Editing Split infinitive (section)

== Current views ==
{{Quote box
| quote  = "When I split an infinitive, God damn it, I split it so it will stay split."
| source = [[Raymond Chandler]], ''1947''.<ref>Jeremy Butterfield (2008). ''Damp Squid: The English Language Laid Bare''. Oxford University Press, Oxford. 978-0-19-923906. p. 136.</ref>
| width  = 27%
| align  = right
| style = padding:8px;
}}

Present [[Style manual|style and usage manuals]] deem simple split infinitives unobjectionable.<ref>"It is exceedingly difficult to find any authority who condemns the split infinitive—Theodore Bernstein, H. W. Fowler, Ernest Gowers, Eric Partridge, Rudolph Flesch, Wilson Follett, Roy H. Copperud, and others too tedious to enumerate here all agree that there is no logical reason not to split an infinitive."—Bryson (1990), p. 144.</ref> For example, [[George Oliver Curme|Curme]]'s ''Grammar of the English Language'' (1931) says that not only is the split infinitive correct, but it "should be furthered rather than censured, for it makes for clearer expression." ''The Columbia Guide to Standard American English'' notes that the split infinitive "eliminates all possibility of [[ambiguity]]," in contrast to the "potential for confusion" in an unsplit construction.<ref name=Columbia>{{cite book | last = Wilson | first = Kenneth G. | author-link = Kenneth G. Wilson (author) | year = 1993 | title = The Columbia Guide to Standard American English | publisher = Columbia University Press | isbn = 0-231-06989-8 | pages = [https://archive.org/details/columbiaguidetos00wils_0/page/410 410]–411 | url = https://archive.org/details/columbiaguidetos00wils_0 | url-access = registration | access-date = 2009-11-12}}</ref> ''[[Merriam–Webster's Dictionary of English Usage]]'' says: "the objection to the split infinitive has never had a rational basis."<ref name=MWDEU/> According to [[Mignon Fogarty]], "today almost everyone agrees that it is OK to split infinitives."<ref>{{cite book |title= The Ultimate Writing Guide for Students |author-link=Mignon Fogarty|last= Fogarty|first= Mignon|year= 2011|publisher= Henry Holt & Company|location= New York|isbn= 978-0805089448 |pages= 17–18}}</ref>

Nevertheless, many teachers of English still admonish students against using split infinitives in writing. Because the prohibition has become so widely known, the ''Columbia Guide'' recommends that writers "follow the conservative path [of avoiding split infinitives when they are not necessary], especially when you're uncertain of your readers' expectations and sensitivities in this matter."<ref name=Columbia/> Likewise, the Oxford dictionaries do not regard the split infinitive as ungrammatical, but on balance consider it likely to produce a weak style and advise against its use for formal correspondence.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutgrammar/splitinfinitives?view=uk |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20041025105319/http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutgrammar/splitinfinitives?view=uk |url-status=dead |archive-date=October 25, 2004 |title=Split infinitives : Oxford Dictionaries Online |publisher=Askoxford.com |access-date=2011-02-21}}</ref> [[R. W. Burchfield]]'s revision of Fowler's ''Modern English Usage'' goes farther (quoting Burchfield's own 1981 book ''The Spoken Word''): "Avoid splitting infinitives whenever possible, but do not suffer undue remorse if a split infinitive is unavoidable for the completion of a sentence already begun."<ref>{{cite book | last = Fowler | first = H. W. | title = The New Fowler's Modern English Usage | editor = Burchfield, R. W | year = 1996 | publisher = Clarendon Press | page = [https://archive.org/details/newfowlersmodern00fowl/page/738 738] | isbn = 0-19-869126-2 | url = https://archive.org/details/newfowlersmodern00fowl/page/738 }}</ref> Still more strongly, older editions of ''[[The Economist]]'' Style Guide said, "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" (but added "To never split an infinitive is quite easy.").<ref>{{cite book |page=70| title = The Economist Style Guide|edition=10th | publisher = Profile|last1=The Economist | year = 2012|isbn=978-1-84668-606-1| author1-link = The Economist}}</ref> This recommendation, however, is weakened in the 12th edition.<ref>{{Cite news | author = [[Robert Lane Greene]] (writing as "Johnson | url=https://www.economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21741127-boldly-go-where-grammarians-have-feared-tread-ban-split-infinitives |title=The ban on split infinitives is an idea whose time never came | newspaper=The Economist |date=26 April 2018 |access-date=28 April 2018}}</ref> After stating that the ban is pointless, ''The Economist Style Guide'' now says "To see a split infinitive nevertheless annoys some readers, so try to avoid placing a modifier between "to" and the verb in an infinitive. But if moving the modifier would ruin the rhythm, change the meaning or even just put the emphasis in the wrong place, splitting the infinitive is the best option."<ref>{{cite book | title = The Economist Style Guide |edition=12th | publisher = Profile|last1=The Economist |last2= Wroe |first2=Ann |isbn=978-1-78283-348-2 |date=2018|at=split infinitives|author1-link=The Economist }}</ref>

As well as varying according to register, tolerance of split infinitives varies according to type. While most authorities accept split infinitives in general, it is not hard to construct an example that any native speaker would reject. Wycliff's Middle English compound split would, if transferred to modern English, be regarded by most people as un-English:
:''It was most unkind '''to in this manner treat''' their brother.''
Attempts to define the boundaries of normality are controversial. In 1996, the usage panel of ''The American Heritage Book'' was evenly divided for and against such sentences as,
:''I expect him '''to completely and utterly fail'''''
but more than three-quarters of the panel rejected
:''We are seeking a plan '''to gradually, systematically, and economically relieve''' the burden.''
Here the problem appears to be the breaking up of the verbal phrase ''to be seeking a plan to relieve'': a segment of the head verbal phrase is so far removed from the remainder that the listener or reader must expend greater effort to understand the sentence. By contrast, 87 percent of the panel deemed acceptable the multi-word adverbial in
:''We expect our output '''to more than double''' in a year''
not surprisingly perhaps, because here there is no other place to put the words ''more than'' without substantially recasting the sentence.

A special case is the splitting of an infinitive by the negation in sentences like
:''I soon learned '''to not provoke''' her.''
:''I want '''to not see''' you any more.''
Here traditional idiom, placing the negation before the marker (''I soon learned not to provoke her'') or with verbs of desire, negating the finite verb (''I don't want to see you anymore'') remains easy and natural, and is still overwhelmingly the more common construction. Some argue that the two forms have different meanings, while others see a grammatical difference,<ref name=EvG/> but most speakers do not make such a distinction.
In an example drawn from 3121 sampled usages by the [[British National Corpus]], the use of ''to not be'' (versus ''not to be'') is only 0.35%.{{citation needed|reason=no attestation|date=March 2022}}