INFINITIVE 



2990 



INFINITIVE 



the United States this open formation adopted 

 in the War of Secession (1861-1865) was the 

 result of instinctive self-preservation and com- 

 mon sense of the soldiers themselves. In the 

 Boer War (1899-1902) the British losses in the 

 first engagements were serious on account of 

 the close formation adhered to; the losses 

 greatly diminished as soon as the open order 

 formation was adopted. 



In the beginning of the European War (1914) 

 the German troops still adhered to close for- 

 mation, their losses being consequently heavy. 

 Time was probably an important factor in this ; 

 the German plan of campaign involved reach- 

 ing Paris at once. Only by delivering a crush- 

 ing blow to the allied forces of France and 

 Great Britain quickly could Germany hope to 

 set free its armies to face the Russian invasion 

 on the East. With more time at their disposal 

 doubtless the formation would have been dif- 

 ferent and the loss of life less. The only 

 alternative was by weight of numbers to make 

 up for lack of time. So the German forces 

 in huge numbers were hurled against the allies, 

 who would thus be compelled to take close 

 order to resist such weight of attack and con- 

 sequently also lose heavily. The actual fight- 

 ing of the mounted troops still must remain 

 secondary in importance to the infantry, who 

 are to be relied on to deliver the decisive 

 attack. See ARMY. 



INFIN'ITIVE. In the sentence, "He trav- 

 els constantly," the verb travels expresses defi- 

 nite action on the part of its subject, he; and 

 to agree with that subject it is limited to the 

 form for the third person singular. In the 

 sentence, "He loves to travel," the finite verb 

 which does the asserting is loves; the verb- 

 form to travel is really used as a noun, the 

 object of loves, and merely names the action 

 of traveling, assuming the action instead of 

 affirming it. This is called the infinitive use of 

 the verb. Usually the infinitive is preceded by 

 to, called the sign of the infinitive. 



Being unlimited, the infinitive has the same 

 form at all times, no matter what may be the 

 person and number of its subject. It may be 

 either active or passive, but it has only two 

 tenses present and perfect: to see, to be seen, 

 expressing present tense, active and passive 

 voice respectively; to have seen, to have been 

 seen, expressing perfect tense, active and passive 

 voice. Infinitives are so much like verbs that 

 they may take objects, complements or modi- 

 fying adverbs, and yet they may also serve 

 in the capacity of noun, adjective or adverb. 



In this respect they are like the participles, 

 and both infinitives and participles are often 

 grouped under the general name of verbals. 



As to the Split Infinitive. To insert any 

 word or words between the verb and its sign is 

 to "split the infinitive." It was formerly con- 

 sidered a grave offense to do this under any 

 circumstances, and it is still to be avoided as 

 a general thing, because the indiscriminate 

 splitting of infinitives marks the careless or 

 ignorant speaker. However, the opinion seems 

 to be gaining ground among modern gramma- 

 rians that it is occasionally permissible to place 

 an adverb in this position provided it is neces- 

 sary to do so in order to bring out the precise 

 meaning. It makes the sentence clearer to 

 say, for instance, "To really understand the 

 situation you will have to go there in person," 

 than it would be if we said "Really to under- 

 stand the situation," or "To understand the 

 situation really." In such a sentence as, "He 

 was understood to more than hint at the possi- 

 bility of trouble," the splitting of the infinitive 

 is practically unavoidable unless the sentence 

 is recast in other words. 



In the majority of cases, however, it is 

 neither necessary nor forceful to split the infini- 

 tive in order that the adverb may come closer 

 to its verb. "He promised to thoroughly do 

 the work," for example, is not nearly so good 

 a construction as "He promised to do the work 

 thoroughly." 



Common Errors. The use of one tense 

 where the other is required, and the splitting 

 of the infinitive without good reason, are the 

 principal sources of error in connection with 

 the infinitive. 



7 should be greatly pleased to have gone, for 7 

 should have been greatly pleased to go. The act 

 of going refers to a later time than the pleasure, 

 and time subsequent to that of the principal verb 

 requires the present infinitive. 



It was our duty to have written^ for It was our 

 duty to write. Here the same time is denoted: 

 It was our duty (then) to write (then). Coin- 

 cident time also calls for the present infinitive. 



Rome is supposed to be founded by Ro)nitlnx. 

 for Rome is supposed to have been founded by 

 Romulus. Since the mythical founding is a mat- 

 ter of the far-away past, while the supposing is 

 present time, the infinitive must take the perfect 

 form. 



7 am going to go West next year, for 7 am going 

 West next year. The infinitive is redundant. 



You will please not to say anything about the 

 matter, for You toill please not say any thing 

 about the matter. After please the sign of the 

 infinitive is dropped. 



He bade her to enter, for He bade her cntrr. 

 When bid is used actively and positively, to i^ 



