Well... the way I read Fowler is that all that is being pointed out is that it is by no means the case that "splitting or not splitting makes the difference between a good and bad writer." And that the split infinitive, done well, may even be an element in attaining "distinction of style."
This has always been the rule where so-called "errors" are concerned, and not only "errors" involving split infinitives. The sophisticated user of the language can turn many effects, even "errors," to his or her advantage.
It's the same in the visual arts. Many teachers of painting have told their students, "Yes, I know you want to be an abstract artist, but to develop the ability to paint abstract figures that say what you want them to, you must first master the ability to paint representational ones."
It works this way in all fields, I think. Talented high fashion designers, for example, can break all sorts of fashion "rules" to striking effect. The statement made by the item that has flouted a conventional fashion rule often contains a comment on the rule itself-- a play on it, so to speak. And I think that that's true of violations of the rules of grammar, too. Writers who take intelligent liberties attain "distinction of style" through their deviations from the expected. We ordinary schlemiels, on the other hand, are liable simply to seem (to a sophisticated reader) to be singing off key.
I have to acknowledge in my Edit window that language changes, and that in a generation, and perhaps less than that, the subtle wrong key of the split infinitive will no longer be audible to the living human ear. And therefore there will be no issue.
Yamakita, any thoughts? |
