One of my former students, Sean Samis, sent me this blog about split infinitives. The infinitive version of a verb is “to __” (to run, to speak, to write, etc.). To split the infinitive refers to placing an adverb between the “to” and the rest of the verb. The example often given is from Star Trek: “to boldly go . . .” Boldly is the adverb splitting the infinitive “to go.”

The article recounts a story about diplomatic negotiations between the U.S. and Great Britain that led to the Treaty of 1871. As the story goes, the British conceded certain points to the U.S. in the treaty, but would not allow the language of the treaty to contain any split infinitives. According to Yale Professor Thomas Lounsbury, as quoted in the blog, the British sent a telegraph that the treaty’s wording “’would under no circumstances endure the insertion of an adverb between the preposition to (the sign of the infinitive) and the verb.’” Professor Lounsbury was recalling the treaty in 1904.

As we who teach legal analysis and writing teach students how to make the switch from objective to persuasive writing, we often talk about the little things that students can do to their briefs more persuasive.

One fairly obvious technique is for the writer to carefully choose how she wants to label the parties. Calling one party “the Defendant” rather than by his or her given name, for example, tends to de-personalize the defendant. Calling a business entity “the Company,” “the Firm,” or “the Corporation” may trigger for readers certain images or feelings, some of which may be negative. And that may be just what the writer wants if the writer represents a plaintiff alleging a wrong against an impersonal entity. Or, depending on context, maybe those designations are the quickest, easiest way to refer to one of the parties.

But who knew that “the Government” would be considered to a label to avoid—by the government itself?