Question raised by C. Gordon Hale regarding the splitting of infinitives (January 11, 2014):Mr. Hale posted this response to my January 4, 2014 column in
The Manila Times,
“Putting an end to the ‘at the end of the day’ plague”:
Thank you for condemning the excessive use of “at the end of the day” and similarly annoying clichés. But not only in the Philippines have both spoken and written English become badly corrupted by vulgar colloquialisms and abysmal grammar. The state of contemporary English usage in the U.S. is truly lamentable!
Please forgive me, but I couldn’t help but react to the split infinitives in your paragraphs 9 and 10—“to never again”—really?
My reply to C. Gordon Hale:I expressed my appreciation to Gordon for sharing my serious concern over the “at the end of the day” plague, and as to my use of split infinitives, I commented in passing: “I actually split them at will for stylistic purposes, but I’m also aware that splitting infinitives indiscriminately can be bad for prose.”
Let me now address more fully the matter of splitting infinitives.
To put things in context, I would like to emphasize that although most authorities in modern English grammar have dropped the objection to split infinitives, their usage continues to invite controversy. My personal position though is that unless splitting an infinitive results in bad syntax or semantics, taking recourse to it shouldn’t be cause for debate.
Consider the two instances where I appear to have split an infinitive in the paragraphs referred to by Gordon (italicizations below mine):
Second, public officials from the national level down to the local governments should undergo an English reorientation program designed to, among others, curb their predilection for using “at the end of the day” and other dreadful clichés in public speaking engagements and media interviews.
And third, TV and radio network owners should seriously consider penalizing talk-show hosts or news anchors with hefty fines for overusing “at the end of the day” and such clichés, and to never again invite talk-show guests who habitually spout them more than, say, twice in a row during a particular show.
In the first paragraph, Gordon appears to consider the phrase “to, among others, curb their predilection for using ‘at the end of the day’” as an infinitive phrase split by the adverbial “among others.” Grammatically, however, it’s not a split infinitive phrase at all, for its “to” is actually not an infinitive marker but a preposition of purpose that links the verb “designed” to its complement “curb their predilection.” Even assuming for the sake of argument that the form in question is an infinitive phrase, it still would be necessary to split it for clarity’s sake. For when unsplit, that phrase would read as follows: “an English reorientation program
designed, among others, to curb their predilection...” This gives the wrong idea that several English reorientation programs were designed for one purpose, not only one program designed for several purposes.
In the second paragraph, to make the statement more emphatic, I split the infinitive phrase “to invite talk-show guests” by inserting “never again,” resulting in the genuine split infinitive “
to never again invite talk-show guests who habitually spout them.” Now see how confusing that statement becomes when the infinitive phrase is unsplit and the adverbial “never again” is placed ahead of it: “…TV and radio network owners should seriously
consider never again to invite talk-show guests who habitually spout them.” Here, “never again” has become a squinting modifier, seemingly modifying both the verb “consider” and the infinitive “to invite.”
That statement gets even more troublesome in tone and syntax when, just to avoid splitting the infinitive, “never again” is positioned after it: “…TV and radio network owners should seriously
consider to invite talk-show guests never again who habitually spout them more than, say, twice in a row during a particular show.”
We thus can see that unless splitting the infinitive results in bad syntax or semantics, it really should be considered airtight usage.
---------
This essay first appeared in the weekly column “English Plain and Simple” by Jose A. Carillo in The Manila Times
, January 11, 2014 issue © 2014 by Manila Times Publishing. All rights reserved.RELATED READINGS:Splitting infinitives and the misuse of “whom”Should we use the term "First Honors" or "First Honor" in grade school?Question e-mailed by Paul Gubac, Forum member (January 21, 2014):What is the difference between “First Honors” and “First Honor”?
Is it right to use “First Honor” to refer to a Grade I pupil who has earned the highest distinction in class during Recognition Day? What is the appropriate or correct one to use, the one without “s” or the one with “s”?
My reply to Paul:In the primary school system in the Philippines, the predominant usage is the singular form “First Honor.” I’m sure no one will question the use of “First Honor” for a Grade I pupil who has earned that highest distinction in class; it’s the norm for as back as I can remember. As an adult, however, a recipient of that distinction might be unable to resist the temptation to pluralize it to “First Honors” in a résumé or curriculum vitae, but it will most likely be an affectation—a vain attempt to overvalue what that honor is really worth.
In contrast, the usage of the term “First Honors”—plural—is pretty well standard in the undergraduate educational system of Great Britain and such Commonwealth countries as Australia, Canada, Republic of Ireland, and New Zealand as well as former colonies of England in Africa that are now independent nations. It’s part of an academic recognition system where a degree may be awarded “with honours” or “without honours” (note the “u” after the second “o,” a unique feature of British English spelling). In that system, there’s a class of honours degrees (based on a weighted average mark of the assessed work that a candidate has completed) classified as follows:
First class honours (1st)
Second class honours, upper division (2:1)
Second class honours, lower division (2:2)
Third class honours (3rd)
Ordinary degree (pass)
So, unless we are talking about undergraduate achievement in the UK and the Commonwealth countries, it would be highly advisable to just use the singular “First Honor.” To pluralize it to “First Honors” particularly in the Philippines could very well be perceived as an attempt to exaggerate the distinction, thus only serving to debase rather than emphasize it.
Click to post a comment or read commentsView the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)
How can we help?Question by Nathan_Yell, Forum member (January 7, 2014):Dear Mr. Carillo,
I’ve been a member of the forum since 2011. And I am truly grateful for the wealth of knowledge you share on your site. I want to know if there’s anyway I can help the site so it would keep running?
Thank you.
My reply to Nathan_Yell:Thank you for asking if there’s any way you can do to help keep this Forum running. Still the best way is this: Whenever you come across a particularly objectionable English misuse (whether in the traditional and social media, in books, or in public forums), don’t hesitate to make a posting in the Forum about it. Quote the material and provide a link to its source. That way, the Forum can further widen its dragnet for instances of English misuse, put more of them up for scrutiny in the Forum’s discussion boards, and share the correct usage with Forum members and with everybody else seeking to write or speak English better.
Another way is to share your views or insights, whether pro or con, whenever a debatable point about the English language is raised in the discussion boards. This will ensure lively two-way or three-way, even four-way discussions in the Forum—the more discussants, the better. In truth, I don’t wish to be the only one answering questions raised in the Forum or responding to challenges to the validity of a particular English usage. I’d like to emphasize that I don’t have a monopoly of wisdom in the English language; indeed, I’ll be forever a student of English, always striving—like most everybody else—to write it better and speak it more fluently even as I share whatever learnings about English I’ve acquired in the course of my work as a writer, editor, and communicator.
And one more thing, Nathan_Yell: As you must have noticed, the Forum isn’t confining its discussion boards to the written word alone. Let me therefore take this opportunity to invite Forum members to also contribute particularly instructive or telling photos, audio-visuals, artworks, and cartoons on English use and misuse from published sources. Links to published visuals, with proper attribution to the author and source publication, can be directly posted in the discussion boards.
Again, Nathan_Yell, thank you for your offer to help. With greater participation by members like you, the Forum definitely can keep its wealth of knowledge growing and become even more useful to learners and researchers of English grammar and usage.
Click to post a comment or read commentsView the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)
