Split Infinitives: To Split or Not To Split
The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation
Split Infinitives: To Split or Not To Split
Not everyone knows what an infinitive is, but everyone uses them.
What Is a Split Infinitive?
Infinitives are formed when a verb is preceded by the word to, as in to run or to ask. Hamlet’s “To be or not to be” speech might be the most famous use of infinitives in English literature.
One of the great misconceptions about English is that it is wrong to “split” an infinitive—that is, to put a word or words between to and the verb. According to this superstition, to quickly respond or to flatly refuse is incorrect; we should say instead, to respond quickly or to refuse flatly. This supposedly preserves the “integrity” of the infinitive.
The myth sprang up in the 18th century, when grammarians decreed that English should be modeled on Latin. In Latin, infinitives are one word, so they can’t be split. The trouble is that English is a Germanic, not a Romance, language. Imposing Latin rules on English is like demanding that cats act like dogs.
There is no point in splitting an infinitive just for the fun of it. Experienced writers do not split capriciously. But sometimes they prefer to—and sometimes they have to. A classic example of the latter case: I expect my salary to more than double. There’s no other place for more than except right between to and double.
Would Hamlet’s speech be so admired if it opened with “To be or to not be”? Splitting infinitives with not is usually a terrible idea. I decided not to go is a vast improvement on the clunky I decided to not go.
But now consider His mistake was to not go. It’s ugly, but it says what it means. Placing not before to go would invite ambiguity: His mistake was not instead of His mistake was. In this and many other cases involving split infinitives, a rewrite would be a good plan: He made a mistake by not going.
Finally, notice how often infinitives are split by dispensable adverbs, as in this sentence: I intend to strongly protest. The verbs intend and protest are dynamic enough to make strongly extraneous—I intend to protest would be an improvement. Any time an adverb can be removed, it should be.
Pop Quiz
Which sentences would be improved by “unsplitting” the infinitive? Which ones are fine the way they are? See our views below.
1. I was hoping she’d choose to not attend.
2. He wanted to strongly advise against it.
3. Alice needed to quickly leave.
4 .She’s not expected to immediately fix the problem.
5. We decided to gradually get rid of the clutter.
Pop Quiz Answers
1. I was hoping she’d choose not to attend.
2. He wanted to strongly advise against it. (We’d keep it as is; to strongly advise sounds more forceful to us than to advise strongly.)
3. Alice needed to leave. (The urgency of “needed” makes “quickly” unnecessary.)
4. She’s not expected to fix the problem immediately.
5. We decided to gradually get rid of the clutter. (Best option, although some would argue for get rid of the clutter gradually. Decided gradually to get rid of is ambiguous. Get gradually rid of and get rid gradually of strike us as ghastly alternatives.)
If the article or the existing discussions do not address a thought or question you have on the subject, please use the "Comment" box at the bottom of this page.
I have wondered about this for some time…my blue book is not with me, perhaps others have the same question:
Is this grammatically correct?
Don’t be afraid to fail … be afraid not to try.
Is this the recommended phrasing:
Don’t be afraid to fail … be afraid to not try
While either of your sentences is grammatically correct, like our example His mistake was to not go, “Don’t be afraid to fail, be afraid to not try” says what it means without ambiguity.
We decided to get rid of the clutter gradually.
This is not ambiguous and is likely the most realistic version of the sentence (i.e., They gradually removed the clutter rather than gradually decided).
“If you’re feeling the post-holiday blahs, here are some tips on how to still make the season bright.”
When I read this, the split infinitive felt clunky to me. Isn’t there a better way to word this? For example, “…tips to continue to make the season bright.”
Yes, it does feel clunky. Your suggestion or “…tips to keep the season bright” is an improvement.
I keep seeing “to try and” instead of “to try to” in print and hearing it in speech. I seem to remember from years of taking Latin and learning parts of speech that “to” is correct, but I can’t find anything on the web to back me up. Even my sister, who knows all, uses “and” and I’d like to try TO convince her she is wrong, just once.
We know what you mean about try and. The experts have loosened up on this point in recent years, but there are still those who reject the phrase, especially in formal writing, and we are among them. For instance, are you going to do two separate things when you “try and convince” your sister? Grammatically, your intention is to “try to convince” your sister.
My mother was an elementary teacher. One of her sisters learned French well enough to teach middle school in Montreal. Another of her sisters taught medieval and Shakespearean literature at the university level. Grammatical perfection, in our family, was a requirement (I have been known to argue grammar and punctuation – passionately – with any challenger). I have objected, passionately, to Star Trek’s ” … to boldly go where no man has gone before” since, well, 1966 or so. This example, in addition to your quiz question #2, rather contradicts your assertion that adverbs in general are “dispensable.” If this were indeed the case, we would not be using adverbs both regularly and profusely.
In this article we are asking you to make your own judgments about which adverbs in your writing are dispensable and which are not.
Thank you for bringing this issue. I got a lesson from it.
Thank you for your article. I have one comment, and it is concerning the last sentence of the article. It begins with the words “Any time.” If you can substitute the word “whenever” for “any time,” then it should be one word, “anytime.”
We prefer using any time in a formal context. Our Confusing Words and Homonyms page says, “Traditionalists do not accept the one-word form, anytime. But it is everywhere, and there’s no turning back.”
How can I split this into two different sentences?
“Shabnam thought that she would win the first prize.”
Your sentence is grammatically correct as written. We see no reason to split it into two different sentences.