The Grammar of English Grammars, Goold Brown [ebook reader for manga txt] 📗
- Author: Goold Brown
- Performer: -
Book online «The Grammar of English Grammars, Goold Brown [ebook reader for manga txt] 📗». Author Goold Brown
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 præter loqui, et ipsum maledicè et malignè, 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 pass, 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 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 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 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 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 pronoun; as, "I discovered him to be a scholar."—W. Allen's Gram., p. 166. "Is it lawful for us to give tribute to Cæsar?"—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 unhoard 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
Comments (0)