phrases - "to further assist [you]" -- Split infinitive or fixed VP?
From a descriptive standpoint (and the problem that English has at least two words in an infinitive), I understand why the split infinitive is becoming more acceptable, but is there any other excuse for this phrasing used by phone CSRs?
"I'd be happy to direct you to the bank to further assist you."
"I'd like to transfer you to the sales department to further assist
you.""I have Diana on the line, and she'll be happy to further assist you."
Is it simply the case that Star Trek syntax triumphs again, or does it somehow sound funny to say "to assist you further?" (I would not consider "further to assist you" an acceptable solution.)
To clarify, is there a fixed syntagm of a VP "to further assist" versus an issue of split infinitive? Is "further" bound in the domain of "to assist?"
Answer
English does not always have at least two words in an infinitive. This is a common misconception, possibly resulting from the facts that
the to-infinitive form is met with far more commonly than the bare infinitive in common constructions
in the past, dictionaries would pick up on this, and give an entry for 'to swim' rather than 'swim' etc. This practice is happily falling off.
Examples:
I want to wash my hair tomorrow.
I didn't dare wash my hair in that new shampoo. (to optional here)
I helped wash the dishes. (to optional here)
So "I'd be happy to further assist you." doesn't split an infinitive but a to-infinitive.
That said, what about the practice of 'splitting to-infinitives'?
According to G. Pullum [ucsc.edu], this 'rule' is a myth:
Myth: You must never split an infinitive.
Pullum responds: Hemingway didn't write the phrase "to really live" by mistake; it is perfect English. "To" introduces infinitival verb phrases, and "really live" is an infinitival verb phrase (containing a preverbal adverb). Nothing is split in this form of words.
Comments
Post a Comment