Is it bad to split infinitives in English ?
Is it really bad to split infinitives in English ?
I just want to start a debate about English. 
Example to go boldly or to boldly go
16 Answers
It's well recognised that English grammar is descriptive rather than prescriptive. There is no English equivalent of the RAE or L'Académie française to lay down any laws. English is changing all the time, according to popular usage. If enough writers want to split, then split will be the norm.
Izanoni said:
So who are the real thieves in this scenario - the people reared in a centuries long tradition of using the split infinitive form, or the people who "stole" this right from them by banning its use?
I wonder then....are you implying that your "poetic license" is a license to steal?
I would argue that this little "history story" of "disenfranchised word usage" simply drives home my point. Namely this: The people reared in the tradition of the split infinitives form were simply using the flexibility of the English language well. When a well-intentioned group of people attempted to label split infinitives "bad", it only served to limit our enjoyment and confuse our rules with English grammar. I do not look at this as our language "evolving" at all, but as an attempt by a group of people to dictate opinion into grammar usage. Therefore, no one can steal anything, as long as the foundation of English grammar is preserved.
What is cool about Spanish is you CANT split them!
We cannot use the excuse that if enough people improperly apply grammar rules, that this justifies their error. That's like saying, "Well, if enough people think it is right to steal then it should be acceptable by law."
This is an interesting analysis in that the use of split infinitives presupposes the proscription against split infinitives by at least a couple of centuries. Not only that, but the contention that split infinitives is somehow an incorrect usage has had its share of opposition since it was initially suggested (similar to the superlative of three argument).
So who are the real thieves in this scenario - the people reared in a centuries long tradition of using the split infinitive form, or the people who "stole" this right from them by banning its use?
I wonder then....are you implying that your "poetic license" is a license to steal?
Picasso broke all the rules and created a new art form or at least a new form of art,
Writers should learn to not split infinitives.
Splitting infinitives is one way to truly prove a lack of understanding of the English language.
Anyone who would try to erroneously contend otherwise is either a fool or a liar.
To really see for yourself, you might try to quickly check with any grammar resource that you have handy.
It most definitly is not "bad" to split infinitives in English. "Split infinitives" are what make the body of language so "flexible". (Pardon me! I could not resist the word pun) Just as a gymnast would not be considered flexible without splits so much the same the English language would not be "flexible" without "split infinitives". I think it stimulates an ordinary sentence when adding a split infinitive.
An example:
I want to ride masterfully the green horse.
I want to masterfully ride the green horse.
The second sentence obviously lends to a better emphasis on the word "masterfully". This causes the intention of the writer to be better understood before details are given. I don't know about you, but I always like to convey my intentions with my word usage as best as possible, while at the same time, not making "bad" word choices. In this case, we can all see that "split infinitives" are not a bad choice, but a fun choice.
I am going to very quickly post this because it is interesting.
It's one of the rules I think makes sense and try to follow.
"I do not want to go" is preferable to: I want to not go.
Oh, sorry--I never mess with trekkies and their rules! 
You hit on right the head, prespectively it is wrong to spilit infinitves, but people do it all the time. English lacks an offical body to approve and standarized changes.
Err..in the example given, I would say "to go boldly," just based on the fact that it has more umph to my ear. Also, to go boldly sounds a little odd. I'm sorry that I cannot be of more help.
Peterpierre, This argument that English is always changing according to the norm just does not hold water. We cannot use the excuse that if enough people improperly apply grammar rules, that this justifies their error. That's like saying, "Well, if enough people think it is right to steal then it should be acceptable by law." I am simply making the point that, yes, our grammar rules need to stay consistent, while we take our poetic license in its chosen moments.
Well written, Renaerules, and I agree with you, there are exceptions to the rule. If a person knows the rule and knowingly "breaks" it for better meaning, that is good. I shouldn't have been so rigid.
....she was able to completely and exquisitely conquer her competition in the final solo
has a lilt that the alternative
.....she was able to conquer, completely and exquisitely, her competition in the final solo
does not.
THanks for reminding me to loosen up!
Ah yes - that old "chestnut". Everyone knows to not split infinitives ..... just as no one ever ends a sentence with a preposition...... "I" before "E" except after "C".....
Can anyone else think of any more "nuggets " of wisdom? 
Your arguments are "logical", Izanoni, but you can fight logic with "license". English allows the writer a certain license to play with sentence structure in order to achieve a desired emphasis or poetic value.
