I don't often disagree with your analyses,which are usually both accurate and helpful, Parser, but I must on this occcasion.My view is that the bare infinitive (i.e., without 'to') is the central structure, and the one most commonly used, for example,
1. in negative and interrogative forms of the simple tenses: He doesn't take...... Didn't you take?
2. following modals: They must take...... She won't take...... Should I take?
3. as a self-standing verb: Take it? That's something I would never do.
We use 'to'
1. in front of the infinitive when it acts as the subject of a sentence:To err is human.
2. in front of the infinitive when it acts as the object of many verbs: I want to take ...... I hope to take.
(Other languages use prepositions in this way with some verbs, for example, German zu and French à and de).
The traditional belief that the English infinitive contains the word 'to' stems from the fact that 'to' is sometimes needed in English when Latin uses a one-word infinitive without a preposition - but then Latin frequently uses case endings with nouns when English used prepositions. Different languages operate in different ways.
It is not that we sometimes omit 'to'; it is rather that we sometimes need 'to', just as we sometimes need prepositions in front of the -ing form:
I believe in playingI look forward to seeing
***** NOT A TEACHER *****
This is not the "Ask a Teacher" forum, but I decided to start with that
disclaimer. Learners must, of course, accept your erudite answer as the
correct answer.
Your humble servant, however, shall continue to simply follow grammars
intended for high school students:
"When the infinitive in its verbal function is used as an objective complement after such verbs as
see, make, hear, feel, and the like, the
to is
usually omitted, as in
I saw him leave; I heard her sing; She made me laugh. -- page 137 of
Descriptive English Grammar (1950).
We also occasionally do have a choice:
He helps
to support his parents./ He helps support his parents. (p. 328)
I barely understand high school grammar let alone transformational
grammar, but I kind of think those transformational guys have something
there in their theory of "deep" and "surface" structure. I prefer to think
the "to" is, indeed, in the "deep" structure of the thread starter's
sentence.
Thanks again for your excellent explanation. Like many ignorant
people, however, I feel more comfortable sticking with my "mistaken"
idea.