228 SOME SUBSTITUTES FOR THE INFINITIVE IN ANGLO-SAXON. 
iElfric’s works. Here it needs only to be said that HClfric is likewise strongly 
influenced by the Latin, especially by ecclesiastical Latin, in his use of the predi¬ 
cate accusative of the present participle, a construction that, as shown above, 
is very frequent in the vulgate Gospels. It is likewise not uncommon in the 
vulgate Old Testament. iElfric several times translates the Latin predicate 
participle by an Anglo-Saxon predicate infinitive (about four times in all). 
And, while occasionally iElfric, in his Heptateuch, has a predicate accusative 
of the participle where another construction is found in the original Latin, 1 the 
participles so occurring are such as are not infrequent elsewhere in HClfric and 
in other Anglo-Saxon prose (especially the Gospels) ; and such as are frequent 
in ecclesiastical Latin. I believe, therefore, that no one who examines my 
statistics as a whole will question the statement that iElfric’s use of the predicate 
accusative of the participle is due to Latin influence. 
When we consider, then, that the predicative use of the present participle 
with full verbal power is practically unknown in Anglo-Saxon poetry; that it 
very rarely occurs in Early West Saxon, and then usually in translating a Latin 
predicate participle; that it is very rare also in the more original prose; but 
that it is frequent in Late West Saxon, especially in the Gospels and in iElfric, 
and that of the 80 examples in the Gospels all but two are in direct translation 
of Latin predicate participles; — when we consider all this, the conclusion 
seems irresistible that this predicative use of the present participle was not a 
native Anglo-Saxon idiom, but was imported from the Latin, chiefly through the 
instrumentality of iElfric and of the translator (s) of the Gospels. 
As to this theory of the Latin origin of this idiom in Anglo-Saxon, I have 
seen no statement favoring it except this of Dr. Axel Erdmann, 2 which state¬ 
ment, it will be noted, ascribes the frequency, not the origin, of the idiom to 
Latin influence: “ In the ancient period, the infinitive [i. e., the infinitive with 
accusative subject] prevailed instead of the Participle [i. e., the predicative 
participle in the accusative]. In Beowulf, Caedmon’s Genesis, and even in the 
Enigmas it is employed exclusively, and in the whole A. S. poetical literature 
in by far the majority of cases. The Part, seems to owe very much of its 
frequency at a later time to Latin influence. In the Gospels it is decidedly 
preponderant. The infin. for inst. Lucas, XIX.32, XXI. 1, 2. Cf. March, 
§ 449.” 
But we are told by scholars of the highest distinction that, on the contrary, 
in the Germanic languages as a whole, the infinitive has been substituted for 
the participle. As already incidentally stated, this latter theory was proposed 
at least as early as 1836, by K. F. Becker, who, in his Ausfilhrliche Deutsche 
Grammatik, Vol. I, pp. 193-194, expressed himself as follows: “ Der Gebrauch 
eines objectiven Infinitivs nach den Verben: sehen, horen, fuhlen, finden, z. B., 
‘ Ich sehe ihn laufen,’ ‘ Ich hore ihn singen/ ist uralt und findet sich auch in 
dem Angelsachsischen. 3 Statt dieses Infinitivs finden wir aber nicht nur im 
Griechischen und Lateinischen, sondern auch im Gothischen das Partizip des 
1 The divergent examples are: Deut. 11.25: gehirdon his word Sus cweSende = et locutus est vobis; Judges, 
Epilogue, p, 264, 1.22: hi gemetton . . . godes engel him togeanes gangende mid him = 0; Exod. 22.19: Sa 
geseh he . . . Scetfolc eall singende = vidit . . . choros; Gen. 18.2: And Abraham beseah upp and geseah Sri weras 
standende him gehende = Cumque elevasset oculos, apparuerunt ei tres viri stantes prope eum. The remaining 
four examples of the predicate accusative in the Anglo-Saxon Heptateuch {Gen. 28.12 b ’ c , 29.1; Num. 22.23) 
translate Latin predicate participles. 
2 L. c., p. 32. 
3 “ S. Otfrid, I, 4.21; 15.47; 25.15, 23; — Nibelungenlied, 5365; — Hickes, a. a. O., p. 93.” 
