210 ORIGIN OF CONSTRUCTIONS OF INFINITIVE IN ANGLO-SAXON. 
Brief is the statement of Dr. Leon Kellner, in his Historical Outlines of 
English Syntax (1892), p. 253: “ The accusative + inf. as object of verbs like 
biddan (ask), hatan (bid), seon (see), gehyran (hear), findan (find), is quite 
common in Old English.” 
In his “ Indirect Discourse in Anglo-Saxon ” (1895), p. 485, Professor J. H. 
Gorrell reaches this conclusion: “ The infinitive clause is mostly used after 
hatan, with less frequency after other verbs of command. The subject-accusa¬ 
tive construction is in general use only after verbs of perception in the pictur¬ 
esque language of poetry; its occurrence after verbs of saying or thinking is 
very rare, and is mostly confined to direct copyings of the corresponding Latin 
construction; this method of rendering the Latin prevails, however, to no great 
extent even in the closest translations.” On pp. 476-477 we read: “ There 
are in Bede 331 Latin infinitives following verbs which act as introductions to 
indirect discourse; in 263 instances the Latin infinitive is rendered by the regu¬ 
lar Anglo-Saxon construction with the subordinate clause; in 68 cases only 
does the Anglo-Saxon agree in construction with the Latin: 28 of these are 
found after hatan (its usual native sequence), 8 follow geseon, 6 occur after 
gehatan, 4 after gehyran; witan, twygean, gelyfan , gelimpan, and secgan are 
each followed twice by the infinitive; while bebeodan, biddan, bewerian, cetiewan, 
gemunan, geleornian, Imran, oncnawan, ongytan, tellan, cSyncan, and wenan are 
followed once by this construction. Since the infinitive clause is quite frequent 
after hatan and verbs of perception, we may conclude from the above statistics 
that the influence of the Latin infinitive construction upon the Anglo-Saxon is 
very slight even in the closest translations.” For reasons given below, in the 
discussion of the view of Dr. Zeitlin, it seems to me that Dr. Gorrell somewhat 
underestimates the influence of the Latin. 
Dr. Wiilfing, in his Syntax in den Werken Alfreds des Grossen (1900), II, 
p. 182, merely quotes with approbation the statement of T. Muller, given 
above. 
In his Studies in the Language of Pecock (1900), p. 119, Dr. Fredrik Schmidt 
incidentally expresses his view concerning the construction in Anglo-Saxon: 
“ Pecock’s extensive use of the accusative and infinitive after this third group 
of verbs is characteristic of his style. Krickau (Acc. mit dem Inf., p. 17) calls 
him the writer 1 welcher mit der Einfiihrung des Acc. mit dem Inf. nach den 
Verben des Sagens und Denkens in Originalwerken begonnen hat.' And thus 
much is certain that before Pecock this construction is very sporadically to be 
found. Einenkel (Anglia XIII, 94 sqq.) gives a few examples from Chaucer 
(after conferme, deeme, holde, wite) and two from O. E. (after weene).” 1 In 
substantial agreement with Dr. Schmidt are the views expressed by the follow¬ 
ing investigators of the idiom in Middle English and in Modern English, the 
title of whose works are given in my bibliography: Rohs, 1889; Zickner, 1900; 
De Reul, 1901; Ortmann, 1902; and Gartner, 1904. 
General but pronounced is the statement of Professor Otto Jespersen, in 
his Growth and Structure of the English Language (1905), p. 127: “ The exten¬ 
sive use of the accusative with the infinitive is another permanent feature of 
English syntax which is largely due to Latin influence.” 2 
1 See, further, Schmidt, F., 1. c., p. 112. 
2 As this statement is omitted in the second edition (1912) of this work, Professor Jespersen has probably 
changed his opinion with reference thereto. 
