[Grammar] Infinitive Verbs

[Kaylee]

Hello again, guys! I hope my question isn't much of a bother. :-(

I want to make sure I'm right... because three people tell me I'm wrong.
I know that an Infinitive verb is: to + verb = infinitive

Wherever Melissa goes, she always brings a book to read in case conversation lags or she has a long wait.

But what is this?

I wanted to see a lion!

Is it still a Infinitive verb? I checked through my grammar books (again) and they didn't mention what to call these, only to + verb = Infinitive. The three people tell me "wanted to" is the Infinitive verb, but I thought "to see" was...

Am I horribly wrong or am I...right?

Well, thank you (again) for reading my thread! :>

Kaylee~

 

[corum]

Hello again, guys! I hope my question isn't much of a bother. :-(

I know that an Infinitive verb is: to + verb = infinitive



But exactly what is a sentence like this?


Is it still a Infinitive verb? I checked through my grammar books (again) and they didn't mention what to call these, only to + verb = Infinitive.

Or is this the Infinitive Verb in the sentence:


Well, thank you (again) for reading my thread! :>

Kaylee~

Infitive is a form of verbs with which they can perform many functions:

I wanted [to see a lion]! Wanted what? The bracketed infinitive clause acts as the direct object of "wanted".

Why "to see a lion" is a clause? Each clause has a subject. This one has too. It is just that you can't see it. The verb in this clause is "to see", a verb in infinitive form (see) preceded by a preposition "to", an infinitive marker.

----
Wherever Melissa goes, she always brings a book to read.

to read = infinitive in form; adjectival postmodifier in function; it modifies "book"

You have more questions, whistle! ;-)

 

[Kaylee]

Thank you for stopping in to answer my questions, corum.

I think I understand. But I'll ask just in case. :>

In the "wanted to see a lion!" sentence, how can you tell the subject of the clause? I think it is lion, but I'm not sure. :-(

to read = infinitive in form; adjectival postmodifier in function; it modifies "book"

So does an infinitive always modify another word? Or is it in some cases? And Infinitive verbs have "to" preceding it and never "to" after the verb, right?

 

[corum]

I wanted to see a lion.

This is a complex sentence, which means it comprises a main clause:

"I wanted to see a lion."

and a subordinate clause:

"to see a lion".

The subordinate clause acts as the object of "wanted". It has its verb too: "to see". However, as opposed to the main clause, which has a (visible) subject, "I", the subordinate clause has not an overt subject. It has an implied subject, "I", because my "wanting" involves my seeing a lion. What function does "a lion" perform? It receives my seeing, but then it is the direct object of "to see".

 

[Kaylee]

The subordinate clause acts as the object of "wanted". It has its verb too: "to see". However, as opposed to the main clause, which has a (visible) subject, "I", the subordinate clause has not an overt subject. It has an implied subject, "I", because my "wanting" involves my seeing a lion. What function does "a lion" perform? It receives my seeing, but then it is the direct object of "to see".

Hm, so its:"to see a lion" is the object of "wanted". "To see" is the verb but "I" is an implied subject?

 

[philo2009]

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

 

[lauralie2]

The three people tell me "wanted to" is the Infinitive verb,...

There are some that would argue that WANT to (~ wanna) is similar to a quasi-modal/semi-modal/semi-auxiliary (e.g., 'BE going to (~ gonna); 'like to'):


a) I want to see.

• I (subject)
• want (modal)
  
• to (particle)
  
• see (base verb)
  

The alternative:


b) I want to see.

• I (subject)
• want (verb)
  
• to see (infinitive marker)

 

[5jj]

There are some that would argue that WANT to (~ wanna) is similar to a quasi-modal/semi-modal/semi-auxiliary (e.g., 'BE going to (~ gonna); 'like to')

Are there any serious writers on grammar who argue this?

It seems to me that if one were to include two catenative verbs (like and want) in some form of quasi-/semi- modal/auxiliary class, one would have to include so many verbs that the class itself would be valueless in terms of analysis.

 

[lauralie2]

Are there any serious writers on grammar who argue this?

Go back to the post and click on 'some'. It's a link.

 

[corum]

I want to see a lion.
I want a seeing of the lion.

Looks like not even a catenative, lauralie. I think "want" is closer to a main varb than a semi-modal.

Semi-modals are introduced by "be" or "have" and they satisfy seven criterions for auxiliaries:

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

AFAIK, want can perform none of these.

 

[lauralie2]

I want to see a lion.
I want a seeing of the lion.

Looks like not even a catenative, lauralie. I think "want" is closer to a main varb than a semi-modal.

Semi-modals are introduced by "be" or "have" and they satisfy seven criterions for auxiliaries:

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

AFAIK, want can perform none of these.

I understand, and I am aware of the criteria. My post in not an argument for or against whether WANT TO is quasi-modal-like or not. It's added information. Nothing more, nothing less. Some people (yes, grammarians) hold that WANT TO is modal-like. This is not something new. The debate has been around for a while.

To gain a better understanding of the issue, put the books down and make an argument for WANT TO, as opposed to WANT + inf.V.

 

[corum]

My post in not an argument for or against whether WANT TO is quasi-modal-like or not.

And? My post was an unprofessional struggle meant to challenge the quasi-modal interpretation. I hope you did not mind. ;-) We are here to discuss grammar, no?

It's added information.

Some people (yes, grammarians) hold that WANT TO is modal-like.

Obviously not from a syntactic point of view.

put the books down

It means you think I have no original ideas concerning the mechanics of the English language and, therefore, I need books. :up:

and make an argument for WANT TO, as opposed to WANT + inf.V

Here goes nothing. My utter twaddle goes like this:

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:

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

If it is "want to" rather than "want" in the second sentence, what is the difference between want and want?

 

[5jj]

Go back to the post and click on 'some'. It's a link.

Thank you.

I blame my failure to spot the link on the failing eyesight brought on by old age.

I am not yet convinced by the arguments in that article, but they are interesting. I shall give them more thought.

 

[5jj]

Semi-modals are introduced by "be" or "have" and they satisfy seven criterions for auxiliaries: [...] want can perform none of these.

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

However, I don't find your criteria for auxiliary verbs totally convincing.

There are generally accepted criteria for the 'core' or 'central' modals, but even here there is not total agreement. Frank Palmer (1990), for example considers that IS TO is a modal verb, while many others do not.

When it comes to terms such as 'semi-modals', 'quasi-modals', 'peripheral modals', 'modal equivalents' etc, there is little agreement. Palmer is one who considers would rather to be a semi-modal, which does not fit with your, 'Semi-modals are introduced by "be" or "have" '.

Palmer, Frank (1990) Modality and the English Modals (2nd edn.), Harlow: Longman

 

[e2e4]

I've got a question.

Why don't we actually say

I had to to go there.
I wanted to to see her.
I was able to to manage the team.

but

I had to go there.
I wanted to see her.
I was able to manage the team.


Please explain.

 

[corum]

I've got a question.

Why don't we actually say

I had to to go there.
I wanted to to see her.
I was able to to manage the team.

but

I had to go there.
I wanted to see her.
I was able to manage the team.


Please explain.

"(T)o" is always followed by what we call the infinitive form of the verb.

I wanted to to see her.

"(T)o" here is followed by "to see". The infinitive form of "see" is "see" and not "to see".

This is my definition for infinitive:
Definition of infinitive noun from Cambridge Dictionary Online: Free English Dictionary and Thesaurus

 

[corum]

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

However, I don't find your criteria for auxiliary verbs totally convincing.

There are generally accepted criteria for the 'core' or 'central' modals, but even here there is not total agreement. Frank Palmer (1990), for example considers that IS TO is a modal verb, while many others do not.

When it comes to terms such as 'semi-modals', 'quasi-modals', 'peripheral modals', 'modal equivalents' etc, there is little agreement. Palmer is one who considers would rather to be a semi-modal, which does not fit with your, 'Semi-modals are introduced by "be" or "have" '.

Palmer, Frank (1990) Modality and the English Modals (2nd edn.), Harlow: Longman

Hello 5jj,

do not go to sleep yet! I gather my thoughts and come back soon.

 

[5jj]

I've got a question. Why don't we actually say

I had to to go there.

You will often find advice such as:

Modal verbs are followed by the bare infinitive, e.g. CAN: I can swim.
Some verbs are followed by the to-infinitive. E.g. HOPE: I hope to be there.

With a small number of verbs the to is closely associated with the preceding verb, even though technically, I suppose, it is actually related to the following infinitive. These verbs include: have (to), ought (to), used (to), is (to) and BE going (to).

If you think of this close association, then it is possible to think, “have to is followed by a bare infinitive.”

Thinking of the verb we have been discussing as want to could be one argument for classifying it as a semi-/quasi-/etc modal. Thinking of it as want, as I do, is a (weak) argument for rejecting it in that class.

 

[corum]

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

Yes, no. Want is no catenative.

Unlike main verb constructions such as expect (to), want (to), and attempt (to), catenative constructions are in no way syntactically related to transitive verb constructions in which the verb is followed by a direct object or prepositional object

I want to sleep.
I want some sleep.

To a non-linguist like me, auxiliary is a term related to syntax. It has nothing to do with meaning.

However, I don't find your criteria for auxiliary verbs totally convincing.

Then do not think of them as criteria; instead, think of them as a definition. :up:
Definition is not a matter of conviction; it is a matter of choice. :up:

Auxiliary verbs are the primary verbs, be, have, do, and the modal auxiliaries, can, may, will, shall, could, might, would, should, and must.

We call, by definition, these twelve verbs central auxiliaries.
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. If you disagree, provide an example.

Some verbs can do some of these, and depending on what they can do and how, we can establish a scale, a gradience, which runs over from true auxiliaries to main verbs. These verbs of intermediate status can be put into the category or modal idoms, semi-modals, etc.

Palmer is one who considers would rather to be a semi-modal, which does not fit with your, 'Semi-modals are introduced by "be" or "have"

Matter of definition and nothing else . BTW, I follow the Quirkian taxonomic system.

 

[5jj]

Want is no catenative.

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.

Unlike main verb constructions such as expect (to), want (to), and attempt (to), catenative constructions are in no way syntactically related to transitive verb constructions in which the verb is followed by a direct object or prepositional object

Where did that quotation suddenly appear from?

Then do not think of them as criteria; instead, think of them as a definition.
Definition is not a matter of conviction; it is a matter of choice.

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'.

Auxiliary verbs are the primary verbs, be, have, do, and the modal auxiliaries, can, may, will, shall, could, might, would, should, and must.

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

We call, by definition, these twelve verbs central auxiliaries.

Who is 'we'?

Matter of definition and nothing else.

Not quite 'nothing else'. If we are not using the same definitions, we cannot begin to discuss the matter effectively.

McArthur, Tom [Editor] (1992) The Oxford Companion to the English Language, Oxford: OUP