A Tale of Two Infinitives
Thu, 20 June 2019 21:00:00 EDT
So yesterday, I reached the section of my Atili reference grammar on non-finite verb forms and I got to thinking about infinitives. Every language I've learned, or even dabbled in, has a single infinitive (unless I've been misled), but I'd heard that old English had several different ways to form infinitives (e.g. "to do" and "at do", from which we derive the word "ado"[1]). I wondered if you could have two infinitives with different meaning, so I looked it up. Of course, Finnish has between four and six infinitives, depending on how you count[2], and I don't understand any of them, but at least my question was answered. And thus I came to some important decisions: Atili would have two infinitives, and I would understand how they worked.
The Basic Infinitive
The basic infinitive is unmarked. It can only be used if the statement is realis, and when it is used, it has several implications. If the verb is active, then it implies intentionality. If the verb is stative, it indicates that the state is expected to persist for a long time. If the verb can be either, it hints at a stative reading. Let's look at some examples from my grammar:
The Irrealis Infinitive
The irrealis infinitive is formed with the suffix "-zu" (which is also the indefinite suffix on nouns). It is always used if the statement is irrealis, but if the statement is realis, it has the opposite implications of the basic infinitive. This infinitive lets me make a grammatical distinction between some ideas that English distinguishes lexically. For example, with the basic infinitive, the verb "zélda" means "plan to," but with the irrealis infinitive, it means "think about." Similarly, with the basic infinitive, the verb "vos" means "like to," but with the irrealis infinitive, it means "want to." Let's look at some more examples: