Re: Bostonites. *ZAP*

Josh Brandt-Young wrote:
> What does it matter what part of speech "to" originally belonged to?
No.

> Isn't the important thing how it's *used*?
Yes.  And I just don't think that it's used as part of the infinitive.
It's a particle that precedes the infinitive.  Perhaps you're right that
it's not a preposition, but I don't think that it's PART of the
infinitive.

> Language is what language is, Nik.
Yeah, I know.  I agree with you there.

> You say that the presence of the word "to" before infinitives makes it
> LOOK like a part of the infinitive...kind of like how the fact that the
> formation of the "dative" in the language of Mark Line's story makes it
> LOOK like that language really doesn't have a dative case.
Perhaps.  I suppose that you could argue either side.  And as for that
story by Mark Line, does that language have a dative and genitive?  You
say that they were said to be indicated by prepositions, sounds like the
use of "to" and "of" in English.  Not knowing anything about that
language, I can't say whether they just LOOK like dative and genitive or
ARE a dative and genitive, but as for English, I don't think that "to
go" is the infinitive, I think that it's just "go", with "to" being a
particle that precedes it in certain situations.

--
"It's bad manners to talk about ropes in the house of a man whose father
was hanged." - Irish proverb
http://members.tripod.com/~Nik_Taylor/X-Files
http://members.tripod.com/~Nik_Taylor/Books.html
ICQ: 18656696
AIM Screen-name: NikTailor