212 ORIGIN OF CONSTRUCTIONS OF INFINITIVE IN ANGLO-SAXON. 
To this last statement there seem to me to be at least two cogent objections. 
First, the theory of the priority of the participle predicate (at least of the pres¬ 
ent participle) to the infinitive predicate, credited by Dr. Zeitlin on page 66 
to Grimberg 1 and here indorsed by himself, is contrary to the facts in Anglo- 
Saxon, as I believe and try to show in Chapter XVI. As to the predicative 
accusative of nouns, of adjectives, and of past participles after verbs of per¬ 
ception and of declaring, which Dr. Zeitlin thinks has, also, contributed to the 
development of the accusative-with-infinitive construction, I do not know of 
any extensive collection 2 of data as to these uses. But, should the predicative 
use of nouns, of adjectives, and of the past participle be found frequent in 
Anglo-Saxon and in the Germanic languages as a whole, this fact would not 
substantiate the theory advocated by Drs. Becker, Primer, Grimberg, and 
Zeitlin, I think. It is in no small degree the fact that the present participle is 
more verbal and less adjectival in nature than a past participle (and, of course, 
than a predicate adjective or noun in the accusative) that in Anglo-Saxon and 
in High German precluded the use of the present participle in the predicative 
accusative except in translation of Latin participles with full verbal power, 
precisely as the more verbal present participle could not be used appositively 
except in imitation of the same idiom in Latin. 3 
Secondly, the statement unduly minimizes the influence of the Latin in the 
development of the accusative with an infinitive after verbs of declaring in 
Anglo-Saxon, so patly stated by Dr. Zeitlin on p. 99. That I am not misin¬ 
terpreting the force intended to be conveyed in the passage just quoted, appears 
clear, I think, from the paragraph immediately following it: ‘‘The question 
of Latin influence in this period can be disposed of without difficulty. As is 
manifest from the Bede citations, the translator on a number of occasions imi¬ 
tates the Latin construction in rendering an accusative with infinitive after 
verbs of mental perception and declaration. But very seldom does he do 
violence to the English idiom in so translating. He refrains from imitating 
the construction after neuter and impersonal verbs, confining his translation 
within the same limitations that bound the native locution. That it should 
be found more frequently in translations than in original works is to be expected 
from the extensive use of this construction in Latin; and it is not surprising 
to find sporadical examples bearing the distinct stamp of foreign importation. 
But in expanding the great mass of Latin accusatives and infinitives into 
English clauses the translator has shown that his feeling for the native idiom 
has not been corrupted by the foreign language. Since Latin exerted so slight 
an influence on Old English translations, it may readily be inferred that it had 
no effect at all on original literature or spoken language.” In support of my 
claim that these two statements unduly minimize the Latin influence upon the 
accusative-with-infinitive construction in Anglo-Saxon, I call attention to 
these additional facts: (1) Though rarely, the accusative with infinitive is 
found after impersonal verbs in Anglo-Saxon, — a matter treated below under 
the accusative with infinitive in subject clauses. (2) In imitation of the Latin 
1 Grimberg’s article appeared in 1905, but this theory was proposed long before that time, as early as 1836, 
by K. F. Becker in his Ausfuhrliche Deutsche Grammatik, Vol. I, pp. 193-194. See, further, Chapter XV and 
Chapter XVI, section viii. 
2 The fullest known to me is that by Grimm, l. c., IV, pp. 732 ff., but in this collection very few examples are 
given from Anglo-Saxon. Dr. Wiilfing’s Syntax has not as yet reached the predicative use of the accusative. 
3 See the writer’s The Appositive Participle in Anglo-Saxon, pp. 142, 307 ff. 
