I recently read an online article about credit repair titled “X Ways To Quickly Boost Your Credit,” and one of the commenters noted that the split infinitive in the title showed the ignorance of the writer and she therefore didn’t read the piece.

Actually, split infinitives (when the adverb is between the “to” and the verb, as in “to quickly boost”) are not wrong. This is one of those old grammar rules that we learned in high school but in real-world writing, it isn’t a rule; it’s more a myth.

Like the fake rule on not ending sentences with a preposition, the idea that infinitives shouldn’t be split is based on the structure of the Latin language, not English. Worst of all, avoiding a split infinitive can reduce clarity and muddle or change the intended meaning of a sentence.

In the case of the credit repair article, I would not have changed the title: it reads most clearly and with the most impact having the “quickly” where it is. However – because so many people mistakenly think it is wrong – writers may want to consider not using a split infinitive in some cases (such as in a job-seeking cover letter) or if the sentence can be written as clearly without it, but clarity should still be the primary goal.

Another note: We sometimes rely on an adverb to prop up a weak verb, when we’d be better off choosing a stronger verb instead, so a question to ask yourself as a “lighter writer”—do I even need this adverb?

I like the discussion in Merriam-Webster’ Dictionary of English Usage (emphasis is mine):

“The consensus in the 20^th century…seems to be that awkward avoidance of the split infinitive has produced more bad writing than the use of it….The commentators recognize that there is nothing grammatically wrong with the split infinitive, but they are loath to abandon a subject that is so dear to the public at large. Therefore, they tell us to avoid splitting infinitives except when splitting one improves clarity. Since improved clarity is very often the purpose and the result of using a split infinitive, the advice does not amount to much. The upshot is that you can split them when you need to.”

Also, I would caution us not to take a “holier than though” approach to grammar – not as writers and certainly not as readers. Insightful, thought-provoking, and clear commentary can come with a grammar mistake, spelling mishap, or typo. And muddy, sloppy, unclear thinking can be written so that it’s free of any grammar errors—but it’s still poor writing.

Sources:

Merriam-Webster’ Dictionary of English Usage. (1994). Split infinitive.

“To be clear is the first duty of a writer; to charm and to please are graces to be acquired later.” — Brander Matthews

I think crosswords and other word games are wonderful mental exercise for writers. In addition to being fun, these puzzles can build your vocabulary and expand your mind: you can make discoveries into how different words can be used in different ways. When working crosswords (as well as when reading a good book), I’m often struck by just how rich the English language is.

My favorite crossword puzzle constructor is Maura Jacobson, who creates puzzles for New York Magazine. She offers some very, very clever twists with her clues — you end up laughing out loud and having delightful “aha” moments as you see where a puzzle is going.  I also love how she mixes clues based on popular culture clues with those based on more traditional topics.

Wordplay, a blog about crosswords from The New York Times, has an excellent post on Maura. You always may like the entire Wordplay blog; much of it is about the paper’s puzzle of the day, but they also offer interesting commentary from crossword constructors, some free puzzles (not their renowned crossword puzzles, though — those are subscription), and a robust set of links for lovers of word games.

One simple, but powerful, writing tip that I received was in a Technical Editing course. A paper I submitted for an assignment was returned with this mark: “Avoid the ‘there are/is’ construction.” I must have written there is and there are a million times and never considered that it’s best avoided. There is and There are state that something exists, a statement that isn’t needed in most sentences.

Since getting this advice, I still have used there is and there are, but I do try to use it with consideration; sometimes the words just hit my ear better. Would I change the title of the book There Are No Children Here to No Children Are Here? Probably not. But in most cases, a sentence is simpler and better without it. Consider these examples:

There is only one reason I come to these meetings – the free coffee.
I come to these meetings for only one reason – the free coffee.

There are many people who want to write simply.
Many people want to write simply.

In addition to resulting in simpler and shorter sentences, I think the sentences without “there are/there is” read stronger. One of the side benefits of writing simply is that the text reads more confidently.

I came across this interesting site: Wordspy at www.wordspy.com. It features neologisms – new words that have entered vocabularies, but may not yet be in dictionaries. It’s a fun site for language buffs or for writers who may be looking for that perfect word.

A few of my favorites:

crackberry: n. A BlackBerry handheld computer, particularly one used obsessively; a person who uses such a computer obsessively.

cankle: n. A thick ankle, particularly one that appears to be a continuation of the calf.

dumbsizing: pp. Reducing the size of a company’s workforce to such an extent that the company becomes unprofitable or inefficient.

glurge: n. A sentimental or uplifting story, particularly one delivered via e-mail, that uses inaccurate or fabricated facts; a story that is mawkish or maudlin; the genre consisting of such stories.

“Fact is, simplicity, clarity, and brevity form the bedrock of all good communication, and have for time immemorial.” — Paula LaRocque, The Book on Writing