250 THE INFINITIVE IN THE OTHER GERMANIC LANGUAGES. 
er en foregaende hensynsform at henf0re omsagnsordet til, men ogsa, uden at 
der er nogen anden hensynsform at henf0re den til eller som bevirker dens 
fremkomst, i visse udtryk med tillsegsord (er gott, illt), hvor den ma betragtes 
som udtryk for et hensyn (efter 30), men i hvilket tilfselde ogsa nsevneform 
bruges. Jfr. 30, anmk. 4. Saledes siges bade hann bau& peim at Jam fyrstum 
og baud pa at farafyrsta; illt er ilium, at vera og illt er illr at vera , s. ovenfor 1,” 
etc., etc. But the infinitive with er gott seems to me subjective, and that with 
baud peim objective. Moreover, I do not understand Lund to claim that the 
infinitive is really predicative in either of these two categories. 
Although, as already stated, Grimm declares, l. c., IV, p. 131, that in no Ger¬ 
manic dialect other than Gothic have we any trace of the dative-with-infinitive 
construction, it seems to me that, if we consider that we have this construction 
in the above examples from the Gothic, we must allow that we have it in the 
following passages from Old High German: — uninflected: B. R. 41.5: discoom 
kerisit hoorreen = discipulos convenit obedire; 1 Tatian 195.14: goumon inti gifehan 
thir gilimphit = aepulari et gaudere te oportet; 2 — inflected: Horn . de voc. 29.14: 
iu garisit gotes wort za quedanne = vobis oportebat loqui verbum dei; 3 Toiian 
100.30: gilimphit mir zi gotspellonne = oportet me evangelizare . 3 Whether Dr. 
Denecke, from whom I have quoted these examples, considers the infinitive 
therein as predicative or not, I do not feel sure, but he puts the uninflected 
infinitive under the heading “ Dat. c. Inf.” Gilimphit is likewise followed, as 
we saw above, p. 245, by the accusative and infinitive; and Denecke, pp. 
42, 43, seems to think that a significant factor is the person of the pronoun, the 
dative occurring usually with the pronouns of the first and second persons, 
and the accusative with pronouns of the third person and with nouns in Old 
High German, he declares. But surely this fact is accidental, not determining; 
the interchange between dative and accusative with these infinitives most prob¬ 
ably depends, as in Anglo-Saxon, on the datival sense of the accompanying 
finite verb, which datival sense occasionally was not strong enough to resist 
the accusative of the Latin original. This explanation tallies with that given 
by Miklosich of the dative-with-infinitive in the Slavic languages, and ex¬ 
tends still further the application of Jolly’s happy comment thereon: “ Als die 
Ursache dieser eigenthiimlichen Constructionen gibt Miklosich, dem wir die 
nahere Kenntniss derselben verdanken, die grossere Verbreitung verbal- und 
besonders mit dem Dativ construirter Verbalsubstantive in den slavischen 
Sprachen an; 4 auch fur die Sprachstufe des Zend und vedischen Sanskrit liess 
sich dieselbe sprachliche Erscheinung oben S. 93 nachweisen, und die gewiss 
richtige Erklarung M.’s ist demnach auch fur ein Sprachgebiet fur das sie ur- 
spriinglich nicht gemacht war, doch nicht weniger zutreffend.” 5 Once more: 
it is important to note that in these Old High German examples the dative 
sometimes precedes and sometimes follows the infinitive, usually according to 
the position of the noun or pronoun in the Latin original. Finally, whether 
Dr. Denecke or any one else considers the inflected infinitive in these Old High 
German examples to be the predicate of a dative subject or not, I do not know. 
But Denecke does note the interchange between uninflected and inflected in¬ 
finitives after gilimphit; calls attention to two facts: (1) “ dass zi stets ge- 
1 From Denecke, l. c., p. 31. 2 Ibidem, p. 42. 3 Ibidem, p. 66. 4 “ Beiapiele ebenda S. 494.” 
6 Jolly, l. c., p. 269. — My inability to read Slavic makes it improper for me to express an opinion as to 
whether or not the infinitive in this locution is really predicative. 
