THE ACTIVE INFINITIVE. 
67 
genitive was originally the normal case with the ginnan compounds in the 
West-Germanic languages, especially with beginnan: in proximity to begin¬ 
nan, we have in Anglo-Saxon the inflected infinitive, which, as we have seen, 
normally represents an “ indirect ” case. Which infinitive represents the 
original construction with beginnan in Anglo-Saxon, it is difficult to determine: 
only one example of the infinitive occurs in the poetry ( Creed 37), that unin¬ 
flected; none is found in Alfred; only two are found in the Chronicle , one un¬ 
inflected (201 ra , 1067 D) and one inflected (243*, 1110 E b ); and by far the 
majority of the examples occur in iElfric (73 out of a total of 85). Since, 
however, the examples of the uninflected form in the Chronicle and in the poetry 
are each late, and since, out of a total of about 85 examples, 57 are inflected, 
I am inclined to believe that the inflected infinitive represents the original 
construction in Anglo-Saxon. This preponderance of the inflected infinitive 
is quite in keeping with the fact, stated by Professor Delbriick, that, in Old 
High German, the genitive case was very frequent with beginnan. Of course, 
the fluctuation in the two forms of the infinitive may be due in part merely 
to the lateness of iElfric’s works, by whose time the distinction between the 
two forms had begun to break down. However, I believe that the fact that 
the majority of iElfric’s examples (54 out of 73) are inflected, probably points 
to what was the original construction. 
That with onginnan, on the contrary, the uninflected infinitive was the 
original idiom, seems probable from these facts: 977 examples of the uninflected 
infinitive occur to only 37 examples of the inflected; only the uninflected form 
is found in the poems (18 of them in Beowulf) ; in Alfred there are 246 unin¬ 
flected to 2 inflected infinitives; and the majority of the inflected infinitives 
(25 out of 37) occur in A51fric, but even with him the uninflected preponderate 
in the ratio of 82 to 25. As with beginnan, though not to the same extent, so 
with onginnan the infinitive, when inflected, is usually near the finite form of 
onginnan. As stated in the preceding paragraph, the double construction with 
onginnan is probably due to the assumed double regimen of that verb. The 
twofold construction may be due in part, also, to the lateness in time of M\- 
fric’s works; and in part to the two well-known different meanings of onginnan / 
1 begin/ and ‘ attempt; ’ though we find each use in each sense: the former 
needs no illustration; for the latter cf. Boeth. 127.23 (ic sceal beah hwsethwugu 
his onginnan to tcecanne = 108.16: aliquid deliberare conabimur ) with Bede 200.12 
(Da ongunnon . . . oncras upp teon = 158.13: temtabant . . . nauem retinere). 
Again, in his Grammar, A^lfric tells us that onginnan plus the inflected infinitive 
is the proper translation for the Latin inchoative verbs, giving as paradigms, 
on p. 212, “ ic onginne to wearmigenne = calesco,” “ ic onginne to anbracigenne 
= horresco,” “ ic onginne to blacigenne = pallesco; ” but he does not state, 
nor is it easy for me to conceive, why the inflected infinitive is better in such 
cases than the uninflected infinitive. Alfred evidently thought the uninflected 
infinitive proper, for in Bede 256.24 (sona swa he trumian ongon = 203.30: 
cum conualescere coepisset) we find trumian ongan translating conualescere 
coepisset. Be the reason what it may, the inflected infinitive caught the fancy 
of HSlfric, and to him we owe 25 out of the total of 37 inflected infinitives after 
onginnan. On the other hand, iElfric uses the uninflected infinitive 82 times, 
without making any rational differentiation between the two so far as I can 
1 Cf. the quotation below from Dr. Henry Sweet. 
