This is less so in American Englsih and obviously, both vastly less so than bleedin’ French:
It’s fine to end a sentence with a preposition, according to a shock ruling from the American dictionary publisher. But is it OK to recklessly split infinitives?
It is an observation that these things are now OK, not a decision that they are. Just because that’s how the English language works. We do it, they then write up the apparent rules of what we do.
There is no excuse when writing to split an infinitive.
People found doing so are to be executed, shouldn’t they ?
Unsplit this infinitive: “Idiotic claims about grammar are expected *to more than double* on Worstall’s blog today.”
It’s often said that the only subject where more nonsense is generated from less evidence than economics is nutrition, but English grammar is also a strong contender.
«More than twice as many idiotic claims are expected» would be one way of avoiding that rather ugly construction.
I think Fowler rather than a dictionary would be the place to go for guidance on grammar and as for French, try Fournier’s Grammaire Française et Impertinente which is great fun and has jolly illustrations.
Fowler is very commonsense. He explains that often there is no rule and that the key is to be consistent. To more than double is just one of those ugly constructions he tells us to avoid as TMB says.
Many years ago a programmer came to me and in the conversation mixed up “well” and “good”,
When I corrected him, he said “What’s the difference ? Just grammar ?”
I had to explain that it was syntax, not “just grammar”. One made sense the other did not.
It was amazing his programs ever compiled.
I hate “least worst”. The expression is “least bad”. I suppose the barbarism arrived from California.
Doesn’t the split infinitive business stem from fashionable people in the 18th century forcing everything to follow rules of Latin?
Also, “To go boldly” just doesn’t work.
Kirk could’ve just added a clause to the sentence and had “and boldly go”
What does Capt Kirk use in the shower ?
Wash and Boldly Go.
The construction “least worst” is entirely apropos in California. The jungle primary system often leaves you with the choice of a Marxist of Color or a Marxist of Gender. Such is the dumpster fire that is California politics.
BTW, did you see the Marxist of Gender and Color advocating a minimum wage of $50/hr in California. She said that the cost of living there is so high, you need that much just to get by.
– Just because that’s how the English language works. We do it, they then write up the apparent rules of what we do.
We talkin irregardless of da rulez is da nu rulez init muthafuckers
KMcC
“ Unsplit this infinitive: “Idiotic claims about grammar are expected *to more than double* on Worstall’s blog today.”
Well first of all the verb in the sentence is a phrasal verb ‘to expect to’. Therefore ‘double’ is an adverb and ‘more than double’ is an adverbial phrase, but would be better expressed, “… expected to double or more”.
Phrasal verbs – eg put up, shut up, sit up, get out, check out, put up with – catch a lot of people out who like to use them to defend ending a sentence with a preposition.
“ years ago a programmer came to me and in the conversation mixed up “well” and “good”,”
Well done sir, it’s well good that you corrected him.
Well done sir, it’s well good that you corrected him.
Well, Brian, the boy done good.
Many of wot masquerade as grammar rules in the US are actually stylistic preferences of classic/inter-war American prose fiction.
So much of this bullcrap has become embedded in American writing culture of all genres, it will never be fully eliminated.
One could look at Strunk and White’s steaming pile, for example, and try to work out which of their examples of passive construction are actually passive.
John B,
To which one might reply, the pendant may always say it is “something, up with which one will not put”.
“Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds; to seek out new life and new civilizations and – boldly! – to go where no man has gone before!”
I submit that has greater power and elegance. A trick missed, I fear, by Mr Rodenberry
Split infinitives only sound ugly if you have been conditioned.
The test of us don’t notice them.
The reverse in fact. When I’m reading g a well written publication and come across an ugly sentence, then go back to check why, it’s often that a natural sentence has been distorted to fit such a zombie rule.
And — boldly! — to go is, is absolutely sheet as English. It is not how people speak. Never has been.
BiND
It is well and good that you corrected him.
The word usage that drives me batty is using less instead of fewer.
As in “we need more ships, not less”, or “this line for 15 items or less”