Universal 
Grammar. 
—, 
Pecu'tati- 
ties of the 
infinitive. 
Its coinci- 
dence with 
the verb. 
436 
ing,” or “ to understand -well.”” Mt 
When an agent is mentioned along with an action 
in the infinitive, itis not in the form of a noun in the 
genitive, as it would be if the act were’expressed by a 
noun. We do not say éllius amare as we should sa 
illius amor, Nor is it put in. the nominative... Thoug 
we say ille amat we do not say tlle amare. The syntax 
of the infinitive is in this instance: peculiar ; the agent 
is put in the accusative: I/lum amare. This arrange- 
ment does not arise from the regimen of a preceding 
word expressed or understood governing the noun in 
the accusative. The combination of the noun. in this 
form with the infinitive sometimes constitutes a phrase 
which is used as a nominative to a verb. In the Greek 
language this combination is sometimes even used as a 
noun in different oblique cases in which it has an ad- 
jective agreeing with it. Thue Anacreon says, 
dy TQ, 9 MINEIN ‘HMA! 
Evducw ob pegipevets. 
‘The accusative here only intimates that the noun 
and the infinitive occupy the place of a subjoined sen- 
tence. In English, when the phrase is to be employed 
as a nominative toa verb, we use the noun preceded by 
the particle “ for,” which may be reckoned equivalent 
to an oblique case in Latin. We say, “ for a man to 
fell a lie is a sign of cowardice.” We sometimes find 
this differently expressed in Jow and provincial dialects, 
“To,” for example, is employed instead of “ for ;’ as, 
*« To you to decéive.me was unbecoming.” At other 
times the noun in the objective case is used without 
any preposition, as, ‘ But him to think that he was 
entitled to any credit was ridiculous.” 
When an object acted on is mentioned in connection 
with an act expressed by the infinitive, or when the 
name of an object referred to, and usually governed 
by. a verb in some oblique case, is introduced, it is not 
put in the genitive as when it follows a noun signify- 
ing the same action. In this respect the infinitive re- 
tains the regimen of the verb to which it belongs. We 
say amor uxoris, for “ the love of one’s wife,” or, if the 
person entertaining this affection is already mentioned 
in the genitive, the object of it is introduced by a pre- 
position in such a phrase as amor illius erga uxorem. 
But when the infinitive amare is used, it governs uxo- 
rem in the accusative. We say, Jl/um amare uxorem, 
** for him to love his wife.” Sometimes an, ambiguity 
might thus be created, because both the agent and the 
object are mentioned in the same case, and, on account 
of the common practice of inversion in the Latin. lan-, 
guage, the order in which the words are placed does 
not strictly follow that of their syntax. Hence the 
ambiguity of the famous response of the Pythian oracle 
to Pyrrhus, Azo te Romanos vincere posse, which admits 
of being translated, “ I say that you can overcome the 
Romans,” or “I say that the Romans'can overcome you.” 
In general, however, the connection renders the mean- 
ing of such sentences evident, and their perspicuity is 
assisted by the name of the agent being placed before the 
infinitive, or nearest to it, while the accusative signify- 
ing the object acted on either, comes after, or is ata 
greater distance before it. The same thing takes place 
in_ the Ealeh language, although in it the infinitive 
differs a little in its mode of formation, as it consists of 
the prefixing of a separate word. When we use the 
noun * desire,” we say, ‘the desire d. food,” of money,” 
or “ of fame.” But “ to. desire food, money, or fame.” 
The production of this mode of transition seems to us 
to be the great power conferred on a noun by the word 
GRAMMAR. 
nor ‘a good to understand,” but “a good understand. - 
_even the least transitive verbs differ from nouns by 
“to” prefixed as the sign of the infinitive. In this 
therefore, according to Mr Tooke, the nature of a verly 
should consist. It might ae however, that this is 
not common to all verbs, and therefore is not the chas 
racteristic circumstance which, when added to a noun; 
makes it a verb. In neuter and intransitive verbs “it 
scarcely appears. Yet it isnot always lost even imthese. — 
Every verb admits of a transition of discourse to some 
other ideas ex d by nouns, if not by direct regimen, 
yet through the medium of prepositions, and this is ges 
nerally more or less altered when a word from being a 
noun receives either the form of assertion so as to * 
come a verb, or is transformed into that:part of speech: 
called the infinitive of the verb. Let us. take, for ex- 
ample, the word “ struggle,” which is used both asa 
noun and as a verb. We say, “ his: struggles were 
strenuous and incessant.” When we use it as a verb; 
we say, “ he struggled with a powerful antagonist.” We 
often also use such expressions as, “ His s' with 
his antagonist were obstinate.” But in this last ; 
we are conscious of a slight defect ; and, although the 
brevity and manifest meaning of it may) in. general 
enable it to pass without censure, an accurate writer 
will prefer the introduction of a verb for the purpose 
of completing the series of words demanded by the 
syntax. Itwill be felt more strictly agreeable to the 
import ef the different materials of language to say, 
“the struggles which he maintained with his rH on 
nist were obstinate.” . It is also to be remembered, 
having all qualifying ideas conjoined with them not by 
adjectives but by adverbs, and. that in this particular 
the infinitive mood follows the law of the verb; we say, 
“a violent struggle,” but “ to struggle i ra 4 
is only in these uliarities of transition, and in re« 
ceiving adverbs instead of adjectives, that we can pers. 
ceive any difference betwixt the infinitive of a verb and 
the corresponding noun. The former of these diffe- _ 
rences depends, in a great measure, on the character of 
particular verbs, and both of them seem too slight to 
confer on the infinitive the same rank with the assert- 
ing verb, and to divest it of the character of a noun, 
This is more especially the case when we consider that 
it is often used without an adverb, and without any 
such transition as has now been described,, but is never 
independent of some character of syntax which is com< 
mon to it with the noun. With this statement,of the 
facts, we leave the argument to the consideration of our ~ 
readers. We deprecate, in the mean time, any prema= 
ture attempt to improve, in this or any other instance, 
the nomenclature Se ~ oumniiong 
The infinitive mood, in consequence ng 
in some particulars the noun, and in others the verb, 1s in 
rendered fit for ing, in a manner peculiar to it- s 
self, the office of the subjunction of sentences to verbs, tm 
It may be made a question whether connections of words. 
formed by means of it ought to be called sentences; but 
they certainly contain the meaning of sentences... We 
have already remarked that every noun may be. re= 
solved into a sentence, by means of a definition. But. 
by the use of the infinitive, we haye the parts of the 
sentence in a more distinct state than if they were all 
implied. in a noun, though not so explicitly asin a 
definition, or even in a sentence formed by the sub= 
junctive mood.. It has thus a character intermediate, Sublt 
betwixt the noun, with its regimen of genitives OF | .¢. 
the accompaniment of adjectives, and, such subjoined: hre¢ 
sentences as have been already. ieee The ne we feren 
connection of ideas may be expressed by any one: node 
three following modes WE diction =. ie Syutcuwetagt 
or f ™ 
