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.
I absolutely agree with your assertion. The "talented" individual who has mastered any language, "tests the boundaries" of that language. This is often how great literature is written, and why we painstakingly dissected the "divergences from the norm" in our respective English classes. An author makes an apparent "leap" out of the "norm" of English, and we mull over it and often declare it's genius. Perhaps, we spent too much time and effort doing this, often never achieving a reasonable answer as to why the departure from the "norm" occurred. Nonetheless, the author wrote it the way they did, yet we continue to debate whether or not we "regular" writers should do the same. My opinion in this regard, is that rules are there to govern as many possibilities as they can. Many times, new possibilities or variations arise that people try to "cram" a rule on, whether the act of doing so is logical or not. They proclaim that the writer's creativity is unacceptable because of the "rule", and refuse to change their opinion. This can be a futile effort as one person's genius is another person's crap and, as subjective as it sounds, that's life. As others have pointed out, changes in English may not be to everyone's liking, but I would have to agree that they can, and do offer a distinctive quality. I do not believe that "bending the rules" in some cases is advocating something radical, but I should qualify that to say that not all rules are meant to be "bent". As History has shown, languages constantly evolve and perhaps the relaxing of the "split infinitive rule" is an acceptable evolutionary step. I suppose we will have to evaluate the changes in language as they come and "play it by ear", pun intended.
Regards, Wisam |
