Postings on split infinitives

Another list of postings, this time on split infinitives. I looked for postings that had something substantial to say about them, rather than just mentioning them in passing.

For a compact discussion of the topic, see Geoff Pullum’s treatment on his website.

AZ, 5/14/04: Obligatorily split infinitives:

GN, 5/23/04: Split decision:

GP, 9/20/04: Two bites of authors’ remorse:

GP, 4/11/05: The pointless game of Grammar Gotcha:

AZ, 5/7/05: Not to or to not:

GP, 5/19/05: Obligatorily split infinitive in real life:

AZ, 7/14/05: No splitting in court:

EB, 11/5/05: Better to X than to not Y:

GP, 3/29/07: Joe, this is for you:

GP, 4/29/08: Irrational terror over adjunct placement at Harvard:

GP, 4/30/08: Books more loved than looked in:

AZ, 5/2/08: Nonintervention:

AZ, 5/10/08: Contamination:

AZ, 5/13/08: Crazies win:

ML, 8/21/08: Heaping of catmummies considered harmful:

GP, 8/21/08: Minor writers, revolt!:
GP, 9/26/08: Inconsistent Latinophilia:

One Response to “Postings on split infinitives”

  1. An insurmountable obstacle in the way of a speeding train « Arnold Zwicky’s Blog Says:

    […] issue and a number of others are treated in Language Log postings on split infinitives (inventoried here). Several of these postings clarify the syntax associated with “marked infinitives”: in […]

Leave a Reply