Madam, - Why does the sight of an innocuous split infinitive enrage many literary purists, apparently obliging some of them to publicly rebuke, to rebuke publicly or publicly to rebuke the offending writer?
It is a curious phenomenon indeed, highlighted in these columns on April 27th when a correspondent berated the Department of Education's chief examiner in English for including "to further develop" in his report on the declining standards of the language.
Is there a cure for these hypersensitive readers, a literary sedative which will reduce the shock when absorbed in a novel, memoir or biography, say, they are unexpectedly assailed by a split infinitive? In response, two other correspondents venture reassurance (April 30th). One names several distinguished writers in whose works the inflammatory construction is commonplace. Among them is George Bernard Shaw, who was less tolerant of their obsession, unsurprisingly as he was the target. To the editor of a newspaper whose comments irritated him, he wrote: "There is a busybody on your staff who constantly criticises me for splitting my infinitives. I demand the immediate dismissal of this pedant. Whether you ask him to go quickly, quickly to go or to quickly go is irrelevant. The important thing is that he should go at once."
The second letter quotes Fowler's Modern English Usage as an authoritative reference on the subject. Certainly, a two-and-a-half page essay on the myths and misunderstandings enveloping the split infinitive, written in the elegant and witty style which has made the work so popular with students of the language, might perhaps encourage a more rational approach. Perhaps, indeed! For rationality it is not a detectable ingredient in the make-up of many of these purists, despite their concern for proper grammatical usage.
Nevertheless, it would be callous not to sympathise with them for the pain they must have experienced during the recent electioneering hysteria as politicians invaded their homes with their broadcasts, mail-shots and, above all, personal visits. Their promises were pretty hard to take, but their split infinitives must have been unbearable. Was there a manifesto, a declaration, a denial which didn't include one, two or even three?
How to successfully avoid, to avoid successfully or successfully to avoid contact with the politicians' pleas for votes must have posed a conundrum for the purists. It also introduced a dilemma. For what if the party they were persuaded to support was dominated by infinitive-splitters? How could they be sure as they approach the ballot box that their loyalty would not waver or that they would not be tempted to support another party?. - Yours, etc,
MICHAEL CARR, Ashurst Apartments, Mount Merrion Avenue, Blackrock, Co Dublin.