The Grammar of English Grammars by Goold Brown (free ebook reader .txt) 📕

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 embarrassment 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 parsed 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 quærent intrare."—Montanus. "Efforcez-vous _d'_entrer—plusieurs chercheront à y entrer."—French Bible. In my opinion, to before a verb is as fairly a preposition as the French de or à; 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, à, de, pour, sans, après,) 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 embarrassed 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: tò] [,] 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 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