io-s.m.jAx.21,1905.] NOTES AND QUERIES.
51
SPLIT INFINITIVE.
(10 th S. ii. 406 ; iii. 17.)
THE condemnation of the split infinitive seems so devoid of adequate justification that, personally, I am accustomed to look upon it as merely idiosyncratic. The use of the idiom can be defended on various grounds, not the least substantial of which is the need of allowing language that freedom from purely artificial restraints which it continually and successfully claims. No learned academy or body of critics is powerful enough to cramp and tie down a language to a particular mode of expression, for, to use a theological phrase, it will " work out its own salvation," in defiance, if need be, of grammar. We may be sure, therefore, that the most virulent slating will not effect the destruction of the split infinitive if this really is syntactically advantageous.
The trouble over this matter is but slightly based on the adverbial nature of the qualifi- cation. The infinitive is, strictly speaking, a verbal substantive to which is affixed the dative preposition "to"; and in order to determine the legitimacy of splitting it, it is best, as COL. PRIDEAUX remarks, to collate the infinitives of compound verbs. Now, whether the first elements of long-used compound verbs, such as believe, forgive, &c., were originally prepositional or not, we are fully justified in regarding the bulk of similarly constituted verbs as consisting of an adverb joined to a verb, especially in such cases as fore-shadoiv, fore-shorten, uprise, over- throw, forthcome, underlie, &c., where the nature of the first syllables is clear. No one challenges the adverbial qualification of an unsplit infinitive, or the predication of some- thing about an infinitive which includes an adverbial prefix, even if this be merely hyphened. It therefore appears highly illogical to deny that an infinitive may be legitimately split by an adverb which does not happen to be actually glued on to the verb.
The difficulty, in reality, is one which concerns the length of the unattached adverb. There is a subtle feeling that the balance of the sentence is in danger of being destroyed if the verb is made top-heavy by placing a trisyllabic or polysyllabic advero within the infinitive. Adverbs of one or two syllables readily adhere to the verb as prefixes, and thus disguise their reprobate individualities. But it is generally assumed that there is no glue strong enough to make such processional words as circumstantially,
extraordinarily, disproportionately, and the
like, stick within the split infinitive, and
therefore they must be trailed after verbs
like cartloads of bricks. The majority of the
adverbs in common use, however, do not
attain such unwieldly dimensions, and may
well be admitted within the split infinitive,
especially if clarity of apprehension is
promoted thereby. And surely the idiom is
not to be pilloried if it serves to make the
sentence more harmonious as, for instance, in
"He decided to rapidly march on the town/'
where "to march rapidly" is certainly less
pleasing to the ear. From such considerations
as these I therefore infer that the split
infinitive does not merit the censure which
critics frequently bestow on it.
J. DORMER.
Some time ago a certain critic fell foul of me for one solitary use of the phrase " from whence," and the consequent correspondence in * N. & Q.' called forth a strong reply from PROF. SKEAT, justifying the use in any case, and sternly denouncing our cocksure critic of these latter days. But the same critic blamed me also for having split on the rock of the split infinitive, an example of which doubtless existed somewhere in my book of 500 pages, though I failed to find it. I am, therefore, keenly interested in this discussion. I note that COL. PRIDEAUX, at the last refer- ance, gives examples only of infinitives in the present tense. But what about the past infinitive] "To have gloriously died for one's country," for example, rings true enough. But is it right ? And if so, why not " to gloriously die " ? It is not the to which is modified, and it is not have, but die and died. CHARLES SWYNNERTOX.
First of all " split infinitive " is a mis- nomer. The infinitive is not split, but is split in the position of its qualifying adverb in question from its preposition to, which in origin, though not in present function, is the same as that expressing direction. "I am ready to go" meant ad eundum, a aller, zum Gehen. Historical reasons cannot be adduced against inserting the adverb between to and its infinitive, because it occurs as early as Wicliff; nor logical ones either, as no position can point out more clearly to which word the adverb refers.
Further, analogous positions of qualifica- tions are common in English, as COL. PRIDEAUX justly remarks. His examples are : " to be thoroughly spoilt," " he has publicly asked for something," "he has been publicly con- gratulated." He might have added : "he fully admits," " at exactly the same hour,"
