to give the slightest hint concerning the derivation of TO."—Ibid. But, certainly, of his adverb TO, Johnson gives this hint:
"TO, Saxon; te, Dutch." And Webster, who calls it not an adverb, but a preposition, gives the same hint of the source from which it comes to us. This is as much as to say, it is etymologically the old Saxon preposition to—which, truly, it is—the very same word that, for a thousand years or more, has been used before nouns and pronouns to govern the objective case. Tooke himself does not deny this; but, conceiving that almost all particles, whether English or any other, can be traced back to ancient verbs or nouns, he hunts for the root of this, in a remoter region, where he pretends to find that to has the same origin as do; and though he detects the former in a Gothic noun, he scruples not to identify it with an auxiliary verb! Yet he elsewhere expressly denies, "that any words change their nature by use, so as to belong sometimes to one part of speech, and sometimes to another."—Div. of Pur., Vol. i, p. 68.
OBS 4.—From this, the fair inference is, that he will have both to and do to be "nouns substantive" still! "Do (the auxiliary verb, as it has been called) is derived from the same root, and is indeed the same word as TO."—Ib., Vol. i, p. 290. "Since FROM means commencement or beginning, TO must mean end or termination."—Ib., i, 283. "The preposition TO (in Dutch written TOE and TOT, a little nearer to the original) is the Gothic substantive [Gothic: taui] or [Gothic: tauhts], i. e. act, effect, result, consummation. Which Gothic substantive is indeed itself no other than the past participle of the verb [Gothic: taujan], agere. And what is done, is terminated, ended, finished."—Ib., i, 285. No wonder that Johnson, Skinner, and Junius, gave no hint of this derivation: it is not worth the ink it takes, if it cannot be made more sure. But in showing its bearing on the verb, the author not unjustly complains of our grammarians, that: "Of all the points which they endeavour to shuffle over, there is none in which they do it more grossly than in this of the infinitive."—Ib., i, 287.
OBS. 5.—Many are content to call the word TO a prefix, a particle, a little word, a sign of the infinitive, a part of the infinitive, a part of the verb, and the like, without telling us whence it comes, how it differs from the preposition to, or to what part of speech it belongs. It certainly is not what we usually call a prefix, because we never join it to the verb; yet there are three instances in which it becomes such, before a noun: viz., to-day, to-night, to-morrow. If it is a "particle," so is any other preposition, as well as every small and invariable word. If it is a "little word," the whole bigness of a preposition is unquestionably found in it; and no "word" is so small but that it must belong to some one of the ten classes called parts of speech. If it is a "sign of the infinitive," because it is used before no other mood; so is it a sign of the objective case, or of what in Latin is called the dative, because it precedes no other case. If we suppose it to be a "part of the infinitive," or a "part of the verb," it is certainly no necessary part of either; because there is no verb which may not, in several different ways, be properly used in the infinitive without it. But if it be a part of the infinitive, it must be a verb, and ought to be classed with the auxiliaries. Dr. Ash accordingly placed it among the auxiliaries; but he says, (inaccurately, however,) "The auxiliary sign seems to have the nature of adverbs."—Grammatical Institutes, p. 33.
"The auxiliary [signs] are, to, do, did, have, had, shall, will, may, can, must, might," &c.—Ib., p. 31.
OBS. 6.—It is clear, as I have already shown, that the word to may be a sign of the infinitive, and yet not be a part of it. Dr. Ash supposes, it may even be a part of the mood, and yet not be a part of the verb. How this can be, I see not, unless the mood consists in something else than either the form or the parts of the verb. This grammarian says, "In parsing, every word should be considered as a distinct part of speech: for though two or more words may be united to form a mode, a tense, or a comparison; yet it seems quite improper to unite two or more words to make a noun, a verb, an adjective, &c."—Gram. Inst., p. 28. All the auxiliaries, therefore, and the particle to among them, he parses separately; but he follows not his own advice, to make them distinct parts of speech; for he calls them all signs only, and signs are not one of his ten parts of speech. And the participle too, which is one of the ten, and which he declares to be "no part of the verb," he parses separately; calling it a verb, and not a participle, as often as it accompanies any of his auxiliary signs. This is certainly a greater impropriety than there can be in supposing an auxiliary and a participle to constitute a verb; for the mood and tense are the properties of the compound, and ought not to be ascribed to the principal term only. Not so with the preposition to before the infinitive, any more than with the conjunction if before the subjunctive. These may well be parsed as separate parts of speech; for these moods are sometimes formed, and are completely distinguished in each of their tenses, without the adding of these signs.
OBS. 7.—After a careful examination of what others have taught respecting this disputed point in grammar, I have given, in the preceding rule, that explanation which I consider to be the most correct and the most simple, and also as well authorized as any. Who first parsed the infinitive in this manner, I know not; probably those who first called the to a preposition; among whom were Lowth and the author of the old British Grammar. The doctrine did not originate with me, or with Comly, or with any American author. In Coar's English Grammar, published in London in 1796. the phrase to trample is parsed thus: "To—A preposition, serving for a sign of the infinitive mood to the verb Trample—A verb neuter, infinitive mood, present tense, governed by the preposition TO before it. RULE. The preposition to before a verb, is the sign of the infinitive mood." See the work, p. 263. This was written by a gentleman who speaks of his "long habit of teaching the Latin Tongue," and who was certainly partial enough to the principles of Latin grammar, since he adopts in English the whole detail of Latin cases.
