Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2007

The dominant school of thought says that the "run" form is the only
true infinitive (known as the "bare infinitive" when it needs to be
identified), and that the particle "to" is sometimes added for
structural purposes. This makes sense; but a few recalcitrants like me
maintain that English has two forms of the present infinitive, one with
and one without "to", as well as other infinitives in periphrastic
(=multi-word) form. I admit that the argument is pretty pointless,
really.

(snipped)

For your example sentence, "run" is cast as an intransitive verb which
requires no infinitive for your construct. There is no object of the
verb "run." Nothing is acted upon nor affected by your verb.

"He is to run."

Now "run" is a linking verb but still intransitive; no direct object.
Some would rather label "run" an infinitive because of "to" preceeding.
This is of debate because this case example "run" is _more of_ a verb,
a intransitive verb, than infinitive. Others will debate this case example
cannot be a linking verb because "run" does not "sense" anything, such
as taste, smell, feel and other "six senses" verbs which are, typically,
linking verbs. I would label this case intransitive and stop there.

"She is to have a run."

This case example, our "run" becomes a noun but leans towards being
an infinitive because of "to have" preceeding. Nonetheless, a noun
with usage of an "a" indefinitive article.

Challenge with English is there are over eighteen-thousand grammar
rules, many of which conflict with other rules. My habit is to lean
towards the "sense" of a sentence. Context, of course, can have a
significant effect upon how we view or sense a sentence. Oft best
to stick with the obvious and most simple; intransitive, transitive.
Either a verb does not act upon something, intransitive, or does act
upon something, transitive. Beyond those two cases lies confusion
and very often, heated debate.

You comment on other languages and dictionaries. My native tongue
is not a written language, hence no dictionary; interpretive words.

In my native tongue, Choctaw, I know of thirty-one types of "run"
with each enjoying significant differences in meaning. Some examples
but not all thirty-one plus cases,

hakmo - run, as "run!"
akmochi - active running or to run
okchusba - a sore which runs puss
okfaya - to run wood into your skin, splinter
ibaklatinli - to run at the nose; snotty nose.

Then we have "run" words for, run after, run against, run along,
run around, run away, run between, run crosswise, run down, run
from, run high, run over, run through, run under and others.

Contrasting English, most of our Choctaw run words are directional;
you can literally point to the direction of a run.

When working with understanding English grammar rules, work towards
finding the obvious, first, then venture into the vague.

Taha

It is called the infinitive.  You have it backwards.  In 'to sit', the
particle 'to' is added to the infinitive 'sit'.  It is not true that
'sit' is the result of removing 'to' from a putative longer infinitive.

Note that many bilingual dictionaries will list the first person
singular present form rather than the infinitive.  You will find many
Latin-English dictionaries, for example, that have 'tempero' or 'sum' as
 headwords and many others that 'temperare' or 'esse'.  As it happens,
for most English words these are the same form, with rare exceptions
like 'am' and 'be'.