Not splitting infinitives* as a rule is dumb. But using the subjunctive mood isn’t. Usually when I argue for the occasional split infinitive, I cite English’s origins in both Romance and Germanic languages. In Spanish, for instance, the infinitive simply cannot be split. This is because the infinitive (to talk – hablar, e.g.) is one single word. But in Old English, verbs work similarly to how they do now: to make an infinitive, you need the verb and the word “to” (to talk). Not splitting infinitives comes, in part, from the inability to do so in Romance languages. But since English doesn’t come from Latin in the same way Spanish does, the point that Latin never splits infinitives is moot. And it ignores that English has roots in languages where the infinitives were, as they are today, two words and thus can be separated.
Why, then, can’t the same argument—that English didn’t come only from Latin—be applied to the subjunctive? If we were (ha!) to say the subjunctive is no longer necessary because it is drawn from only part of English’s origins, that would be in line with the argument against never splitting infinitives. But the subjunctive did, in fact, exist in Old English and the precursors to Old English. So using the Old English argument won’t cut it.
To begin with, here’s a little more on split infinitives:
When it comes to split infinitives (e.g. “to bravely go to the moon” instead of “to go bravely to the moon;” the first is a split infinitive), a descriptivist approach to grammar is best. No meaning is lost when “bravely” is put before go. In fact, you could argue that meaning is lost when you maintain the infinitive (the second version); since the sentence sounds awkward and kind of bad, it loses its linguistic power. Of course you could argue that it’s not awkward and that the split-infinitive version is awkward. But still, no meaning is lost when the infinitive is split, even if you think the second version sounds better. According the the New York Times blog “After Deadline:”
The Columbia Guide to Standard American English offers a fuller discussion, with essentially the same conclusion: split the infinitive when necessary for clarity or to avoid contortions; avoid the split when it’s possible to do so deftly.
Now, on to the subjunctive:
The subjunctive is a mood, not a tense. It shows doubt and uncertainty and sometimes even impossibility, not time. Temporal sense in a sentence is important, and so is uncertainty. Little changes in words mean big changes in meaning: “I talked on the phone” is certainly not the same as “I talk on the phone.” Likewise, “I wish I were talking on the phone” is not the same as “I was talking on the phone.” For one, the second version is incorrect since it uses “was” instead of the subjunctive “were.” You wish you were on the phone; you are uncertain that it could happen, just as you are uncertain that anything not happening is possible (an existential crisis, perhaps, but still true).
The answer lies in the precision of language. Splitting an infinitive doesn’t make language less precise (and some may argue in some cases that it actually makes language more precise). But ignoring the subjunctive mood takes away linguistic nuance.
* First written as “splitting infinities,” which is another topic altogether. A split infinity must still be infinity, right?
