<html>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>...
as others will undoubtedly note, split infinitives are<br>
perfectly acceptable, another 18th c. prescriptivism surviving too<br>
long. In "would change", by the way, "change"
is an infinitive.<br>
Modals take unmarked infinitives. The "to" is not what
makes a<br>
form an infinitive. It's just one way of marking that status.
...</blockquote></blockquote><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>Well, that's really a question of
definition. ...</blockquote><br>
The Merriam-Webster English usage dictionary says (in an extended
discussion):<br>
<br>
"... _to_ is only an appurtenance of the infinitive, which is
the<br>
uninflected form of the verb. In many constructions the infinitive is
used<br>
alone ...<br>
</blockquote>So according to this practice, the subjunctives in "I
demand that he<br>
leave" or "If it be treason" are really infinitives?
And when<br>
first-year syntax students learn than modals don't govern the<br>
infinitive (*He could to leave") they're being misinformed?
It's<br>
certainly not standard practice in linguistics courses and texts to<br>
take the uninflected but to-less form of a verb following a modal
or<br>
in the "that" complement of a verb like "demand" or
"require" to<br>
constitute an infinitive. (Another case is "She made me (*to)
do<br>
it".) Base form/bare verb form (maybe even "infinitive
stem") si,<br>
infinitive no.</blockquote><br>
The Random House dictionary gives for "infinitive":<br>
<br>
"(in English) the simple or basic form of the verb, as come, take,
eat, be, used after auxiliary verbs, as in I didn't come, He must be, or
this simple form preceded by a function word, as to in I want to
eat."<br>
<br>
AHD4:<br>
<br>
"A verb form that functions as a substantive while retaining certain
verbal characteristics, such as modification by adverbs, and that in
English may be preceded by <i>to,</i> as in <i>To go willingly is to show
strength</i> or <i>We want him to work harder,</i> or may also occur
without <i>to,</i> as in <i>She had them read the letter</i> or <i>We may
finish today."<br>
<br>
</i>AHD4 also gives "bare infinitive":<br>
<br>
"In English, the infinitive without <i>to,</i> as used with modal
auxiliary verbs. In the sentence <i>I must go to the store now,</i> the
verb <i>go</i> is a bare infinitive."<br>
<br>
Merriam-Webster usage dictionary (p. 545):<br>
<br>
"Since the 18th century there has been an assumption that the _to_
is part of the infinitive, though that is not so."<br>
<br>
Swan's "Practical English Usage" says (2nd ed., p. 277):<br>
<br>
"We usually put the marker _to_ before the infinitive .... But we
use the infinitive without _to_ in some cases."<br>
<br>
Examples given by Swan include:<br>
<br>
I must go now.<br>
Can you help me?<br>
Did you feel the earth move?<br>
Have Mrs. Hansen come in, please.<br>
Why not take a holiday?<br>
All I did was (to) give him a little push.<br>
<br>
I like the expression 'unmarked infinitive' myself.<br>
<br>
It seems to me that the present subjunctive just happens to look like an
'unmarked/bare infinitive' or 'bare/base/stem form'; it's really a
distinct entity, I think. I think it's this subjunctive -- not an
infinitive -- which occurs in expressions like "I demand that he
go", "It is necessary that he go", etc. But I think
there's an 'unmarked infinitive' in "She made me do it." And an
'unmarked' or 'unusually marked' infinitive apparently occurs in
"Try and do it", "Be sure and do it" ... although
perhaps these originated as subjunctives -- it's hard to tell
sometimes.<br>
<br>
-- Doug Wilson</html>