Re: THEORY: Natural language change (was Re: Charlie and I)

Sally Caves wrote:

> The infinitive with "to" is a modification of the REAL infinitive,
> deriving
> from the OE "inflected infinitive"-- _to habbanne_ "to have" instead of
> the true infinitive_habban_, "have"?  We interpose modifiers between
> auxiliary
> and participle, why not between "to" and "infinitive"?  I think this
> issue
> has been argued ad nauseum on this list, though.
Yeah.  But, IMO, if it were true that the infinitive couldn't be split,
would that not make "to", almost by definition, a prefix?  Yet no one
has ever suggested that we write "towrite".

> Exactly.  The Royal Academy had long been trying to "ascertain" the
> English language;
What Royal Academy?  There's no Royal Academy for English.

> It's not a matter of decline, because non-standard English has always
> been at the very center of rules about standard English.
Well, decline in the vigilance of the Grammar Police.  :-)

> I guess I'm back!  Teonaht has had to be put on hold.
Welcome back!  Have you started back up with Teonaht?

--
"If all Printers were determin'd not to print any thing till they were
sure it would offend no body, there would be very little printed" -
Benjamin Franklin
http://members.tripod.com/~Nik_Taylor/X-Files/
http://members.tripod.com/~Nik_Taylor/Books.html
ICQ #: 18656696
AIM screen-name: NikTailor