THE PREDICATIVE INFINITIVE WITH ACCUSATIVE SUBJECT. 203 
Latin active periphrastic; and is very rare in iElfric. I think, therefore, that 
we are justified in concluding that in Anglo-Saxon the inflected infinitive de¬ 
noting futurity is due to Latin influence. I wish to add, however, that, as 
said earlier, there is at times room for difference of opinion as to whether an 
infinitive with beon (wesan ) is present or future in sense; but that, in Chapter 
VII, pp. 104 f. above, I have given all the instances in which the infinitive 
seemed to me clearly to denote futurity. 
The inflected infinitive of futurity in the other Germanic languages, like¬ 
wise, is probably due to Latin influence: see Chapter XYI, section vii. 
C. THE INFINITIVE DENOTES PURPOSE. 
The inflected infinitive with beon (wesan) denoting purpose, in all of the 
few examples occurring in the Anglo-Saxon translations from the Latin (given 
in Chapter VII, pp. 105 f.), corresponds to ad+ a gerundive (or occasionally 
ad + a gerund) except in Greg. 131.21, in which it corresponds to a Latin com¬ 
plementary infinitive. One example only is found in the poems (Gen. 703), 
which is doubtful because of a defective text. It seems probable, therefore, 
that these inflected infinitives of purpose are here due to the Latin. 
Concerning the infinitive of purpose with be in the other Germanic lan¬ 
guages, see Chapter XVI, section vii. 
VIII. PREDICATIVE INFINITIVE WITH ACCUSATIVE 
SUBJECT . 1 
AS OBJECT. 
A. THE ACTIVE INFINITIVE. 
I. UNINFLECTED. 
It is not my purpose to give a survey of the various theories concerning 
the ultimate origin of the predicative infinitive with accusative subject in the 
Indo-Germanic languages; for an excellent survey has recently been given by 
Dr. Jacob Zeitlin in his dissertation, The Accusative with Infinitive and Some 
Kindred Constructions in English (1908), pp. 1-12. I merely wish to state that, 
with Dr. Zeitlin, I have long thought that the theory first suggested by Curtius 
and later amplified by Professors Brugmann and Delbriick comes nearest to solv¬ 
ing the problem. Professor Brugmann, 1 l. c., § 807, thus states the theory: — 
“ Ein bestimmtes Subjekt der Inf.-Handlung brauchte nicht vorhanden zu sein, ihr 
Subjekt konnte aber das Subjekt des regierenden Verbums sein oder ein zu diesem gehoriger 
Dat. oder Akk. 
“ Der letzte Fall, z. B. ai. tvam indr a srdvitava apds kah, 1 du, I., hast die Wasser fliessen 
machen/ gr. 9upr)%al e ntXeve . . . 'Axcuovs, 1 heiss ihn wappnen die A./ gab die Grundlage 
fur die Konstruktion des Acc. c. Inf. ab, wie sie das Griech., Ital., und teilweise das Germ, 
aufweisen. Der ursprunglich zu dem transit. Verbum gehorige Akk. wurde als Subjekt 
zum Inf. gezogen, eine Verschiebung der syntaktischen Gliederung, die zumteil sicher durch 
die Analogie zu abhangigen Satzen mit selbstandigem Subjekt hervorgerufen worden ist (vgl. 
etwa ich sah ihn fliehen = ich sah, [dass] er floh). Alsdann eigneten sich auch Verba, die einen 
Objektsakk. nicht zu sich nahmen, diese Konstruktion an, z. B. hom. oil ere Zouce Kanbv &s 
Seihiaaeadcu, 1 nicht ziemt es sich, dass du verzagst,’ lat. gaudeo te valere, got. jah warp 
afslaupnan allans, ‘ nal iyevero dap.ft os iirl irduras.’ Vgl. § 815 fiber die absoluten Partizipial- 
konstruktionen. ’ ’ 
i Cf. Chapter VIII, pp. 107 ff. 
