Which Sentence Contains a Split Infinitive

English grammatical construction

A
split infinitive
is a grammatical construction in which an adverb or adverbial phrase separates the “to” and “infinitive” constituents of what was traditionally chosen the total infinitive, but is more commonly known in modern linguistics every bit the to-infinitive (eastward.g.
to get). In the history of English language language aesthetics, the carve up infinitive was often deprecated, despite its prevalence in colloquial voice communication. The opening sequence of the
Star Trek
television series contains a well-known example, “to
boldly
go
where no man has gone before”, wherein the adverb
boldly
was said to split the full infinitive,
to become. Multiple words may split a to-infinitive, such as: “The population is expected
to
more than
double
in the next 10 years.”

In the 19th century, some linguistic prescriptivists sought to innovate a dominion proscribing the split infinitive, and the resulting disharmonize had considerable cultural importance. The construction still renders disagreement, simply modern English usage guides have largely dropped the objection to it.^[ane]

The
split infinitive
terminology is not widely used in modern linguistics. Some linguists question whether a to-infinitive phrase can meaningfully exist chosen a “total infinitive” and, consequently, whether an infinitive tin be “split” at all.

History of the construction

[edit]

Onetime and Middle English language

[edit]

In Old English, infinitives were single words ending in
-n
or
-an
(comparable to mod Dutch and German
-due north,
-en). Gerunds were formed using
to
followed past a verbal substantive in the dative instance, which ended in
-anne
or
-enne
(e.thousand.,
tō cumenne
= “coming, to come”).^[2]
In Center English language, the bare infinitive and the gerund coalesced into the aforementioned class ending in
-(e)n
(e.one thousand.,
comen
“come”;
to comen
“to come”). The “to” infinitive was non split in Old or Early on Middle English.

The get-go known example of a separate infinitive in English, in which a pronoun rather than an adverb splits the infinitive, is in Layamon’s
Brut
(early 13th century):

and he cleopede him to; alle his wise cnihtes.

for to him reade
;^[3]
[4]

And he called to him all his wise knights / to him advise.

This may exist a poetic inversion for the sake of meter, and therefore says niggling about whether Layamon would have felt the construction to exist syntactically natural. However, no such reservation applies to the following prose example from John Wycliffe (14th century), who often split infinitives:^[v]

For this was gret unkyndenesse,
to this manere treten
there blood brother.
^[six]

For this was great unkindness, to in this manner care for their brother.

Modernistic English

[edit]

After its rise in Middle English language, the construction became rare in the 15th and 16th centuries.^[4]
William Shakespeare used it one time,^[7]
or maybe twice.^[8]
The uncontroversial example appears to be a syntactical inversion for the sake of meter:^[nine]

Root compassion in thy center, that when it grows

Thy pity may deserve
to pitied exist

(Sonnet 142).

Edmund Spenser, John Dryden, Alexander Pope, and the Rex James Version of the Bible used none, and they are very rare in the writing of Samuel Johnson. John Donne used them several times, though, and Samuel Pepys also used at to the lowest degree i.^{[10]
[eleven]}
No reason for the almost disappearance of the dissever infinitive is known; in particular, no prohibition is recorded.^[4]

Dissever infinitives reappeared in the 18th century and became more than mutual in the 19th.^[12]
Daniel Defoe, Benjamin Franklin, William Wordsworth, Abraham Lincoln, George Eliot, Henry James, and Willa Cather are among the writers who used them. Examples in the poems of Robert Burns attest its presence also in 18th-century Scots:

Who dared
to nobly stem
tyrannic pride.
(“The Cottar’s Saturday Night”)

In colloquial speech, the structure came to enjoy widespread use. Today, co-ordinate to the
American Heritage Book of English Usage, “people split infinitives all the time without giving it a thought.”^[ten]
In corpora of contemporary spoken English, some adverbs such as
ever
and
completely
appear more often in the split position than the unsplit.^[xiii]

Theories of origins

[edit]

Although it is difficult to say why the construction developed in Eye English, or why information technology revived so powerfully in Modern English, a number of theories take been postulated.

Illustration

[edit]

Traditional grammarians have suggested that the construction appeared because people oft place adverbs before finite verbs. George Curme writes: “If the adverb should immediately precede the finite verb, we feel that it should immediately precede also the infinitive…”^[14]
Thus, if one says:

She gradually
got
rid of her stutter.
and

She
volition
gradually
become
rid of her stutter.

one may, by analogy, wish to say:

She
wants to
gradually get rid of her stutter.

This is supported by the fact that carve up infinitives are frequently used as echoes, equally in the post-obit commutation, in which the riposte parodies the slightly odd collocation in the original judgement:

Child:
I accidentally forgot to feed the hamster.

Parent:
Well, you’ll have to try harder not
to “accidentally forget,”
won’t you?

This is an instance of an adverb existence transferred into carve up infinitive position from a parallel position in a different construction.

Transformational grammar

[edit]

Transformational grammarians have attributed the structure to a re-analysis of the role of
to.^[four]

Types

[edit]

In the modern language, splitting unremarkably involves a single adverb coming betwixt the verb and its marker. Very frequently, this is an emphatic adverb, for case:

I need yous all
to really pull
your weight.

I’k
gonna (=going to) totally pulverise
him.

Sometimes it is a negation, as in the self-referential joke:

Writers should acquire
to not split
infinitives.

Even so, in modern vernacular English language, nearly any adverb may be found in this syntactic position, especially when the adverb and the verb form a close syntactic unit of measurement (actually-pull, not-split).

Compound split infinitives, i.e., infinitives split by more than one word, normally involve a pair of adverbs or a multi-discussion adverbial:

We are determined
to completely and utterly eradicate
the disease.

He is idea
to almost never have
made such a gesture before.

This is a great opportunity
to in one case once again communicate
our bones message.

Examples of not-adverbial elements participating in the divide-infinitive construction seem rarer in Mod English than in Heart English. The pronoun
all
unremarkably appears in this position:

Information technology was their nature
to all hurt
one another.^[15]

and may even be combined with an adverb:

I need y’all
to all really pull
your weight.

Withal an object pronoun, as in the Layamon example above, would be unusual in modern English language, perhaps because this might cause a listener to misunderstand the
to
every bit a preposition:

*And he chosen to him all his wise knights
to him propose
.

While, structurally, acceptable equally poetic conception, this would issue in a garden path judgement  particularly evident if the indirect object is omitted:

Sentence	Initial likely partial parse	Final parse
*And he chosen all his wise knights to him advise .	And he called all his knights to come to him…	And he called all his knights, so that they might propose him

Other parts of speech would exist very unusual in this position. However, in verse, poetic inversion for the sake of meter or of bringing a rhyme word to the terminate of a line often results in abnormal syntax, equally with Shakespeare’due south split infinitive (to pitied be, cited higher up), in fact an inverted passive construction in which the infinitive is carve up past a past participle. Presumably, this would not have occurred in a prose text by the same author.

Finally, there is a construction with a word or words between
to
and an infinitive that nevertheless is not considered a split infinitive, namely, infinitives joined past a conjunction. This is not objected to fifty-fifty when an adverb precedes the second infinitive. Examples include “We pray you
to
proceed/ And
justly and religiously unfold…” (Shakespeare,
Henry 5, Act II, scene ix) and “…she is determined
to
be independent, and
not alive
with aunt Pullet” (George Eliot,
The Factory on the Floss, book Half dozen, chapter I).^[16]

History of the term

[edit]

It was not until the very end of the 19th century that terminology emerged to draw the construction. The earliest apply of the term
split infinitive
on record dates from 1890.^[17]
[18]
The now rare
crevice infinitive
is well-nigh as old, attested from 1893;^[nineteen]
in the 1890s it was briefly the more common term just about disappeared afterward 1905. “Splitting the infinitive” is slightly older, going back to 1887.^[17]
Co-ordinate to the principal etymological dictionaries,
infinitive-splitting
and
infinitive-splitter
followed in 1926 and 1927, respectively. The term
compound carve up infinitive, referring to a carve up infinitive with more than than 1 give-and-take between the particle and the infinitive, is not found in these dictionaries and appears to exist very recent.

This terminology implies analysing the total infinitive as a 2-word infinitive, which not all grammarians have. Equally one who used “infinitive” to mean the single-word verb, Otto Jespersen challenged the epithet: “‘To’ is no more an essential part of an infinitive than the definite commodity is an essential part of a nominative, and no one would think of calling ‘the proficient man’ a split nominative.”^[xx]
However, no alternative terminology has been proposed.

History of the controversy

[edit]

No other grammatical event has so divided English language speakers since the carve up infinitive was declared to be a solecism in the 19c [19th century]: raise the subject of English usage in whatever conversation today and it is sure to exist mentioned.

Although information technology is sometimes reported that a prohibition on split infinitives goes back to Renaissance times, and frequently the 18th century scholar Robert Lowth is cited as the originator of the prescriptive rule,^[22]
such a rule is not to be found in Lowth’due south writing, and is not known to appear in any text earlier the 19th century.^{[23]
[24]
[25]}

Perchance the earliest comment against split infinitives was by the American John Comly in 1803.^[17]

An adverb should non exist placed between the verb of the infinitive mood and the preposition
to, which governs it; as
Patiently
to wait—non To
patiently
look.

Another early prohibition came from an anonymous American in 1834:^{[23]
[25]
[26]}

The do of separating the prefix of the infinitive fashion from the verb, by the intervention of an adverb, is not unfrequent amidst uneducated persons … I am not conscious, that any dominion has been heretofore given in relation to this point … The practice, however, of not separating the particle from its verb, is so general and uniform amongst expert authors, and the exceptions are then rare, that the rule which I am about to propose will, I believe, prove to be as authentic equally most rules, and may exist found beneficial to inexperienced writers. It is this :—The particle,
TO, which comes earlier the verb in the infinitive mode, must not be separated from it by the intervention of an adverb or any other give-and-take or phrase; but the adverb should immediately precede the particle, or immediately follow the verb.
^[27]

In 1840, Richard Taylor besides condemned split infinitives as a “disagreeable affectation,”^[28]
and in 1859, Solomon Barrett, Jr., called them “a common error.”^[29]
Nevertheless, the consequence seems not to have attracted wider public attention until Henry Alford addressed it in his
Plea for the Queen’s English
in 1864:

A correspondent states as his own usage, and defends, the insertion of an adverb between the sign of the infinitive mood and the verb. He gives as an instance, “to scientifically illustrate.” But surely this is a practice entirely unknown to English language speakers and writers. It seems to me, that we always regard the
to
of the infinitive as inseparable from its verb. And, when nosotros have already a choice between two forms of expression, “scientifically to illustrate” and “to illustrate scientifically,” there seems no good reason for flying in the face of mutual usage.^[30]
[31]

Others followed, amid them Bache, 1869 (“The
to
of the infinitive mood is inseparable from the verb”);^[32]
William B. Hodgson, 1889; and Raub, 1897 (“The sign
to
must non exist separated from the remaining office of the infinitive by an intervening word”).^[33]

Even as these authorities were condemning the split infinitive, others were endorsing it: Brown, 1851 (saying some grammarians had criticized it and it was less elegant than other adverb placements but sometimes clearer);^[34]
Hall, 1882; Onions, 1904; Jespersen, 1905; and Fowler and Fowler, 1906. Despite the defence force by some grammarians, by the beginning of the 20th century the prohibition was firmly established in the printing. In the 1907 edition of
The Male monarch’s English, the Fowler brothers wrote:

The ‘split’ infinitive has taken such agree upon the consciences of journalists that, instead of alarm the novice against splitting his infinitives, we must warn him confronting the curious superstition that the splitting or not splitting makes the difference between a good and a bad writer.

In large parts of the school organization, the construction was opposed with ruthless vigour. A correspondent to the BBC on a programme nigh English grammar in 1983 remarked:

Ane reason why the older generation feel so strongly nearly English grammar is that we were severely punished if we didn’t obey the rules! One split infinitive, 1 whack; two dissever infinitives, two whacks; and then on.^[35]

As a result, the debate took on a caste of passion that the bare facts of the matter never warranted. There was frequent skirmishing betwixt the splitters and anti-splitters until the 1960s. George Bernard Shaw wrote letters to newspapers supporting writers who used the split infinitive and Raymond Chandler complained to the editor of
The Atlantic
about a proofreader who interfered with Chandler’s carve up infinitives:

By the way, would you convey my compliments to the purist who reads your proofs and tell him or her that I write in a sort of broken-down patois which is something like the way a Swiss-waiter talks, and that when I separate an infinitive, God damn it, I split it so information technology will remain split, and when I interrupt the velvety smoothness of my more or less literate syntax with a few sudden words of barroom colloquial, this is done with the eyes wide open up and the mind relaxed and attentive. The method may not be perfect, but it is all I have.^[36]

Mail service-1960 regime show a strong tendency to accept the split up infinitive. Follett, in
Modern American Usage
(1966) writes: “The split infinitive has its place in good composition. It should be used when it is expressive and well led upwards to.”^[37]
Fowler (Gowers’ revised 2nd edition, 1965) offers the following case of the consequences of refusal to split infinitives: “The greatest difficulty about assessing the economic achievements of the Soviet Wedlock is that its spokesmen try
absurdly to exaggerate
them; in consequence the visitor may tend
badly to underrate
them” (italics added). This question results: “Has dread of the split infinitive led the writer to attach the adverbs [‘absurdly’ and ‘badly’] to the wrong verbs, and would he not accept washed better
to boldly split
both infinitives, since he cannot put the adverbs after them without spoiling his rhythm” (italics added)?^[38]
Bernstein (1985) argues that, although infinitives should not ever be split, they should be split where doing so improves the judgement: “The natural position for a modifier is before the word it modifies. Thus the natural position for an adverb modifying an infinitive should be just …
after
the to” (italics added). Bernstein continues: “Curme’s contention that the split infinitive is often an comeback … cannot be disputed.”^[39]
Heffernan and Lincoln, in their modern English limerick textbook, agree with the above authors. Some sentences, they write, “are weakened by … cumbersome splitting,” just in other sentences “an infinitive may exist split by a 1-discussion modifier that would be awkward in any other position.”^[40]

Principal objections to the separate infinitive

[edit]

Objections to the split infinitive autumn into iii categories, of which but the starting time is accorded whatever acceptance by linguists.

The descriptivist objection

[edit]

One of the earliest arguments against the split infinitive, expressed by an anonymous contributor to the
New-England Mag
in 1834, was based on the impression that it was not an observable feature of English language as used by “good authors.”^[27]
Henry Alford, in his
Plea for the Queen’s English
in 1864 went further, stating that use of the “split infinitive” was “a practice entirely unknown to English language speakers and writers.”^[thirty]
In principle there is a consensus that linguistic communication teachers should suggest on usage on the basis of what is observed to be current practice in the language. If the early critics of the structure did not discover it to be usual in (the prestige variety of) English every bit they knew it, their advice was legitimate. Still information technology would exist difficult to argue that way today, as the split infinitive has get very mutual.

The statement from the full infinitive

[edit]

A 2d argument is summed up by Alford’south statement “It seems to me that we always regard the
to
of the infinitive as inseparable from its verb.”

The
to
in the infinitive construction, which is found throughout the Germanic languages, is originally a preposition before the dative of a verbal substantive, but in the modern languages information technology is widely regarded every bit a particle that serves equally a marker of the infinitive. In High german and Dutch, this marking (zu
and
te
respectively) sometimes precedes the infinitive, but is not regarded as part of it. In English, on the other hand, it is traditional to speak of the “bare infinitive” without
to
and the “full infinitive” with it, and to excogitate of
to
every bit function of the total infinitive. (In the sentence “I had my daughter clean her room,”
clean
is a blank infinitive; in “I told my daughter to clean her room,”
to make clean
is a full infinitive.) Perchance this is considering the absence of an
inflected
infinitive grade made it useful to include the particle in the citation course of the verb, and in some nominal constructions in which other Germanic languages would omit information technology (e.g.,
to know her is to love her). The concept of a 2-word infinitive tin reinforce an intuitive sense that the two words belong together. For instance, the rhetorician John Duncan Quackenbos said, “To have
is as much one thing, and every bit inseparable by modifiers, as the original form
habban, or the Latin
habere.”^[41]
The usage author John Opdycke based a similar argument on the closest French, German, and Latin translations.^[42]

Notwithstanding, the two-office infinitive is disputed, and some linguists debate that the infinitive in English is a single-word verb form, which may or may not exist preceded past the particle
to. Some modernistic generative analysts classify
to
as a “peculiar” auxiliary verb;^[43]
other analysts, as the infinitival subordinator.^[44]

Besides, even if the concept of the full infinitive is accustomed, it does not necessarily follow that any two words that vest together grammatically demand be adjacent to each other. They usually are, just counter-examples are hands establish, such as an adverb splitting a two-word finite verb (“will not do”, “has not done”).

The argument from classical languages

[edit]

A frequent argument of those who tolerate split infinitives is that the split-infinitive prohibition is based solely on a misguided comparison with Latin.^[45]
However, the argument from the classical languages may exist a harbinger homo argument, as the almost of import critics of the split infinitive never used it. Although many writers who back up the divide infinitive advise that this argument motivated the early opponents of the construction, there is little primary source evidence for this; indeed, Richard Bailey has noted that, despite the lack of evidence, this theory has simply become “function of the folklore of linguistics”.

An infinitive in Latin or Greek is never used with a marking equivalent to English
to, and a Latin infinitive cannot be split. The argument would be that the construction should exist avoided because information technology is not found in the classics. The merits that those who dislike split infinitives are applying rules of Latin grammar to English is asserted by many authorities who accept the split infinitive. One instance is in the
American Heritage Book of English Usage: “The only rationale for condemning the construction is based on a false analogy with Latin.”^[10]
The assertion is also made in the
Oxford Guide to Evidently English,^[46]
Compact Oxford English Dictionary,^[47]
and Steven Pinker’s
The Language Instinct,^[48]
among others.^{[49]
[50]
[51]}

The statement implies an adherence to the humanist idea of the greater purity of the classics,^[52]
which, particularly in Renaissance times, led people to regard as junior aspects of English that differed from Latin. Today no linguist would accept an statement that judges the usage of ane language past the grammar of another. Besides, if Latin has no equivalent of the marker
to, it provides no model for the question of where to put it, and therefore supports neither splitting nor not-splitting. As Richard Lederer puts it: “there is no precedent in these languages for condemning the split infinitive because in Greek and Latin (and all the other romance languages) the infinitive is a single give-and-take that is impossible to sever.”^[53]

Current views

[edit]

Present style and usage manuals deem simple split infinitives unobjectionable.^[55]
For instance, Curme’s
Grammar of the English language
(1931) says that not only is the split infinitive right, but it “should be furthered rather than censured, for it makes for clearer expression.”
The Columbia Guide to Standard American English language
notes that the split infinitive “eliminates all possibility of ambiguity,” in contrast to the “potential for confusion” in an unsplit construction.^[56]
Merriam–Webster’s Dictionary of English language Usage
says: “the objection to the split infinitive has never had a rational ground.”^[12]
Co-ordinate to Mignon Fogarty, “today almost everyone agrees that it is OK to separate infinitives.”^[57]

Nevertheless, many teachers of English language withal 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 non necessary], especially when you’re uncertain of your readers’ expectations and sensitivities in this matter.”^[56]
Likewise, the Oxford dictionaries practise non regard the split infinitive as ungrammatical, just on remainder consider it likely to produce a weak style and advise against its utilize for formal correspondence.^[58]
R. W. Burchfield’s revision of Fowler’due south
Modernistic English Usage
goes farther (quoting Burchfield’s own 1981 volume
The Spoken Word): “Avoid splitting infinitives whenever possible, merely practise not endure undue remorse if a split infinitive is unavoidable for the completion of a sentence already begun.”^[59]
Even so more strongly, older editions of
The Economist
Style Guide said, “Happy the human being who has never been told that it is wrong to split an infinitive: the ban is pointless. Unfortunately, to see information technology broken is and then annoying to so many people that y’all should observe information technology” (just added “To never split an infinitive is quite easy.”).^[60]
This recommendation, however, is weakened in the 12th edition.^[61]
After stating that the ban is pointless,
The Economist Style Guide
now says “To encounter a split infinitive nevertheless annoys some readers, so attempt to avert placing a modifier betwixt “to” and the verb in an infinitive. But if moving the modifier would ruin the rhythm, alter the meaning or even simply put the emphasis in the incorrect place, splitting the infinitive is the best pick.”^[62]

Likewise as varying according to register, tolerance of carve up infinitives varies co-ordinate to blazon. While most regime accept split infinitives in full general, information technology is not hard to construct an instance that any native speaker would reject. Wycliff’southward Eye English language compound split up would, if transferred to modern English, be regarded past most people equally united nations-English language:

It was most unkind
to in this manner treat
their brother.

Attempts to define the boundaries of normality are controversial. In 1996, the usage console 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 console rejected

We are seeking a plan
to gradually, systematically, and economically relieve
the burden.

Here the problem appears to be the breaking upwardly of the verbal phrase
to exist seeking a plan to relieve: a segment of the head verbal phrase is so far removed from the rest that the listener or reader must expend greater try to empathize the sentence. By contrast, 87 percent of the panel deemed adequate the multi-word adverbial in

We expect our output
to more than double
in a year

not surprisingly perhaps, because here at that place is no other identify to put the words
more
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 non run into
y’all any more.

Here traditional idiom, placing the negation before the marker (I shortly learned non to provoke her) or with verbs of desire, negating the finite verb (I don’t want to run across you anymore) remains easy and natural, and is however overwhelmingly the more common construction. Some argue that the ii forms accept dissimilar meanings, while others encounter a grammatical divergence,^[thirteen]
only most speakers do non make such a distinction. In an example drawn from 3121 sampled usages by the British National Corpus, the utilize of
to not be
(versus
not to exist) is simply 0.35%.^{[
citation needed
]}

Avoiding divide infinitives

[edit]

Writers who avert splitting infinitives either place the splitting chemical element elsewhere in the sentence or reformulate the sentence, perhaps rephrasing it without an infinitive and thus avoiding the upshot. However, a sentence such as “to more than double” must exist completely rewritten to avoid the split infinitive; it is ungrammatical to put the words “more than than” anywhere else in the sentence.^[63]
While split infinitives tin be avoided, a writer must exist conscientious not to produce an awkward or ambiguous sentence. Fowler (1926) stressed that, if a sentence is to be rewritten to remove a dissever infinitive, this must be done without compromising the language:

It is of no avail merely to fling oneself badly out of temptation; one must so do it that no traces of the struggle remain; that is, sentences must be thoroughly remodeled instead of having a give-and-take lifted from its original place & dumped elsewhere …^[64]

In some cases, moving the adverbial creates an ungrammatical sentence or changes the meaning. R. Fifty. Trask uses this case:^[65]

• She decided to
  gradually
  get rid of the teddy bears she had collected.

“Gradually” splits the infinitive “to become.” Nonetheless, if the adverb were moved, where could information technology go?

• She decided
  gradually
  to go rid of the teddy bears she had collected.

This might imply that the decision was gradual.

• She decided to become rid of the teddy bears she had collected
  gradually.
  

This implies that the collecting process was gradual.

• She decided to become
  gradually
  rid of the teddy bears she had collected.

This sounds awkward, equally it splits the phrase “get rid of.”

• She decided to get rid
  gradually
  of the teddy bears she had collected.

Trask considers this nigh as unwieldy as its firsthand predecessor.

• 
  Gradually,
  she decided to get rid of the teddy bears she had collected.

This might imply that her decision or the fact that she will get rid of her teddy bears is gradual.

The sentence can exist rewritten to maintain its meaning, yet, by using a noun or a different grammatical aspect of the verb, or by avoiding the breezy “get rid”:

• She decided to get rid of her teddy comport collection gradually.
  ^[66]
• She decided she would gradually get rid of the teddy bears she had collected.
• She decided to rid herself gradually of the teddy bears she had nerveless.

Fowler notes that the option of rewriting is always available just questions whether it is always worth the problem.^[64]

Run across also

[edit]

• Mutual English language usage misconceptions

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]

• Fowler, H. W. (1926).
  Modern English Usage. Clarendon Press.
  
• Hall, Fitzedward (1882). “On the Separation, by a Give-and-take or Words, of to and the Infinitive Mood”.
  American Journal of Philology. The Johns Hopkins Academy Press.
  3
  (nine): 17–24. doi:10.2307/287307. JSTOR 287307.
  
• Nagle, Stephen (1994). “Infl in Early Modern English and the status of
  to“. In Dieter Kastovsky (ed.).
  Studies in Early Modern English. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter. pp. 233–242. ISBNthree-11-014127-2
  . Retrieved
  2006-10-27
  .
  

Further reading

[edit]

• AUE: The alt.usage.english Home Page FAQ entry on split infinitives.
• Fogarty, Mignon (twenty Baronial 2010). “Split Infinitives”.
  Quick and Dirty Tips. Macmillan. Retrieved
  5 April
  2011.
  
• Huddleston, Rodney D. and Pullum, Geoffrey K. (2002).
  The Cambridge Grammar of the English language Language, Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-43146-eight. (Run across especially pp. 581–582.)
• The Columbia Guide to Standard American English language

External links

[edit]