Why is "to" considered the "main" part of a verb?
Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2012 4:17 pm
It seems such an obscure part of a verb that I wouldn't even expect it to necessarily exist in all languages. I am going "to eat". I could just say I will eat, and it doesn't exist any more. So I'm not really sure I get why we talk about the verb "to do", for example, rather than just the verb "do."
Actually, it does seem that the infinitive does seem to usually match the "main" part of the verb anyway. So with "do", we also have things like "he does" but we still consider "do" to be the main thing. It's normally the same as the "I" form, but not with "I am" and "to be", and I probably would call "be" the main part. But then, it also always matches the imperative, so that could have equal claim as the "main" form, and some verbs don't even have an infinitive (or imperative), like "can", so it's not that great after all. So I would say that to say that the verb is "to x" rather than "x" is just some game we play, and not a real statement about the greatness of the infinitive.
Actually, it does seem that the infinitive does seem to usually match the "main" part of the verb anyway. So with "do", we also have things like "he does" but we still consider "do" to be the main thing. It's normally the same as the "I" form, but not with "I am" and "to be", and I probably would call "be" the main part. But then, it also always matches the imperative, so that could have equal claim as the "main" form, and some verbs don't even have an infinitive (or imperative), like "can", so it's not that great after all. So I would say that to say that the verb is "to x" rather than "x" is just some game we play, and not a real statement about the greatness of the infinitive.