THE ACTIVE INFINITIVE. 
69 
with these verbs, though with not a few exceptions, duly pointed out in the 
several groups. But with some verbs that govern only the accusative, or that 
are not found with a case, we also find both infinitives; and the double con¬ 
struction here seems to be due at times to the double regimen of another verb 
of the same root; at times to the analogical influence of verbs of different roots 
but of kindred signification; and at times to the fact that some of the in¬ 
finitives fluctuate in sense between the adverbial and the objective uses. With 
all groups, occasional disturbing factors are the occurrence of the infini¬ 
tive in a series, in which case at times, but by no means habitually, the second 
infinitive, even when following an inflected infinitive, is likely to be uninflected; 
and the influence of the Latin original, which at times, as with the gerund or 
the gerundive, tends to cause the inflected infinitive to be used, and at other 
times, as with the accusative and infinitive construction, tends to cause the 
uninflected infinitive to be used. Once more, the distinction between the two 
infinitives, which, as stated, rested originally on slight differences in meaning 
in the chief verb as indicated in the different cases of its noun objects, early 
began to fade away, and is very pale in Late West Saxon. Despite occa¬ 
sional exceptions that I have pointed out to this theory, I hope and believe 
that the main principles here formulated as to the differentiation of the two 
infinitives will meet with acceptance, the more so that, as will be seen in 
Chapter XVI, they seem as applicable to the Germanic languages in general as 
to Anglo-Saxon. 
The foregoing has been written concerning the active infinitive with active 
verbs; but the same general principles apply to the active infinitive with pas¬ 
sive verbs. In the group followed by the inflected infinitive only, after deman 
(Wcerf . 254.14) the inflected infinitive is doubtless due to the gerundial peri¬ 
phrastic of the Latin original. Forbeodan and ( ge)manian , in the active, are 
followed by either infinitive, each being a verb of double regimen. ( Ge)myngian 
governs an accusative or a genitive. 
I do not know of any detailed attempt 1 by previous investigators to 
differentiate the two infinitives as object in Anglo-Saxon. Dr. van Draat’s 
“ The Infinitive with and without Preceding to,” in his Rhythm in English Prose 
(1910), does not touch upon the Anglo-Saxon period. But several helpful 
suggestions have been made by others. In his Anglo-Saxon Grammar, § 453, 
for instance, Professor March notes this interesting fact: “ The gerund [= in¬ 
flected infinitive] as genitive object is pretty common: ondred to faranne, 
dreaded to go (Mat. ii, 22); wished to see (xiii, 17). Other objects occur, 
§ 448, 2.” The second passage cited by Professor March, Matthew xiii. 17 
(gewilnudon ba bing to geseonne . . . and gehyran ba bing) contains both an un¬ 
inflected infinitive and an inflected infinitive as objects of the same verb, but 
no explanation is offered of the double construction. Dr. Wiilfing, likewise, 
in his Die Syntax in den Werken Alfreds des Grossen, II, p. 204, tells us that 
“ Der Infinitiv mit to als Objekt an Stelle eines Akkusativs oder eines Genetivs 
steht bei transitiven Zeitwortern,” but he does not indicate when, in his judg¬ 
ment, we have an accusative use of the inflected infinitive and when a genitive 
use; nor does he say anything of a dative objective use of the inflected infini- 
1 Dr. H. Willert’s “ Vom Infinitiv with To ” is based upon the selections in Zupitza’s Alt- und Mittelen- 
glisches Ubungsbuch. As this article appeared after my study had been put in its final form, what seems note¬ 
worthy therein has been incorporated in my footnotes. 
