which he adopts the common rule, "One verb governs another in the infinitive mood; as, I desire to learn;" and then remarks, "The infinitive after a verb is governed by it only when the attribute expressed by the infinitive is either the subject or [the] object of the other verb. In such expressions as 'I read to learn,' the infinitive is not governed by 'I read,' but depends on the phrase 'in order to' understood."—Bullions's Prin. of E. Gram., p. 110. But, "I read 'in order to' to learn," is not English; though it might be, if either to were any thing else than a preposition: as, "Now set to to learn your lesson." This broad exception, therefore, which embraces well-nigh half the infinitives in the language, though it contains some obvious truth, is both carelessly stated, and badly resolved. The single particle to is quite sufficient, both to govern the infinitive, and to connect it to any antecedent term which can make sense with such an adjunct. But, in fact, the reverend author must have meant to use the "little word" but once; and also to deny that it is a preposition; for he elsewhere says expressly, though, beyond question, erroneously, "A preposition should never be used before the infinitive."—Ib., p. 92. And he also says, "The Infinitive mood expresses a thing in a general manner, without distinction of number, person, or time, and commonly has TO before it."—Ib., Second Edition, p. 35. Now if TO is "before" the mood, it is certainly not a part of it. And again, if this mood had no distinction of "time," our author's two tenses of it, and his own two special rules for their application, would be as absurd as is his notion of its government. See his Obs. 6 and 7, ib., p. 124.
OBS. 13.—Richard Hiley, too, a grammarian of perhaps more merit, is equally faulty in his explanation of the infinitive mood. In the first place, he absurdly says, "TO before the infinitive mood, is considered as forming part of the verb; but in every other situation it is a preposition."—Hiley's Gram., Third Edition, p. 28. To teach that a "part of the verb" stands "before the mood," is an absurdity manifestly greater, than the very opposite notion of Dr. Ash, that what is not a part of the verb, may yet be included in the mood. There is no need of either of these false suppositions; or of the suggestion, doubly false, that to
"in every other situation, is a preposition." What does preposition mean? Is to a preposition when it is placed after a verb, and not a preposition when it is placed before it? For example: "I rise to shut to the door."—See Luke, xiii, 25.
OBS. 14.—In his syntax, this author further says, "When two verbs come together, the latter must be in the infinitive mood, when it denotes the object of the former; as, 'Study to improve.'" This is his Rule. Now look at his Notes. "1. When the latter verb does not express the object, but the end, or something remote, the word for, or the words in order to, are understood; as, 'I read to learn;' that is, 'I read for to learn,' or, 'in order [TO] to learn.' The word for, however, is never, in such instances, expressed in good language. 2. The infinitive is frequently governed by adjectives, substantives, and participles; but in this instance also, a preposition is understood, though never expressed; as, 'Eager to learn;' that is, 'eager for to learn;' or, 'for learning;' 'A desire to improve;' that is, 'for to improve.'"—Hiley's Gram., p. 89. Here we see the origin of some of Bullions's blunders. To is so small a word, it slips through the fingers of these gentlemen. Words utterly needless, and worse than needless, they foist into our language, in instances beyond number, to explain infinitives that occur at almost every breath. Their students must see that, "I read to learn," and, "I study to improve," with countless other examples of either sort, are very different constructions, and not to be parsed by the same rule! And here the only government of the infinitive which Hiley affirms, is immediately contradicted by the supposition of a needless for "understood."
OBS. 15.—In all such examples as, "I read to learn,"—"I strive to learn"—"Some eat to live,"—"Some live to eat,"—"She sings to cheer him,"—"I come to aid you,"—"I go to prepare a place for you,"—the action and its purpose are connected by the word to; and if, in the countless instances of this kind, the former verbs do not govern the latter, it is not because the phraseology is elliptical, or ever was elliptical,[405] but because in no case is there any such government, except in the construction of those verbs which take the infinitive after them without the preposition to. Professor Bullions will have the infinitive to be governed by a finite verb, "when the attribute expressed by the infinitive is the subject of the other verb." An infinitive may be made the subject of a finite verb; but this grammarian has mistaken the established meaning of subject, as well as of attribute, and therefore written nonsense. Dr. Johnson defines his adverb TO, "A particle coming between two verbs, and noting the second as the object of the first." But of all the words which, according to my opponents and their oracles, govern the infinitive, probably not more than a quarter are such verbs as usually have an object after them. Where then is the propriety of their notion of infinitive government? And what advantage has it, even where it is least objectionable?
OBS. 16.—Take for an example of this contrast the terms, "Strive to enter in—many will seek to enter in."—Luke, xiii, 24. Why should it be thought more eligible to say, that the verb strive or will seek governs the infinitive verb to enter; than to say, that to is a preposition, showing the relation between strive and enter, or between will seek and enter, and governing the latter verb? (See the exact and only needful form for parsing any such term, in the Twelfth Praxis of
