Many of us grew up with the idea that the splitting of infinitives is always and everywhere wrong—the marriage between “to” and a verb was thought to be a sacred bond that no one dare put asunder. So it is perhaps surprising to read in §5.106 of the Chicago Manual of Style (15^th edition), “Although from about 1850 to 1925 many grammarians stated otherwise, it is now widely acknowledged that adverbs sometimes justifiably separate the to from the principal verb.” The example given is:

 

They expect to more than double their income next year.

 

The truth be told, the splitting of infinitives in English goes back to at least the fourteenth century, and it is really only a mid-nineteenth century convention that proscribed the practice—a proscription that is now widely recognized as passé. Indeed, it is worth noting that even the SAT, GMAT, and TOEFL tests recognize the acceptability of the split infinitive, and courses designed to prepare people to take these tests frequently point out the danger of automatically excluding the split infinitive option as the possible correct answer. Like it or not, split infinitives are part and parcel of English usage and they are likely here to stay.

 

So it doesn’t matter if the infinitive is split or not? Well—I wouldn’t go that far! Of course it matters. Sometimes it matters a great deal. The acceptability of split infinitives can’t be confused with the appropriateness of using them in every situation. All that it means is that the writer has to do more than appeal to a grammatical rule; some thought is required.

 

A Matter of Emphasis

The split-infinitive example that seems most widely used by those who comment on grammatical issues on the Internet is the famous opening line from Star Trek:

 

To boldly go where no man has gone before.

 

If mindless adherence to some non-existent grammatical rule is the key, then we could easily wipe out the split infinitive with a simple rearrangement of words:

 

To go boldly where no man has gone before.

 

It means the same thing, after all, doesn’t it? Well—not quite. The same idea is conveyed, but clearly not with the same punch. The latter example simply doesn’t have the same emphasis that the former example has. It falls flat.

 

Perhaps that’s why The Chicago Manual of Style goes on to elaborate in §5.160 why one may choose to split or not to split an infinitive:

 

And sometimes it is perfectly appropriate to split an infinitive verb with an adverb to add emphasis or to produce a natural sound. . . . A verb’s infinitive or to form is split when an intervening word immediately follows to [e.g., to bravely assert]. If the adverb bears the emphasis in a phrase [to boldly go], [to strongly favor], then leave the split infinitive alone. But if moving the adverb to the end of the phrase doesn’t suggest a different meaning or impair the sound, then it is an acceptable way to avoid splitting the verb. Recasting a sentence just to eliminate a split infinitive or avoid splitting the infinitive can alter the nuance or meaning: for example, it’s best to always get up early (always modifies get up) is not quite the same as it’s always best to get up early (always modifies best). Or an unnatural phrasing can result: it’s best to get up early always.

 

Natural Phrasing

And that brings us to the other point that must be borne in mind when deciding whether or not to split an infinitive: Strive for naturalness of expression. In this regard, it should be noted that different expectations will apply to spoken English and informal written English, on the one hand, and to formal written English, on the other. What is considered acceptable in spoken and informal expression is often not acceptable in formal written English. With regard to formal writing, it may be said that the default position is still to avoid splitting infinitives, BUT with this proviso: avoid splitting infinitives except when doing so would disrupt the intended emphasis or create an unnatural expression.

 

Splitting infinitives will not get you arrested by the grammar police, therefore, but neither is it something to be done carelessly. It is a matter for conscious choice. And in making the choice about whether or not your infinitive should be split, the most important considerations are emphasis and naturalness of expression.

 

So the old rule (if, indeed, it ever was a rule) no longer applies. But the result is not less need for concern over the issue—it is more. In the absence of a rule, what is needed is SKILL.

 

Have questions or thoughts about this topic? Share them by leaving us a COMMENT.

ALBERT—Read more about this editor

At EME, one of the problems that our editors encounter rather frequently in all genres of writing is confusion over the use of hyphens vis-à-vis dashes. I’d venture a guess that most writers aren’t even aware that there is a distinction between these two kinds of punctuation marks, so it’s a mistake we find ourselves correcting quite often. And if that distinction doesn’t cause enough confusion by itself, there’s also a further distinction that has to be made—between two kinds of dashes: the em-dash and the en-dash. (Minus signs, negative signs, figure dashes, 2-em dashes, and 3-em dashes all complicate the matter further, but they are of lesser importance and will be mentioned briefly, below). Since the uses of the hyphen, the en-dash, and the em-dash are clearly distinguishable, my hope is to clear up some of the confusion here.

 

Hyphens [-]

The hyphen really has three main uses:

• To separate digits (and letters) in telephone numbers, Social Security Numbers, etc. (although this can also be done by the figure dash, discussed later in this article)
• To separate syllables (usually when space requires splitting a word at the end of a line of type)
• To join two or more words together into a compound

 

With regard to this latter category of uses for the hyphen, it is worth noting that the current trend is toward non-hyphenation (i.e., closed compounds) wherever possible. The Chicago Manual of Style, 15^th edition, §7.90 provides an extensive hyphenation guide; so does the APA Manual, 5^th edition, §3.11; and so does the OWL at Purdue University. Because of evolutions in usage, a current dictionary often provides the best guide for deciding when compounds should be hyphenated, when they should be written as separate words (i.e., open compounds), and when they should be written as one word (i.e., closed compounds).

 

SOME EXAMPLES OF HYPHENATED COMPOUNDS:

one-on-one coaching

seventh-grade class

low-resolution photograph

 

 

En-dashes [–]

Longer than a hyphen but shorter than an em-dash, the en-dash is used principally in two ways:

• In place of the word “to,” such as with ranges of dates and page numbers

 

EXAMPLES:

1962–1965

pages 12–16

Genesis 1:1–2:4a

the London–Brussels train

 

• To join words of equal weight (i.e., where one does not modify the other) in a compound adjective

 

EXAMPLES:

medical–surgical procedure

the Mason–Dixon line

the New York–New Jersey border

a quasi-legislative–quasi-political decision

 

Although there are style sheets that direct the use of spaces before and after the en-dash, typically there are no spaces surrounding the en-dash; this allows the en-dash to be easily distinguishable from the minus sign.

 

 

Em-dashes [—]

There are a number of uses for the em-dash, but ordinarily it represents a break in thought. Like commas and parentheses, em-dashes can be used to set off a word or phrase. There is, however, an important difference: while commas and parentheses de-emphasize the material they enclose, em-dashes emphasize the material they enclose. The em-dash may also be used to separate a subject (or set of subjects) from a pronoun, or to indicate a sudden break, an aside, or an explanatory phrase.

 

EXAMPLES:

The way that Lisa understood it—if, indeed, she understood it at all—it was a good thing.

And that was to be the end of it—for the moment.

 

Be careful, however: overuse of em-dashes becomes very tedious for the reader. This is true, in part, because they involve breaks in thought; too many of them gives the reader a sense of literary hiccups as he or she tries to plough through the sentence, perhaps even losing track of what the original subject was. In part, the tediousness of overused dashes comes from the emphasis that they convey. Overemphasis functions much like using a highlighter in a book to highlight every word on the page: when everything is highlighted, nothing stands out. The em-dash is an effective tool, but should be used sparingly.

 

As with en-dashes, there are some style guides that suggest using spaces before and after the em-dash, but typically the em-dash is typed with no spaces before or after it (as in the examples given above).

 

 

Minus signs, negative signs, figure dashes, 2-em dashes, and 3-em dashes.

Beyond hyphens, en-dashes, and em-dashes, there are related marks that occur in limited circumstances and appear less frequently. Without getting into much detail, they are presented here for the sake of completeness:

• Minus signs are typically used in equations, and are most often typed as a hyphen with a space before it and a space after it (e.g., 3 - 2 = 1). Word processing software may provide a slightly raised symbol for this purpose as well.
• Negative signs also occur principally in equations and are typed as a hyphen with a space before the negative sign but not after it (e.g., -3 + 3 = 0).
• Figure dashes are sometimes used in place of a hyphen between digits in numbers and codes like Social Security Numbers and telephone numbers.
• 2-em dashes are used to indicate missing material, such as a redacted name or an expletive (e.g., Mrs. —— and Dr. —— were both opposed to the measure.). Many word processing programs merge the two em-dashes in this symbol so that it appears with no breaks.
• 3-em dashes are used in bibliographies and reference lists to indicate that the author name is the same as in the previous entry (e.g., ———. Angels & Demons. New York: Washington Square Press, 2000). Many word processing programs merge the three em-dashes in this symbol so that it appears with no breaks.

Have questions or thoughts about this topic? Leave us a COMMENT.

ALBERT—Read more about this editor

Is it “red, white, and blue,” or is it “red, white and blue”?

 

Most professional writers will tell you that’s a matter of style. And they’re right. You may choose to place a comma after the next-to-last element in a series (hence the name serial comma) or you may choose to leave it out; neither practice is wrong. What you shouldn’t do is use the serial comma haphazardly or allow your choice to give rise to confusion in your text.

 

Even if you choose, as a rule, to avoid the serial comma, there may be instances in which it must still be used. Consider, for instance,

 

John, a teacher and a lawyer

 

Does this refer to three people (i.e., John and a teacher and a lawyer)? Or is it one person (i.e., John, who is both a teacher and a lawyer)? If the former, the serial comma would make that clear:

 

John, a teacher, and a lawyer

 

The serial comma’s use is commonplace in American English usage, though less common in English of the British variety.

 

Since, in our editing, we try to bring consistency to the use (or nonuse) of the serial comma to the extent possible without causing confusion, I often get asked about the pros and cons of its use. The biggest advantage to the use of the serial comma is clarity: when all of the elements in a series are separated by commas, there is less chance of ambiguity in the list. For example, if I am listing the kinds of sandwiches I’m making for lunch, only the serial comma ensures that it’s clear what I’m actually serving. Consider:

 

Ham, peanut butter and banana and jelly

 

Without the serial comma, this may mean:

• Ham
• Peanut butter and banana
• Jelly

 

Or it may mean:

• Ham
• Peanut butter
• Banana and jelly

 

In fact, though I wouldn’t want to try it, without the serial comma it could even mean just two kinds of sandwiches:

• Ham, peanut butter, and banana
• Jelly

 

With the serial comma, the ambiguity is removed:

 

Ham, peanut butter and banana, and jelly

 

The strongest reason for ordinarily omitting the serial comma is to conserve space. In fact, it is from the world of newspaper writing that the practice seems to have taken its root in the United States. Among others, the practice of avoiding the serial comma is advocated by the Associated Press Stylebook and the New York Times, along with a number of leading British and Australian stylebooks. In favor of using the serial comma are, among others, the Chicago Manual of Style, the APA Manual, the AMA Manual of Style, the U.S. Government Printing Office, and Strunk & White’s The Elements of Style.

 

All things being equal, I’m inclined to recommend the serial comma’s use. However, rest assured that—as long as your intended meaning is clear—neither its use nor its nonuse is wrong.

Have thoughts or questions about this topic? Leave us a COMMENT to share.

ALBERT—Read more about this editor

In much of the editing that comes my way, run-on sentences are a problem. Sometimes people are surprised when they find me commenting on their run-on sentences, because the sentences aren’t that long. But here’s the thing: “run-on” doesn’t necessarily imply LONG; it has to do with STRUCTURE. And one of the most common run-un sentence problems I find myself correcting is the comma splice: a run-on sentence that is the result of putting together two independent clauses joined only by a comma. While there are some circumstances in which a comma splice may be considered acceptable, in most cases it is a grammatical error.

 SOME EXAMPLES:

I didn’t have to get up in the morning, I still set my alarm for seven.

He wanted to vacation at the beach, she preferred the idea of a cruise.

She didn’t complete her dissertation on time, her defense had to be postponed until spring.

 

 Faced with this error, there are really only three options:

• 1. Join the two clauses together;
• 2. Separate them; or
• 3. Change one of the independent clauses into a dependent clause.

 

 Joining the independent clauses together is done with a coordinating conjunction. These are:

• and
• but
• or
• nor
• for
• yet
• so

 

THOSE EXAMPLES AGAIN, THIS TIME WITH CONJUNCTIONS ADDED:

I didn’t have to get up in the morning, yet I still set my alarm for seven.

 He wanted to vacation at the beach, but she preferred the idea of a cruise.

She didn’t complete her dissertation on time, so her defense had to be  postponed until spring.

 

Separating the clauses is done by the use of one of four types of punctuation:

• the period [.]
• the question mark [?]
• the exclamation point [!]
• the semicolon [;]

NOTE that the comma [,] will not accomplish this purpose.

 

THOSE EXAMPLES AGAIN, THIS TIME SEPARATED BY PUNCTUATION MARKS:

I didn’t have to get up in the morning; I still set my alarm for seven.

He wanted to vacation at the beach. She preferred the idea of a cruise.

She didn’t complete her dissertation on time? Her defense had to be  postponed until spring.

 

Changing one of the clauses into a dependent clause creates one complex sentence that is not a run-on sentence. Remember that sentences are considered “run-on” not because of the number of words, but because of their structure. In these cases, run-on sentences are corrected by adding words:

 THOSE EXAMPLES AGAIN, THIS TIME WITH ONE CLAUSE MADE DEPENDENT:

Though I didn’t have to get up in the morning, I still set my alarm for seven.

He wanted to vacation at the beach, although she preferred the idea of a cruise.

 Since she didn’t complete her dissertation on time, her defense had to be postponed until spring.

 

With any of these three solutions, the problem of the comma splice is solved and the sentence is no longer a “run-on.”

 

Have thoughts or questions about this topic? Leave us a COMMENT to share.

ALBERT—Read more about this editor

At lunch recently, my friend was going to the counter to pick up our order. As she left the table and headed toward the counter, I shouted, “Take some napkins.” She couldn’t pass up the opportunity to correct my English: “Don’t you mean bring some napkins?” she asked. Hmmm … good question. Which is it: take or bring?

 

In truth, that’s a trick question. It’s really a matter of perspective. No, really—that’s not an attempt to be wishy-washy about the answer. The key to understanding the use of bring and take is perspective. Take is used when you are moving away from something, and bring is used when you are moving toward something. Simply put: You take when you are going, and you bring when you are coming.

 

Please BRING that book over here so that I may look at it.

 

Would you remember to TAKE this plate with you when you leave?

 

OK—so who was right at lunch? Was I correct in telling my friend to take some napkins, or should I have asked her to bring them? In fact, in this case (and in many like it), both options are possible. From a perspective that focused on the counter (i.e., the way I saw it), I was asking her to take the napkins with her when she was leaving the counter—i.e., when she was going away from the counter. From a perspective that focused on our table (i.e., the way my friend saw it), she was saying she should bring the napkins with her as she was coming toward the table. Depending upon the perspective, her action could be viewed either as a going away from (the counter) or as a coming toward (the table). And as I noted above, we take when we are going, and we bring when we are coming.

 

In common, spoken American English, the terms are used almost interchangeably. But in formal, written English, it can be more important to be grammatically precise. If that’s the goal, remember that it’s take when you are going and bring when you are coming. Take that simple rule with you, and you should be fine. Or is it bring that simple rule with you? That, too, depends upon your perspective.

 

Have thoughts or questions about this topic? Leave us a COMMENT to share.

ALBERT—Read more about this editor