> That is, it's not a great defense of split infinitives. And even if it could be in theory, the prevalence of the opinion that split infinitives are wrong suggests that such a rule wouldn't be entirely unfounded in usage.

I think it's a fine defense of split infinitives. Splitting the infinitive is something that has been part of English for centuries. It's so prevalent among native speakers that anyone who believes it's ungrammatical stopped studying grammar in the 19th Century.

As for the opinion that it's ungrammatical, I think only a small minority of people believe that. They are vocal, but I don't think they make up even a majority of serious language scholars.

> Conclusion: go ahead and split your infinitives, and I'll defend your grammatical correctness -- while denouncing at least the awkward and easily-avoidable split infinitives as poor enough uses of language that they might as well be grammatically incorrect for all the practical difference it makes.

There is a significant difference between "never split infinitives" and "split them with caution." For instance, while an English declarative sentence that's missing a subject is pretty much always incorrect, there is a lot more subjectivity involved in splitting infinitives.

What's elegant to one person may be inelegant to the next. Consider my split infinitive that started this: "Women have to first prove that they act. . ." Is it any less clear or significantly less elegant than "Women have to prove first that they act. . .?"

Personally, I still prefer the former.

That said, I'm not one of those people who find split infinitives, in general, to be inelegant. Adverb placement is pretty flexible in English and I'm fine with it occurring within the infinitive.

Stephen