Splitting infinitives and changing rules

Ivy Wigmore — Fri, 05 Oct 2012 10:55:09 +0000

Which is preferable?
1. To reduce its vulnerability, the government planned to gradually reduce its number of Internet connections.
2. To reduce its vulnerability, the government planned to reduce its number of Internet connections gradually.

Answer: 1.

Explanation:
“To reduce” is what is known as an infinitive. The old rule is that you don’t split infinitives, but even when that was the rule, there were exceptions. Quite often, refusing to split an infinitive results in an awkward sentence. Even worse, keeping your infinitives glued together can also make your meaning unclear.

In this case, if we place “gradually” at the end of the sentence, it makes it seem as if reducing the number of connections gradually is what reduces vulnerability. But the gradual nature of the reduction has nothing to do with the purpose — it’s just the manner in which the action is being performed. Sentence #1 is more apt to be understood properly: The government is reducing Internet connections to reduce vulnerability but will do so in a gradual manner.

Here’s Oxford Dictionaries on the (non-)issue of split infinitives:

What are split infinitives?

Split infinitives happen when you put an adverb between to and a verb, for example:

She used to secretly admire him.

You have to really watch him.

What’s wrong with split infinitives?

Some people believe that split infinitives are grammatically incorrect and should be avoided at all costs. They would rewrite these sentences as:

She used secretly to admire him.

You really have to watch him.

But there’s no real justification for their objection, which is based on comparisons with the structure of Latin. People have been splitting infinitives for centuries, especially in spoken English, and avoiding a split infinitive can sound clumsy. It can also change the emphasis of what’s being said. The sentence:

You really have to watch him. [i.e. ‘It’s important that you watch him’]

doesn’t have quite the same meaning as:

You have to really watch him. [i.e. ‘You have to watch him very closely’]

You see? Sometimes infinitives should stick together; sometimes it’s better to split them up. Make the sensible choice and don’t let outdated rules trip you up. If your English teacher taught you otherwise … well, your English teacher was wrong.

Follow me on Twitter @tao_of_grammar

Don’t use no double negatives incorrectly; don’t never use no triple negatives incorrectly

Ivy Wigmore — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 13:12:00 +0000

Which is correct?
Can you show me some of the case studies on results-only work environments (ROWE)? You haven’t sold me yet but I’m ___________.
a. interested
b. not uninterested

Answer: Either.

Explanation:
You know what they say: Don’t use no double negatives — and don’t never use no triple negatives!

OK — those examples are decidedly out of place in any kind of formal writing, and most speech. However, there is a place for double negatives. In this case, “not uninterested” expresses a little more equivocation than “interested.” The boss who’s interested is well on the way to being sold; the one who’s not uninterested is going to take some more convincing.

Jim Loy examines some uses for double, triple and quadruple negatives.

Follow me on Twitter @tao_of_grammar

Writing for Business - A Whatis.com Blog » grammar rules you can break

Splitting infinitives and changing rules

Don’t use no double negatives incorrectly; don’t never use no triple negatives incorrectly