My problem with the quote from Trask is his “As can easily be shown”. It’s not obvious to me, but then I’m not a linguist (nor, to be honest, have I spent much time on this). I do trust him that it can be shown — perhaps easily — but I’d still like to know for myself.

Sorry to hear about you and the Economist Style Guide. Hope you can both get your lives back together again.

However, as for the split infinitive…

I enjoyed Mayes’s column no end, despite the absence of referral to Trask, and despite the fact that I’ve never been as bothered by the whole split infinitive ‘debate’ as perhaps I should have been. I have but one quibble with his analysis of the infinitive itself, though: surely in English the “introductory particle” is necessary in order to indicate that the verb is in its infinitve form - “touch” by itself could be a simple first or second person present tense declension of the verb, or indeed it could be a noun. It’s only by yoking it to the “to” that we know it’s the infinitive. I do agree with Trask - and, in fairness, Mayes - in that people get way too het up about this subject and that *sometimes* popping an adverb in between the verb and “to” is not going to hurt anybody. But weren’t we all taught at school that “avoir” meant “to have” rather than just “have”…?