ON THE CONNEXION BETWEEN THE NOUN AND VERB, AND ON THE INFLECTION OF THE
INFINITIVE MOOD.
s. 342. In order to understand clearly the use of the so-called infinitive
mood in English, it is necessary to bear in mind two facts, one a matter of
logic, the other a matter of history.
In the way of logic, the difference between a noun and a verb is less
marked than it is in the way of grammar.
Grammatically, the contrast is considerable. The inflection of nouns
expresses the ideas of sex as denoted by gender, and of relation in place
as denoted by cases. That of verbs rarely expresses sex, and never
position. On the other hand, however, it expresses what no noun ever does
or can express; _e.g._, the relation of the agent to the individual
speaking, by means of person; the time in which acts take place, by means
of tense; and the conditions of their occurrence, by means of mood.
The idea of number is the only one that, on a superficial view, is common
to these two important parts of speech.
Logically, the contrast is inconsiderable. A noun denotes an object of
which either the senses or the intellect can take cognizance, and a verb
does no more. _To move_=_motion_, _to rise_=_rising_, _to err_=_error_, _to
forgive_=_forgiveness_. The only difference between the two parts of speech
is this, that, whereas a noun may express any object whatever, verbs can
only express those objects which consist in an action. And it is this
superadded idea of action that superadds to the verb the phenomena of
tense, mood, person, and voice; in other words, the phenomena of
conjugation.
s. 343. A noun is a word capable of declension only. A {290} verb is a word
capable of declension and conjugation also. The fact of verbs being
declined as well as conjugated must be remembered. The participle has the
declension of a noun adjective, the infinite mood the declension of a noun
substantive. Gerunds and supines, in languages where they occur, are only
names for certain cases of the verb.
Although in all languages the verb is equally capable of declension, it is
not equally declined. The Greeks, for instance, used forms like
[Greek: to phthonein]=_invidia_.
[Greek: tou phthonein]=_invidiae_.
[Greek: en toi phthonein]=_in invidia_.
oftener than the Romans. The fact of there being an article in Greek may
account for this.
s. 344. Returning, however, to the illustration of the substantival
character of the so-called infinitive mood, we may easily see--
[alpha]. The name of any action may be used without any mention of the
agent. Thus, we may speak of the simple fact of _walking_ or _moving_,
independently of any specification of the _walker_ or _mover_.
[beta]. That, when actions are spoken of thus indefinitely, the idea of
either person or number has no place in the conception; from which it
follows that the so-called infinitive mood must be at once impersonal, and
without the distinction of singular, dual, and plural.
[gamma]. That, nevertheless, the ideas of time and relation in space _have_
place in the conception. We can think of a person being _in the act of
striking a blow_, of his _having been in the act of striking a blow_, or of
his _being about to be in the act of striking a blow_. We can also think of
a person being _in the act of doing a good action_, or of his being _from
the act of doing a good action_.
This has been written to show that verbs of languages in general are as
naturally declinable as nouns. What follows will show that the verbs of the
Gothic languages in particular were actually declined, and that fragments
of this declension remain in the present English.
s. 345. The inflection of the verb in its impersonal (or {291} infinitive
form) consisted, in full, of three cases, a nominative (or accusative), a
dative, and a genitive. The genitive is put last, because its occurrence in
the Gothic language is the least constant.
In Anglo-Saxon the nominative (or accusative) ended in -an:
Lufian =_to love_=_amare_.
Baernan=_to burn_=_urere_.
Syllan =_to give_=_dare_.
Be it observed, that the _-en_ in words like _strengthen_, &c., is a
derivational termination, and by no means a representation of the
Anglo-Saxon infinitive inflection. The Anglo-Saxon infinitive inflection is
lost in the present English, except in certain provincial dialects.
In Anglo-Saxon the dative of the infinitive verb ended in _-nne_, and was
(as a matter of syntax) generally, perhaps always, preceded by the
preposition _to_.
To lufienne =_ad amandum_.
To baernenne=_ad urendum_.
To syllanne =_ad dandum_.
The genitive, ending in _-es_, occurs only in Old High German and Modern
High German, _pl[^a]sannes_, _weinnenes_.
s. 346. With these preliminaries we can take a clear view of the English
infinitives. They exist under two forms, and are referable to a double
origin.
1. The independent form.--This is used after the words _can_, _may_,
_shall_, _will_, and some others, as, _I can speak_, _I may go_, _I shall
come_, _I will move_. Here there is no preposition, and the origin of the
infinitive is from the form in _-an_.
2. The prepositional form.--This is used after the majority of English
verbs, as _I wish to speak_, _I mean to go_, _I intend to come_, _I
determine to move_. Here we have the preposition _to_ and the origin of the
infinitive is from the form in _-nne_.
Expressions like _to err_=_error_, _to forgive_=_forgiveness_, in lines
like
To err is human, to forgive divine,
are very remarkable. They exhibit the phenomena of a nominative case having
grown not only out of a dative but out of a dative _plus_ its governing
preposition.
* * * * *
{292}