What isn't a split infinitive?

Do you agree with this statement:

http://www.yaelf.com/aueFAQ/mifsplitinfinitive.shtml

Phrases consisting of "to be" or "to have" followed by an adverb
and a participle are *not* split infinitives, and constitute the
natural word order. "To generally be accepted" and "to always have
thought" are split infinitives; "to be generally accepted" and "to
have always thought" are not.

[Casiopea]

Originally Posted by M56

Do you agree with this statement:

Phrases consisting of "to be" or "to have" followed by an adverb
and a participle are *not* split infinitives, and constitute the
natural word order. "To generally be accepted" and "to always have
thought" are split infinitives; "to be generally accepted" and "to
have always thought" are not.

Yes. "infinitive" refers to the verb, not to its object:

Infinitive verb: [to be]
Object: [accepted]
Verb phrase: [ [to be] [accepted] ]

The adverb can go anywhere outside the verb boundary ([. . .]) or the verb phrase boundary, but never inside the verb boundary. If that happens, it splits the integrity of the infinitive structure:

[to be] generally [accepted]
generally [to be] [accepted]
[to be] [accepted] generally

[to generally be] [accepted] (split infinitive)

Originally Posted by Casiopea

Yes. "infinitive" refers to the verb, not to its object:

Infinitive verb: [to be]
Object: [accepted]
Verb phrase: [ [to be] [accepted] ]

The adverb can go anywhere outside the verb boundary ([. . .]) or the verb phrase boundary, but never inside the verb boundary. If that happens, it splits the integrity of the infinitive structure:

[to be] generally [accepted]
generally [to be] [accepted]
[to be] [accepted] generally

[to generally be] [accepted] (split infinitive)

I agree. Thanks for the swift reply.

What do you think of this written by a NS who claims to be an authority on English grammar?

to be understood - passive infinitive
to clearly be understood - split infinitive
to be clearly understood - split infinitive
to be understood clearly - no split

[Casiopea]

Originally Posted by M56

I agree. Thanks for the swift reply.

You're welcome, M56.

What do you think of this written by a NS who claims to be an authority on English grammar?

1. to be understood - passive infinitive
2. to clearly be understood - split infinitive
3. to be clearly understood - split infinitive
4. to be understood clearly - no split

Let's check it out:

1. For us to be understood, we have to. . . . (passive infinitive)
2. For us to clearly be understood, we have to. . . . (split infinitive)
3. For us to be clearly understood, we have to. . . . (split infintive)
4. For us to be understood clearly, we have to. . . . (no split)

Clearly, there's a split in 2.

[Tdol]

Is the NS suggesting that #3 is incorrect or needs rewriting because of the alleged split? If so, I disagree.

Originally Posted by tdol

Is the NS suggesting that #3 is incorrect or needs rewriting because of the alleged split? If so, I disagree.

He is suggesting it is correct. He says that the whole thing ("to be understood") is a unit and cannot be split.

[RonBee]

They are all okay with me. Split all you like. In my humble opinion, split infinitives are not something to worry about.

[tuangpi]

To me split infinitive seems to be pedantic, especially when overused.

Originally Posted by tuangpi

To me split infinitive seems to be pedantic, especially when overused.

Interesting, Tuangpi. Could you elaborate?

[Casiopea]

Originally Posted by tuangpi

To me split infinitive seems to be pedantic, especially when overused.

Welcome.