Posted by Jim Lindgren:
Miss Thistlebottom Strikes Again: Fear of the Bogus Rule Against “Split Verbs”
Mars Oath of Office.
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_01_18-2009_01_24.shtml#1232599806
The Constitution used the normal placement for an adverb � �I . . . do
SOLEMNLY swear� and �I will FAITHFULLY execute.� Wilson Follett in
Modern American Usage (the [1]1960s one edited by Barzun , not the of
the same name [2]Garner book ) sets out what has been the the standard
practice in English for centuries:
"With a compound verb--that is, one made with an auxiliary and a
main verb--the adverb comes between auxiliary and main verb . . . .
�
Because of the bogus rule against split verbs, many modern writers
move the adverb from its idiomatic place in the midst of a multiple
word verb to earlier or later in the sentence.
That is what Chief Justice Roberts unconsciously did when he moved the
word FAITHFULLY to later in President Obama�s [3]oath of office.
OBAMA: I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear...
ROBERTS: ... that I will execute the office of president to the
United States faithfully...
OBAMA: ... that I will execute...
ROBERTS: ... faithfully the office of president of the United
States...
OBAMA: ... the office of president of the United States
faithfully...
I discussed split verbs in Fear of Writing, 78 Cal. L. Rev. 1677
(1990), my playful review of the sixth edition of the Texas Law Review
Manual of Style:
Unquestionably, the most dangerous advice in the old fifth edition
of the Texas Manual was its disapproval of split verbs: �Avoid
splitting verb phrases with adverbs . . . . � In other words, don't
place an adverb between the parts of a compound verb. Yet Fowler
and Follett (both praised in the Foreword to the Texas Manual)
argued that the normal place for an adverb is in the midst of a
multiple word verb. Thus the fifth edition of the Texas Manual
seemed to have gotten the rule backwards. It prohibited what the
experts recommend.
This nonsensical rule against split verbs has caused entire volumes
of law reviews to be filled with page after page in which adverbs
have been squeezed out of their normal place. Most law professors
who have dealt with law reviews recently seem either to have had
disputes about the placement of adverbs or, worse, to have adopted
the Texas approach, the approach of people who write as if English
were a second language. It's frightening to think that the ability
of a generation of law professors to recognize their native
language has been damaged by one silly book. Before picking up the
Texas Manual in 1987, I had noticed that the ability of the law
reviews to place adverbs correctly had deteriorated, but I hadn't
known the reason.
What was particularly ridiculous about the Texas Manual's rule was
that the Manual itself repeatedly split verbs in violation of its
own rule, a fact that somehow eluded law review editors policing my
prose. The only discursive prose in the entire Manual, a
four-paragraph Foreword by Charles Alan Wright, contained six split
verbs, for example, �their thought can best be expressed.� The
Foreword isn't the only place where the fifth edition violated its
own rule. Split verbs were common in its text. I found fifteen
violations in just four pages, for example, �what has already been
said.� The new sixth edition of the Texas Manual has greatly
softened its rule against split verbs. It now states:
Splitting verb phrases with adverbs is permissible if the adverb
modifies the verb and not some other part of the sentence.
Note that the Texas Manual doesn't say that split verbs are normal
or preferable, language it uses to recommend other constructions.
Rather, it says that split verbs are permissible. I get the
impression that the authors are consciously lowering their
standards by permitting but not recommending split verbs. It would
have been better if they had admitted their mistake, published an
errata sheet for the fifth edition, and begged the academy to
forgive them. But the new rule leaves the status of the old rule in
doubt. Are split verbs still suspicious constructions in Texas? I
think so. The change from the strict old rule is substantial, but
given the fifth edition's culpability for the old rule, some effort
should have been made to clarify the Texas Manual's current
position. Are split verbs preferable or just permissible?
A much better approach would have been to explain the normal
placement of adverbs, as Fowler and Follett do. Follett offers a
clear statement of the usual practice for the placement of adverbs.
His third rule is: �With a compound verb--that is, one made with an
auxiliary and a main verb--the adverb comes between auxiliary and
main verb . . . . � Follett goes on to lament the loss of �instinct
about the rhythms of the mother tongue.�
You can perhaps begin to see the superiority of the other book
under review here, Webster's Dictionary of English Usage, from
Webster's discussion of the folklore of the split verb:
Copperud 1970, 1980 talks about an erroneous idea widespread among
newspaper journalists that adverbs should not separate auxiliaries
from their main verbs (as in �you can easily see� or �they must be
heartily congratulated�). This bugaboo, commentators agree, seems
to have sprung from fear of the dread split infinitive. Copperud
cites five commentators on the subject, all of whom see no harm in
placing an adverb between the parts of a verb, and one of whom
(Fowler 1965) prescribes such placement. Fowler (under position of
adverbs) has a long and detailed discussion, complete with numerous
examples in which the adverb has been improperly (to his mind)
shifted so as to avoid the split. Since dividing the auxiliary from
the verb with an adverb has been approved at least since Lindley
Murray 1795, it would seem that Fowler is justified in calling the
avoidance a superstition. [FN48]
There it is. The fear of split verbs is a superstition borrowed
from some misinformed newspaper journalists. Respected commentators
since 1795 are unanimous in finding it proper.
My reference to Miss Thistlebottom is, as I explained in 1990, a
reference coined by Theodore Bernstein:
The phenomenon that gives rise to such nonsense as the Texas Manual
has been well understood by grammarians. H. W. Fowler was content
to call such views �fetishes� or �superstitions.� Theodore
Bernstein gave them their most colorful term, Miss Thistlebottom's
hobgoblins. [FN7] For Bernstein, the disapproving schoolmarm, Miss
Thistlebottom, represented a composite of the type of person who
cared very much about good usage, but didn't know it when she saw
it. She had a list of supposed infelicities (probably called �pet
peeves�) that had been inherited mostly from an oral tradition.
References
1.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000Q2XEBY?ie=UTF8&tag=thevolocons-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B000Q2XEBY
2.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195161912?ie=UTF8&tag=thevolocons-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0195161912
3. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/01/20/1751351.aspx
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
Volokh@lists.powerblogs.com
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
