Split Infinitives: Are They Really Wrong?

How a Split Infinitive Works

A split infinitive is an infinitive with another word placed between "to" and the verb. Most often, that inserted word is an adverb. In English, an infinitive normally looks like this: to write, to leave, to remember. When something comes between the two parts, the infinitive is split:

• "To quickly respond" (split) vs. "To respond quickly" (unsplit)
• "To fully appreciate" (split) vs. "To appreciate fully" or "Fully to appreciate" (unsplit)
• "To carefully review the contract" (split) vs. "To review the contract carefully" (unsplit)

Few grammar issues have caused as much fuss over such a small construction. For more than 150 years, students have been warned not to put anything between "to" and its verb. Yet English writers have done exactly that for centuries. The real question is not whether split infinitives exist, but whether they help the sentence do its job.

The Best-Known Example

The split infinitive most people recognize comes from the opening narration of Star Trek: "To boldly go where no man has gone before." The line first reached television audiences in 1966, and it gave a grammar dispute a place in popular culture.

Try the non-split versions:

• "Boldly to go where no man has gone before" — formal in a creaky, old-fashioned way.
• "To go boldly where no man has gone before" — grammatically harmless, but less forceful.
• "To boldly go where no man has gone before" — direct, rhythmic, and easy to remember.

The familiar version succeeds because "boldly" lands beside "go," the word it modifies. That placement gives the phrase its energy. This is the strongest argument for allowing split infinitives: at times, the split wording is clearer, livelier, and more natural than the alternatives.

Where the Old Objection Came From

The campaign against split infinitives began in the 19th century. The earliest known direct complaint appeared in 1834, when an anonymous writer described the construction as "objectionable." Henry Alford, Dean of Canterbury, later gave the objection more authority in The Queen's English (1864). He called the split infinitive "a practice entirely unknown to English speakers and writers" before the 14th century, a claim later shown to be false.

From there, the warning spread through schoolbooks, usage manuals, and classroom instruction. By the late 19th and 20th centuries, many students learned to treat a split infinitive as a serious grammatical fault, almost like a mismatched subject and verb or a dangling modifier.

The evidence does not support that severity. Split infinitives have appeared in English since at least the 13th century. They can be found in writing associated with John Wycliffe in the 14th century, Samuel Johnson in the 18th century, Benjamin Franklin, Abraham Lincoln, George Bernard Shaw, and many other respected writers. If this was ever a binding rule, English's best writers have been ignoring it for a very long time.

Why Latin Got Blamed

The old ban is often traced to the habit, especially common in the 18th and 19th centuries, of treating Latin as a model for English grammar. In Latin, an infinitive is one word: amare means "to love." Because that single word cannot be split, some prescriptive grammarians argued that an English infinitive should not be split either.

The problem is simple: English is not Latin. English builds the infinitive with two pieces, "to" plus the base verb. That structure gives English possibilities Latin does not have. Borrowing a Latin restriction for an English construction is like judging a bicycle by the rules for sailing a boat; the comparison may be tidy, but it does not fit the machine.

The same kind of Latin-influenced thinking helped produce other supposed English rules, including the warnings against ending a sentence with a preposition and starting a sentence with a conjunction. It is more useful to understand the way English grammar works than to follow inherited rules that do not match English usage.

How Writers and Grammarians View It Now

Modern linguists, grammarians, and usage experts generally agree on the main point: split infinitives are grammatically acceptable in English. They are part of the language, not a defect in it.

One famous comment comes from H.W. Fowler:

"The English-speaking world may be divided into (1) those who neither know nor care what a split infinitive is; (2) those who do not know, but care very much; (3) those who know and condemn; (4) those who know and approve; and (5) those who know and distinguish. Those who neither know nor care are the vast majority." — H.W. Fowler, A Dictionary of Modern English Usage (1926)

Fowler saw the issue as partly social rather than purely grammatical even in 1926. A century later, the usual expert position is close to his fifth category: know what the construction is, then decide according to clarity, emphasis, rhythm, and audience.

Times When the Split Helps

Sometimes the split infinitive is not merely acceptable. It is the neatest way to say what you mean.

When the Adverb Belongs Only to the Infinitive Verb

"The clinic plans to gradually reduce the dose" tells readers that the reduction will be gradual. If you write "The clinic plans gradually to reduce the dose," the planning may sound gradual instead. "The clinic plans to reduce the dose gradually" is also possible, but the split version keeps the adverb tight against "reduce" and removes doubt.

When the Non-Split Version Opens the Door to Confusion

"Maya tried to completely erase the file" is plain. Change the order, and the sentence can wobble: "Maya tried to erase the file completely" might suggest either a complete erasure or a complete attempt. "Maya completely tried to erase the file" shifts the stress to "tried." The split infinitive gives the intended meaning cleanly.

When the Split Reads Like Normal English

"Analysts expect prices to more than triple this winter" sounds natural and means exactly what it should. "Analysts expect prices more than to triple" is not idiomatic, and "to triple by more than" points readers in another direction. In sentences like this, splitting is the practical choice.

When You Need the Emphasis in the Right Place

"I need you to truly consider the offer" puts the pressure on "consider." "I truly need you to consider the offer" stresses the speaker's need instead. "I need you to consider the offer truly" sounds unnatural. The split infinitive gives the adverb the emphasis it needs.

Times When It Is Better Not to Split

Acceptable does not always mean preferable. Some split infinitives make sentences heavier than they need to be.

When Too Many Words Come Between "To" and the Verb

"The inspector hoped to slowly, methodically, and without interruption examine the machinery" feels overloaded. A smoother version is: "The inspector hoped to examine the machinery slowly, methodically, and without interruption." One inserted adverb is usually fine; a pile of inserted words can bog the sentence down.

When the Unsplit Wording Works Just as Well

If moving the adverb does not damage the sentence, either version may be fine. "They agreed to never reveal the password" and "They agreed never to reveal the password" are both understandable. In that kind of case, choose the wording that sounds better in context.

When Your Readers Prefer Traditional Usage

Some readers still dislike split infinitives, especially in certain academic, legal, or highly formal settings. If you can avoid the split without making the sentence awkward or unclear, doing so may be tactful. But do not let an old preference force you into a sentence that says the wrong thing.

Advice from Major Style Guides

The Chicago Manual of Style (18th edition): "The split infinitive is not a grammatical error. It does tend to produce a clumsy sentence, though, and is best avoided when a natural-sounding alternative exists."

The AP Stylebook: Allows split infinitives when the non-split alternative would be awkward or unclear.

Strunk and White's The Elements of Style: Does not include split infinitives in its list of errors to avoid, which is striking given the book's generally prescriptive tone.

Garner's Modern English Usage: Calls the ban on split infinitives a "superstition" and recommends splitting when it improves the sentence.

The Oxford Guide to English Grammar: Describes split infinitives as "a normal part of English" and says the old ban "should be ignored."

The shared advice is practical rather than absolute: split when the split version is clearer or more natural; leave the infinitive intact when the sentence reads just as well that way. For related help with sentence choices, see our guide to sentence structure.

When Avoiding the Split Gets Clumsy

A writer who refuses to split an infinitive at all costs may end up with a worse sentence. These strained repairs are often called grammatical "gymnastics" or "contortions":

• Awkward avoidance: "The board agreed unanimously to, if funding allows, expand the program." → Better split: "The board agreed to unanimously expand the program if funding allows."
• Awkward avoidance: "He hoped honestly to explain the mistake." → Better split: "He hoped to honestly explain the mistake."
• Awkward avoidance: "The nurse told the patient gently to breathe." → Did the nurse speak gently, or should the patient breathe gently? Better split: "The nurse told the patient to gently breathe" (clear: the breathing should be gentle).

George Bernard Shaw reportedly sent a sharp complaint to a newspaper editor about this very issue: "Every good literary craftsman splits his infinitives when the sense demands it. I call for the immediate dismissal of the man who revised my text."

Similar Grammar Myths

The warning against split infinitives sits beside several other so-called grammar rules that are better treated with caution:

"Never end a sentence with a preposition." This, too, reflects Latin-based thinking more than English reality. "Who did you sit next to?" is ordinary English. "Next to whom did you sit?" may be correct in a formal sense, but it sounds stiff in many situations. Winston Churchill is often credited with mocking the rule this way: "This is the sort of English up with which I will not put."

"Never begin a sentence with 'and' or 'but.'" Good writers have opened sentences with conjunctions throughout English history. The King James Version of the Bible begins hundreds of sentences with "And." Used well, "And" and "But" can add emphasis, contrast, and smooth movement between ideas.

"Never use the passive voice." Passive voice is not automatically weak or wrong. It is useful when the actor is unknown, obvious, unimportant, or less central than the action. "The building was inspected on Friday" works well if the inspection matters more than the inspector. Better advice is this: use active voice when it is clearer and stronger, but use passive voice when it serves the point. For more, read our guide to writing clearly.

These rules have a shared background: earlier prescriptive grammarians tried to force Latin-style logic onto English, a Germanic language with its own patterns. Their advice was not always foolish, but much of it fails to describe how skilled speakers and writers actually use English. For another common usage debate, see our article on double negatives in English.

Useful Rules of Thumb

Use this approach when you are deciding whether to split an infinitive:

1. Protect the meaning. If the split makes the sentence clearer, use it.
2. Listen for natural rhythm. If the split version sounds like normal English and the other version sounds forced, keep the split.
3. Be careful with long inserts. One adverb between "to" and the verb is usually easy to read. Several words in that slot often feel clunky.
4. Think about your readers. In everyday writing, split without worry. In formal work for traditional readers, avoid the split when doing so costs nothing.
5. Do not trade sense for a superstition. If the unsplit version is ambiguous or changes the meaning, the split version is better.
6. Read the sentence aloud. Your ear will often catch stiffness, muddiness, or misplaced emphasis before a rule will.

Final Takeaway

A split infinitive is not a grammatical mistake. It is a normal English construction with a long history, used by capable writers for hundreds of years. The old objection grew largely from an attempt to make English behave like Latin, and modern usage authorities no longer treat the construction as wrong. When splitting an infinitive makes your sentence sharper, clearer, or more emphatic, go ahead and split it. When another arrangement sounds just as good, use that instead. Good writing is measured by how well it communicates, not by obedience to a rule that English never really needed.