64 
THE OBJECTIVE INFINITIVE. 
Both the uninflected infinitive and the inflected infinitive in this passage, 
moreover, translate a Latin accusative and infinitive. In the second example 
(/Elf. L. S. 102.227) the inflected infinitive is separated from aliefan by four 
words. Hence I think that the datival force is of more importance than the 
distance from the verb. — In all probability the original construction with 
secan was the uninflected infinitive, which alone is found in the poetry (twice), 
and which occurs three times in the prose ( Gosp ., 2 ; Bl. Horn ., 1). In each 
of the instances of the inflected infinitive, it is possible that the infinitive is 
final in sense; that, for instance, in Pr. Ps. 34.4 (<5a be secad mine sawle to 
fordonne - confundantur . . . qucerentes animam meam ), to fordonne is an ad¬ 
verbial modifier of seca& rather than its object, — an interpretation favored 
by the fact that secan at times means ‘ strive for ’ as well as ‘ seek;’ and 
that secan is followed by to plus a noun in the dative in Anglo-Saxon, though 
this phrase expresses, not the object sought, but the source whence something 
is sought. — In the single instance of sellan followed by an inflected infinitive, 
the infinitive is juxtaposed with the verb, while the uninflected is separated 
therefrom, but the double construction is probably due to the double regimen 
of sellan. Compare “ Subjective Infinitive,” p. 24. — Forlcetan, ‘ abandon/ 
‘ omit/ may be put in this group, as it is followed by an accusative and a 
prepositional phrase introduced by to. 
( b) With certain verbs governing the accusative of the thing and the dative 
of the person ( bebeodan , ‘ command; ; beodan , ‘ command; ’ bewerian , 4 pro¬ 
hibit/ ‘ forbid: ’ cf. 1 (c) and (d); forbeodan, ‘ forbid;’ gehatan, ‘ command/ 
‘ promise:' cf. 1 (d); geSajian (occasionally genitive instead of accusative), 
‘ allow;’ cf. 1 (d)). With this group of verbs the double construction rests 
primarily upon the double regimen of the verbs; and it is easy to see how in 
these verbs, particularly those of commanding and forbidding, the dative and 
the accusative objectives could be interchanged without any essential altera¬ 
tion in sense. Gehatan in the sense of ‘ command/ like the simplex, hatan } 
governs the uninflected infinitive only; in the sense of ‘ promise/ the inflected 
infinitive, though in one of these examples (Bede 316.22) the inflected infinitive 
is doubtless due to the Latin future infinitive (esse donaturum). 
(c) With a few verbs followed by (1) an accusative or by a prepositional 
phrase (gemedemian (accusative or with to), ‘ humiliate/ ‘ condescend; ’ gemyn - 
tan (accusative or with to), ‘ intend/ ‘ determine ; 1 tilian (accusative or with 
to), ‘ attempt/ ‘strive for: ’ cf. 1 (d)) or by ( 2 ) a prepositional phrase (bewerian 
(wi& and dative of the thing), ‘ prohibit/ ‘ forbid: ’ cf. 1 (b); fon (to or on), 
‘undertake/ ‘ begin: ’ see also 1 (d); geswican (from), ‘ stop/ ‘ desist from:’ cf. 
1 (d)). With this group, too, the chief factor in the double construction is the 
double (or triple) regimen. The difference in sense between the uninflected 
and inflected infinitive in the group as a whole is no greater and no less than 
that between ‘ stop ’ and ‘ desist from ’ or ‘ attempt 1 and ‘ strive for ’ in present 
English. Substantially the same situation exists in Greek, as is evident from 
this statement in Goodwin’s Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb , § 807: 
“ After verbs and other expressions which denote hindrance or freedom from 
anything, two forms are allowed, the simple infinitive and the genitive of the 
infinitive with rov. Thus we can say (a) dpyet <re rovro Trotetv (747) and (b) 
etpyet a-e rov rovro Trotetv, both with the same meaning, ‘ he prevents you from 
doing this.’ ” 
