Re: Adjectives, Particles, and This ( etc ), and Conjunctions...

> Date:         Wed, 17 Jan 2001 07:49:18 -0800
> From:         Marcus Smith <smithma@...>
>
> Pavel wrote:
>
> > >David Crystal defines 'particle' thus in his "A Dictionary of Linguistics
> > >and Phonetics":
> > >"particle (1) A term used in GRAMMATICAL description to refer to an
> > >INVARIABLE ITEM with grammatical FUNCTION, especially one which does not
> > >readily fit into a standard classification of PARTS OF SPEECH; often
> > >abbbreviated a _PRT_ or _part_.  In English, for example, the marker of the
> > >INFINITIVE, _to_, is often called a particle because, despite its surface
> > >similarity to a PREPOSITION, it really has nothing in common with it.
> >
> >Why "nothing in common"? Compare:
> >
> >I am going to the bedroom. (preposition)
> >I am going to sleep. (particle)
> >
> >The function of "to" is essentially equal in both cases. The infinive with
> >"to" IMHO has the same meaning as dative (allative, illative) of abstract
> >noun derived from verb.
> >Instead of "to sleep" we could say "to the sleeping state".
>
> They only look like they have something in common here because you used the
> verb "going" in two different senses in each sentence. In the first one,
> this is a genuine verb of movement, but in the second it functions more as
> a tense. We can see that "to" does not have a prepositional meaning from
> the following sentences.
>
> I have to empty the trash.
> I want to fly like an eagle.
> Not knowing how to waltz, Cinderella looked like a fool at the ball.
> To be or not to be, that is the question.
However, historically the infinitive marker and the preposition are
the same. Back when the current infinitive was more a sort of verbal
noun, it got construed with different prepositions in various contexts
--- but very commonly with to after verbs like want or intend, and
from there it got extended to all contexts except after modal verbs.

And not only in English. The North Germanic infinitive marker (Danish
at, Norwegian