From: hs@cns.umist.ac.uk (Harold Somers)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: Why are English infinitives so different?
Date: 7 Apr 92 12:30:53 GMT
Organization: UMIST, Manchester, England.

The original poster asked why we refer to forms including the word 'to' as
infinitives. The answer, is I think very simply historic: in the early days
of linguistics (not that it was called that in those days) it was felt that
Latin should be used as a model for teaching and learning grammar, including
the grammar of English. As a result of this misguided approach, we have
several linguistic prejudices even today in the minds of ordinary people :
here are some of the legacies of studying English grammar as if it was Latin.

1. The 'infinitive' in Latin is an inflected form of the verb, e.g. amare -
most usually translated in English as 'to love'. So the 'infinitive' in
English is 'to love'. Never mind the fact that in English there is no
distinction in the present tense between finite and non-finite, except in the
3rd person singular.

2. On the same tack, it is not possible to split the infinitive in Latin,
since the form is a single inflected word. Therefore, it must be wrong to split
the infinitive in English, despite the fact that speakers find it more
natural to sometimes write sentences where the adverb attaches very closely
to the verb, as it would if the verb were finite.

3.  Latin has six tenses, all indicated by a complex of verbal suffixes. So
English must have six tenses, despite the fact that some of the tense
meanings in Latin (notably future, and all the perfective tenses) are formed
by the use of modals (shall, will) and/or auxiliaries (have). If 'He will go'
is future 'tense', why isnt 'He must go' called the 'imperative tense'?

4. In Latin the verb 'esse' ('be') takes a complement in the nominative
case. Therefore, the verb 'to be' must take the nominative in English: 'It is
I...', 'It was we who ....', despite the fact that in English, as in other
Germanic languages, the natural tendency on the part of speakers is to prefer
the accusative form (sorry - it is also a Latinism to use Latin case names for
English pronouns which do not have the same number of case-marked forms as
Latin pronouns) for this function: 'It is me', 'It was us', 'It is them'.
Note that even French - a language much more closely related to Latin than
English is - distinguishes three types of pronoun: nominative for subject of
the verb (je, tu, il), accusative for object (me, te, le), and a special set
of 'disjunctive' pronouns for use e.g. as complement of the verb etre, or
emphasis (moi, toi, lui).

5. You cannot end a Latin sentence with a preposition. Therefore, a
preposition must be an inappropriate thing to end an English sentence with.
Note that in many cases the word that looks like a preposition is actually a
particle (as in phrasal verbs such as 'bring in', 'carry on', 'put up');
since Latin doersnt have phrasal verbs of this nature, Latin grammar doesnt
say anything about how to analyse them! (Note the difference between phrasal
verbs and prepositional verbs: in the former, the particle can appear either
immediately after the verb and before the direct object - making it look like
a prepositional object - or at the end of the sentence, whereas in a
prepositional verb, the preposition must precede the object:
The mouse ran up the curtain.
* The mouse ran the curtain up.
The tailor ran up the curtain.
The tailor ran the curtain up. 

The man brought the drinks in.
The man brought in the drinks.

I rely on my watch.
* I rely my watch on.)


Can any other readers think of uncomfortable rules imposed on us by the
legacy of Classical study?