Split infinitive

The Jolly Contrarian’s Glossary The snippy guide to financial services lingo.™ Go Premium Index — Click the ᐅ to expand: Glossary Comments? Questions? Suggestions? Requests? Insults? We’d love to 📧 hear from you. Sign up for our newsletter.

Towards more picturesque speech™ Go Premium George Orwell on plain English | SEC guidance on plain EnglishPlain English Anatomy™ Noun | Verb | Adjective | Adverb | Preposition | Conjunction | Latin | Germany | Flannel | Legal triplicate | Nominalisation | Murder your darlings Index: Click ᐅ to expand: Plain English Drafting Metaphor Comments? Questions? Suggestions? Requests? Insults? We’d love to 📧 hear from you. Sign up for our newsletter.

A bogus “rule” of English grammar, the prohibition on split infinitives frowns self-righteously on interposing an adverb in middle of a verbal infinitive.

One should, according to this disposition, prefer “to go quickly” over “to quickly go”.

But there is no such rule in English. Why would there be? What is special about the infinitive form? No pedant, however contumelious, has ever explained why it would be any less offensive to say “I quickly go” (not an infinitive, and apparently perfectly acceptable) than “to quickly go”. Nor can this aversion have derived, as some have claimed, from Latin. Latin infinitives (ire, or amare) have no preposition to brazenly split.

It is another question altogether whether you should be using an adverb in the first place. Why say “quickly go” or “go quickly”, when you can say “rush”?

It fell to an American TV producer, Gene Rodenberry, to forever put the matter beyond doubt.

To boldly go where no man has gone before.