THE INFINITIVE.
Much hinges on the question, “Is the Infinitive a Mood?” It is necessary first to define mood. Harvey says that ‘mood’ is the mode or manner in which the action, being or state is expressed. He says further, “The infinitive mood expresses action, being, or state without affirming it.” Though he defines the manner in which the indicative, the subjunctive, the imperative mood expresses action, being, or state, he fails to state in what manner the infinitive expresses the same. Ifhe means to say that itexpressesaction, being, or state without affirming it, while the indicative, subjunctive and imperative moodsaffirmany of these, and that in this difference lies its claim to be called a mood, why does he not call participles and gerunds moods, as they also express action, being or state without affirming it? Mason says: “Moods are certain variations of form in verbs by means of which we can show the mode or manner in which the action or fact denoted by the verb is connected in our thought with the thing that is spoken of;” furthermore, that the infinitive may be attached to a subject in a dependent phrase, as ‘I saw himfall,’ and that this would justify us in calling it ‘mood.’ According to Mason, in the sentence, ‘I saw himfalling,’ it would be justifiable to call a participle, which is sometimes called the ‘infinitive in-ing,’ a mood. Why then does Mr. Mason not call it a mood? Besides, in a great majority of cases the infinitive is used, as in the sentence, ‘I willgo,’ without this subject accusative, as Mason calls it. His definition of the word ‘mood,’ though phrased with a view to include the infinitive, does not give any more light on the question than the definition of Harvey. Clark holds: “The infinitive mode differs from the other modes in this: It has no grammatical subject and therefore can not be a predicate.” Brown, in his “Grammar of English Grammars,” says that the infinitive mood is that form of the verb which expresses action, being or state in an unlimited manner. It seems that these authors ought certainly to have given a clearer or at least a more consistent distinction between the infinitive, participle and gerund on the one hand, and the indicative, subjunctive and imperative moods on the other. They make the infinitive a mood along with these three moods because its manner of expression is unlimited, while these mood forms are limited, and yet neglect the participle and gerund, which have, by their definitions, just as much right to the distinction.
The preposition ‘to’ is not an essential part of the infinitive, for it is not an invariable sign of it. Many verbs, especially the auxiliaries, are followed by the infinitive without ‘to.’ The infinitive in Old English ended in-an and did not have ‘to’ before it. It was treated as a declinable abstract-noun, and a dative form (called the gerund) was used with the preposition ‘to’ to denote purpose, as ‘He that hath earsto hear’; to hear =to gehyranne. This gerundive infinitive passed into modern English with the loss of the dative ending. From denoting purpose, the ‘to’ came to denote the ground of an action, and may indicate the cause or condition of an action. Thus the gerund (the infinitive with ‘to’) came to be used in place of thesimple infinitive. The preposition ‘to’ has in this manner come to be nothing but an inflection for the nominative and accusative cases, and to lose the notional idea of a preposition except with the infinitive of purpose.
The infinitive is a verb-noun. The authority for this begins with the fact that it was in Old English declined as an abstract-noun. Prof. Whitney, of Yale, says that the infinitive is a verbal-noun expressing in noun-form the action or condition which the verb asserts. Welsh also calls it a verbal-noun. Both of them say that mood serves the purpose of showing a difference in the mode or manner of assertion. These two authors do not consider that the difference in the manner in which an infinitive and the indicative, subjunctive and imperative express action is of the same nature as the difference between the indicative and subjunctive, or between the subjunctive and imperative. These differences, as any one can plainly see, are altogether unlike. The distinction between the infinitive and the three moods is by far greater than any distinctions that the moods have among themselves. The infinitive, gerund and participle have their verb natures alike. All three are unlimited to person, number, or order of time. It is only in the other half of the compound that they differ. The gerund partakes of the nature of a verb and a noun, while the participle partakes of the nature of a verb and an adjective, and the infinitive is verbal in the dependence of other words upon it and has the nature of a noun in its dependence upon other words. From this it is seen that, if the term ‘mood’ can be applied to the infinitive, as it pertains only to its verbal nature, it can be applied to participles and gerunds. If all three are called moods, then there is a nomenclature which is not needed and still not such as will separate the two great classes of verb-forms (finite and infinite) and show the difference in their expression of action, being or state. The name ‘infinitive,’ it is true, would denote its manner of expression, but the participle and the gerund have nothing in their names to denote this same quality. What is needed is a distinction between the two great classes. If the infinitive is not called a mood, there is this distinction; if it is called a mood, then there is need of some other names by which to distinguish the two classes.
The infinitive has the principal uses of a noun. It may be used as the subject or object of a verb; it can be used as a noun in the accusation to modify a noun, ‘A houseto let;’ it may be used in the accusative as an adverb, ‘That is hardto do.’
All these reasons go to show that the infinitive is a verbal-noun, and that no one will ever have to contradict himself if he calls it by this name and does not call it a mood.
R. D. M.