part of speech of "to"

[hela]

Dear teachers,

Could you please tell me if the parts of speech of the word "to" differ in the following example?

He will have to (1) get up early to (2) go to (3) school.

to (1) = preposition, infinitive particle or something else ?
to (2) = surbordinating conjunction like "in order to" ?
to (3) = preposition

Thank you in advance.
Hela

[TheParser]

***** NOT A TEACHER *****Hello, Hela:


Don't worry: I am not to give you any of my opinions! Since I found you to be such a courteous thread starter, however, I am

delighted to help out in any way that I can.

So I thought that you would like this passage from one of the greatest grammarians of all time.

["To"] was at first the ordinary preposition indicating direction or purpose, as it still does in some combinations, e.g. "he goes to fetch his hat" and "he was led to believe it." While a trace of this meaning may be said to exist in "ready to go, I wish to go," it is totally obliterated in "I refuse to go" and "To see her is to love her," etc. ... Before an infinitive to may now be considered a grammatical implement with no meaning of its own." [NOTE: I underscored those words.]

Those words come from Professor Otto Jespersen (the great Danish-born grammarian of the English language) in Essentials of English Grammar (written in 1933; reprinted by the University of Alabama in 1964), page 330.


James

[hela]

Good afternoon, James. Happy to read you again.

So if I understood the Prof's statement well :

to(1) should be an infinitive particle;
to(2), a preposition indicating purpose; and
to(3), a preposition indicating direction.

Right ?

If you wouldn't mind, could you please have a look at my other thread on auxiliary verbs?

Thank you for being so kind and thoughtful.
Hela

[TheParser]

***** NOT A TEACHER *****Hello, Hela:


Thank you so much for your kind note. I am happy to know that the grammarian's words were helpful.


Regarding your questions, I should not touch them with a ten-foot pole (or "barge pole," as our British friends say).
I have no desire to give you wrong answers.

As you know, the teachers here are fantastic in their knowledge, and some have even taught at the university level.

I saw your other threads, and a little voice told me: "James, don't you even think of answering those questions. Leave them

to people who actually know what they are talking about!!!"



James

[hela]

Ok, James. Do as you please. Let's wait for a professional answer then.

[5jj]

a little voice told me: "James, don't you even think of answering those questions. Leave them to people who actually know what they are talking about!!!"

[Tdol]

So if I understood the Prof's statement well

You did. However, as some people talk of infinitives of purpose, some may say that 1 & 2 are infinitive particles.

[hela]

So to(1) is called an infinitive particle,
and to(2) called an inifinitive particle (of purpose ?) or a preposition indicating purpose ?

When parsing should "to" be analysed alone or should it be linked to the verb next to it ? i.e.
have = auxiliary verb, to = infinitive particle , get up = main / lexical verb
OR
have to = modal verb, get up = main verb
OR
have = auxiliary verb, to get up = infinitive verb ?

Thank you for your patience.

[Tdol]

There are differences of opinion- there's no such thing as the perfect description. You might get different answers for #2.

[hela]

Thank you, Tdol.