From a descriptive standpoint (and the problem that English has at least two words in an infinitive), I understand why the split infinitive is becoming more acceptable, but is there any other excuse for this phrasing used by phone CSRs?

  • "I'd be happy to direct you to the bank to further assist you."

  • "I'd like to transfer you to the sales department to further assist

  • "I have Diana on the line, and she'll be happy to further assist you."

Is it simply the case that Star Trek syntax triumphs again, or does it somehow sound funny to say "to assist you further?" (I would not consider "further to assist you" an acceptable solution.)

To clarify, is there a fixed syntagm of a VP "to further assist" versus an issue of split infinitive? Is "further" bound in the domain of "to assist?"

  • 1
    This sounds like peeving, and in any case has been covered elsewhere. Here, for example english.stackexchange.com/questions/2117/… Voting to close. – Barrie England Jan 30 '13 at 15:02
  • 1
    @BarrieEngland I disagree. In this particular example, the phrase "to further assist you" sounds like it has a different meaning than "to assist you further". In the question you link to, "to more than make up" just sounds wrong. – Mr Lister Jan 30 '13 at 15:07
  • 2
    I also vote nitpicking... but isn't that what prescriptive grammar is all about? "to assist you further" and "to further assist you" mean the exact same thing. – mattacular Jan 30 '13 at 15:08
  • 1
    @BarrieEngland they may honestly believe that there used to be a real rule against splitting infinitives and the "more acceptable" and "triumphs again" used honestly rather than as peeving. – Jon Hanna Jan 30 '13 at 16:46
  • 1
    @Colin, I agree; I do not like the scripted "assist" instead of "help." "How may I assist you today?" will never sound as natural to me as "How can I help?" – livresque Jan 31 '13 at 16:16

English does not always have at least two words in an infinitive. This is a common misconception, possibly resulting from the facts that

  1. the to-infinitive form is met with far more commonly than the bare infinitive in common constructions

  2. in the past, dictionaries would pick up on this, and give an entry for 'to swim' rather than 'swim' etc. This practice is happily falling off.


I want to wash my hair tomorrow.

I didn't dare wash my hair in that new shampoo. (to optional here)

I helped wash the dishes. (to optional here)

So "I'd be happy to further assist you." doesn't split an infinitive but a to-infinitive.

That said, what about the practice of 'splitting to-infinitives'?

According to G. Pullum [ucsc.edu], this 'rule' is a myth:

Myth: You must never split an infinitive.

Pullum responds: Hemingway didn't write the phrase "to really live" by mistake; it is perfect English. "To" introduces infinitival verb phrases, and "really live" is an infinitival verb phrase (containing a preverbal adverb). Nothing is split in this form of words.

  • @BarrieEngland this raises another issue: governance of the adverb under VP and Vprime. Can an infinitive "contain" an adverb? Is it bound in the domain? – livresque Jan 30 '13 at 17:27

I actually think your first example sounds odd: "I'd be happy to further assist you."

I often split my infinitives (native speaker), but I'd be more inclined to say, "I'd be happy to assist you further" here.

To your question of why, I don't have a good answer. I often find not splitting the infinitive sounds too contrived and formal. It's similar to the distinction between who and whom for me. I know the difference and use them correctly in academic writing, but I avoid using whom while speaking because it sounds excessively formal (to the American ear, anyway-- that was not my experience in the UK). I think most people have a poor grasp of grammar and so the mistakes are commonplace, thus becoming more accepted (and, in many cases, preferred).


No need for excuses,but for interpretations as with the use of acronymes.

Governance of the adverb under VP and Vprime.

Meaning (minimal ambiguity) and style govern the choice. It is oral/written language, so context and intonation clarifies or modifies interprétation. It is a to-infinitival Subordonate clause ending the sentence ("assist you further": adv ending sentence sounds heavy and could allow a split interpretation according to intonation)

"I'd be happy to direct you to the bank, to assist you further." 

Who is doing the assisting? (ambiguity?)

Fixed VP syntagm?

What about

"I'd be happy to assist you further and direct you to the bank."?

The one uttering is doing the assisting (directing to the bank or else) not the bank

grammatical? acceptable?

"I'd be happy to direct you to the bank to further assist you in the robbery."

This opens another possible position for the adverbe (adding a circonstancial nominal group).

What about "for further assistance" when the speaker is not the one assisting. "to further assist you" involves the speaker much more and forces reliance on contextual and/or situational information.

"To further assist you, I'd be happy to direct you to the bank"

"I have Diana on the line, and she'll be happy to further assist you."

"I have Diana on the line to further assist you."

(is it to restrain interpretation that "and she'll be happy" was added?): Using 2 coordonate clauses with 2 different verbal main agent ("subject" in certain approaches") does reduce the ambiguity on the main agent of the infitinival clause (here the second pronoun); nevertheless the place of the modifier (here an adverbe) will prompt different possible interpretations out of context (AI has to learn also).

Scenario 1

"I" has to leave work and lets Diane take over the customer

"I have Diana on the line to further assist you."

Scenario 2

"I" doesn't know the answer at one point and Diana is experienced

"I have Diana on the line to assist you further (on the matter)."

"I have Diana on the line for further assistance" to avoid ending the sentence with a modifier that could act on what follows.

In conclusion Not a fixed Verbal Phrase since occurrences of different positioning (of the adverbe) are possible and the governance of the adverb is directly linked to meaning and/or style as well as suprasegmental and extra-grammatical parameters.

NO authority on this matter. Just common use.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.