The Grammar of English Grammars Part 133

OBS 8.--In Fisher's English Grammar, London, 1800, (of which there had been many earlier editions,) we find the following rule of syntax: "When two princ.i.p.al _Verbs_ come together, 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 may also follow a Name or Quality; as, _a Time to sing; 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 from the following note, which he gives in his margin: "The Scholar will best understand this, by being told that _infinite_ or _invariable Verbs_, having neither Number, Person, nor Nominative Word belonging to them, are known or _governed by the Preposition_ TO coming before them. The Sign _to_ is often understood; as, Bid Robert and his company (_to_) tarry."--_Fisher's New Gram._, p. 95.

OBS. 9.--The forms of parsing, 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 specimen of "grammatical resolution" contains four infinitives. In his explanation of the first, the preposition and the verb are pa.r.s.ed separately, as above; except that he says nothing about government. In his account of the other three, the two words 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 seems fair to infer, that he conceived the verb to be the regimen 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 from it this regimen, and leaves us a preposition that _governs nothing_, and has apparently nothing to do with the _relation_ of the terms between which it occurs.

OBS. 10.--Many later grammarians, perceiving the absurdity of calling _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. Among these, if I mistake not, are Allen, Lennie, Bullions, Alger, 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; some calling it "_a part of the verb_," while they neither join it to the verb as a prefix, nor include it among 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 pa.r.s.ed _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 forms a part of the verb, and, in parsing, 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 makes _to_ a preposition: saying, "The _preposition_ TO, though 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 government of this mood to a preceding verb. But the rule which they give, is partial, and often inapplicable; and their exceptions to it, or the heterogeneous parts into which some of them divide it, are both numerous and puzzling. 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, amounts to the same thing; and it obviates the necessity for their numerous exceptions, and the embarra.s.sment arising from other constructions of the infinitive not noticed in them. Why then is the simplest solution imaginable 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 admit that in some instances, the sign _to_ is "superfluous and improper," the construction and government appearing complete without it; and the "Rev. Peter Bullions, D. D., Professor of Languages in the Albany Academy," has recently published a grammar, in which he adopts the common rule, "One verb governs _another_ in the infinitive mood; as, _I desire to learn_;" and then remarks, "The infinitive after a verb is governed 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 it might be, if either _to_ were any thing else than a preposition: as, "Now _set to to learn_ your lesson." This broad exception, therefore, which embraces well-nigh half the infinitives in the language, though 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_ mood expresses _a thing_ in a general 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 mood, it is certainly not _a part_ of it. And again, if this mood had no distinction of "_time_," our author's two tenses of it, and his own two 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 mood_, is considered as forming _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 mood_," is an absurdity manifestly greater, 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 come together, 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 something 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 improve_.'"--_Hiley's Gram._, p. 89. Here we see the origin of some of Bullions's blunders. _To_ is so small a word, it slips through the fingers of these gentlemen. 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 pa.r.s.ed by the same rule! And here the only government 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_"--"Some _eat_ to _live_,"--"Some _live_ to _eat_,"--"She _sings_ to _cheer_ him,"--"I _come_ to _aid_ you,"--"I _go_ 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 former verbs _do not govern_ 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 may be made _the subject_ of a finite verb; but this grammarian has mistaken the established meaning of _subject_, as well as of _attribute_, and therefore written nonsense. Dr. Johnson defines his _adverb_ TO, "A particle coming between two verbs, and noting the second as the _object_ of the first." But of all the words which, according to my opponents and their oracles, govern the infinitive, probably not more than a quarter are such verbs as usually _have an object_ after them. Where then is the propriety of their notion of infinitive government? And what advantage 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 more eligible to say, that the verb _strive_ or _will seek_ governs 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 form for parsing 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_."--_Monta.n.u.s_.

"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 main design of these observations, while they candidly show the reader what others teach, _to prove it so_. The only construction which makes it any thing else, 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 Freedom_. "Going _to_ and _fro_."--_Bible_. "At length he came _to_."--"Tell him to heave _to_."--"He was ready to set _to_." With singular absurdness of opinion, some grammarians 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 mood_, as in the last two examples. Now, if this is not _government_, what is? And if _to_, without government, is not an _adverb_, what is? See Obs. 2d on the List of Prepositions.

OBS. 17.--The infinitive thus admits a simpler solution in English, than in most other languages; because we less frequently use it without a preposition, and seldom, if ever, allow any variety in this connecting and governing 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 must refute in ours. In French, the infinitive, though frequently placed in immediate dependence on an other verb, may also be governed 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, immediately dependent on an other verb. But, according to the grammars, 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 improper extension of the principles of these "learned languages" to ours, that much of the false teaching which has so greatly and so long embarra.s.sed this part of English grammar, 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 from the ancient Greek and Latin tongues. * * * The 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 Pa.r.s.er_, p. 83. But who will 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 common preposition in the Saxon tongue, has been generally 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 simply as the _infinitive mood_. In the Anglo-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 numbers for reference do not correspond. Putting, 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 am sent to thee _to speke_ and _to evangelise_ 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_ tham the on thystrum and on deathes sceade sittath. ure fet _to gereccenne_ 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 amandum_ [= _to loving_, or _to love_]; To baernenne = _ad urendum_ [= _to burning_, or _to burn_]; To syllanne = _ad dandum_ [= _to giving_, or _to give_]."--_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 am going _to write_ a letter," is a pure Grecism; meaning, "I am going _the writing_ 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 _mood_, rather than as a _case_, notwithstanding 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 am well aware that some learned critics, conceiving that the essence of the verb consists in predication, have plainly denied that the infinitive is a verb; and, because it may be made the subject of a finite verb, or may be governed by a verb or a preposition, have chosen to call it "a mere noun substantive."

Among these is the erudite Richard Johnson, who, with 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 ipsum maledice et maligne, 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 himself, there is no difference _between give and take_;" [407]--or, "_between bestowing_ and _receiving_."]--See _Johnson's Gram. Com._, p. 342. But I deny that a preposition is a "sure sign of a substantive." (See Obs. 2d on the Prepositions, and also Obs. 1st on the List of Prepositions, in the tenth chapter of Etymology.) And if we appeal to philological authorities, to determine whether infinitives are nouns or verbs, there will certainly be found more for the latter name, than the former; that is, more in number, if not in weight; though it must be confessed, that many of the old Latin grammarians 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 commonly abstract, though it may be so sometimes; 6. That in some languages 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 few who erroneously suppose that participles, by virtue of such government, are necessarily converted into _nouns_. Against this latter idea, there are many sufficient reasons; but let them now pa.s.s, because they belong not here. I am only going 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 them both must needs be equivalent _to itself_. Now I imagine there are some examples of each equivalence; as, "When we are habituated _to doing_ [or _to do_] any thing wrong, we become blinded by it."--_Young Christian_, p. 326. "The lyre, or harp, was best adapted _to accompanying_ [or _to accompany_] their declamations."--_Music of Nature_, p. 336. "The new beginner should be accustomed _to giving_ [or _to give_] all the reasons for each part of speech."--_Nutting's Gram._, p. 88. "Which, from infecting our religion and morals, fell _to corrupt_ [say, _to corrupting_] our language."--SWIFT: _Blair's Rhet._, p. 108. Besides these instances of _sameness in the particle_, there are some cases of _constructional ambiguity_, the noun and the verb having the same form, and the _to_ not determining 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 discriminators: their "_sign of the infinitive_" fails, or becomes uncertain; _because they do not know it from a preposition_. Cannot my opponents see in these examples an argument against the distinction which they attempt to draw between _to_ and _to_? An other argument as good, 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 comynge_."--_Matt._, xi, 14. "Ihesu that delyueride us fro wraththe _to comynge_."--_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. James P. Wilson, speaking of the English 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, and marks it either as _that, towards which_ the preceding verb 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 a.s.sume 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 example: "And he laboured till the going-down of the sun TO _deliver_ him."--_Dan._, vi, 14. Here _deliver_ is governed 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 a.s.sumption 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 much with a design of animadverting again 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 to mark the infinitive as a term "_towards which_" something else "_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 confirmed by its ancient usage, 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 mean _act go_, or to be equivalent to _do go_.[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_ worship."--_Acts_, xxiv, 11. "What went ye out _for to_ see?"--_Luke_, vii, 26. "And stood up _for to_ read."--_Luke_, iv, 16. Here modern usage 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."--_Hawkesworth_. "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 seemed _desirous to speak_, yet _unwilling to offend_."--_Hawkesworth_. "He who is the _slowest to promise_, is _the quickest to perform_."--_Art of Thinking_, p. 35.

3. To a p.r.o.noun; as, "I discovered _him to be_ a scholar."--_W. Allen's Gram._, p. 166. "Is it lawful for _us to give_ tribute to Caesar?"--_Luke_, xx, 22. "Let me desire _you to reflect_ impartially."--BLAIR: _Murray's Eng. Reader_, 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.

5. To an other infinitive; as, "_To go to enter_ into Egypt."--_Jer._, xli, 17. "We are not often willing _to wait to consider_."--_J. Abbott_. "For what had he _to do to chide_ at me?"--_Shak._

6. To a participle; as, "Still _threatening to devour_ me."--_Milton_. "Or as a thief _bent to unh.o.a.rd_ the cash of some rich burgher."--_Id._

7. To an adverb; as, "She is old _enough to go_ to school."--"I know not _how to act_."--_Nutting's Gram._, p. 106. "Tell me _when to come_, and _where to meet_ you."--"He hath not _where to lay_ his head."

8. To a conjunction; as, "He knows better _than to trust_ you."--"It was so hot _as to melt_ these ornaments."--"Many who praise virtue, do no more _than praise_ it."--_Dr. Johnson_.

9. To a preposition; as, "I was _about to write_."--_Rev._, x, 4. "Not _for to hide_ it in a hedge."--_Burns's Poems_, p. 42. "Amatum iri, To be _about to be loved_."--_Adam's Gram._, p. 95.[412]

10. To an interjection; as, "_O to forget_ her!"--_Young's Night Thoughts_.

OBS. 25.--The infinitive is the mere verb, without affirmation, without person or number, and therefore without the agreement peculiar to a finite verb. (See Obs. 8th on Rule 2d.) But, in most instances, it is not without _limitation_ of the being, action, or pa.s.sion, to some particular person or persons, thing or things, that are said, supposed, or denied, to be, to act, or to be acted upon. Whenever it is not thus limited, it is taken _abstractly_, and has some resemblance to a noun: because it then suggests the being, action, or pa.s.sion alone: though, even then, the active infinitive may still govern the objective case; and it may also be easy to _imagine_ to whom or to what the being, action, or pa.s.sion, naturally pertains. The uses of the infinitive are so many and various, that it is no easy matter to cla.s.sify them accurately. The following are unquestionably _the chief_ of the things for which it may stand:

1. For the _supplement_ to an other verb, to complete the sense; as, "Loose him, and _let_ him _go_."--_John_, xi, 44. "They that _go to seek_ mixed wine."--_Prov._, xxiii, 30. "His hands _refuse_ to _labour_."--_Ib._, xxi, 25. "If you _choose to have_ those terms."--_Tooke's D. P._, ii, 374. "How our old translators first _struggled to express_ this."--_Ib._, ii, 456.

"To any one who _will please to examine_ our language."--_Ib._, ii, 444.

"They _are forced to give up_ at last."--_Ib._, ii, 375. "Which _ought to be done_."--_Ib._, ii, 451. "Which _came to pa.s.s_."--_Acts_, xi, 28. "I _dare engage to make_ it out."--_Swift_.

2. For the _purpose_, or _end_, of that to which it is added; as, "Each has employed his time and pains _to establish_ a criterion."--_Tooke's D. P._, ii, 374. "I shall not stop now, _to a.s.sist_ in their elucidation."--_Ib._, ii, 75. "Our purposes are not endowed with words _to make_ them known."--_Ib._, ii, 74. [A] "TOOL is some instrument taken up _to work_ with."--_Ib._, ii, 145. "Labour not _to be_ rich."--_Prov._, xxiii, 4. "I flee unto thee _to hide_ me."--_Ps._, cxliii, 9. "Evil shall hunt the violent man _to overthrow_ him."--_Ib._, cxl, 11.

3. For the _object_ of an affection or pa.s.sion; as, "He _loves to ride_."--"I _desire to hear_ her _speak_ again."--_Shale._ "If we _wish to avoid_ important error."--_Tooke's D. P._, ii, 3. "Who _rejoice to do_ evil."--_Prov._, ii, 14. "All agreeing in _earnestness to see_ him."--_Shak_. "Our _curiosity_ is raised _to know_ what lies beyond."--_Kames, El. of Crit._, ii, 335.

4. For the _cause_ of an affection or pa.s.sion; as, "I rejoice _to hear_ it."--"By which I hope _to have laid_ a foundation," &c.--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 34. "For he made me mad, _to see_ him _shine_ so brisk, and _smell_ so sweet."--_Beauties of Shak._, p. 118. "Thou didst eat strange flesh, which some did die _to look_ on."--_Ib._, p. 182. "They grieved _to see_ their best allies at variance."--_Rev. W. Allen's Gram._, p. 165.

5. For the _subject_ of a proposition, or the chief term in such subject; as, "_To steal_ is sinful."--"_To do_ justice and judgement, is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice."--_Prov._, xxi, 3. "_To do_ RIGHT, is, to do that which is ordered to be done."--_Tooke's D. P._, ii, 7. "_To go_ to law to plague a neighbour, has in it more of malice, than of love to justice."--_Seattle's Mor. Sci._, i, 177.

6. For the _predicate_ of a proposition, or the chief term in such predicate; as, "To enjoy is _to obey_."--_Pope_. "The property of rain is _to wet_, and fire, _to burn_."--_Beauties of Shak._, p. 15. "To die is _to be banished_ from myself."--_Ib._, p. 82. "The best way is, _to slander_ Valentine."--_Ib._, p. 83. "The highway of the upright is _to depart_ from evil."--_Prov._, xvi, 17.

7. For a _coming event_, or what _will_ be; as, "A mutilated structure soon _to fall_."--_Cowper._ "He being dead, and I speedily _to follow_ him."--_Tooke's D. P._, ii, 111. "She shall rejoice in time _to come_."--_Prov._, x.x.xi, 25. "Things present, or things _to come_."--_1 Cor._, iii, 22.

8. For a _necessary event_, or what _ought_ to be; as, "It is _to be remembered_."--"It is never _to be forgotten_."--_Tooke's D. P._, ii, 2.

"An oversight much _to be deplored_."--_Ib._, ii, 460. "The sign is not _to be used_ by itself, or _to stand_ alone; but is _to be joined_ to some other term."--_Ib._, ii, 372. "The Lord's name is _to be praised_."--_Ps._, cxiii, 3.

9. For what is _previously suggested_ by another word; as, "I have _faith to believe_."--"The glossarist _did well_ here _not to yield_ to his inclination."--_Tooke's D. P._, ii, 329. "It is a good _thing to give_ thanks unto the Lord."--_Ps._, xcii, 1. "_It_ is _as sport_ to a fool _to do_ mischief."--_Prov._, x, 23. "They have the _gift to know_ it."--_Shak._ "We have no remaining _occupation_ but _to take_ care of the public."--_Art of Thinking_, p. 52.

10. For a term of _comparison_ or _measure_; as, "He was so much affected as _to weep_."--"Who could do no less than _furnish_ him."--_Tooke's D.

P._, ii, 408. "I shall venture no farther than _to explain_ the nature and convenience of these abbreviations."--_Ib._, ii, 439. "I have already said enough _to show_ what sort of operation that is."--_Ib._, ii, 358.

OBS. 26.--After dismissing all the examples which may fairly be referred to one or other of the ten heads above enumerated, an observant reader may yet find _other uses_ of the infinitive, and those so dissimilar that they can hardly be reduced to any one head or rule; except that all are governed by the preposition to, which points towards or to the verb; as, "A great altar _to see to_."--_Joshua_, xxii, 10. "[Greek: Bomon megan tou idein]."--_Septuagint_. That is, "An altar _great to behold_." "Altare infinitae magnitudinis."--_Vulgate_. "Un fort grand autel."--_French Bible_.

"Easy _to be entreated_."--_Jos._, iii, 17. "There was none _to help_."--_Ps._, cvii, 12. "He had rained down manna upon them _to eat_."--_Ps._, lxxviii, 24. "Remember his commandments _to do_ them."--_Ps._, viii, 18. "Preserve thou those that are appointed _to die_."--_Ps._, lxxix, 11. "As coals to burning coals, and as wood to fire; so is a contentious man _to kindle_ strife."--_Prov._, xxvi, 21. "These are far beyond the reach and power of any kings _to do_ away."--_Tooke's D.

P._, ii, 126. "I know not indeed what _to do_ with those words."--_Ib._, ii, 441. "They will be as little able _to justify_ their innovation."--_Ib._, ii, 448. "I leave you _to compare_ them."--_Ib._, ii, 458. "There is no occasion _to attribute_ it."--_Ib._, ii, 375. "There is no day for me _to look_ upon."--_Beauties of Shak._, p. 82. "Having no external thing _to lose._"--_Ib._, p. 100. "I'll never be a gosling _to obey_ instinct."--_Ib._, p. 200. "Whereto serves mercy, but _to confront_ the visage of offence?"--_Ib._, p. 233. "If things do not go _to suit_ him."--_Liberator_, ix, 182. "And, _to be_ plain, I think there is not half a kiss _to choose_, who loves an other best."--_Shak._, p. 91. "But _to return_ to R. Johnson's instance of _good man_."--_Tooke's D. P._, ii, 370.

Our common Bibles have this text: "And a certain woman cast a piece of a millstone upon Abimelech's head, and _all to break_ his skull."--_Judges_, ix, 53. Perhaps the interpretation of this may be, "and _so as completely to break_ his skull." The octavo edition stereotyped by "the Bible a.s.sociation of Friends in America," has it, "and _all-to brake_ his skull."

This, most probably, was supposed by the editors to mean, "and _completely broke_ his skull;" but _all-to_ is no proper compound word, and therefore the change is a perversion. The Septuagint, the Vulgate, and the common French version, all accord with the simple indicative construction, "and _broke_ his skull."

OBS. 27.--According to Lindley Murray, "The infinitive mood is often _made absolute_, or used independently _on_ [say _of_] the rest of the sentence, supplying the place of the conjunction _that_ with the potential mood: as, '_To confess_ the truth, I was in fault;' '_To begin_ with the first;' '_To proceed_;' '_To conclude_;' that is, 'That I may confess,' &c."--_Murray's Gram._, 8vo, p. 184; _Ingersoll's Gram._, p. 244. Some other compilers have adopted the same doctrine. But on what ground the _subst.i.tution_ of one mood for the other is imagined, I see not. The reader will observe that this potential mood is here just as much "_made absolute_," as is the infinitive; for there is nothing expressed to which the conjunction _that_ connects the one phrase, or the preposition _to_ the other. But possibly, in either case, there may be an ellipsis of some antecedent term; and surely, if we imagine the construction to be complete without any such term, we make the conjunction the more anomalous word of the two.

Confession of the truth, is here the aim of speaking, but not of what is spoken. The whole sentence may be, "_In order_ to confess the truth, _I admit that_ I was in fault." Or, "_In order_ that I may confess the truth, _I admit that_ I was in fault." I do not deny, that the infinitive, or a phrase of which the infinitive is a part, is sometimes put _absolute_; for, if it is not so in any of the foregoing examples, it appears to be so in the following: "For every object has several faces, _so to speak_, by which it may be presented to us."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 41. "_To declare_ a thing shall be, long before it is in being, and then _to bring about_ the accomplishment of that very thing, according to the same declaration; this, or nothing, is the work of G.o.d."--_Justin Martyr_.

"_To be_, or _not to be_;--that is the question."--_Shakspeare_.