I recently read an article on BBC titled Bad grammar and the people who hate it. In it, there is a photo of a train station sign which reads as follows.
Friday 9 June 2006
Shoreditch station to permanently close
As part of the East London line project, Shoreditch station will permanently close to allow for a new line to be…
The fact that the sign has appeared in the article hints that there is something grammatically wrong with it. Although, for a non-native English speaker such as myself, it appears completely flawless.
What am I missing here?
Best Answer
The headline for the notice contains a split infinitive and no main verb.
Headlines can get away with not containing a main verb (which would be is in this case: "station is to..."), but some people class the split infinitive (eg "to permanently close") as a heinous crime against the language.
From the last couple of paragraphs in the article itself:
In this case, rewording the notice as "Shoreditch Station to close permanently" does not upset line lengths since it's still the last three words which are together on one line, and it would not fall foul of any of Fowler's five groups.
The text of the notice contains "to allow for a new line to be built", which might also raise hackles. Allow for really needs to be followed by a noun phrase, not a verb phrase: