for he says, “The only form [of phrase] used as the direct object of a transitive verb is the infinitive; as, ’We intend (What?) to leave [town] to-day:’  ’They tried (What?) to conceal their fears.’”—­Ib., p. 99.  One might as well find transitive verbs in these equivalents:  “It is our purpose to leave town to-day.”—­“They endeavoured to conceal their fears.”  Or in this:—­“They blustered to conceal their fears.”

[409] It is remarkable that the ingenious J. E. Worcester could discern nothing of the import of this particle before a verb.  He expounds it, with very little consistency, thus:  “To, or To, ad.  A particle employed as the usual sign or prefix of the infinitive mood of the verb; and it might, in such use, be deemed a syllable of the verb.  It is used merely as a sign of the infinitive, without having any distinct or separate meaning:  as, ‘He loves to read.’”—­Univ. and Crit.  Dict. Now is it not plain, that the action expressed by “read” is “that towards which” the affection signified by “loves” is directed?  It is only because we can use no other word in lieu of this to, that its meaning is not readily seen.  For calling it “a syllable of the verb,” there is, I think, no reason or analogy whatever.  There is absurdity in calling it even “a part of the verb.”

[410] As there is no point of grammar on which our philologists are more at variance, so there seems to be none on which they are more at fault, than in their treatment of the infinitive mood, with its usual sign, or governing particle, to.  For the information of the reader, I would gladly cite every explanation not consonant with my own, and show wherein it is objectionable; but so numerous are the forms of error under this head, that such as cannot be classed together, or are not likely to be repeated, must in general be left to run their course, exempt from any criticism of mine.  Of these various forms of error, however, I may here add an example or two.

(1.) “What is the meaning of the word to? Ans. To means act.  NOTE.—­As our verbs and nouns are spelled in the same manner, it was formerly thought best to prefix the word TO, to words when used as verbs.  For there is no difference between the NOUN, love; and the VERB, to love; but what is shown by the prefix TO, which signifies act; i. e. to act love.”—­R.  W. Greene’s Inductive Exercises in English Grammar, N. Y., 1829, p. 52.  Now all this, positive as the words are, is not only fanciful, but false, utterly false. To no more “means act,” than from “means act.”  And if it did, it could not be a sign of the infinitive, or of a verb at all; for, “act love,” is imperative, and makes the word “love” a noun; and so, “to act love,”