[Grammar] Infinitive Verbs

[e2e4]

"to go" is an infinitive form of a verb "to go", for me.

"go" could be bare infinitive, simple present, subjunctive, imperative form, etc.

 

[5jj]

"to go" is an infinitive form of a verb "to go", for me.

"go" could be bare infinitive, simple present, subjunctive, imperative form, etc.

The infinitive in English was traditionally considered to be to + the base form of the infinitive.

Nowadays most writers do not consider to to be part of the infinitive.

For the sake of clarity, the form in he can come is usually referred to as 'the bare infinitive', and the form in he hopes to come as 'the to-infinitive'.

The base form (come) is used for other functions, as you mention.

 

[e2e4]

Nowadays most writers do not consider to to be part of the infinitive.

to have been going ~ is this the perfect infinitive continuous?
to have gone ~ is this the perfect infinitive?

have gone ~ is this some kind of infinitive as well or something else.
have been going ~ is this the present perfect continuous or some kind of infinitive

Thanks

 

[5jj]

(to) have been going could be considered (in constructions such as He ought to have been going or He must have been going) to be a perfect continuous infinitive.

(to) have gone could be considered (in constructions such as he ought to have gone or He must have gone) to be a perfect infinitive

 

[philo2009]

I think that want is a main/full/lexical verb which can operate catenatively.

Just as there are a number of different definitions of 'modal' flying around, there appear also, despite its comparative recentness, to have developed some variations on the meaning of 'catenative'.

As I understand it, the principal reason for the invention of the term 'catenative' was to provide a systematic classification of verbs such as 'used (to)' and 'ought', which, although excluded from the category 'modal' by the lights of the traditional definition (i.e. by reason of their requiring to-articulation with their dependent infinitive), nevertheless possess certain distinctly modal-like properties that are lacking in many other verbs capable of taking verbal dependents, most notably that of subject-object invertability, so that we can, with no significant change of meaning, transform modal

[1] I can do this job.

to

[1a] This job can be done by me.

and catenative

[2] I used to do this job.

to

[2a] This job used to be done by me.

but not (at least without an unintentional anthropomorphism)

[3] I want to do this job.

to

[3a] *This job wants to be done by me.

Thus, by the lights of a strict definition, 'want' does not qualify as catenative.

It is difficult, on the other hand, to see any value in a definition so loose that it allows as catenative just about any verb capable of governing a dependent infinitive!

 

[Kaylee]

Yes, you have understood Corum's (excellent) explanation correctly: 'I' is indeed the implicit subject of the non-finite clause 'to see a lion'.

So if its implied, does that mean its not the subject of the sentence?

 

[corum]

That is a matter of opinion. I agree with Frank Palmer (in McArthur, 1992) that catenative verbs are "so named because they form a 'chain' with another verb [...]. They may be classified in two ways: (1) in terms of the form of the non-finite verb: [...] infinitive with to (He wants to come)". Want is a catenative, IMO.

Or of definition.


Where did that quotation suddenly appear from?

Quirk et. al., 1985

If you mean by that that you have chosen your own definition for a semi-modal, that is fine. You cannot, however, expect others to accept your definition as a 'fact'.


Why did you put quotation marks around 'fact'?

Opinion again. Some (for example, Sidney Greenbaum in McArthur, 1992) include the semi- or marginal modals dare, need, ought to and used to.

Who is 'we'?

The followers of CGEL, including myself.


If we are not using the same definitions, we cannot begin to discuss the matter effectively.

Absolutely.

 

[corum]

So if its implied, does that mean its not the subject of the sentence?

You will always find the subject of a sentence in its main clause. It is either hidden or overt.

Come here!

Is the subject the plural you? or singular you? Extralinguistic context (gesticulation) or the surrounding linguistic context helps.
---

I want you to come.

Subject = ?

1. What is the main clause?

It is this, the whole sentence:

I want [you to come].

2. Remove the subordinate clause and you get this:

I want

3. Who wants something?

It is I. I is the subject of the whole sentence.

 

[philo2009]

So if its implied, does that mean its not the subject of the sentence?

'I' here is both the EXPLICIT subject of the sentence and the IMPLICIT subject of the non-finite clause.

 

[Kaylee]

@Corum:
Oh, okay! Now I really believe I get it! :-D

Thanks so much, Corum and everyone else, for helping me out!

One last question though to see if I am (really) getting something from this.

(I want) is the main clause (Or "I want you to come" is the Main clause?) & [you to come] is the subordinate clause? And you will always find the subject in the main clause?

 

[corum]

I like your enthusiasm, Kylee! :up:

(I want) is the main clause (Or "I want you to come" is the Main clause?) & [you to come] is the subordinate clause? And you will always find the subject in the main clause?

[I want you to come] is the main clause and [you to come] is the subordinate clause. :up:

In the main clause is embedded the subordinate clause. This is not always so, though. See this sentence, for example:

I went to the library because I wanted to read something.

Here, the part in bold is the main clause and not the whole sentence. Why not the whole sentence?

There are three things you should always remember:

1. Clauses express a complete idea,
2. a verb with all its complements (direct object, indirect object, predicate adjective, etc) plus optional adverbials belong to the same clause, and
3. a conjunction always marks the presence of more than one clause.

1. I went to the library. is a complete idea;
2. all the complements of "went" -- external or internal -- are present;
3. because is a subordinating conjunction, which means we have more than one clause.

In I want you to come., "I want" is not the main clause because

1. no complete idea,
2. the object of "want" is a complement [you to come], which belongs where "want" belongs, to the main clause, and
3. there is no conjunction in the sentence.

And you will always find the subject in the main clause?

Each clause has one subject, but a sentence may comprise more than one clause. Nevertheless, each sentence has one subject. Each "sentence subject" is identical with the main clause subject.

 

[5jj]

philo: Thus, by the lights of a strict definition, 'want' does not qualify as catenative'
5jj: That depends on whose definition we accept.
philo: It is difficult, on the other hand, to see any value in a definition so loose that it allows as catenative just about any verb capable of governing a dependent infinitive!
5jj: I agree, though 'catenative verb' is a little shorter than 'any verb capable of governing a dependent infinitive'. That is the way I was originally using the term. Unfortunately, I overlooked the fact that others might understand it in a different way.


Corum: Want is no catenative.
5jj: That is a matter of opinion
Corum: Or of definition.
5jj: Whatever we care to call it, it is not a fact that we can prove; it also seems to be something we can't agree on.


5jj: Where did that quotation suddenly appear from?
Corum: Quirk et. al., 1985
5jj: Please don't introduce quotations from outside the thread without letting us know where the come from. I spent some time scrolling up and down the thread to find it. It's also helpful to know if the words are your own or from some other person.


Corum: Why did you put quotation marks around 'fact'?
5jj: Because you wrote, of a previous definition, "It is a fact". That was not a fact, any more than some of the things I have been saying. This discussion is more about how we understand definitions; we are dealing in opinions, not facts.


5jj: If we are not using the same definitions, we cannot begin to discuss the matter effectively.
Corum: Absolutely.
5jj: That being so, I see little point in continuing. The original question as to whether the underlined words in I wanted to see a lion meandered fascinatingly away after lauralie mentioned that some writers argued "that WANT to (~ wanna) is similar to a quasi-modal/semi-modal/semi-auxiliary". It has been very interesting, but our posts are getting rather long and difficult to follow, and we are unable to agree on the definitions we accept.
I look forward to our next discussion.

 

[corum]

...twelve verbs Quirk calls central auxiliaries ( we can call them Mickey Mouse verbs or whatever)
They all can and only they can do all of these:

1. Operator in negation with not
2. Negative and verb contractions
3. Inversion of subject and operator
4. Emphatic positive
5. Operator in reduced clauses
6. Pre-adverb position
7. Quantifier position

It is a fact (irrespective of what taxonomy we establish).

 

[lauralie2]

Obviously not from a syntactic point of view.

On the contrary, syntax is what started the debate:

going to eat / gonna eat
want to eat / wanna eat

If 'to' is housed within a constituent with 'eat', then how do we explain gonna and wanna? That is,

[going [to eat]]
[want [to eat]]

I do not feel there is a strong affinity between "want" and "to" . See what happens after clefting.

It is to go there that he wanted. :tick:
It is go there that he wanted to. :cross:

Doesn't that prove something else? The quasi-modal 'ought to' shows the same pattern:

It is to buy a car that he ought :tick:
It is buy a car that he ought to :cross:

Given the above, it seems as if 'want to' patterns like a quasi-modal.

I want [some apples].
I want [to have some apples].

Ellipsis:


I want (to have) some apples.
I want (to eat) some apples.
I want (to buy) some apples.

 

[lauralie2]

[I want you to come] is the main clause and [you to come] is the subordinate clause.

About 'you'. Isn't 'you' the object of 'want' (Cf. I want him to come, wherein 'him' is an object pronoun) and the subject of 'to come' an unrealized pronoun (pro)?

• I want you [pro to come]

 

[corum]

About 'you'. Isn't 'you' the object of 'want'

Advocatus Diaboli? ;-)

I want you [pro to come]

I want him to come.
I want you to come.
I want pro to come. -- (PRO = covert semantic S)

Why the accusative? Why not subject-like Nominative? Is it a manifestation of Od function? No. The reason lies somewhere else.

Firstly, non-finite verbs have no case-assigning properties. Who does the semantic subject of "to come" get its case from? :-o From the closest verb, want. A verb cannot assign two nominative cases, only one.

Secondly, cleft test:
I want you [to come]

It is you that I want to come.

It is you to come that I want. -- SVO

Thirdly, any sequence of words which can be replaced by a proform is a constituent.

I want you to come.
I want that.

I want my steak (to be) well-done.
It is my steak that I want well-done.
I want that well-done. --SVOC

Fourthly, any sequence of words conjoined to an independently identifiable constituent is a constituent.

I want [him to come] and [you].:?:

My conclusion:

I want [you] to come. :down:
I want [you to come]. :up:

----------
lauralie, what is the difference between pro and PRO?

 

[Kaylee]

I like your enthusiasm, Kylee! :up:
There are three things you should always remember:

1. Clauses express a complete idea,
2. a verb with all its complements (direct object, indirect object, predicate adjective, etc) plus optional adverbials belong to the same clause, and
3. a conjunction always marks the presence of more than one clause.

1. I went to the library. is a complete idea;
2. all the complements of "went" -- external or internal -- are present;
3. because is a subordinating conjunction, which means we have more than one clause.

Thank you, Corum. Writing is my passion, so I would love to learn as much as I can! :>

The bolded is very easy to understand! Thank you, Corum! Its much easier learning from this forum than my school books. xD

In the main clause is embedded the subordinate clause. This is not always so, though. See this sentence, for example:

I went to the library because I wanted to read something.

So in this sentence:

I wanted to see a lion before the zoo closed.

Is "I wanted to see a lion" a Clause to the whole sentence?

 

[philo2009]

There is both a traditional and a more 'modern' approach to analyzing sentences such as

[1] I want you to come here now.

and it all really boils down to the changing definition of 'clause'.

Traditional grammar regards a clause basically as a "mini-sentence", i.e. an assertion/interrogation etc. comprising a nominative subject (usually explicit) and a predicate (consisting of a finite verb with or without other subordinated elements such as objects or adverbs). The only difference, in traditional terms, between a sentence and a subordinate clause is that the latter is introduced by a conjunction, and the two, although obviously differing to some extent in terms of hierarchical importance, are treated almost as entirely separate components of the sentence.

Thus, while a sentence such as

[2] I hope that you will come.

- consisting of one main clause (underlined) and one subordinate clause (the rest) - would be labelled COMPLEX, the traditional description of [1] would be as a SIMPLE sentence, i.e. one consisting of a single (true) clause. Objective 'you' is considered a subordinated element of the VP and is in its turn simply complemented by the infinitive phrase (not clause) 'to come here now'.

In more recent years, however, grammarians, principally in an attempt to develop a more 'inclusive' method of sentence-analysis that does not draw unreasonable/unfair distinctions between 'full' clauses (such as 'because I was there') and functionally identical but non-finite verbal phrases (such as 'because of my being there'), have increasingly tended to extend the definition of 'clause' to include such non-finite VPs, which have 'subjects' that (1) are typically objective rather than nominative case, and (2) are frequently, rather than only exceptionally, ellipted (and often obligatorily so**).

Our sentence [1], in modern terms, has then gone from being 'simple' to being 'complex', since it is now considered to consist essentially of two clauses:

A MAIN/SUPERORDINATE clause: I want
A (non-finite nominal) SUBORDINATE clause: you to come here now

with the entirety of the subordinate - rather than just the 'you' of the traditional, more 'compartmentalized' analysis - seen as constituting the object of 'want' and consequently described as being 'embedded' within its superordinate.

Because, then, to some extent it has become rather meaningless to label the constituent clauses as completely separate elements or to speak of the one in complete isolation from the other, the term matrix clause has evolved to refer to the essentially 'indivisible' combination of [main clause + internally embedded clausal subordinate(s)] - amounting, in this particular case, to the whole sentence.

Of course, however, the terms 'matrix clause' and 'sentence' still retain different meanings. If we were to expand [1] to

[3] I want you to come here now and then I'll be happy.

we would have a compound-complex sentence consisting of a matrix clause (underlined) linked (by 'and') to a coordinate clause (bold type).

I hope that these comments have enlightened, rather than confused, you!

**Cf. I want to see you (= I want that I should see you), where the subject of the non-finite clause - 'me' - simply cannot be inserted.

 

[lauralie2]

Firstly, non-finite verbs have no case-assigning properties. Who does the semantic subject of "to come" get its case from?

Objective 'him' gets its case from 'want'; i.e., I want him. PRO occurs in non-case positions:


I want him [PRO to come]

----------
lauralie, what is the difference between pro and PRO?

Pro (small) in case positions (See pro-drop languages); PRO (big) in non-case positions.

 

[corum]

So in this sentence:

I wanted to see a lion before the zoo closed.

Is "I wanted to see a lion" a Clause to the whole sentence?

It is the main clause. The subordinate clause (before the zoo closed) is attached to the main clause by the subordinating conjunction, "before". The whole sentence is a complex sentence because it comprises a main clause plus at least one subordinate clause.

Read this:
Sentences:  Simple, Compound, and Complex