The Syntax of Early English - Cryptm.org

Changes in infinitival constructions 223Examples (18a) and (18b) are direct translations from Latin. These types areonly found in glosses and translations of texts heavily influenced by Latin,such as Bede’s Ecclesiastical History and Gregory’s Dialogues (for the influenceof Latin on the syntax of these texts, see Scheler 1961). Normally thetranslator uses a æt-clause, as we have seen in (17). It is noteworthy in thisrespect that the Old English ‘literal’ translator wavers between a bare infinitiveand a to-infinitive, contrast (18a–b) with (18c). To versus zero is a distinctionwhich becomes important in the later period, once the believe type ECMconstruction has become acceptable.Examples (18d) and (18e) are different, because they occur in original OldEnglish texts and must be looked upon as native constructions. Notice,however, that these instances closely resemble the perception verb constructionsin (15). In both (15) and (18d–e), the infinitive conveys a concrete activitythat can be directly perceived and located. Also, the infinitive does not havea separate tense domain (the state of affairs described by it is simultaneouswith the event expressed by the matrix verb). And, finally, there is usually alocative adjunct present, which renders the scene concrete by turning the stateof affairs into a physical experience. (18f) is slightly different again, but wewould still argue that it resembles (15) and (18d–e): since the speaker has seenwhere the young woman lives, he now knows it by experience. In cases such as(18f), the infinitive always has a locative sense (verbs meaning ‘dwell’, ‘live’,‘lie’, ‘stand’, etc. are found there), and again a locative adjunct is present.Another point of interest is that the matrix verb witan in (18e–f) was originallya perception verb, meaning ‘to see’. Indeed, this type of construction occursin Old English only with witan and never with cunnan or gecnawan/oncnawan,which also mean ‘to know’, but have a different etymology (cf. Ono 1975). Thisshows how a syntactic structure can become subject to various kinds ofrestrictions when, through semantic change, it ceases to instantiate the productivepattern that it formerly did. 5Having established that a distinction must be made between the two typesof AcIs, and that Old English did not possess the ECM type with to illustrated5Interestingly, the Dutch counterpart of (18f) is still possible with the cognate verbweten, as in:Ik weet hem te wonenIk know him to live‘I know where he lives’This construction is possible only in a locative sense, as in (18f). Dutch does notallow:*Ik weet hem onschuldig te zijn‘I know him to be innocent’which is, of course, the only type possible in Modern English. For an analysis of theDutch AcI with weten, see den Dikken and Zwart (1996).