For the record, I generally lament the "flattening" of language. However, I still find myself pulled by the current. Examples: I no longer care to avoid splitting infinitives; I say "could have went" now and then.
Ultimately, we might suppose one need only concern oneself with two goals: (1) communicating what one intends to communicate, and (2) making a satisfactory impression upon others on account of one's speech/writing.
Use "common" language to achieve the former; use "correct" language to achieve both.
Careful writers teach readers to read carefully. Careless writers teach readers to read carelessly. If your writing is full of confusing constructions which, on examination, prove to be sloppy prose, then your readers will start to error-correct everything they read to match their expectations of what you're trying to say. If you say anything interesting, clever, or unexpected, they're likely to skim right over it and miss your meaning.
The splitting of infinitives admonition was created, artificially, by a prescriptivist who had studied too much Latin and thought that languages ought to reflect their heritage. It wasn't a prevalent conception until the 1800s; Shakespeare even split infinitives (once.)
The same article seems to suggest that it has both come into and gone out of fashion over the last few centuries. I feel consoled by the examples given where avoiding the split would introduce potentially different meanings than the one originally intended.
I'm guessing that it's a historical accident that "to" is demed part of the infinitive in English and "zu" isn't in German. Wart, meinst du die getrennte Verben?
[Pedant] Mann braucht kein "do" in "We do split" [/Pedant]
> [Pedant] Mann braucht kein "do" in "We do split" [/Pedant]
I know. I just want to emphasize.
> So sich erinerren ≡ zu sich erinneren?
Not in that case. (Here we'd have "sich zu erinnern"). An example for splitting the "zu" from a verb. Strange, it looks like we do not do in German that much (or at all). I must have mixed it up with some other construction.
For the record, I generally lament the "flattening" of language. However, I still find myself pulled by the current. Examples: I no longer care to avoid splitting infinitives; I say "could have went" now and then.
Ultimately, we might suppose one need only concern oneself with two goals: (1) communicating what one intends to communicate, and (2) making a satisfactory impression upon others on account of one's speech/writing.
Use "common" language to achieve the former; use "correct" language to achieve both.