2 
INTRODUCTION. 
“ The infinitive was originally a nomen actionis, formed by means of various suffixes in 
the different Indo-Germanic languages. The suffix -ono- f to which was added the nominative- 
accusative neuter ending, -m, became generalized in primitive Germanic; thus the original 
form of beran was *bheronom , the -onom of which regularly became -an in Old English, Gothic, 
Old Saxon, and Old High German. On the loss of the final -n in Northumbrian, see § 288. 
In primitive West Germanic the infinitive was inflected in the genitive and dative like an 
ordinary noun of the ja-declension (§ 355), genitive -ennes, dative -enne. The inflected forms 
of the infinitive are sometimes called the gerund. The genitive disappeared in prehistoric 
Old English. The dative to berenne generally became -anne through the influence of the 
infinitive ending -an. Beside - enne , -anne there also occur in late Old English -ene, -ane t and 
-ende with d from the present participle.” 
As to form, then, the Anglo-Saxon had two infinitives: (1) the uninflected, 
or simple, infinitive in - an (occasionally written -on, -un, -en , and in Northum¬ 
brian -a, with loss of n 1 ), which in origin is the petrified nominative-accusative 
case of a neuter verbal noun; and (2) the inflected, or gerundial, or preposi¬ 
tional, infinitive, made up of the preposition to plus the dative case of a verbal 
noun ending in -anne {-enne, occasionally -onne; and, with simplification of the 
double consonant, - ane, -ene 2 * 4 * ), though occasionally the to is followed by an 
infinitive in -an 3 and occasionally by an infinitive in -ende 2 (by confusion with 
the form of the present participle), both of which forms are counted as inflected 
in this study. Very rarely, too, we have the -anne infinitive not preceded by 
to; 4 and twice preceded by for to. b 
The origin of the infinitive as above given is suggested in the now generally 
accepted definition of the infinitive as a verbal noun, provided we remember 
that, as Professor Delbriick 6 tells us, the dual nature of the infinitive has been 
won, not inherited from the outset. This dual nature of the infinitive is mani¬ 
fested in the fact that in Anglo-Saxon the infinitive, both uninflected and in¬ 
flected, of almost any transitive verb may at one and the same time perform 
the office both of a noun and of a verb. But, in most instances, one of these 
two natures (or tendencies), the substantival and the verbal, predominates in 
Anglo-Saxon, and, from this point of view, we may roughly divide all infinitives 
into two comprehensive classes: (1) substantival, when the substantive idea 
is dominant, as when the infinitive is used as the subject or the object of a verb; 
and (2) verbal (or predicative), when the verbal, or assertive, idea is dominant, 
as when an infinitive completes the sense of an auxiliary verb. But, as already 
stated, these two classes are not mutually exclusive, since, even when used as 
subject or object, the infinitive may likewise govern an object, and to this 
extent be verbal. But it will generally be allowed, I think, that, in He will 
sing the song, sing is more verbal than to sing in He wishes to sing the song. Nor 
does the fact that the more verbal uses of the infinitive were derived originally 
from the substantival invalidate the helpfulness of this classification. 
Although, as just stated, most, if not all, infinitives may by nature be roughly 
classed as substantival or verbal, it is perhaps best for practical purposes to 
classify the infinitive, whether uninflected or inflected, according to its domi¬ 
nant function in the sentence. From this consideration of function, we dis¬ 
tinguish, as before, the substantival and the verbal (or predicative) uses of the 
1 Sievers, 2 l. c., § 363, anmk. 1. * Ibidem, § 363, anmk. 2. 
* Ibidem, § 363, anmk. 3. 
4 See JElf.L. S., xixi. 980; Laws 442 (2); etc. For the abbreviations used here and elsewhere in this 
study, see the bibliography. 
• See Chron. 256 b , 1127 F°’ d . 
* DelbrOck, 1 l. e., I, p. 50. 
