To boldly make the rules up

English is a cruel language. Hyphenation rules mean that a

water-skier water-skis on water skis. The abbreviated version of

“until” is not “‘til” but the bizarrely spelled and unpunctuated

“till.” And try explaining to any poor soul struggling to learn

English the logic behind the pronunciation of “through,” “though” and

“throw.”

But such random acts of cruelty don’t mean that the whole system

is viciously, homicidally, reality-TV-caliber cruel. Sometimes the

language can be quite forgiving, and that’s when it’s really cruel.

Example: We’ve all heard of a crime called the “split infinitive.”

“Star Trek” gave us our most famous example of a split infinitive in

the phrase, “to boldly go.” But though this ominous term looms large

in the public consciousness, a rather important fact is left out:

There’s no rule against splitting infinitives.

A quick refresher: Think of an infinitive as a verb preceded by

“to” -- to walk, to think, to write, to boycott reality TV. Whenever

you put something between the “to” and its companion, you’re

splitting the infinitive. And there’s nothing wrong with that.

From the “Chicago Manual of Style”: “Although from about 1850 to

1925 many grammarians stated otherwise, it is now widely acknowledged

that adverbs sometimes justifiably separate the ‘to’ from the

principal verb, ‘They expect to more than double their income next

year.’”

From the Associated Press Stylebook: “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.’”

From Strunk and White’s “The Elements of Style”: “Some infinitives

seem to improve on being split, just as a stick of round stovewood

does. ‘I cannot bring myself to really like the fellow.”

Deane in Corona del Mar took me to task for splitting an

infinitive when I wrote, “if you continue to diligently pursue.”

Deane thought that “if you continue diligently to pursue the goal”

flows more smoothly. I wrote him back and said I disagreed, but now

I’m starting to see his point. Either way, it’s a question of flow

and intent, not some cruel ghost rule (“ghost rule” being a term I

just now coined to describe mythical language laws that cause people

to live in fear unnecessarily).

Ann of City Unknown is also the victim of a ghost rule. She

writes: “The last sentence of today’s (Sunday’s) editorial states,

’...none are quite there now.’ I believe ‘none’ equals ‘no one.’

Therefore, shouldn’t the sentence read, ‘none is quite there now?’”

I don’t know where this ghost rule came from, but I myself was a

victim of it until I read “Garner’s Modern American Usage”: “None =

(1) not one; or (2) not any. Hence it may correctly take either a

singular or plural verb.”

It depends on what you mean. “None of the students are going to

the assembly” means that not any of them are going. “Many students

are going to the assembly, but none is as enthusiastic as Johnny.”

The second one drives home the point that not a single other student

-- that is, not one -- can rival Johnny’s enthusiasm. It’s your call.

No rules.

Marianne, also of City Unknown, wrote me recently about an art

show she was organizing. Should the show be called “Children’s Book

Illustrator Show,” “Children’s Book Illustrators’ Show,” “Children’s

Book Illustrator’s Show” or Children’s Book Illustration Show”?

Because more than one illustrator was involved, option three is

out. But the remaining choices are all viable. Do you want to

emphasize that the illustrators themselves are putting on the show or

in any way own it? Then go with “book illustrators’ show.” Want to

emphasize the illustration instead of the illustrators? Then use that

choice. And for those who don’t like the look of that apostrophe,

here’s some good news: most nouns can function as adjectives (called

“genitives,” if you care). Think about a term like “car dealer” and

it’s clear how nouns can work this way. This is why some newspapers

write “teachers union” instead of “teachers’ union.” So, in my

opinion, the best choice is plural “illustrators,” but no apostrophe.

So next time you’re so spooked by the cruel whims of the language

that you’re beginning to doubt your ability to spell your own name,

remember there’s no such thing as ghosts.

* JUNE CASAGRANDE is a freelance writer. She can be reached at

[email protected].