The “premature” release of the draft national standards on this blog yesterday prompted the National Governors Association to officially release the document today–along with the following statement:
STATEMENT FROM NGA:
As some of you may be aware, the first working draft of the college and career-ready standards were prematurely released. NGA and CCSSO had hoped to incorporate feedback from states and other experts before releasing a working draft so that we can ensure the best common core possible.
Sorry about that, er, premature…..wait a second……ummmmm……Hey, shouldn’t that read “was prematurely released?” The first working draft were prematurely released??
Ouch. Any English teachers working on those grammar and syntax standards?
It should read “was released prematurely” to avoid the split infinitive.
You rattled ‘em.
Now that, my friend, is funny.
Though you personally would earn a ‘D’ in my 21st century Latin class for the split infinitive.
Shelly
OK, Joanne and Shelly, school me. I have for years (and as recently as 30 seconds ago) been under the impression that to have a split infinitive, you need an infinitive, i.e. the word “to.” The example that everyone seems to point to is the famous (incorrect) opening to Star Trek: To boldly go where no man has gone before, with boldly in between “to” and “go.”
Is it still a split infinitive without the word “to” or does some other rule apply?
Robert,
I side with you. The statement has no infinitive to split. A split infinitive happens when you insert an adverb between a preposition and a verb, as in “To merely love,” “to boldly go,” “to happily sing.” The sentence you cited has no split infinitive!
Diane Ravitch
Got me. I jumped too soon.
Teaches me to follow the Jacobian route.
Yet, this is one of the problems with English.
You don’t need those barbarian auxiliary verbs in Latin, so to my eyes the adverb sitting there amidst the already indolent English rendering of an imperfect just looks and sounds icky.
So, infinitive split to wit it not be.
I dare say this isn’t a problem with the infinitive itself, however, but rather a blemish in the structure of the English past tense constructions. (At least that’s the way I protest my silliness).
- Shelly
Actually, it seems social scientists alone believe you cannot “split a verb,” whatever that means–and this “split verb” chimera is often mistaken for a split infinitive. As other readers note, “to boldly go” is (strictly speaking) wrong, but “has boldly gone” is fine. Still, I’ve encountered many editors in the social sciences who think it’s positively cruel to separate an auxiliary verb from its participle.
By the way, Fowler’s decided some time ago to lift the ban on split infinitives. Despite the humanists’ best efforts oh so long ago, English never conformed to Latin forms….
Standards. Accountability. The world is out of control. They can fix it. Trust them.
this is fun, but the artificial prohibition against sticking an adverb wherever it seems best got Chief Justice John Roberts in trouble when administering the oath of office to Obama. He was so programmed not to interrupt an auxiliary and a main verb with an adverb that he stumbled over “will faithfully execute” and had to re-administer the oath over at the White House.
The “no splitting infinitives” rule does not universally apply. Sometimes, it just *sounds* better to “split” the infinitive — and sometimes, the meaning changes if you don’t. As a grammar professional (i.e., copy editor) I’ve come to learn that there are almost always exceptions to every rule, and that is why I will (knock wood) always have poorly paid but somewhat steady employment: computers cannot edit (because the English language often makes no sense).
From the Associate Press styleguide:
Occasionally, however, a split is not awkward and is necessary to convey the meaning:
He wanted to really help his mother.
Those who lie are often found out.
How has your health been?
The budget was tentatively approved.
(Note: I know the above examples are not all split *infinitives*, but you get the idea.)
The subject of the first sentence is “draft” which is singular, not “standards” which is plural.
Subjects of sentences are NEVER in prepositional phrases.
The verb needs to agree with the subject, not the intervening prepositional phrase -”of the college and career-ready standards”. The prepositionsl phrase is functioning as an adjective telling what kind of draft. Prepositional phrases frequently come between the subject and the verb because they are a useful, succinct method of adding information.
Taking out the modifying language shows the draft was released to be correct because verbs need to agree in number with their subject.
The explanation sounds nerdy but subject-verb agreement is important in avoiding ambiguity in language. That’s why it’s such a shame not to emphasize grammar as part of a common core.
I hereby banish all of you obsessing about split infinitives to dwell in Grammar Maven Purgatory, where you shall listen to Al Haig’s nominalizations and “impact” used as a transitive verb for 1000 years, or until such time as you acknowledge that the so-called “ban” on split infinitives was an arbitrary and irrational attempt of self-annointed “grammar mavens” to overregulate English. See Steven Pinker’s The Language Instinct for the proper explanation (from someone whose research area is related, instead of this grateful reader).
Shouldn’t “overregulate” be hyphenated? Oh, sorry….never mind.
Actually, as we’re told repeatedly when scoring the English Regents, grammar and usage have minimal importance. It’s all about getting your message across, no matter how poorly constructed it is. That’s why I drill ESL students to death on answering questions, spend every possible minute having them practice writing essays, and somehow make them pass this test–a test they shouldn’t have to take in the first place.
That way, they can go to city colleges and pay thousands of dollars to study the grammar and usage that I could’ve been teaching them for free. And FYI, native speakers can disregard grammar and usage and pass this test too, a lot more easily than my poor overworked kids.
I sneak in some grammar and usage, but really they should get it in abundance, along with listening and speaking. New York State is in the dark ages when it comes to language acquisition, place little value on convention in writing, and apparently those drafting national standards are following in their footsteps.
And still, the only people anyone wants to hold “accountable” are teachers.
Although there was no split infinitive in the NGA statement, there was one in the paragraph criticizing the grammar of the statement: “prompted the National Governors Association to officially release….” This should be “to release officially”, although that would sound awkward, which is why splitting the infinitive belongs to the same category as ending a sentence with a preposition: although in Latin it might be impossible or blatantly wrong, in English it’s useful, less awkward, and actually enhances communication. That’s our goal when speaking and writing, isn’t it?
Mom of Three…you are correct, but have misread the original text. If the subject is “draft” the verb should be “was,” not “were.” The verb was “were” in the original.
ain’t english the funnest?
Thanks Mark but I explained why it needed to be “was released” when stripped of the intervening modifying language. Look at my 4th paragraph.
English grammar is important because clarity of thought is important. I tell my kids there’s a reason the Ancients taught math and grammar. It strengthens logical skills.
Maybe that’s why both are deemphasized these days. Can you imagine what schools would be like if a significant number of kids immediately recognized the flaws in adult assertions?
There’s something sad about standards that see language as rhetoric and not a tool to aid thought and able communication.
Mom of three… my apololgies, I thought YOU were saying the release was correct…now I see that you were restating the text of the release. When you wrote “Taking out the modifying language shows the draft was released to be correct” I drew the erroneous conclusion that you were saying by removing the modifying language I would see that the draft, as released, was correct.