Is this sentence bugged? "adverb to verb"?

Question

There lurks in most modern minds the notion that to desire our own good and earnestly to hope for the enjoyment of it is a bad thing.

Is this "earnestly" an adverb? If it is, then why "earnestly to hope"? Shouldn't there be no "to" in between the adverb and the verb it modifies?

The original sentence is:

If there lurks in most modern minds the notion that to desire our own good and earnestly to hope for the enjoyment of it is a bad thing, I submit that this notion has crept in from Kant and the Stoics and is no part of the Christian faith.

Lewis, C. S.. Weight of Glory (Collected Letters of C.S. Lewis) (p. 27). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

Where did you find the rule that says adverbs can't be used this way with infinitives? — Arm the good guys in America, Nov 09 '17 at 14:39
I earnestly hope I know where I found the rule, but I think I've never seen this kind of usage before. - or, should I say "I earnestly to hope..."? — shenkwen, Nov 09 '17 at 14:43
The problem is that by placing the adverb before "to", it's not only outside the VP but outside the entire clause. Not acceptable. — BillJ, Nov 09 '17 at 14:57
Seems a duplicate of Are split infinitives grammatically incorrect, or are they valid constructs? — Arm the good guys in America, Nov 09 '17 at 14:59
If Lewis had written "...to hope earnestly..." no one would have noticed and he would still have avoided the split infinitive. The same thing applies to the old Star Trek introduction "...to go boldly in search of strange new worlds" would've carried the same meaning and not upset the pedants, however some of the power might have been lost. — BoldBen, Jan 08 '18 at 18:28

score 2 · Answer 1 · answered Nov 09 '17 at 14:45

2

It looks like Lewis was trying to avoid a split infinitive. If Lewis had used a split infinitive, the sentence would read like this:

There lurks in most modern minds the notion that to desire our own good and to earnestly hope for the enjoyment of it is a bad thing.

But since split infinitives have historically been opposed, he changed the sentence structure to avoid it. The resulting sentence is a little awkward, but I think it's technically correct since all he's really doing is using an adverb to modify a verb.

answered Nov 09 '17 at 14:45

superMDguy

31

1

Whoa dude...there is a grammatical rule that says the split infinitive is wrong? It's a style choice. (the given sentence chose to implement avoiding the split infinitive poorly) – Mitch Nov 09 '17 at 14:51
1

I edited to say it was historically opposed. – superMDguy Nov 09 '17 at 14:53
@Clare, I agree. I edited my answer to say it was historically opposed. – superMDguy Nov 09 '17 at 14:59
What does "have historically been opposed" mean? – Arm the good guys in America Nov 09 '17 at 15:10
1

It means that older style manuals opposed the use of the split infinitive but it's now viewed as acceptable. – superMDguy Nov 09 '17 at 15:17
It means that Bp. Robert Lowth's 1762 Short Introduction to English Grammar was taken as holy writ for a benighted century and a half. Lowth suggested that since one cannot insert an adverb in the middle of a Latin infinitive, one shouldn't do so in English. Lowth espoused a number of similar idiot-syncracies... – Rob_Ster Nov 09 '17 at 17:36

Is this sentence bugged? "adverb to verb"?

1 Answers1