Working with students who’ve previously learned from another teacher can make some things about one’s own approach really stand out, and possibly seem a bit odd (or least idiosyncratic). Today I’m wondering how strange I am in regard to the treatment of infinitives.
Students recognize the infinitive as ‘the to form of the verb,’ and this seemingly innocuous phrase is one I’ve run into many times in the past. I say ‘seemingly innocuous’ because I think it lays a poor foundation. Students are led to think of the infinitive as a verb, which in turn leads to confusion about what exactly a verb does, and they will stumble later when they encounter other verbals (i.e., participles, the supine, etc.).
I like to tell students up front that the infinitive is a neuter noun formed from the verb stem. As a noun it is not limited (infinitivus) by person or number. It is the name (nomen) of the verb just as puer is the Latin name for what we call ‘boy.’
For example, currere names the action ‘running,’ and can be used as the subject of a sentence. Currere est salubre means ‘running is (a) healthful (activity)’ or ‘to run is (a) healthful (activity).’ (Compare errare est humanum.) I don’t see how any use of the infinitive is clearer by ignoring the fact that it is really a neuter noun.
You can teach the so-called impersonal verb ‘necesse est’ right away, too. The infinitive is really the subject, and necesse is just an old neuter adjective now frozen into a stock expression. Students have no difficulty seeing immediately that necesse est currere, ‘it’s necessary to run,’ says the same thing as ‘running is necessary.’ This is the same construction as ‘facile est,’ etc.
Normally students learn the complementary infinitive first and other uses later, but isn’t this still best understood as a noun, and not necessarily distinguished from other infinitives? Verbs that take a complementary infinitive can be compared best with transitive verbs: where a transitive verb requires a direct object to complete its sense, these verbs require (complementary) infinitives.
If I say that Marcus pulsat, the sentence is incomplete. But if I say Marcus ianuam pulsat or Marcus Sextum pulsat, the sense become clear. The thought is now complete.
Likewise if I were to say that Marcus vult, the sentence would be incomplete (What does he want?), but if I were to say Marcus currere vult or Marcus Sextum pulsare vult, I’ve completed the sentence as the verb requires, i.e., with an infintive. This usage is analogous to the other, and reinforces for students the notion that the infinitive is a noun: a verbal noun, but a noun nonetheless.
It’s not ‘the to form of the verb.’ How many times has that notion led a student to confuse the infinitive with the dative?