The Grammar of English Grammars by Goold Brown (read books for money TXT) 📖

OBS. 1.—No word is more variously explained by grammarians, than this word TO, which is put before the verb in the infinitive mood. Johnson, Walker, Scott, Todd, and some other lexicographers, call it an adverb; but, in explaining its use, they say it denotes certain relations, which it is not the office of an adverb to express. (See the word in Johnson's Quarto Dictionary.) D. St. Quentin, in his Rudiments of General Grammar, says, "To, before a verb, is an adverb;" and yet his "Adverbs are words that are joined to verbs or adjectives, and express some circumstance or quality." See pp. 33 and 39. Lowth, Priestley, Fisher, L. Murray, Webster, Wilson, S. W. Clark, Coar, Comly, Blair, Felch, Fisk, Greenleaf, Hart, Weld, Webber, and others, call it a preposition; and some of these ascribe to it the government of the verb, while others do not. Lowth says, "The preposition TO, placed before the verb, makes the infinitive mood."—Short Gram., p. 42. "Now this," says Horne Tooke, "is manifestly not so: for TO placed before the verb loveth, will not make the infinitive mood. He would have said more truly, that TO placed before some nouns, makes verbs."—Diversions of Purley, Vol. i, p. 287.

OBS. 2.—Skinner, in his Canones Etymologici, calls this TO "an equivocal article,"—Tooke, ib., i, 288. Nutting, a late American grammarian, says: "The sign TO is no other than the Greek article to; as, to agapan [, to love]; or, as some say, it is the Saxon do"—Practical Gram., p. 66. Thus, by suggesting two false and inconsistent derivations, though he uses not the name equivocal article, he first makes the word an article, and then equivocal—equivocal in etymology, and of course in meaning.[403] Nixon, in his English Parser, supposes it to be, unequivocally, the Greek article [Greek: to], the. See the work, p. 83. D. Booth says, "To is, by us, applied to Verbs; but it was the neuter Article (the) among the Greeks."—Introd. to Analyt. Dict., p. 60. According to Horne Tooke, "Minshew also distinguishes between the preposition TO, and the sign of the infinitive TO. Of the former he is silent, and of the latter he says: 'To, as to make, to walk, to do, a Græco articulo [Greek: to].' But Dr. Gregory Sharpe is persuaded, that our language has taken it from the Hebrew. And Vossius derives the correspondent Latin preposition AD from the same source."—Diversions of Purley, Vol. i, p. 293.

OBS. 3.—Tooke also says, "I observe, that Junius and Skinner and Johnson, have not chosen to give the slightest hint concerning the derivation of TO."—Ibid. But, certainly, of his adverb TO, Johnson gives this hint: "TO, Saxon; te, Dutch." And Webster, who calls it not an adverb, but a preposition, gives the same hint of the source from which it comes to us. This is as much as to say, it is etymologically the old Saxon preposition to—which, truly, it is—the very same word that, for a thousand years or more, has been used before nouns and pronouns to govern the objective case. Tooke himself does not deny this; but, conceiving that almost all particles, whether English or any other, can be traced back to ancient verbs or nouns, he hunts for the root of this, in a remoter region, where he pretends to find that to has the same origin as do; and though he detects the former in a Gothic noun, he scruples not to identify it with an auxiliary verb! Yet he elsewhere expressly denies, "that any words change their nature by use, so as to belong sometimes to one part of speech, and sometimes to another."—Div. of Pur., Vol. i, p. 68.

OBS 4.—From this, the fair inference is, that he will have both to and do to be "nouns substantive" still! "Do (the auxiliary verb, as it has been called) is derived from the same root, and is indeed the same word as TO."—Ib., Vol. i, p. 290. "Since FROM means commencement or beginning, TO must mean end or termination."—Ib., i, 283. "The preposition TO (in Dutch written TOE and TOT, a little nearer to the original) is the Gothic substantive [Gothic: taui] or [Gothic: tauhts], i. e. act, effect, result, consummation. Which Gothic substantive is indeed itself no other than the past participle of the verb [Gothic: taujan], agere. And what is done, is terminated, ended, finished."—Ib., i, 285. No wonder that Johnson, Skinner, and Junius, gave no hint of this derivation: it is not worth the ink it takes, if it cannot be made more sure. But in showing its bearing on the verb, the author not unjustly complains of our grammarians, that: "Of all the points which they endeavour to shuffle over, there is none in which they do it more grossly than in this of the infinitive."—Ib., i, 287.

OBS. 5.—Many are content to call the word TO a prefix, a particle, a little word, a sign of the infinitive, a part of the infinitive, a part of the verb, and the like, without telling us whence it comes, how it differs from the preposition to, or to what part of speech it belongs. It certainly is not what we usually call a prefix, because we never join it to the verb; yet there are three instances in which it becomes such, before a noun: viz., to-day, to-night, to-morrow. If it is a "particle," so is any other preposition, as well as every small and invariable word. If it is a "little word," the whole bigness of a preposition is unquestionably found in it; and no "word" is so small but that it must belong to some one of the ten classes called parts of speech. If it is a "sign of the infinitive," because it is used before no other mood; so is it a sign of the objective case, or of what in Latin is called the dative, because it precedes no other case. If we suppose it to be a "part of the infinitive," or a "part of the verb," it is certainly no necessary part of either; because there is no verb which may not, in several different ways, be properly used in the infinitive without it. But if it be a part of the infinitive, it must be a verb, and ought to be classed with the auxiliaries. Dr. Ash accordingly placed it among the auxiliaries; but he says, (inaccurately, however,) "The auxiliary sign seems to have the nature of adverbs."—Grammatical Institutes, p. 33. "The auxiliary [signs] are, to, do, did, have, had, shall, will, may, can, must, might," &c.—Ib., p. 31.

OBS. 6.—It is clear, as I have already shown, that the word to may be a sign of the infinitive, and yet not be a part of it. Dr. Ash supposes, it may even be a part of the mood, and yet not be a part of the verb. How this can be, I see not, unless the mood consists in something else than either the form or the parts of the verb. This grammarian says, "In parsing, every word should be considered as a distinct part of speech: for though two or more words may be united to form a mode, a tense, or a comparison; yet it seems quite improper to unite two or more words to make a noun, a verb, an adjective, &c."—Gram. Inst., p. 28. All the auxiliaries, therefore, and the particle to among them, he parses separately; but he follows not his own advice, to make them distinct parts of speech; for he calls them all signs only, and signs are not one of his ten parts of speech. And the participle too, which is one of the ten, and which he declares to be "no part of the verb," he parses separately; calling it a verb, and not a participle, as often as it accompanies any of his auxiliary signs. This is certainly a greater impropriety than there can be in supposing an auxiliary and a participle to constitute a verb; for the mood and tense are the properties of the compound, and ought not to be ascribed to the principal term only. Not so with the preposition to before the infinitive, any more than with the conjunction if before the subjunctive. These may well be parsed as separate parts of speech; for these moods are sometimes formed, and are completely distinguished in each of their tenses, without the adding of these signs.

OBS. 7.—After a careful examination of what others have taught respecting this disputed point in grammar, I have given, in the preceding rule, that explanation which I consider to be the most correct and the most simple, and also as well authorized as any. Who first parsed the infinitive in this manner, I know not; probably those who first called the to a preposition; among whom were Lowth and the author of the old British Grammar. The doctrine did not originate with me, or with Comly, or with any American author. In Coar's English Grammar, published in London in 1796. the phrase to trample is parsed thus: "To—A preposition, serving for a sign of the infinitive mood to the verb Trample—A verb neuter, infinitive mood, present tense, governed by the preposition TO before it. RULE. The preposition to before a verb, is the sign of the infinitive mood." See the work, p. 263. This was written by a gentleman who speaks of his "long habit of teaching the Latin Tongue," and who was certainly partial enough to the principles of Latin grammar, since he adopts in English the whole detail of Latin cases.

OBS 8.—In Fisher's English Grammar, London, 1800, (of which there had been many earlier editions,) we find the following rule of syntax: "When two principal Verbs come together, the latter of them expresses an unlimited Sense, with the Preposition to before it; as he loved to learn; I chose to dance: and is called the infinitive Verb, which may also follow a Name or Quality; as, a Time to sing; a Book delightful to read." That this author supposed the infinitive to be governed by to, and not by the preceding verb, noun, or adjective, is plain from the following note, which he gives in his margin: "The Scholar will best understand this, by being told that infinite or invariable Verbs, having neither Number, Person, nor Nominative Word belonging to them, are known or governed by the Preposition TO coming before them. The Sign to is often understood; as, Bid Robert and his company (to) tarry."—Fisher's New Gram., p. 95.

OBS. 9.—The forms of parsing, and also the rules, which are given in the early English grammars, are so very defective, that it is often impossible to say positively, what their authors did, or did not, intend to teach. Dr. Lowth's specimen of "grammatical resolution" contains four infinitives. In his explanation of the first, the preposition and the verb are parsed separately, as above; except that he says nothing about government. In his account of the other three, the two words are taken together, and called a "verb, in the infinitive mode." But as he elsewhere calls the particle to a preposition, and nowhere speaks of any thing else as governing the infinitive, it seems fair to infer, that he conceived the verb to be the regimen of this preposition.[404] If such was his idea, we have the learned Doctor's authority in opposition to that of his professed admirers and copyists. Of these, Lindley Murray is doubtless the most famous. But Murray's twelfth rule of syntax, while it expressly calls to before the infinitive a preposition, absurdly takes away from it this regimen, and leaves us a preposition that governs nothing, and has apparently nothing to do with the relation of the terms between which it occurs.

OBS. 10.—Many later grammarians, perceiving the absurdity of calling to before the infinitive a preposition without supposing it to govern the verb, have studiously avoided this name; and have either made the "little word" a supernumerary part of speech, or treated it as no part of speech at all. Among these, if I mistake not, are Allen, Lennie, Bullions, Alger, Guy, Churchill, Hiley, Nutting, Mulligan, Spencer, and Wells. Except Comly, the numerous modifiers of Murray's Grammar are none of them more consistent, on this point, than was Murray himself. Such of them as do not follow him literally, either deny, or forbear to affirm, that to before a verb is a preposition; and consequently either tell us not what it is, or tell us falsely; some calling it "a part of the verb," while they neither join it to the verb as a prefix, nor include it among the auxiliaries. Thus Kirkham: "To is not a preposition when joined to a verb in this mood; thus, to ride, to rule; but it should be parsed with the verb, and as a part of it."—Gram. in Familiar