INFINITIVE COMPLEMENTS 7.1. What Are Infinitive Complements Infinitive complements can be integrated into: 1.

complement clauses (if we consider them from a structural point of view see section 4 for further details). From this perspective, infinitive complements are part of the same class as that-complements: (1) a. I told her that she should be more careful in the future. (I-am spus sa fie mai atenta pe viitor). b. I told her to be more careful in the future. (I-am spus sa fie mai atenta pe viitor) One can easily notice the similarities existing between the two constructions, and the relatively synonymous dimension the two structures have. Other data that can be interpreted as arguments for this view (that infinitive and that complements share a lot of similar features) are the following: like that complements, infinitive ones can be extraposed: (2) a. It is important that you should know what you need. (E important sa stii ce iti trebuie.) b. It is important for you to know what you need. (E important sa stii ce iti trebuie.) like that complements, infinitive ones can be topicalized: (3) a. That you love her is something wonderful. (E minunat ca o iubesti.) b. To love her is something really wonderful. (A o iubi pe ea este ceva de-a dreptul minunat). like that complements, infinitive ones can be subject to the rule of clause shift: (4) a. She wished with all her heart that every man in the universe should stay away from her. (Isi dorea din tot sufletul ca toti barbatii de pe lume sa stea departe de ea.) b. She wished with all her heart to be left alone by every man in the universe. (Isi dorea din tot sufletul sa fie lasata in pace de toti barbatii de pe pamint) c. * She wished that every man in the universe should stay away from her with all her heart. d. * She wished to be left alone by every man in the universe with all her heart. 2. non-finite mood structures (if we look at what kind of mood the verb inside the construction has) From this point of view, we distinguish between: finite moods (such as the Indicative, the Conditional, the Subjunctive) (in Romanian we call these moods moduri personale) non-finite moods (such as the Infinitive, the Gerund, the Participle) (i.e. moduri nepersonale) By convention, English grammar analyses non-finite structures as clauses, that can hold a syntactical function within the complex sentence (so, when one provides the syntactical analysis of a complex sentence, they will distinguish between infinitival clauses, gerundial clauses, participial clauses.) The main characteristic exhibited by non-finite structures, as opposed to the finite ones, is the fact that they do not have temporal features. For instance, the phrase to go there or going there does not express an event that is anchored in a certain time. The speaker cannot tell for sure when these events of going there happened.
1

The only features these constructions still have are the aspectual features and that is why one can notice that the Infinitive has four tenses: present : to leave perfect: to have left continuous or progressive : to be leaving perfect continuous or perfect progressive: to have been leaving Here are a few examples with these forms: (5) a. To have succumbed to such base passions was a shame indeed. (Era rusinos ca s-a lasat prada unor pasiuni atit de josnice.) b. They are known to be doing all sorts of vile things. (Se stie ca se indeletnicesc cu tot felul de lucruri urite.) c. He knew her to have been knitting a sweater for a year. (Stia ca croseteaza o flanea de un an de zile) Due to this lack of temporal features, the infinitive construction is often subjectless (because normally the subject needs the Nominative case and the infinitive cannot assign it since there are no temporal and personal features. If the verb form has no temporal and personal features, that is no ending, it cannot be in agreement with the subject and cannot assign it the Nominative case.) 7.2. A Classification of Infinitives

There are three criteria we shall employ in this classification: 1. the criterion of form, according to which there are long or full infinitive forms: (6) They told her to leave. short or bare infinitive forms: (7) They saw her leave. The verbs that normally require the bare infinitive are: The modal verbs: he can come any time Make: he made her smile Let: he let her go Help (optionally): he helped her climb the stairs Have (with the meaning to cause somebody to do something): he had her clear the table Perception verbs such as see, hear, watch: they watched him cry An important thing to remember here is that by passivization, the bare infinitive becomes a full form: (8) She was made to go there. (A fost fortata sa se duca acolo.) The only verb that does not follow this rule is let: (9) The grass was let grow. (Iarba era / a fost lasata sa creasca.) 2. according to whether an adverb appears between to and the infinitive, we can distinguish between: unsplit infinitive (10) She likes to look at the painting often. (Ii place sa se uite adesea la tablou.) Split infinitive (or the Star Trek infinitive)

(11) (12)

She likes to often look at the painting. Captain Picard wanted Starship Enterprise to boldly go and explore the universe.

For a long period English grammarians considered the Split Infinitive to be a not very elegant construction, uncharacteristic for literary English. However, this structure is more and more frequent in every-day language and is no longer considered so inelegant. However, it is still typical of relaxed speech. 3. the third criterion of classification refers to the way in which the logical subject of the infinitive is treated (I underlined the phrase logical subject, because, as I have already mentioned, we cannot speak about a syntactical subject inside the infinitive, since its lack of temporal features precludes the assignment of the Nominative case see previous subsection.) From this point of view we can distinguish between: Infinitives where the logical subject is not lexically overt: (13) Harry tried __ to leave. We place a gap between the main clause verb and the infinitive to show that the agent of the action expressed by the infinitive is not expressed. By convention we can name the missing logical subject PRO, that is something that stands for an item missing: (14) Harry tried PRO to leave. Further on, we can co-index the subject Harry with the PRO form, so as to show that it is in fact Harry that performs the action expressed by the infinitive: (15) Harryi tried PROi to leave. In other words, to use the appropriate technical term, we say that the subject Harry controls the logical covert subject for which we have used the notation PRO: Harry is the controller of PRO. Since we have used the notation PRO for the logical unexpressed subject of the infinitive, we call this class of infinitival clauses the PRO-TO constructions, or the control constructions. Infinitives where the logical subject is lexically expressed in the form of a prepositional phrase introduced by the preposition FOR. That is why this class of infinitival constructions is called the FOR TO infinitives: (16) It is important for him to come back home. (E important ca el sa se intoarca acasa.) In this situation, the logical subject, namely the agent of the event, gets its case from the preposition for and can appear in the clause. So far, we have mentioned the control construction and the for-TO construction. What is it that they have in common? a) the fact that they are not required by a certain class of verbs in the main clause b) both of them can hold practically the same syntactical function: Subject: (17) a. PRO to err is human, PRO to forgive divine. (E omeneste sa gresesti, si crestineste sa ierti.) b. It is important for him not to err. (E important ca el sa nu greseasca.) Object: (18) a. He tried PRO to persuade her of his innocence. (A incercat sa o convinga ca este nevinovat.) b. I hoped for him to be there in time.

(Am sperat ca el sa vina la timp.) Adjunct: (19) a. He bought a new house PRO to please his nagging wife. (A cumparat o casa noua ca sa o multumeasca pe cicalitoarea lui nevasta.) b. He stepped aside for her to enter. (S-a dat la o parte ca sa ii faca loc sa intre.) The Accusative + Infinitive construction , where the logical subject of the infinitive is in the Accusative and required by the main clause verb wherefrom it gets its case: (20) I believe him to be a good linguist. (Cred ca este un lingvist competent.) The interesting thing with this class of infinitives and in fact the reason why they are so called is that the direct object of the main clause verb is in reality the logical subject of the infinitive. In other words, the pronoun him gets the Accusative from the verb believe but it is the agent of the verb phrase to be a good linguist. We must distinguish between such examples as that under (20) and the following one: (21) I persuaded him to be a better linguist. (L-am convins sa fie un lingvist mai bun.) What is the difference between two examples that look so similar? The distinction lies in the fact that in (21), him is not the agent of the infinitive, but the patient of the verb persuade. Semantically, him is related to the main clause verb, not to the infinitive. The second example is not an accusative + infinitive structure, but a PRO-TO one: (22) I persuaded himi PROi to be a better linguist. Also consider the following examples: (23) I want animals to be tortured. (Vreau ca animalele sa fie chinuite) (24) I hate animals to be tortured. (Nu suport ca animalele sa fie chinuite.) A good test by means of which you can decide which of these examples is an accusative + infinitive construction and which is a PRO-TO one is that of inference: for instance, from example (20) you cannot infer the sentence I believe him, whereas example (22) implies I persuaded him. This fact indicates that in the first case him was rightfully part of the infinitival construction, but in the second case it belonged with the main clause verb persuade. Likewise, from (23) you hopefully cannot infer I want animals, nor can you infer from (24) that you hate animals. This means that both (23) and (24) are accusative + infinitive structures, since the direct object animals does not semantically belong with the main clause verbs, but with the infinitive in the subordinate. Last but not least, there is the Nominative + Infinitive construction , so called because the syntactical subject in the main clause is in fact the logical subject of the infinitive. Since this item cannot get case from the infinitive it goes back to get the Nominative from the main clause verb: (25) He appears to be a good linguist. (Pare sa fie un lingvist bun.) (26) He seems to be a good linguist. (Pare sa fie un lingvist bun.) In examples (25) and (26), the subject is not the agent of the main clause verb, hence you cannot infer something like: he appears or he seems. But it is clear that he is a good linguist.This means that the subject he is in fact related to the infinitive verb not to the indicative one.

Compare these examples to: (27) I managed to get a good job. (Am reusit sa obtin o slujba buna.) where the subject I is the agent of the main clause verb, and you can infer I managed something. So, this example contains a PRO TO infinitive: (28) Ii managed PROi to get a good job. What is it that these last two classes of infinitive structures have in common? a) First, it is the fact that both of them borrow items from the main clause to round up their meaning. b) Second, both of these constructions appear only with certain main clause verbs, with special semantic and syntactic properties. In that they differ from the first two classes discussed above, which are said to be free, that is not required by certain verbs. The last two structures are said to be lexically governed because they are required by special verbs (such as want, seem, hate, appear, etc.). To sum up the discussion, here is a diagram: Infinitive complements - free: - control constructions - for to constructions - lexically governed: - accusative + infinitive - nominative + infinitive

7.3. The Distribution of PRO - TO Constructions In this subsection we discuss which are the most likely contexts in which these structures appear: a) verbs that imply the idea of responsibility and control: attempt, fail, try, manage, agree to, aspire to, seek (= try), endeavour, contrive, refuse, decline, condescend, deign, presume, venture, arrange, omit, scheme, care to, etc. (28) Hei sought PROi to find out the truth about Freddie Mercurys death. (A cautat sa afle adevarul despre conditiile in care a murit Freddie Mercury.) b) verbs such as abide, bear, afford, deserve, need, scorn, etc.: (29) Ii cannot abide PROi to see such cruelty. (Nu pot suporta sa vad asemenea cruzime.) c) verbs of liking and disliking: choose, desire, expect, like, dislike, intend, mean, hate, prefer, propose, want, wish, hope, etc.: (30) Shei wanted PROi to become a famous opera singer. (Dorea sa ajunga o cintareata de opera renumita.) Some of these verbs accept an accusative + infinitive variant as well. Compare: (31) a. Shei expected PROi to receive an expensive gift from her boy-friend. (Se astepta sa primeasca un cadou scump din partea prietenului ei.) b. She expected her boyfriend to give her an expensive present. (Se astepta ca prietenul ei sa-i faca un cadou costisitor.) Some of these verbs also allow a FOR-TO construction or a that clause: (32) a. I would like for him to become president of the country. (Mi-ar placea sa ajunga presedintele tarii.) b. I hate that you should say a thing like this. (Imi pare rau sa aud asa ceva.) d) verbs of mental state and linguistic communication: remember, forget, ask, conclude, claim, threaten, suggest,etc.

Most of these verbs allow alternative that constructions: (33) a. I remembered that I had to go to the post office. (Mi-am amintit ca trebuie sa ma duc la posta.) b. Ii remembered PROi to go to the post office. (Mi-am amintit sa ma duc la posta.) 7.4. The Distribution of FOR TO Constructions These structures normally appear in combination with intransitive verbs or adjectives: arrange, endeavour, verbs of liking and disliking, bear, stand, be important, possible, desirable, etc. The complement clause is usually extraposed: (34) a. For all of them to have been killed is, however, unlikely. (Ca ei toti sa fie omoriti este putin probabil.) b. It is however unlikely for all of them to have been killed. (Este putin probabil ca ei toti sa fie omoriti.) The logical subject of the FOR-TO construction can be also represented by the expletive there subject as well: (35) It is impossible for there to be a war between your country and mine. (E imposibil sa existe un razboi intre tara mea si a ta.) 7.5. Syntactic Functions of PRO-TO and FOR-TO Constructions 1. Subject Clauses In this category we can mention the less frequent cases, where PRO is co-indexed with a nominal in the main clause: (36) It was nice of youi PROi to allow me to come here. (A fost amabil din partea ta sa-mi dai voie sa vin aici.) The more frequent situation is when PRO is interpreted generically: (37) PRO to love ones parents so deeply is a natural thing. ( Este un lucru natural sa-ti iubesti parintii atit de mult.) The generic interpretation of PRO is also supported by the presence of the generic pronoun one within the infinitive. The most frequently met subject FOR-TO infinitives are those extraposed: (38) It was important for them to be there. (Era important ca ei sa fie acolo.) 2. Predicative Clauses (39) a. The tendency was for the instructions to be more detailed. (Exista tendinta ca instructiunile sa fie mai detailate.) b. Ouri task is PROi to investigate the details of this case. (Sarcina noastra este sa investigam detaliile legate de acest caz.) 3. Direct Objects (39) a. I meant for him to be alone with her tonight. (Am vrut ca el sa ramina singur cu ea in seara asta.) b. Ii would love PROi to listen to this concert. (Mi-ar placea foarte mult sa ascult acest concert.) 4. Prepositional Objects They appear after verbs or adjectives which normally select Prepositional complements. Like in the case of that complements, the preposition is deleted, but the meaning remains; this is why we call these objects prepositional objects:

(40) a. I decided for John to represent us. (Am hotarit sa ne reprezinte John.) b. Ii am curious PROi to see whether they will come on time. (Sint curios sa vad daca vor sosi la timp.) 5. Attribute This situation happens with: a) relative infinitive constructions (40) They bought her a book with which PROi to step on the path of knowledge. (I-au cumparat o carte cu ajutorul careia sa paseasca pe drumul cunoasterii.) b) complement constructions (after abstract nouns derived from verbs or adjectives) (41) Myi attempt PROi to escape her was a failure. (Incercarea mea de a scapa de ea s-a soldat cu un esec.) The distinction between relative infinitives and complement infinitives is similar with the one we made between relative clauses and complement clauses in a previous section. 6. Adverbial Here we can notice several different cases: a) when the infinitive functions as a restrictive modifier - the infinitive is viewed as an adverbial, not as an object because adjectives such as pretty, delicious, bastard do not normally require a prepositional object after them like in the case of adjectives like aware of, curious about,etc.: (42) a. She is pretty to look at. (Este o fata care iti bucura ochii.) b. The stew is delicious to eat. (Tocana e foarte buna la gust.) c. He is a bastard to work for. (Este un sef care te pune la munca din zori pina in seara.) d. Youre an idiot to go there. (Esti un prost daca te duci acolo.) e. This paint is like concrete to work with. (Vopseaua asta este tare ca betonul.) b) adverbial of purpose (the most common function met with adverbial infinitives) (43) Ii slapped him PROi in order to calm him down. (I-am tras o palma ca sa il calmez.) c) adverbial of result (44) The plate was too hot to touch. (Farfuria era prea fierbinte ca sa poata fi atinsa.) (45) Will you be so kind as to give me the plate? (Esti asa dragut sa imi dai farfuria?) d) exclamatory, final or introductory infinitive In this case, the infinitive is an independent clause: (46) To be perfectly frank, youre a bad driver. (introductory) (Sa-ti spun drept, conduci prost.) (47) Ive never met him, to tell you the truth. (final) (Nu-l cunosc, drept sa spun.) (48) Oh, to be young again! (exclamative) (Ehei, sa fii iarasi tinar!) 7.6. Verbs of Obligatory Control

By verbs of obligatory control we mean those classes of verbs that demand that only a certain nominal inside the main clause should be co-indexed with PRO, that is with the covert logical subject of the infinitive. According to this, we can distinguish between: a) verbs of subject control (where the subject in the main clause must control PRO) the most frequent case in fact: attempt, promise, swear,etc. (49) a. Hei attempted PROi to murder his wife. (A incercat sa isi ucida sotia.) b. Hei promised her PROi to give her a new ring. (I-a promis sa ii dea cadou un inel.) The fact that only the subject he is allowed to control (hence be co-indexed with) PRO is reinforced by the impossibility of interpreting PRO as controlled by the indirect object her: (50) * He promised heri PROi to watch a new show. b) verbs of direct object control (where the direct object of the main clause verb must control PRO) here mostly verbs of causation are included: authorize, direct, enable, encourage, induce, influence, oblige, need, inspire, press, urge, inform, etc.: (51) a. He forced the prisoneri PROi to kneel down in front of him. (L-a obligat pe prizonier sa ingenuncheze in fata lui.) b. His curses inspired the boyi PROi to utter foul words himself. (Injuraturile lui i-au dat ideea baiatului sa vorbeasca si el urit.) In this category of verbs one can also mention a small class including: appoint, elect, choose, nominate, name, vote, etc.: (52) She elected her husbandi PROi to run the hospital. (L-a ales pe sotul ei in conducerea spitalului.) c) verbs of prepositional object control (where the prepositional object inside the main clause must control PRO): rely on, count on, prevail on, depend on, look to, etc. (53) You may rely on mei PROi to help you. (Te poti baza pe ajutorul meu.) d) verbs of indirect object control (where the indirect object in the main clause must control PRO): tell, order, command, allow, permit,etc.: (53) He told the maidi PROi to announce her. (I-a spus servitoarei sa o anunte.) (54) I leave it to youi PROi to take care of it. (Las lucrurile in grija ta.) 7.7. The Distribution of the Nominative + Infinitive Construction As previously mentioned, this construction is lexically governed, i.e. it normally appears after certain verbs with special semantic properties: a) A- verbs: appear, seem, happen, etc.: (55) She appears to like him. (Se pare ca ii place de el.) b) inchoative verbs (or change of state verbs): get, grow, come,etc. (56) She grew to like him in the end. (In cele din urma ajunse sa-l simpatizeze.) c) constructions including the verb be: be to, be about to, be going to, etc. (57) He is to come any day now. (Trebuie sa soseasca zilele astea.) With be going to there are two interpretations: The Nominative + Infinitive one:

(58) I am going to be late / faint. (O sa intirzii/ lesin.) Control construction (59) Ii am going PROi to meet her at 5. (Ma intilnesc cu ea la 5). The meaning of (58), that of intention is well supported by the syntactical analysis, that presupposes the fact that PRO is controlled by the subject of the main clause. In (57), the subject cannot control the action in any way (since we cannot speak about the intention of the subject to be late or faint), hence there is no control situation whatsoever. d) modal expressions such as have to or ought to: (60) Hei has PROi to tell her the truth. (Trebuie sa-i spuna adevarul.) e) verbs of mental perception in the passive: be said, be thought, be rumoured, be claimed, be considered, be alleged, be reported, etc.: (61) He was rumoured to have murdered his wife. (Se zvonea ca isi omorise sotia.) 7.8.The Distribution of the Accusative + Infinitive Construction This construction normally appears in combination with: a) verbs of physical perception basic ones that require bare infinitival structures: see, hear, feel, watch, overhear,etc.: (62) They heard him insult her. (L-au auzit insultind-o.) neological verbs that require full infinitival structures: notice, observe, perceive,etc.: (63) I perceived him to be known in his neighbourhood. (Am observat ca era cunoscut in cartier.) An interesting property of physical perception verbs is that they can make up both the Nominative + Infinitive structure and the Accusative + Infinitive one. However, there is a clear difference in meaning between the two possibilities: Compare: (64) They heard Freddie Mercury sing last night. (Accusative +Infinitive) (this is probably because he sings as a rule) to (65) Freddie Mercury was heard to sing last night. (Nominative + Infinitive) (this was an exceptional occurrence, since he does not normally sing in public) b) causative verbs: with a bare infinitive: make, have, let (66) Ill have you learn this in no time. (Te fac sa inveti asta cit ai zice peste.) with a full infinitive: get, cause, occasion, necessitate (67) I couldnt get them to pay me my money. (N-am reusit sa-i fac sa-mi dea banii.) c) verbs of mental perception : assume, believe, consider, understand, figure, picture, find, imagine, remember, recollect, judge, deem, presume, know, discover, prove,etc.: (68) I believe him to be a genius. (Cred ca este un geniu.) d) verbs of permission and command: allow, permit, suffer, order, command, etc.: (69) I allowed the trees in the yard to be cut down. (Am permis sa fie taiati pomii din curte.)

These verbs have the special characteristic that can be combined with PRO-TO constructions as well: (70) I allowed the gardeneri PROi to cut down the trees. (I-am permis gradinarului sa taie pomii.) e) verbs of liking and disliking: like, love, prefer, want, wish, desire, expect, mean, choose,etc.: (71) I would like him to be there at 5. (As vrea sa fie acolo la ora 5.) Like in the case of the previous class of verbs, these ones allow PRO-TO constructions as well: (72) Ii would like PROi to go there. (As vrea sa ma duc acolo.) 7.9. Key Concepts The analysis of infinitival structures is built upon a few criteria of classification: from this point of view, we can speak about bare and full infinitives, about split and unsplit ones and about infinitives with no expressed logical subject or with an expressed logical subject. The last criterion, having to do with the presence of a logical subject inside the infinitive, is connected to the fact that infinitive constructions can have no syntactical subject within them. This happens because the infinitive mood exhibits no temporal features and is limited to aspectual features only. From this perspective, we can speak about free constructions (required by no special semantic class of verbs): the PRO-TO and the FOR-TO constructions. We can equally speak about lexically governed infinitive constructions (which appear after special verbs with semantic particularities): the Nominative + Infinitive and the Accusative + Infinitive constructions. Their characteristic lies in the fact that both of them resort to main clause verbs to assign case to their logical subjects. The logical test of inference offers the modality of checking whether a structure belongs to this class or not.

10