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 Lect., p. 137. So R. C. Smith:
"This little word to when used before verbs in this manner, is not a preposition, but forms a part of the verb, and, in parsing, should be so considered."—Productive Gram., p. 65. How can that be "a part of the verb," which is a word used before it? or how is to "joined to the verb," or made a part of it, in the phrase, "to ride?" But Smith does not abide by his own doctrine; for, in an other part of his book, he adopts the phraseology of Murray, and makes to a preposition: saying, "The preposition TO, though generally used before the latter verb, is sometimes properly omitted; as, 'I heard him say it;' instead of 'to say it.'"—Productive Gram., p. 156. See Murray's Rule 12th.
OBS. 11.—Most English grammarians have considered the word to as a part of the infinitive, a part of the verb; and, like the teachers of Latin, have referred the government of this mood to a preceding verb. But the rule which they give, is partial, and often inapplicable; and their exceptions to it, or the heterogeneous parts into which some of them divide it, are both numerous and puzzling. They teach that at least half of the ten different parts of speech "frequently govern the infinitive:" if so, there should be a distinct rule for each; for why should the government of one part of speech be made an exception to that of an other? and, if this be done, with respect to the infinitive, why not also with respect to the objective case? In all instances to which their rule is applicable, the rule which I have given, amounts to the same thing; and it obviates the necessity for their numerous exceptions, and the embarrassment arising from other constructions of the infinitive not noticed in them. Why then is the simplest solution imaginable still so frequently rejected for so much complexity and inconsistency? Or how can the more common rule in question be suitable for a child, if its applicability depends on a relation between the two verbs, which the preposition to sometimes expresses, and sometimes does not?
OBS. 12.—All authors admit that in some instances, the sign to is "superfluous and improper," the construction and government appearing complete without it; and the "Rev. Peter Bullions, D. D., Professor of Languages in the Albany Academy," has recently published a grammar, in
