In a relatively uninflected language, meaning, word-order and implicit 
word-compounds (temporarily achieved by contiguity) determine what goes with 
what, or takes what as its subject, object, modifier, conjugate, etc.

English "infinitives" get split for the sake of meaning and nuance and the
cadence of thought or expression; it is a question of the balance of
implication, the rationing (or flow) of information, the weight and 
comparison of
emphasis, the perceived immediacy of the need to promptly or pre-emptively
define one word by another, and the proximity or integration of ideas.

[[ "To give generously from(of) one's limited funds" is not quite the same
as "to generously give of(from) one's limited funds" --the latter example
could be construed, by a strict or legalistic constructionist, as excluding
other forms of donation (such as "of/from one's stock of time"), and only
targeting one's money, while the former example seems slightly more
inclusive and presumptive.  A more costly adverb, "sacrificially," would
probably obliterate the difference between (1) emphasizing (i.e., putting up
front) the form or way the giving is to take (second case: "to generously
give"), and (2) presuming the generosity to be more or less inherent in or
integral to the giving itself (first case: putting the form that the giving 
is to
take after the giving itself:  "to give generously"). If you think the
adverb and the verb should be more closely integrated than the verb and its
inflection, or that the "how/when/where" comes first and deserves priority,
you will tend to split the infinitive. You might, ordinarily, not want to
go there, i.e., to there go, for naturalness is all.  Yet the old order 
changeth, and every
"mistake" counts as an innovation, and nurtures a new nature.  Perhaps
Americans are nowadays tending to put the "how/when/where" first, more
often than the English.]]


On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 06:35:30 -0400
  David Miller <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I prefer not to split them, in general.  I will always be grateful to  W. 
>K. Wimsatt for sending his undergrad students to Fowler's articles  on 
>selected errors--false parallelism will always be my favorite, but  they 
>were all wonderful.
> 
> I think of split infinitives as part of a larger issue:  word order in 
> prose.  I guess the secrets of word order are a lost art in much  academic 
>writing, but maybe there never was a golden age.  In any  case, my own 
>impression is that word order (is that what Eliot meant  when he praised 
>Donne's "ordonnance"?) belongs among the finishing  touches of a good style.
> 
> 
> On Jul 22, 2008, at 9:44 PM, Tom Bishop wrote:
> 
>> The Wikipedia entry on the split infinitive is very informative and  
>> full, both on the history of the construction and of the prohibition  
>> against it.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_infinitive
>>
>> Tom
>>
>> On 23/07/2008, at 1:42 PM, Margaret Christian wrote:
>>
>>> Good heavens, Richard, what are you talking about?
>>>
>>> The very first person to make a dent in my blissful unconsciousness  
>>> of split vs. intact infinitives was Gordon Kipling at UCLA in 1981  
>>> or 1982; I was in my second year of graduate school.  My honest  
>>> reaction to all the red on my paper:  "Huh?"  And this despite my  
>>> learning [and adoring] to diagram sentences in fifth grade and  
>>> every subsequent year through eighth grade, at least.
>>>
>>> I still never notice on my own, and always take comfort in the  
>>> fantasy that the rule against splitting infinitives must be one of  
>>> those imported from another language's grammar, like the rule  
>>> against ending sentences with a preposition.  Did the rule come  
>>> from somewhere identifiable?
>>>
>>> Margaret
>>>
>>> At 02:37 PM 7/22/2008 +0100, [log in to unmask] wrote:
>>>> Any prizes for spotting the split infinitive or is that just a  
>>>> Fowlerian
>>>> piece of pedantry?
>>>>
>>>> Best wishes,
>>>>
>>>> Richard
>>>>
>>>>  On 7/22/08, *andrew zurcher* <[log in to unmask]
>>>> > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >     I can't get the url to work... Any thoughts, or is this just  
>>>> a blip?
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > That's no blip, it's a blunder!* The correct URL is
>>>> > http://virgiliantradition.org. Content still forthcoming...
>>>> >
>>>> > * "That's no moon, it's a space station!" Reechy kisses at the  
>>>> Argante
>>>> > Kissing Booth for the first five-thousand scholars to correctly  
>>>> identify
>>>> > this quotation without using Google.
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> > Dr. David Wilson-Okamura    http://virgil.org          [log in to unmask]
>>>> > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>>> > English Department          Virgil reception, discussion,  
>>>> documents, &c
>>>> > East Carolina University    Sparsa et neglecta coegi. -- Claude  
>>>> Fauchet
>>>> >
>>>
>>> Margaret R. Christian, Ph.D. 
>>>                                   [log in to unmask]
>>> Associate Professor of English                          Office:  
>>> (610) 285-5106
>>> Penn State Lehigh Valley                                         
>>> Home:  (610) 562-0163
>>> 8380 Mohr Lane                                          fax: (610)  
>>> 285-5220
>>> Fogelsville, PA   18051   USA http://www.lv.psu.edu/professional/ 
>>> mrc1/
>>
>> Tom Bishop
>> Professor and Head of English
>> University of Auckland
>> (64-9) 373-7599 ext 85586
>>
>> [log in to unmask]
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> David Lee Miller
> Professor of English and
>   Comparative Literature
> University of South Carolina
> Columbia, SC 29208
> (803) 777-4256
> [log in to unmask]
> 
> 
> 

[log in to unmask]
James Nohrnberg
Dept. of English, Bryan Hall 219
Univ. of Virginia
P.O Box 400121
Charlottesville, VA 22904-4121