The structure of the English sentence

by Lillian Kimball Stewart

Verbs signifying begin, continue, or cease frequently take an infinitive for object; as, “As he approached the stream, his heart began to thump.”—Irving.

The verb ought is always followed by an infinitive, which is clearly seen to be its object when we remember that ought is an old past tense of the verb owe; as, “The founder of this stately mansion ought surely to have stood in his own hall and to have offered the first welcome to so many eminent personages.”—Hawthorne. Here the obligation owed by the founder is specified by the two infinitive phrases.

A use similar to the above is that of the infinitive after have; as, “My friend, the Poet, tells, me he has to leave town whenever the anniversaries come round.”—Holmes. Have means to possess, or be under an obligation.

Note.—The construction, “I had rather go than stay,” may be explained by treating go as an infinitive without the sign to used as object of the transitive verb had. Expanded the sentence reads, “I had to go rather than I had to stay.” The constructions, “I had sooner go than stay,” and, “I had as lief go as stay,” may be explained in the same way.

After dare, need, and please the sign of the infinitive to is usually omitted; for example, “I dare do all that may become a man.” Dare and need are often used with a subject in the third person singular, whereas we should expect dares and needs; thus, “He need not be angry about it.”

(b) As part of a double object of a transitive verb. We have just said that if one person resolves that another person shall act, or hopes he will, the fact may be told by using a substantive clause; as, “I resolved that John should go.” But if I expected that John would go I could tell it by using an infinitive; thus, “I expected John to go.” This is a matter settled by usage; some verbs must be followed by a clause object, while others may be followed by a noun and an infinitive. We call the noun (or pronoun) and the infinitive a double object. It is not two objects; it is one object the same as a clause, but it consists of two essential parts closely related. The logical relation between John and to go in the sentence above is that of subject and predicate; but grammatically to go cannot be a predicate because the infinitive does not assert. In this construction the infinitive is related first to the noun John and then together with John to the transitive verb expected. Sufficient proof that the two elements John and to go constitute the one direct object of expected is found in the fact that it takes both of them to answer the question expected what? For we did not expect John, nor did we expect to go. Furthermore, the two elements may be changed to the equivalent noun clause, that John would go, in which John becomes subject and the infinitive becomes a finite verb, the predicate of John.

This use must be carefully distinguished from that of the infinitive in such a sentence as this,—“He bought apples to eat.” Here apples alone answers the question bought what? It is also plain that the relation between apples and to eat is not that of subject and predicate. Besides, if this sentence were expanded, merely the infinitive would be changed to a clause. This might be an adverbial clause,—“He bought apples that he might eat them”; or an adjective clause,—“He bought apples that were good for eating.”

Another sentence not so easily discriminated is this.—“I told John to go.” Here there is what seems to be a double object, but in reality to go is the direct object and John is an indirect object, as in the sentence, “I told John a story.” If we recast the sentence, employing a substantive clause, we have,—“I told John that he should go,” where John remains as indirect object and the infinitive alone is expanded to the object clause. It is the same often after such a verb as order; for example, “He ordered the men to march”; but in the sentence, “He ordered the message to be sent,” there is a true double object. Men is indirect object, because it names those to whom the order was given, but message does not name anything to which an order was given,—it merely tells what was to be sent. The sentences expanded read,—“He ordered the men that they should march,” and “He ordered that the message should be sent.”

We may conclude that when verbs with the notion of telling in them, as urge, beg, entreat, persuade, etc., are followed by a personal word and an infinitive,—as, “He urged me to go,” we must carefully determine whether the personal word is more closely related to the predicate verb or to the infinitive. If we find it more closely related to the predicate verb, we must call it an indirect object, and say that the infinitive needs no word for subject because it is understood that the subject of the infinitive is the same word as that used for indirect object.

The verbs most commonly followed by the double object are,—(a) verbs of perception, like see, hear, notice; for example, “Then, on either hand, I saw stately palaces rise gray and lofty from the dark waters.”—Howells; (b) verbs of permitting or causing, like make, have, let; as, “‘Why, what would you have me do with you?’ said the man.”—Froude; (c) verbs of feeling, like wish, desire, expect; as, “Why, they all want him to get up and make speeches, or songs, or toasts.”—Holmes.