08.30.08

Compound disinterest

Posted in Latin sources, grammar, persnickitors at 4:45 pm by Bill Brohaugh

I’ve never broken a bone (he says, taunting Demon Jinx). Neither a fracture, nor a compound fracture—in increasing order of pain, I’m sure. In the context of this language discussion, however, splitting a bone likely is, for some, perhaps less painful than splitting an infinitive.

I feel no pain in splitting infinitives. In fact, I’m among the many to vigorously ignore this “rule,” which was thrust upon the language by admirers of Latin. Their thinking went something along these lines: Latin infinitives are single words, and you can’t split a single word, can you? (Umm, you abso-frikken-lutely can split single words.)

My continuing rant about split-infinitive persnickitors was rekindled when, while skimming The Online Dictionary of Language Terminology, I came upon an entry for a term I hadn’t heard before:

compound split infinitive
Definition: A split infinitive that has been split by a multi-word phrase.
Example: Try to never ever split your infinitives.

Three reactions:

• I cheer the matched form and content. In the example, the infinitive is to split and the phrase that splits it is never ever.
• I suggest that “splitting an infinitive with another split infinitive” would be a cuter but increasingly stupid definition of “compound infinitive.” (Example: “Mr. Brohaugh, I dare you to, with your unwillingness to glibly follow every grammatical edict, give a damn.”)
• I sigh over the fact that the entry exists in the first place. Splitting infinitives is apparently so bad that if you do it with two words, the egregious indiscretion deserves a name unto itself. (And possible jail time!)

I just hope that, now that I’ve introduced some folks to the acceptability of even compound split infinitives, some persnickitor out there hasn’t begun thinking about introducing me to a compound fracture.

Permalink