336 
ADDENDA. 
With this general statement should be compared the sectioh on “the Differ¬ 
entiation of the Two Infinitives” in my several chapters, especially that in 
Chapter II on the Objective Infinitive, pp. 60 ff. 
I am glad to see that the explanation of the differentiation of the two in¬ 
finitives as subject is substantially identical with that offered by me, pp. 20 ff. 
above. Under 13a, p. 89, “with infinitive as subject, or as object with 
complement, introduced by it or an impersonal verb, in quotations c. 1205 
without it,” we read: 
“Here the infinitive apparently originally depended on the adjective or substantive in 
the it clause (as in sense 9), or on the impersonal verb, and was therefore put in the form 
with to. Thus hwilum 3a leohtan scylda bio3 beteran to forlcetenne, ‘sometimes the slight 
sins are better to let alone’ (K. JElf. Pa. C. 457), might also be expressed hwilum hit is betre 
3a leohtan scylda to forlcetenne (cf. hit is god godne to herianne , quotation c. 890), ‘sometimes 
it is better to let alone the slight sins;’ and this easily passed into the later ‘to let alone the 
slight sins is sometimes better,’ where the infinitive clause becomes the subject as in 6.” 
Under 14, p. 89, “with infinitive as direct object of a transitive verb,” we 
read: 
“Old English normally had the simple infinitive, like modern German. . . . Many of 
the verbs which in Old English took the simple infinitive could also be followed by to with 
the dative infinitive. But the auxiliary verbs (see History above) have always been followed 
by the simple infinitive; e. g. Hwcet can ic sprecan? ‘What can I speak?’ We magon 
gehyran, ‘We may hear.’” 
But see Chapter IV, pp. 79 ff., where I have tried to demonstrate that the 
inflected infinitive is occasionally found with auxiliary verbs in Anglo-Saxon. 
In 15a, p. 89, two examples are given of the inflected infinitive as the pred¬ 
icate of a subject accusative in Anglo-Saxon, one after tcecan , 1 teach/ and 
another after Iceran, ‘teach.’ See section IV, p. 338, below. 
As to the syntactical uses of the infinitive, the classification, given at the 
end of “History,” p. 87, tallies in the main with that given by me: 
“The infinitive with to may be dependent on an adjective, a substantive, or a verb, or it 
may stand independently. To an adjective it stands in adverbial relation: ready to fight — 
ready for fighting; to a substantive it stands in adjectival or sometimes adverbial relation: 
a day to remember = a memorable day; to a verb it may stand in an adverbial or substantival 
relation: to proceed to work = to proceed to working; to like to work — to like working.” 
It is clear that, in the large, these groups correspond respectively to the adverbial, 
the adjectival, and the substantival uses as given in my “Introduction,” pp. 
2 ff. Later, on p. 89, the Dictionary gives a fourth use, “with infinitive equiv¬ 
alent to a finite verb or clause,” which in part corresponds to my predicative 
(or more verbal) use of the infinitive. 
But several noteworthy differences appear when we come to the delimita¬ 
tion of the several groups. Under “I. With infinitive in adverbial relation,” 
the differences are fewer and less significant than under the remaining three 
groups. The subdivisions given under I in the Dictionary are as follows: — 
“ * Indicating purpose or intention,” in which we have the inflected infini¬ 
tive occasionally modifying a noun, though regularly modifying a verb or an 
adjective. Here, too, the Dictionary puts the “absolute or independent con¬ 
struction, usually introductory or parenthetic,” of which the earliest example 
given is c. 1305, from St. Kenelm, 266: “& to telle hit wiboute rym buse wordes 
rigt hit were.” See Chapter XII, pp. 169 ff., where I have given several 
examples of the absolute use of the infinitive in Anglo-Saxon. 
