+0
Hi.

Is there a prescriptive rule regarding placing an adverb in between a perfect tense construction, i.e. has + (adverb) + past participle?

Is either one of these incorrect? (1) He has bravely gone into the woods. (2) He has gone bravely into the woods.

I feel like this is a similar case to the split infinitive rule, which forbids something like "to bravely go where no one dares to go." To me, the "to + adverb + verb" construction is similar to the "has + adverb + past participle" construction. This is the reason why I'm wondering if putting an adverb in between a perfect construction wrongly splits the perfect tense.

Another example of split infinitive:

You need to honestly tell me what you have done. / You need to tell me honestly what you have done.

Thank you so much.
+0
The adverb can usually easily follow the first element of a verb phrase (among other places)-- I have never seen; we have eagerly been awaiting. There is obviously no rule against it, though certain kinds of adverbs rest more comfortably elsewhere.

The 'rule' against splitting infinitives is long defunct; it need be observed only if your teacher insists on it in his/her assignments or tests.
Comments  
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
Thank you, Mr.M.

In your previous responding post, you wrote:

The 'rule' against splitting infinitives is long defunct; it need be observed only if your teacher insists on it in his/her assignments or tests.

What is the facor involved in deciding which way to write your partial sentence?

it need be observed only if ... (I think this is a modal form)

it needs to be observed only if ... (I think this isn't a modal form)
It was my (unconscious) option. I think the modal is more formal.