in a recent grammar, absurdly parses infinitives "_as nouns_," and
by the common rules for nouns, though he begins with calling them _verbs_.
Thus: "_Our honor is to be maintained. To be maintained_, is a _regular
passive_ VERB, infinitive mode, present tense, and is _used as a_ NOUN _in
the relation of predicate_; according to Rule II. A _noun or pronoun_ used
with the copula to form the _predicate_, must be in the _nominative_
case."--_Greene's Gram._, 1848. p. 93. (See the Rule, ib. p. 29.) This
author admits, "The '_to_' seems, like the preposition, to perform the
office of a _connective_:" but then he ingeniously imagines, "The
infinitive _differs from the preposition and its object_, in that the
'_to_' is _the only preposition_ used with the verb." And so he concludes,
"The _two_ [or more] _parts_ of the infinitive are taken together, and,
_thus_ combined, may _become a_ NOUN _in any relation_."--_Ib._, 1st
Edition, p. 87. S. S. Greene will also have the infinitive to make the verb
before it _transitive_; for he says, "The only form [of phrase] used as the
_direct object of a transitive verb_ is the _infinitive_; as, 'We intend
(What?) _to leave_ [town] to-day:' 'They tried (What?) _to conceal_ their
fears.'"--_Ib._, p. 99. One might as well find transitive verbs in these
equivalents: "_It is our purpose to leave_ town to-day."--"They
_endeavoured to conceal_ their fears." Or in this:--"They _blustered_ to
conceal their fears."

[409] It is remarkable that the ingenious J. E. Worcester could discern
nothing of the import of this particle before a verb. He expounds it, with
very little consistency, thus: "To, _or_ To, _ad_. A particle employed as
the usual sign or prefix of the infinitive mood of the verb; and it might,
in such use, be deemed _a syllable of the verb_. It is used _merely as a
sign of the infinitive_, without having any distinct or separate meaning:
as, 'He loves _to_ read.'"--_Univ. and Crit. Dict._ Now is it not plain,
that the action expressed by "_read_" is "that _towards_ which" the
affection signified by "_loves_" is directed? It is only because we can use
no other word in lieu of this _to_, that its meaning is not readily seen.
For calling it "a syllable of the verb," there is, I think, no reason or
analogy whatever. There is absurdity in calling it even "a _part_ of the
verb."

[410] As there is no point of grammar on which our philologists are more at
_variance_, so there seems to be none on