Abstract
II.
THE first element of good style is clearness, and this may or may not be combined with literary elegance. It is usual to regard a split infinitive as a sign of indifference to pure English, yet this misplacement will be found in the works of some of our leading writers. The practice is discussed in an open-minded manner in Tract No. XV. recently published by the Clarendon Press for the Society for Pure English; and though no precise conclusions are reached whether it is permissible or no, the general view taken is that when a split infinitive is the best form of avoiding ambiguity it can be justified. It is admitted that the separation of to from its infinitive is not in itself desirable, but, on the other hand, obvious artificiality may be introduced when the practice is regarded as a fetish. "To see clearly "is certainly preferable to the split infinitive "To clearly see"; and "To be clearly seen"or "To be seen clearly "to the form"To clearly be seen,"but it is difficult sometimes, without splitting the infinitive, to retain the meaning desired. Thus, the pamphlet referred to gives as an example the phrase "we must expect the Commission to at least neglect our interests."To place the words "at least"anywhere else in the sentence would not convey exactly the same idea, and instead of changing their position it would be better to recast the sentence. People who deliberately avoid split infinitives have often an objection to divide a compound verb by adverbs, so that they would write "earnestly may be hoped"instead of"may be earnestly hoped."There is, however, no grammatical reason against such splitting as there is in splitting an infinitive; indeed, the proper place for the adverb is between the auxiliary and the principal verb.
Article PDF
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Words, Meanings, and Styles. Nature 115, 289–291 (1925). https://doi.org/10.1038/115289a0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/115289a0