Part 133 (1/2)

OBS 8--In Fisher's English Grammar, London, 1800, (of which there had beenrule of syntax: ”When two principal _Verbs_ coether, the latter of them expresses an unlimited Sense, with the Preposition _to_ before it; as _he loved to learn; I chose to dance_: and is called the _infinitive Verb_, which ; a Book delightful to read_” That this author supposed the infinitive to be _governed_ by _to_, and not by the preceding verb, noun, or adjective, is plain froin: ”The Scholar will best understand this, by being told that _infinite_ or _invariable Verbs_, having neither Nu to the before then _to_ is often understood; as, Bid Robert and his company (_to_) tarry”--_Fisher's New Gra, and also the rules, which are given in the early English grammars, are so very defective, that it is often impossible to say positively, what their authors did, or did not, intend to teach Dr

Lowth's specirammatical resolution” contains four infinitives In his explanation of the first, the preposition and the verb are parsed separately, as above; except that he says nothing about government In his account of the other three, the tords are taken together, and called a ”_verb_, in the infinitive _mode_” But as he elsewhere calls the particle _to_ a preposition, and nowhere speaks of any thing else as governing the infinitive, it seeimen of this preposition[404] If such was his idea, we have the learned Doctor's authority in opposition to that of his professed admirers and copyists Of these, Lindley Murray is doubtless the most famous But Murray's twelfth rule of syntax, while it expressly calls _to_ before the infinitive a _preposition_, absurdly takes away frooverns nothing_, and has apparently nothing to do with the _relation_ of the terra _to_ before the infinitive a _preposition_ without supposing it to govern the verb, have studiously avoided this name; and have either made the ”_little word_” a supernumerary part of speech, or treated it as no part of speech at all Aer, Guy, Churchill, Hiley, Nutting, Mulligan, Spencer, and Wells Except Comly, the numerous modifiers of Murray's Grammar are none of them more consistent, on this point, than was Murray himself Such of them as do not follow him literally, either deny, or forbear to affirm, that _to_ before a verb is a _preposition_; and consequently either tell us not what it is, or tell us falsely; so it ”_a part of the verb_,” while they neither join it to the verb as a prefix, nor include it a the auxiliaries Thus Kirkham: ”_To_ is not a preposition when _joined to_ a verb in this mood; thus, _to_ ride, _to_ rule; but it should be parsed _with the verb_, and _as a part_ of it”--_Gram in Familiar Lect_, p 137 So R C Smith: ”This little word _to_ when _used before_ verbs in this manner, is not a preposition, but for, should be so considered”--_Productive Gram_, p 65 How can that be ”_a part_ of the verb,” which is _a word_ used _before_ it? or how is _to_ ”joined to the verb,” or made a part of it, in the phrase, ”_to_ ride?” But Smith does not abide by his own doctrine; for, in an other part of his book, he adopts the phraseology of Murray, and h generally used before the latter verb, is sometimes properly omitted; as, 'I heard him say it;' instead of '_to_ say it'”--_Productive Gram_, p 156 See _Murray's Rule_ 12th

OBS 11--Most English grammarians have considered the word _to_ as a part of the infinitive, a part _of the verb_; and, like the teachers of Latin, have referred the govern verb But the rule which they give, is partial, and often inapplicable; and their exceptions to it, or the heterogeneous parts into which so They teach that at least half of the ten different parts of speech ”_frequently_ govern the infinitive:” if so, there should be a distinct rule for each; for why should the government of one part of speech be made an exception to that of an other? and, if this be done, with respect to the infinitive, why not also with respect to the objective case? In all instances to which their rule is applicable, the rule which I have given, a; and it obviates the necessity for their nu from other constructions of the infinitive not noticed in theinable still so frequently rejected for so much complexity and inconsistency? Or how can the more common rule in question be suitable for a child, if its applicability depends on a relation between the two verbs, which the preposition _to_ sometimes expresses, and sometimes does not?

OBS 12--All authors adn _to_ is ”superfluous and i complete without it; and the ”Rev Peter Bullions, D D, Professor of Languages in the Albany Acaderaoverns _another_ in the infinitive mood; as, _I desire to learn_;” and then reoverned by it _only when the attribute expressed by the infinitive is either the subject or_ [the] _object of the other verb_ In such expressions as '_I read to learn_,' the infinitive is _not governed_ by 'I read,' but depends on the phrase '_in order to_'

understood”--_Bullions's Prin of E Gram_, p 110 But, ”_I read 'in order to' to learn_,” is not English; though itelse than a preposition: as, ”Now _set to to learn_ your lesson” This broad exception, therefore, which eh it contains some obvious truth, is both carelessly stated, and badly resolved The single particle _to_ is quite sufficient, both to govern the infinitive, and to connect it to any antecedent term which can make sense with such an adjunct But, in fact, the reverend author must have meant to use the ”_little word_” but once; and also to deny that it is a preposition; for he elsewhere says expressly, though, beyond question, erroneously, ”A preposition should never be used before the infinitive”--_Ib_, p 92 And he also says, ”The _Infinitive_ eneral manner, without distinction of number, person, _or time_, and commonly has TO _before_ it”--_Ib_, Second Edition, p 35 Now if TO is ”_before_” the ain, if this mood had no distinction of ”_time_,” our author's two tenses of it, and his oo special rules for their application, would be as absurd as is his notion of its government See his _Obs 6 and 7, ib_, p 124

OBS 13--Richard Hiley, too, a grammarian of perhaps more merit, is equally faulty in his explanation of the infinitive mood In the first place, he absurdly says, ”TO _before the infinitive_part of the verb_; but in _every other_ situation it is a preposition”--_Hiley's Gram_, Third Edition, p 28 To teach that a ”_part of the verb_” stands ”_before the reater, than the very opposite notion of Dr Ash, that what is _not a part of the verb_, may yet be included _in the mood_ There is no need of either of these false suppositions; or of the suggestion, doubly false, that _to_ ”in _every other_ situation, is a preposition” What does _preposition_ mean? Is _to_ a preposition when it is placed _after_ a verb, and _not_ a preposition when it is placed _before_ it? For example: ”I rise _to shut to_ the door”--See _Luke_, xiii, 25

OBS 14--In his syntax, this author further says, ”When two verbs coether, the latter _must be in the infinitive mood, when it denotes the object_ of the former; as, 'Study _to improve_'” This is his _Rule_ Now look at his _Notes_ ”1 When the latter verb _does not express_ the object, _but the end_, or so remote, the word _for_, or the words _in order to_, are understood; as, 'I read _to learn_;' that is, 'I read _for_ to learn,' or, '_in order_ [TO] _to_ learn' The word _for_, however, is never, in such instances, expressed in good language 2 The infinitive is _frequently governed_ by adjectives, substantives, and participles; but in _this instance_ also, a preposition is understood, though _never expressed_; as, 'Eager _to learn_;' that is, 'eager _for_ to learn;' or, '_for_ learning;' 'A desire _to improve_;' that is, '_for to iin of some of Bullions's blunders _To_ is so sentlemen Words utterly needless, and worse than needless, they foist into our language, in instances beyond number, to explain infinitives that occur at almost every breath Their students must see that, ”_I read to learn_,” and, ”_I study to improve_,” with countless other examples of either sort, are very _different constructions_, and not to be parsed by the saovernment of the infinitive which Hiley affirms, is immediately contradicted by the supposition of a needless _for_ ”understood”

OBS 15--In all such examples as, ”I _read_ to _learn_,”--”I _strive_ to _learn_”--”Sos_ to _cheer_ hio_ to _prepare_ a place for you,”--_the action_ and _its purpose_ are connected by the word _to_; and if, in the countless instances of this kind, the forovern_ the latter, it is not because the phraseology is elliptical, or ever was elliptical,[405] but because in no case is there any such government, except in the construction of those verbs which take the infinitive after them without the preposition _to_ Professor Bullions will have the infinitive to be governed by a finite verb, ”when the _attribute expressed by the infinitive is the subject_ of the other verb” An infinitive ra of _subject_, as well as of _attribute_, and therefore written nonsense Dr Johnson defines his _adverb_ TO, ”A particle co the second as the _object_ of the first” But of all the words which, according to overn the infinitive, probably not more than a quarter are such verbs as usually _have an object_ after theoverne has it, even where it is least objectionable?

OBS 16--Take for an example of this contrast the terms, ”Strive to enter in--many will seek to enter in”--_Luke_, xiii, 24 Why should it be thought overns the infinitive verb _to enter_; than to say, that _to_ is a preposition, showing the relation between _strive_ and _enter_, or between _will seek_ and _enter_, and governing the latter verb? (See the exact and only needful for any such term, in the _Twelfth Praxis_ of this work) None, I presume, will deny, that in the Greek or the Latin of these phrases, the finite verbs govern the infinitive; or that, in the French, the infinitive _entrer_ is governed first by one preposition, and then by an other ”_Contendite intrare--multi quaerent intrare_”--_Montanus_

”Efforcez-vous _d'_entrer--plusieurs chercheront _a_ y entrer”--_French Bible_ In my opinion, _to_ before a verb is as fairly a preposition as the French _de_ or _a_; and it is the n of these observations, while they candidly show the reader what others teach, _to prove it so_ The only construction whichelse, is that which puts it after a verb or a participle, in the sense of an adverbial supplement; as, ”The infernal idol is bowed down _to_”--_Herald of Freedoth he came _to_”--”Tell hiular absurdness of opinion, sorammarians call _to_ a preposition, when it thus _follows_ a verb and governs nothing, who resolutely deny it that name, when it _precedes_ the verb, and _requires it to be in the infinitive overnovernment, is not an _adverb_, what is? See Obs 2d on the List of Prepositions

OBS 17--The infinitive thus ades; because we less frequently use it without a preposition, and seldo particle And yet in no other language has its construction given rise to a tenth part of that variety of absurd opinions, which the defender of its true syntax h frequently placed in ioverned by several different prepositions, (as, _a, de, pour, sans, apres_,) according to the sense[406] In Spanish and Italian, the construction is similar In Latin and Greek, the infinitive is, for the most part, irammars, it may stand for a noun, in all the six cases; and many have called it an _indeclinable noun_ See the Port-Royal Latin and Greek grammars; in which several peculiar constructions of the infinitive are referred to the government of a _preposition_--constructions that occur frequently in Greek, and sometimes even in Latin

OBS 18--It is from an ies” to ours, thaterammar, has been, and continues to be, derived A late author, who supposes every infinitive to be virtually _a noun_, and who thinks he finds in ours _all the cases_ of an English noun, not excepting the possessive, gives the following account of its origin and nature: ”This mood, with almost all its properties and uses, has been adopted into our language frouesThe definite article [Greek: t] [,] _the_, which they [the Greeks] used before the infinitive, to mark, in an especial manner, its nature of a substantive, _is evidently the same word_ that we use before our infinitive; thus, '_to_ write,' signifies _the_ writing; that is, the action of writing;--and when a verb governs an infinitive, it only governs it _as in the objective case_”--_Nixon's English Parser_, p 83 But ill believe, that our old Saxon ancestors borrowed from Greek or Latin what is now our construction of the very _root_ of the English verb, when, in all likelihood, they could not read a word in either of those languages, or scarcely knew the letters in their own, and while it is plain that they took not thence even the inflection of a _single branch_ of any verb whatever?

OBS 19--The particle _to_, being a very coenerally used before the English infinitive, ever since the English language, or any thing like it, existed And it has always _governed the verb_, not indeed ”as in the _objective case_,” for no verb is ever declined by cases, but silo-Saxon version of the Gospels, which was made as early as the eleventh century, the infinitive mood is sometimes expressed in this manner, and sometimes by the termination _on_ without the preposition Dr Johnson's History of the English Language, prefixed to his large Dictionary, contains, of this version, and of Wickliffe's, the whole of the first chapter of Luke; except that the latter omits the first four verses, so that the nu, for convenience, English characters for the Saxon, I shall cite here three examples from each; and these, if he will, the reader may compare with the 19th, the 77th, and the 79th verse, in our common Bible SAXON: ”And ic eom asend with the _sprecan_ and the this _bodian_”--_Lucae_, i, 19 WICKLIFFE: ”And Y aelise_ to thee these thingis”--_Luk_, i, 15 SAXON: ”_To syllene_ his folce haele gewit on hyra synna forgyfnesse”--_Lucae_, i, 77 WICKLIFFE: ”_To geve_ science of heelth to his puple into remissioun of her synnes”--_Luk_, i, 73 SAXON: ”_Onlyhtan_ thaereccenne_ on sibbe weg”--_Lucae_, i, 79 WICKLIFFE: ”_To geve_ light to them that sitten in derknessis, and in schadowe of deeth, _to dresse_ oure feet into the weye of pees”--_Luk_, i, 75 ”In Anglo-Saxon,” says Dr

Latham, ”the dative of the infinitive verb ended in _-nne_, and was preceded by the preposition _to_: as, To lufienne = _ad a_, or _to love_]; To baernenne = _ad urendu_, or _to burn_]; To syllanne = _ad danduive_]”--_Hand-Book_, p 205

OBS 20--Such, then, has ever been the usual construction of the _English_ infinitive mood; and a wilder interpretation than that which supposes _to_ an _article_, and says, ”_to write_ signifies _the writing_,” cannot possibly be put upon it On this supposition, ”I a, ”I a_ a letter,”

which is utter nonsense And further, the infinitive in Greek and Latin, as well as in Saxon and English, is always in fact governed as a _ that the Greek article in any of its four different cases may, in some instances, be put before it; for even with an article before it, the Greek infinitive usually retains its regimen as a verb, and is therefore not ”a _substantive_,” or noun I a that the essence of the verb consists in predication, have plainly denied that the infinitive is a verb; and, because it overned by a verb or a preposition, have chosen to call it ”athese is the erudite Richard Johnson, ith so much ability and lost labour, exposed, in his Commentaries, the errors and defects of Lily's Grammar and others This author adduces several reasons for his opinion; one of which is the following: ”Thirdly, it is found to have a Preposition set before it, an other _sure sign of a Substantive_; as, '_Ille nihil praeter loqui, et ipsune, didicit_' Liv l 45, p 888

[That is, ”He learned nothing _but to speak_, and that slanderously and maliciously”] '_At si quis sibi beneficium dat, nihil interest inter dare et accipere_' Seneca, de Ben l 5, c 10” [That is, ”If any one bestows a benefit on hiive and take_;” [407]--or, ”_between bestowing_ and _receiving_”]--See _Johnson's Gran of a substantive” (See Obs 2d on the Prepositions, and also Obs 1st on the List of Prepositions, in the tenth chapter of Etyical authorities, to determine whether infinitives are nouns or verbs, there will certainly be found more for the latter naht; though it rammarians did, as Priscian tells us, consider the infinitive a noun, calling it _Nomen Verbi_, the Name of the Verb[408] If we appeal to reasons, there are more also of these;--or at least as many, and most of them better: as, 1 That the infinitive is often transitive; 2 That it has tenses; 3 That it is qualified by adverbs, rather than by adjectives; 4 That it is never declined like a noun; 5 That the action or state expressed by it, is not coh it es it is _the root_ from which all other parts of the verb are derived, as it is in English

OBS 21--So far as I know, it has not yet been denied, that _to_ before a _participle_ is a preposition, or that a preposition before a participle _governs_ it; though there are not a feho erroneously suppose that participles, by virtue of such governainst this latter idea, there are many sufficient reasons; but let the to prove, in this place, that _to_ before the infinitive is _just such a word_ as it is before the participle; and this can be done, call either of them what you will It is plain, that if the infinitive and the participle are ever _equivalent to each other_, the same word _to_ before theine there are some examples of each equivalence; as, ”When we are habituated _to doing_ [or _to do_] any thing wrong, we beco Christian_, p 326 ”The lyre, or harp, was best adapted _to acco_ [or _to accompany_] their declainner should be accustoive_] all the reasons for each part of speech”--_Nutting's Graion and e”--SWIFT: _Blair's Rhet_, p 108 Besides these instances of _sameness in the particle_, there are souity_, the noun and the verb having the sa which is meant: as, ”He was inclined _to sleep_”--”It must be a bitter experience, to be more accustomed _to hate_ than _to love_” Here are _double_ doubts for the discrin of the infinitive_” fails, or becomes uncertain; _because they do not know it from a preposition_ Cannot ainst the distinction which they atteood, is also afforded by the fact, that our ancestors often used the participle after _to_, in the very same texts in which we have since adopted the infinitive in its stead; as, ”And if yee wolen resceyue, he is Elie that is _to coe_”--_Matt_, xi, 14 ”Ihesu that delyueride us fro wraththe _to coe_”--_1 Thes_, i, 10 These, and seventeen other examples of the same kind, may be seen in _Tooke's Diversions of Purley_, Vol ii pp 457 and 458

OBS 22--Dr Jalish infinitive, says:--”But if the appellation of _mode_ be denied it, it is then a _verbal noun_ This is indeed _its truest character_, because _its idea ever represents_ an _object of approach_ _To_ supplies the defect of a termination characteristic of the infinitive, precedes it, andverb is directed;[409] or it signifies _act_, and shows the word to import an action When the infinitive is the expression of an _immediate_ action, which it must be, after the verbs, _bid, can, dare, do, feel, hear, let, make, may, must, need, see, shall_, and _will_, the _preposition_ TO is omitted”--_Essay on Grammar_, p 129 That the truest character of the infinitive is that of a verbal noun, is not to be conceded, in weak abandonment of all the reasons for a contrary opinion, until it can be shown that the action or being expressed by it, must needs assume a _substantive_ character, in order to be ”that _towards which_ the preceding verb is directed” But this character is manifestly not supposable of any of those infinitives which, according to the foregoing quotation, must follow other verbs without the intervention of the preposition _to_: as, ”Bid him _come_;”--”He can _walk_” And I see no reason to suppose it, where the relation of the infinitive to an other word is _not_ ”_immediate_” but marked by the preposition, as above described For exa-down of the sun TO _deliver_ hioverned by _to_, and connected by it to the finite verb _laboured_; but to tell us, it is to be understood _substantively_ rather than _actively_, is an assumption as false, as it is needless

OBS 23--To deny to the infinitive the appellation of _mood_, no more makes it a _verbal noun_, than does the Doctor's solecism about what ”ITS IDEA _ever represents_” ”The infinitive therefore,” as Horne Tooke observes, ”appears plainly to be what the Stoics called it, _the very verb itself_, pure and uncompounded”--_Diversions of Purley_, Vol i, p 286

Not indeed as including the particle _to_, or as it stands in the English perfect tense, but as it occurs in the _simple root_ But I cited Dr

Wilson, as above, not so ain on this point, as with reference to the _import_ of the particle _to_; of which he furnishes a twofold explanation, leaving the reader to take which part he will of the contradiction He at first conceives it to convey in general the idea of ”_towards_,” and toelse ”_is directed_” If this interpretation is the true one, it is plain that _to_ before a verb is no other than the common preposition _to_; and this idea is confire, and by all that is certainly known of its derivation But if we take the second solution, and say, ”it signifies _act_,” we make it not a preposition, but either a noun or a verb; and then the question arises, _Which of these is it_? Besides, what sense can there be, in supposing _to go_ to o_[410]

OBS 24--Though the infinitive is commonly made an adjunct to some finite verb, yet it may be connected to almost all the other parts of speech, or even to an other infinitive The preposition _to_ being its only and almost universal index, we seldom find any other preposition put before this; unless the word _about_, in such a situation, is a preposition, as I incline to think it is[411] Anciently, the infinitive was sometimes preceded by _for_ as well as _to_; as, ”I went up to Jerusalem _for to_ worshi+p”--_Acts_, xxiv, 11 ”What went ye out _for to_ see?”--_Luke_, vii, 26 ”And stood up _for to_ read”--_Luke_, iv, 16 Here e rejects the former preposition: the idiom is left to the uneducated But it seems practicable to subjoin the infinitive to every one of the ten parts of speech, except the article: as,

1 To a noun; as, ”If there is any _precept to obtain_ felicity”--_Haorth_ ”It is high _time to awake_ out of sleep”--_Rom_, xiii, 11 ”To flee from the _wrath to come_”--_Matt_, iii, 7

2 To an adjective; as, ”He see to offend_”--_Haorth_ ”He who is the _slowest to pro_, p 35

3 To a pronoun; as, ”I discovered _him to be_ a scholar”--_W Allen's Graive_ tribute to Caesar?”--_Luke_, xx, 22 ”LetReader_, p 77 ”Whom hast thou then or _what t' accuse_?”--_Milton_, P L, iv, 67

4 To a finite verb; as, ”Then Peter _began to rebuke_ him”--_Matt_, xvi, 22 ”The Son of man _is come to seek and to save_ that which was lost”--_Luke_, xix, 10