s, the sign _to_ is
"superfluous and improper," the construction and government appearing
complete without it; and the "Rev. Peter Bullions, D. D., Professor of
Languages in the Albany Academy," has recently published a grammar, in
which he adopts the common rule, "One verb governs _another_ in the
infinitive mood; as, _I desire to learn_;" and then remarks, "The
infinitive after a verb is governed by it _only when the attribute
expressed by the infinitive is either the subject or_ [the] _object of the
other verb_. In such expressions as '_I read to learn_,' the infinitive is
_not governed_ by 'I read,' but depends on the phrase '_in order to_'
understood."--_Bullions's Prin. of E. Gram._, p. 110. But, "_I read 'in
order to' to learn_," is not English; though it might be, if either _to_
were any thing else than a preposition: as, "Now _set to to learn_ your
lesson." This broad exception, therefore, which embraces well-nigh half the
infinitives in the language, though it contains some obvious truth, is both
carelessly stated, and badly resolved. The single particle _to_ is quite
sufficient, both to govern the infinitive, and to connect it to any
antecedent term which can make sense with such an adjunct. But, in fact,
the reverend author must have meant to use the "_little word_" but once;
and also to deny that it is a preposition; for he elsewhere says expressly,
though, beyond question, erroneously, "A preposition should never be used
before the infinitive."--_Ib._, p. 92. And he also says, "The _Infinitive_
mood expresses _a thing_ in a general manner, without distinction of
number, person, _or time_, and commonly has TO _before_ it."--_Ib._, Second
Edition, p. 35. Now if TO is "_before_" the mood, it is certainly not _a
part_ of it. And again, if this mood had no distinction of "_time_," our
author's two tenses of it, and his own two special rules for their
application, would be as absurd as is his notion of its government. See his
_Obs. 6 and 7, ib._, p. 124.

OBS. 13.--Richard Hiley, too, a grammarian of perhaps more merit, is
equally faulty in his explanation of the infinitive mood. In the first
place, he absurdly says, "TO _before the infinitive mood_, is considered as
forming _part of the verb_; but in _every other_ situation it is a
preposition."--_Hiley's Gram._, Third Edition, p. 28. To teach that a
"_part of the verb_" stands "_before the mood_," is an absurdity manifestly
greater, than the very opposite notio