3

Split infinitives are considered no-no's

to boldly go where no man has gone before

being one of the more famous examples.

In the sentences

He also has been a poet.
He has also been a poet.

both are understandable with similar meaning, but would the second, "has also been", be considered the equivalent (whatever that would be) of a split infinitive in this situation?

Kevin
  • 8,014
  • 24
  • 32
Peter
  • 66,233
  • 6
  • 65
  • 125
  • 4
    There is no split infinitive in your own examples. Generally, in written form, the second would be usual. That said, the only position that is not grammatical is after been. – Lambie Nov 21 '16 at 15:18
  • 1
    The only reason those two self-made examples have "similar meaning" is because they both assert that he has been a poet. But as @Rompey says, the position of *also* makes quite a bit of difference to the meaning. As for OP's question about "equivalent of a split infinitive", I've absolutely no idea what that's supposed to mean, so I've closevoted as "Unclear". But if the question really is about the position of *only* I'm sure there will be several earlier questions against which this could be closed as a duplicate. – FumbleFingers Nov 21 '16 at 15:51
  • See my answer here which addresses this in passing. What keeps this zombie split infinitive "rule" alive? I suppose there are backwaters where English is taught to non-English speakers by yet other non-English speakers from ancient usage guides, but this particular myth seems still to be current even among some native speakers! (Of course, there are no split infinitives here, as FF notes.) – P. E. Dant Reinstate Monica Nov 21 '16 at 23:29

3 Answers3

8

If the acceptability of the both is taken for granted, I think that the place of also in a sentence will depend upon the context, that is whether it means "like someone already mentioned" (He also has been a poet) or "in addition to being something else"(He has also been a poet).

Victor B.
  • 9,525
  • 7
  • 42
  • 91
4

I'm going to say "no" on this one - if only because applying the same rule to other adverbs makes you unable to form a grammatically correct sentence.

I have not been to Spain.

*I have been not to Spain.

*I not have been to Spain.

*I have been to Spain not.

It's not a split infinitive (since "have been" is obviously not an infinitive), and it's not incorrect simply because you have no other choice but to use it.

Maciej Stachowski
  • 9,988
  • 1
  • 23
  • 31
  • I've *voted this answer up* because even though I do have a choice there (I could have *voted up this answer*), I'm exercising my democratic right to ignore what I consider to be an extreme example of a zombie rule (i.e. - complete tosh). – FumbleFingers Nov 21 '16 at 16:55
1

This would be called split verb rule.

According to this rule.

An adverb must not be placed between an auxiliary and the following verb

But this so-called theory is violated by many elite writers.

Also good read here:

Lucian Sava
  • 11,458
  • 15
  • 46
  • 98
  • 1
    To clarify: no one explicitly endorses the "split verb" rule; rather, it results from confusion and uncertainty surrounding the "split infinitive" rule (which some people do endorse). – ruakh Nov 21 '16 at 19:51
  • Of course, @ruakh, on that account I described it as so-called theory. – Lucian Sava Nov 21 '16 at 20:48
  • Well, but the "split infinitive" rule is also a "so-called theory" that "is violated by many elite writers", so that phrasing doesn't really make a distinction. – ruakh Nov 21 '16 at 20:53
  • @ruakh, yes, you're right about my wording, it doesn't make the distinction, but I only wanted to answer OP's question about the equivalent* (whatever that would be) of a split infinitive*. – Lucian Sava Nov 21 '16 at 21:17