Burchfield, likewise describes two uses of the infinitive: (a) “the to-infinitive,” in which “to” is described as a “particle,” and (b) “the bare or simple or plain infinitive.” 3rd ed.), edited by the language scholar and lexicographer R. You don’t have to take our word for this. In modal constructions, infinitives (”go,” “read,” and “eat” in the examples) do not require “to.” The modal verbs are “can,” “could,” “may,” “might,” “shall,” “should,” “will,” “would,” and “must.”Įxamples, “I must go,” “he should read,” “they can eat,” and so on. “To” is not there, for example, when the infinitive is used with modal verbs (sometimes called modal auxiliaries or secondary auxiliaries).
When “to” appears with an infinitive, it is generally referred to as an “infinitive marker” or “infinitive particle” it is not part of the verb and is not always used. The infinitive is the uninflected or basic form of a verb, and “to” is not part of it. His is absolutely NOT the “standard” definition of an infinitive. Here’s the standard definition of an infinitive, from Warriner’s English Grammar and Composition: “An infinitive is a verbal consisting of to followed by the verb.”Ī: Sorry, but you’ve been misled, and the late John Warriner, a teacher and textbook author, was misinformed, as we’ll explain.
Huh? Says who? Not any standard – or even nonstandard – grammar book or authority I’ve ever seen, heard of, or read.
Q: In your recent article for Smithsonian magazine, you defend the split infinitive by saying “to” isn’t actually part of the infinitive.
0 kommentar(er)
