If I had responded to the thread on reference works, I would have included a personal favourite that no-one else has mentioned; 'Fowler's Modern English Usage'. Let me say at once that the "Modern" in the title is misleading, since the book was written in 1926. The version I use is the 1965 revision by Sir Ernest Gowers, himself an authority on the language.

I assert the competence of Fowler and Gowers to pronounce on this matter, because the "English" to which the title refers is that used by Fleurie and myself - the English of England. Additionally, by citing Shakespeare, Hope has permitted me to use an authority that is temporally situated between the Bard and the present day. {Fleurie - living where you do, it is probable that your lingo is slightly closer to the Bard's than mine is; but that's another issue :) }

Fowler was not a pedant, though I may be thought so. {You are all permitted your opinion, just as long as it is expressed politely.} Rather, Fowler takes a very practical view of language. In the context of the split infinitive, he begins:

"The English-speaking world may be divided into
(1) those who neither know nor care what a split infinitive is;
(2) those who do not know, but care very much;
(3) those who know and condemn;
(4) those who know and approve;
(5) those who know and distinguish."

"1. Those who neither know nor care are the vast majority, and are a happy folk, to be envied by most of the minority classes..."

"2. To the second class, those who do not know but do care, who would as soon be caught putting their knives in their mouths as splitting an infinitive but have only hazy notions of what constitutes that deplorable breach of etiquette, this article is chiefly addressed. These people betray by their practice that their aversion to the split infinitive springs not from instinctive good taste but from tame acceptance of the misinterpretations of others; for they will subject their sentences to the queerest distortion, all to escape imaginary split infinitives."

...

"3. The above writers are bogy-haunted creatures who for fear of splitting an infinitive abstain from doing something quite different ... Those who presumably do know what split infinitives are, and condemn them, are not so easily identified since they include all who neither commit the sin nor flounder about in saving themselves from it - all who combine a reasonable dexterity with an acceptance of conventional rules. But when dexterity is lacking, disaster follows."

...

"4. Just as those [ie those in #3] include many who are not recognisable ... those who know and approve are not distinguishable with certainty."

...

"5. The attitude of those who know and distinguish is something like this: We admit that the separation of to from its infinitive is not in itself desirable and we shall not gratuitously say [he gives several examples]. We maintain however that a real s.i., though not desirable in itself is preferable to either of two things, to real ambiguity, and to patent artificiality."

So, as Hope suggests, split whenever you think it will improve the writing, but first and foremost, understand what it is you are doing.

And there I must take issue with her on the subject of adverbs. In Fowler's opinion anything inserted between "to" and the infinitive form of the verb is a split. Fowler insists that this does not nor should not prohibit judicious use of the technique. But Fowler notes some false identifications, one to do with a miss-identification of the actual infinitive, others where the "rule" is extended to parts of the verb conjugation other than the infinitive.

In particular he cites the 'passive infinitive' for example "(I expect) to be flamed". "(I expect) to be thoroughly flamed" is not a 'split', but "(I expect) to thoroughly be flamed" is a 'split' (as well as being very disphonius, if there is such a word).

As far as the question of self-proofing or asking someone else is concerned, that is a decision an author must take for herself. Personally I would agree with Hope - I usually tend to 'see' what I think I wrote, irrespective of what is on the page. But for my own company documentation I manage by using a spell-checker, a grammar checker (which is usually 'more honoured in the breach'), and particularly by ensuring several hours' interval (at least) between writing and checking.

But, as Hope infers, none of this matters if the story does not fly; if characterisation is weak or plot foundations are wanting. One of my favourite stories is Wanda's first 'Trans Glimpse' "Pink Sky". It's all there in just 300 words. But in that space Wanda tells a satisfyingly complete tale.

Also the story has to be the author's story as she wants it. If the author is not true to her tale what profit is in it? If we non-writers - who are possibly the largest cohort of readers - don't like it, then that is our loss.

I'd like to ask if Fleurie is as much concerned with the possibility of the proofer's role shading into providing more than a simple service of noting miss-spellings and miss-placed upper/lower cases? Even at the level of basic punctuation I have disagreed with authors; but I take the view that it is the proofer's role to find these things, but the author's right to choose.

Proofing is actually a dismal job; it takes most of the joy out of reading. I usually read through once for pleasure first, because after that it is drudge work.

Xi