1

Infinitives can, and occasionally should, be split in MSE. However, to set the Latin apart from the English on this is foolish.

The OE infinitive cannot be split, either. Somehow, in the transition through ME to MnE, the infinitive inflection became conflated with a verbal prefix and/or a preposition, and the MnE "to" (which is NOT a word, but is an INFLECTION) emerged. Because it appears to be a word, it is often non-euphonious to force it to be closer to the verb stem than certain very closely related adverbs.

It is, however still bad form to widely where they could be closely put together separate the verb stem and its inflection. The ambiguity and unclarity created when people do not learn to splitting the infinitive except where necessary avoid is cause enough to cautiously and in a manner which doesn't cause either pedantic folly or loss of the meaningful history of the language's normal syntax teach students to observe this rule, even if we must then teach them to boldly break the rules where sense and euphony urge them to do so.

Cheers,
PGE

2

Oh, and you can judge my credentials when you get yours. ;-)

Peter G. Epps
Professor of English, Baiko Gakuin University
PhD pending, Baylor University
MA (English) 2002, Baylor University

3

I notice that you left Mitt Romney off your list of 2008 contenders. He seems to have stirred up enough controversy to avoid being a "Whosethatguy?" My guess is that he will be the social conservatives' choice (given the list presented above).

4

Alexander I notice that you left Mitt Romney off your list of 2008 contenders. He seems to have stirred up enough controversy to avoid being a "Whosethatguy?"

Actually, Romney is known as "WhosethatMormomguy?" ; )

5

Captain Kirk had it right. It's not "To go boldy" or "Boldly to go". It's "To boldly go".

6

Ditto, Alexander, on Romney. He is the most attractive of all the candidates as far as electability goes. Newt is a true visionary and quite possibly the most eloquent conservative politician around. I just don't think he's electable--as President. He looks too much like Benny Hill.

The good thing about all this is that conservatives don't live and die with their excitement or lack thereof regarding political candidates. Lefties are the ones whose candidates have to inspire religious fervor. I mean when was the last time you ever saw anything like the Wellstone funeral embarassment at a Republican venue? "For Newt!!! For Newt!!! For Newt!!!"

7

Thanks for the link to my website and my list of devotionals. If anyone has a devotional that they would like added, let me know.

As to your question about wonder bread and grape soda, I don't think that there is anything per se wrong with that. Personally, I grew up Luthern (now Southern Baptist), so I still find it odd not to use wine during communion. My church says that we drink the "fruit of the vine" which is why we use grape juice. Considering that most grape soda does not contain any fruit juice, I suspect that my church would not serve it.

Personally, I think that wine and unleavened bread are the most appropriate just because that is what was used during Passover meals. The only commands from Jesus were to break the bread and share it "in the rememberence of" Him, and to drink the wine which was "a new covenant" in his Blood. If you are eating or drinking something that distracts you from showing Jesus the needed reverence, then you should change. Otherwise, it doesn't matter.

8

Newt running would be fun, wouldn't it? I'd love to see the commercials reminding everyone how he's thrice-married, how he abandoned his sick wife on her death bed so he could go off and marry a younger woman, and see how that plays with the "values voters."

Then, of course, there are the pro-Gingrich commercials. "Remember me? I squandered huge GOP momentum, lost my caucus, and resigned my House seat in shmae! Vote for me!"

Moving on, from the John Mark Reynolds link:

But there is a problem with Professor Soundbite. The problem is that his soundbites are misleading. They give an impression that is not true. It’s not that Ehrman is directly lying, but he is making unethical rhetorical maneuvers that amount to hi-tech sophistry.

9

Joe,

Imagine all those who would become alcoholics if even the taste of something imitating wine were to touch people's lips! You, a good Baptist, of all people!

It clearly takes only a little leaven to leaven the whole Wonder-ful loaf.

http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com

10

I'm shocked at your poor asthetics. Split infinitives are a distinct mark of what's wrong with our age--the unwillingness to stand steadfastly for what is superior and instead, a sloppy tendency to laze at the beck of convenience. Why don't you just start ending your sentences with prepositions?

And you know Mr. Mason, "To boldly go" is certainly the weakest statement of the bunch.

11

I've had crumbled saltines and those little white things that look like Chiclets in the Lord's supper at Baptist churches. One thing I've always wondered is why my church waits until the 5th Sunday. Anyway, I'm usually too busy thinking about the sacrifice that it symbolizes to ponder the difference between wine and grape juice. I always find myself sobbing.

12

Wonder Bread? You are lucky. In my SB church we had all crust once. No lie. All crust.
Los

13

In our church, we offer both wine and grape juice (in different colored cups) and tell people we respect differing opinions on the use of alcohol. We normally use wafers, but have also used pita or matzoh bread. I don't think it's a big deal in any case and tend to agree with Doug's last comment (#7).

What about Condi '08?

And remember the famous statement on not ending sentences with prepositions:
“This is the sort of bloody nonsense up with which I will not put.” (attr. Churchill)

14

We use pita most of the time. Occasionally I've seen leavened white bread, including perhaps wonder bread. Grape soda I have not seen, but I think that would be nice.

Angela, there's nothing sloppy or inferior about being clear. Look at the post of mine that Joe linked to, and follow the links to the Language Log posts from linguists who give several examples of when splitting infinitives is not just ok but actually required in order to say what's being said.

It's also not a function of the current age. Splitting infinitives is a very old practice. It's only very recently in the history of English that someone got the idea that to criticize them. As far as I can tell, the only reason for this is that Latin infinitives are one word. English has no real infinitive form, but the closest thing we have is this "to _______" form, and thus it was concluded that this form could never be split up, even though everyone has always done so and several things someone might say can't be said otherwise.

15

Jeff, Condi knows herself well enough to realize that a Condi race for the presidency is really dumb. She's never run for any office, and she doesn't do well under the kinds of circumstances required to win an election. She's a specialist in her area, which is foreign policy, and her views on other areas are pretty much unknown to us, although there have been lots of hints that she's not conservative on some of those issues. She has said over and over again that she thinks it would be too much for her to handle to try to run for any office, never mind one like the presidency. Look at how people make fun of her already. I happen to think it's really cruel even to suggest that someone of her personality subject herself to that gauntlet, and I really wish people would stop pretending there's even a remote chance that she would run.

16

Yay for Ask a Ninja! Thanks Joe, I'm glad somebody else agrees with me on that one.

I tend to agree with Texanna on the communion thing. I grew up in a church that did communion every Sunday, and it never got old. It's nice when they have good unleavened bread for the service, but the symbolism is what we're going for anyway.

17

I once complained about the use of grape juice instead of wine at a church I was a member of years ago. The elder responded that they had considered switching back to wine, but too many people with substance abuse problems had expressed concern. Since then, the practice hasn't bothered me as much.

By the way, Joe, I offer my permission to proudly split infintives. Also, there is no good reason to avoid ending sentences in prepositions -- at least, none I can think of.

18

Jeremy,

I am aware that Sec. Rice has repeatedly expressed her lack of desire to run. I don't, however, think it's cruel to suggest her as a candidate, anymore than it's cruel to suggest a promotion for a deserving coworker. It's a compliment: "Your accomplishments, character, and abilities suggest that you would do a good job in the office."

She is the one who has to decide for herself. I was simply responding to Joe's comment about the dearth of compelling candidates.

19

Watched the Colbert clip. Amazing that the stagehand got all the good material. How does the straight man anchor a comedy show? ;-)

20

Then, of course, there are the pro-Gingrich commercials. "Remember me? I squandered huge GOP momentum, lost my caucus, and resigned my House seat in shmae! Vote for me!"

I was one of Gingrich's constituents. Ticked me off when he resigned. I didn't vote for him to be Speaker; I voted for him to be my representative. But Newt had to take his ball and go home.

21

The injunction against split infinitives stems from Bishop Lowth's "Short Introduction to English Grammar," 1762. Unless you're in the business, you've probably never heard of this text, but it's the biggie. Prior to its publication, what passed for "grammars" were technically known as "orthographies," essentially spelling lists.

Lowth decided that English deserved a formal grammar - and so he set out to pen the first one. Since Latin was upheld as the model language, esteemed for its regular principles and long-studied structure, Lowth seemed to feel that any rules inherent to Latin would automatically apply to English. Certainly, you couldn't argue with a given rule if it had roots in the language of the academy.

So we got all kinds of useless baggage, courtesy of the Bishop. No beginning a sentence with a conjuction, no split infinitives, no ending a sentence with a conjunction, the whole sad collection of schoolmarmish peeves that continue to infect the education system. The technicians of the English language, including linguists, lexicographers, and philosophers of language, have laughed off the split infinitive rule (along with the other ridiculous 18th-century "contributions" of the quill-and-inkpot set) for at least the past 80 years or so with the advent of modern theories of grammar. Heck, even Fowler chuckles at it.

22

Verbal landfill, it is called.

23

Hey, folks--Raven, Jeremy--do take a look at what I said.

You are right that the MnE split-infinitive rule does come from a self-conscious attempt to "reform" English in the 18th C.

So does spelling other than free-form phonetic type, an innovation that I, for one, don't mind.

The results of using Latin grammar to structure English were laughable--the importation of the "absolute phrase" (Latin Ablative Absolute) made hash of our participial adjectives, for one thing.

However, you are flat-out wrong to say the English language never had any infinitives other than the "to" form ones, or that they never had any inflected infinitives whose division would be impossible. That's sheer ignorance of the history of English.

From the opening lines of the Battle of Maldon:

Het þa hyssa hwæne hors forlætan,
feor afysan, and forð gangan,
hicgan to handum and to hige godum

In this passage, there are four infinitives. Each has the exceedingly standard and very easy to recognize "an" ending of a standard OE verb. The easiest to recognize is "and for[th] gangan" which means "and to go forth"; the question is, how did we go from the inflection "an" to the inflection "to," and in how far should we treat "to" as a word and in how far should we treat it as an inflection?

It's detachment arises by conflation with the preposition and a sound parallel to uses such as gerund + preposition (His going into...), verb + adverb/particle (going out), or adverb + participial adjective (esp. ones that combine again, as easygoing, outgoing). There's a whole lot of flux in the language, but pretending that there are no deep historical structures which govern the MORE and LESS useful, or error-prone, or ambiguity-effacing approaches to the language.

Yeah, that IS sloppy.

Cheers,
PGE

24

"However, you are flat-out wrong to say the English language never had any infinitives other than the "to" form ones, or that they..."

Don't know who you're addressing with this, Eppusu-sensei, but it certainly isn't me. The more critical issue, I believe, is why such buggabears as the "split infinitive" nonsense continue to persist, despite the valiant efforts in the past century of CMoS, Bernstein, Merriam-Webster's editorial board, et al., to stamp them out.

The absolute worst battle I had to fight on this was with a high school English teacher who was furious at the work undertaken to correct her turgid textual meanderings. She was terrified that some of her peers might see her name appended to one of these classic "errors" and be utterly shamed into perpetuity by it.

25

Sorry, was a bit imprecise. . . . the "ignorance" shouldn't have been directed at "you." The claim would reflect ignorance, and it appeared that Joe and Jeremy both backed it.

And, yeah, I'm well aware of the extent to which social fears and middle-class hypercorrection influence these things. I'm just against any pendulum swing in the other direction: I would rather folks *did* try a bit too hard to be "correct," and then get worn down by time, reality, good reading, and good editors.

"Don't [needlessly or widely] separate the parts of an infinitive" seems like a useful rule to me, still.

Cheers,
PGE