Search Results

This chapter presents an overview of issues of the to-infinitive discussed in the literature. It is usually assumed that the infinitive is a noun in Old English, and that, hence, the to-infinitive is a prepositional phrase; this entails that there has been a category change, which is usually argued to have taken place in Middle English. The author argues that the category change must predate Old English, as the to-infinitive is already completely verbal at that stage, which means that the syntactic innovations in Middle English cannot be due to a category change. Another traditional assumption that is discussed and rejected is the view that the to-infinitive gained ground at the expense of the infinitive without to, the so-called ‘bare infinitive’.

This final chapter wraps up the main conclusions of the book: the origin of the to-infinitive and its reanalysis as a non-finite subjunctive clause, and its rise and spread at the expense of the finite subjunctive clause. It also reflects on wider issues to do with the interpretation of historical linguistic data, especially the absence of certain constructions (the problem of ‘negative evidence’) and how we can make the most of the data we have. The key to these problems is not to look at syntactic constructions in isolation, but to focus on their function in the language. This means that historical linguists sometimes have to cast their nets wide and look at other fields — discourse, theories of textual cohesion, translation studies, and pragmatics — in order to find the answers to syntactic problems.

Aristotle's account of affections ‘common to body and soul’ suggests that the formal account of a psychological affection implies a specific account of the bodily side of this affection. This is because the form as a final cause hypothetically necessitates certain material changes. DA II.5's account of perception does not contradict this diagnosis, since viewing perception as a fulfilment and a perfective alteration (in a manner derived from Phys. II.3) does not exclude this but leaves it open both that perception may involve material changes and what such changes might be. As a perfective alteration perception may involve material changes in other categories of change, or within the same category. The point is demonstrated by Aristotle's accounts of hearing, smell, and touch.

This chapter describes the earliest syntactic function of the to-infinitive: that of purpose adjunct, as in Present-day English, I left early to catch the train. Data from Gothic and Old English show that this function could be encoded by three expressions: the du- or to-infinitive, the du- or to-prepositional phrase, and the subjunctive clause introduced by ei in Gothic and by þæt in Old English. It has been claimed in the literature that the bare infinitive could also express purpose in Old English, but a closer look at the data shows that these infinitives occur after verbs of motion and rest, and are parallel to the present participles in Present-day English, he came running, he sat thinking. Such bare infinitives do not express purpose by simultaneity.