Splitting infinitives
If you need a short introduction to the split infinitive, see below.
Suppose you are writing a brief about the Americans with Disabilities Act and its requirement for employers to provide a "reasonable accommodation." In the brief, you find yourself wanting to use the phrase "to reasonably accommodate." It's useful in several places. Should you use it?
Let's put aside any argument that "to reasonably accommodate" means something slightly different from "to provide a reasonable accommodation." In the context of a brief on this subject, I think our readers will rightly assume that when you write "to reasonably accommodate," you are invoking the statutory language and requirement.
Rather, the question is whether you should split the infinitive phrase "to accommodate" with the adverb "reasonably." Some percentage of your readers will be oblivious to the split, and some will be well-informed enough to know that splitting is okay. What you are worried about are those who think all splitting of infinitives is wrong. You'd prefer not to distract or annoy even those readers. Yet you can't bring yourself to write "reasonably to accommodate" or "to accommodate reasonably" because those phrases sound stilted to you.
What to do?
I would split it anyway. Too bad for my uninformed readers. But I'm not a practicing lawyer with a client's rights on the line. What would a serious practicing lawyer do?
The split infinitive--an introduction
There’s never been a “rule” against splitting an infinitive (to + verb root, as in “to write”). So it’s okay to insert an adverb between “to” and the verb, as in “to truly understand.” This supposed rule started as a misguided effort by early English grammarians to make English like Latin, in which the infinitive is a single word, like scribere (to write). If you can’t split infinitives in Latin, they ruled, then you can’t in English.
But the “rule” is really a suggestion, and experts have said so for years:
Wayne Schiess
Website | Seminars | Articles | Books: Preparing Legal Documents Nonlawyers Can Read and Understand | Better Legal Writing | Writing for the Legal Audience | The Legal Memo: A Basic Guide
Suppose you are writing a brief about the Americans with Disabilities Act and its requirement for employers to provide a "reasonable accommodation." In the brief, you find yourself wanting to use the phrase "to reasonably accommodate." It's useful in several places. Should you use it?
Let's put aside any argument that "to reasonably accommodate" means something slightly different from "to provide a reasonable accommodation." In the context of a brief on this subject, I think our readers will rightly assume that when you write "to reasonably accommodate," you are invoking the statutory language and requirement.
Rather, the question is whether you should split the infinitive phrase "to accommodate" with the adverb "reasonably." Some percentage of your readers will be oblivious to the split, and some will be well-informed enough to know that splitting is okay. What you are worried about are those who think all splitting of infinitives is wrong. You'd prefer not to distract or annoy even those readers. Yet you can't bring yourself to write "reasonably to accommodate" or "to accommodate reasonably" because those phrases sound stilted to you.
What to do?
I would split it anyway. Too bad for my uninformed readers. But I'm not a practicing lawyer with a client's rights on the line. What would a serious practicing lawyer do?
The split infinitive--an introduction
There’s never been a “rule” against splitting an infinitive (to + verb root, as in “to write”). So it’s okay to insert an adverb between “to” and the verb, as in “to truly understand.” This supposed rule started as a misguided effort by early English grammarians to make English like Latin, in which the infinitive is a single word, like scribere (to write). If you can’t split infinitives in Latin, they ruled, then you can’t in English.
But the “rule” is really a suggestion, and experts have said so for years:
- “[T]here are times when splitting the infinitive is preferable to not splitting it.” Karen Larsen, The Miss Grammar Guidebook
2 (Oregon State Bar 1994).
- “It is permissible to split an infinitive . . . .” Joan Ames Magat, The Lawyer's Editing Manual
14 (Carolina Academic Press 2008).
- “There is no ‘rule’ in English about split infinitives-just the common-sense suggestion that adverbs should be placed where they sound best.” Terri LeClercq, Expert Legal Writing
181 (U. Tex. Press 1995).
Wayne Schiess
Website | Seminars | Articles | Books: Preparing Legal Documents Nonlawyers Can Read and Understand | Better Legal Writing | Writing for the Legal Audience | The Legal Memo: A Basic Guide
I agree. I would split the infinitive.
Reply to this
Good post, Wayne. It's hard enough to write clearly in the legal profession without also having to worry about these so-called rules and the people who enforce them. I would also split the infinitive unless I knew that the person who would read it (the judge, for example) was a pedant who would penalize me or my client for it.
(By the way, to be pedantic myself, scribo is first person singular present active. The infinitive form is scribere.)
Wayne says:
Thank you
Reply to this
I thought Captain Kirk/Picard ended this debate by proclaiming that Star Trek would allow us "to boldly go" where no one else had gone or something to that effect. But I'm 3/4 through a margarita.
Reply to this
Agreed, there's no "rule" against splitting infinitives. That said, it is rarely a good idea to split them and there's usually a better way to put things than the occasionally awkward un-split infinitive. To take the specific example, I would suggest dropping the "reasonably" entirely. In the context of an ADA case, "accommodate" can't mean anything but "reasonably accomodate," and is shorter and crisper.
As for Star Trek, the real issue isn't the split infinitive, but the bollixed-up parallel structure: to find new worlds; to seek out new civilizations, {all w/out adverbs] to GO where..., without the parallel-destroying "boldly."
Wayne says:
Good points, CJ. My only response is to ask for authority for your assertion that "it is rarely a good idea to split them."
Reply to this
I don't have any authority for it, but as a native English speaker, when I hear a "to" what is likely to be some kind of verb phrase, I usually expect (and I think others expect) the "to" to be followed by a verb: to dream the impossible dream, to have and to hold. The interruption of a modifier, "splitting" the infinitive, may be justifiable, but it is momentarily jarring: to be or ... to NOT be. Better, if possible, to avoid upsetting expectations; but if there's no better way, do it.
Wayne says:
Hard to argue with that. Meeting readers' expectations is important. I don't share that expectation, so that probably colors my attitude about splitting infinitives.
Reply to this
The Little, Brown Handbook (Fowler Aaron, ninth addition) suggests: “An infinitive consists of the maker to plus the plain form of a verb: to produce, to enjoy. The two parts of the infinitive are widely regarded as a grammatical unit that should not be split.”
Is that sufficient authority? It is my opinion that you should only use a split infinitive when the alternative is significantly less efficient. Whether this is a justified rule or not, I wouldn’t rely on my audience to know that this rule is not really a rule.
Reply to this
There's always a way around this. Suppose an attorney writes the following:
"Establishments serving the public are required to reasonably accomodate people with disabilities."
Pass it off to an editor, and it comes back like so:
"Establishments serving the public are required to make reasonable accomodations for people with disabilities."
Reply to this