232 THE INFINITIVE IN THE OTHER GERMANIC LANGUAGES. 
itive with dative subject what to me seems a subjective infinitive, a topic dis¬ 
cussed in section ix of the present chapter. 
In Old Norse, likewise, we find, as subject, both the simple infinitive and 
the prepositional infinitive (with at), but the latter the oftener, as we learn from 
Drs. Falk and Torp, l. c., p. 195: “ Som subjekt staar infinitiven sserlig hyppig 
ved upersonlige udtryk: mik faro, tiSir; lysti Inarm at kyssa hana; samt i 
udtryk med vera: lett er lauss at fara. Modsat af hvad man skulde vente, 
staar her allerede i oldnorsk mest at. Sagen er den, at i de fleste tilfselde var 
en dobbelt opfatning mulig: i mik fara ti$ir er infinitiven ligefrem subjekt for 
verbet (at fare udgjpr min lyst); men verbet kan ogsaa tages rent upersonligt: 
jeg har en lyst som gaar i retning af at reise = mik ti&ir at fara. Den af denne 
dobbelte opfatning fremkaldte vaklen i brugen af at ophprte efterhaanden, og 
‘at’ blev det herskende.” See, further, Lund, l. c., pp. 357 ff.; Nygaard, l. c ., 
p. 220. 
In Old High German we find the same fluctuation between the uninflected 
infinitive and the inflected infinitive as subject that we have found in Anglo- 
Saxon:— uninflected: Tatian 148.11: oba iz arloubit si wola tuon, heila tuon 
oda furliosan = si licet bene facere, salvam facere an perdere; 1 — B. R. 35.3: 
pezzira ist swigeen denne kisprehhan wesan = melius est silire, quam loqui; 2 — 
Tatian 191.26: guot ist thir einougen richison, thanna habenten gisentit werden 
= bonum tibi est luscum regnare quam habentem mitti; s — inflected: Horn, de 
voc. 29.14: iu garisit gotes wort za quedanne = vobis oportebat loqui verbum dei; 4 
— Tatian 100.30: gilimphit mir zi gotspellone = oportet me evangelizare ; 4 — 
Is. 9.9: so zi chilaubanne mihhil wootnissa ist = ita existimare magnae dementiae 
est ; 5 — Tatian 171.7: nist guot zi nemenne . . . brot inti zi werfenna = non 
est bonum sumere panem . . . et mittere . 6 And the chief cause of this fluctua¬ 
tion appears to be the same as in Anglo-Saxon, namely, the disturbing influence 
of the datival verbs and verbal phrases; though a slight factor may be that 
suggested by Denecke with reference to the uninflected infinitive with guot ist 
in Tatian 191.18, 26: “ In beiden Stellen scheint theils das Pass, gisentit werden, 
theils der vom Uebersetzer dem Lat. nachgeahmte Acc. das Eintreten von zi 
verhindert zu haben.” 7 
In his elaborate treatise, Der Infinitiv in den Epen Hartmanns von Aue t 
Dr. Monsterberg-Miinckenau gives a unique classification of the uses of the 
infinitive, and on page 7 declares that “ nie ist der blosse Infinitiv bei Hartmann 
Subject.” Despite this statement, he gives examples from Hartmann of what 
others consider the subjective use of the infinitive; and all recent authorities 8 
tell us that the infinitive is found as subject in Middle High German. But 
the usage, especially as to the presence or omission of the preposition with the 
subjective infinitive in both Middle High German and in New High German, 
has diverged so far from the earlier status represented in Old High German 
and in Anglo-Saxon that it seems useless for our purpose to cite examples. 
Suffice it to say that the confusion between uninflected infinitive and inflected 
infinitive grows in Middle High German, and becomes almost hopeless in New 
High German. 
In Old Saxon we have clear examples of the inflected infinitive as subject, 
1 From Denecke, l. c., p. 20. 
4 Ibidem, l. c., p. 66. 
7 Denecke, l. c., p. 23. 
2 Ibidem, l. c., p. 22. 
6 Ibidem, l. c., p. 70. 
8 See Michels, l. c., § 245. 
3 Ibidem, l. c., p. 23. 
6 Ibidem, l. c., p. 71. 
