friedman

--