“This little word to when used before verbs in this manner, is not a preposition, but forms a part of the verb, and, in parsing, should be so considered.”—­Productive Gram., p. 65.  How can that be “a part of the verb,” which is a word used before it? or how is to “joined to the verb,” or made a part of it, in the phrase, “to ride?” But Smith does not abide by his own doctrine; for, in an other part of his book, he adopts the phraseology of Murray, and makes to a preposition:  saying, “The preposition TO, though generally used before the latter verb, is sometimes properly omitted; as, ‘I heard him say it;’ instead of ’to say it.’”—­Productive Gram., p. 156.  See Murray’s Rule 12th.

OBS. 11.—­Most English grammarians have considered the word to as a part of the infinitive, a part of the verb; and, like the teachers of Latin, have referred the government of this mood to a preceding verb.  But the rule which they give, is partial, and often inapplicable; and their exceptions to it, or the heterogeneous parts into which some of them divide it, are both numerous and puzzling.  They teach that at least half of the ten different parts of speech “frequently govern the infinitive:”  if so, there should be a distinct rule for each; for why should the government of one part of speech be made an exception to that of an other? and, if this be done, with respect to the infinitive, why not also with respect to the objective case?  In all instances to which their rule is applicable, the rule which I have given, amounts to the same thing; and it obviates the necessity for their numerous exceptions, and the embarrassment arising from other constructions of the infinitive not noticed in them.  Why then is the simplest solution imaginable still so frequently rejected for so much complexity and inconsistency?  Or how can the more common rule in question be suitable for a child, if its applicability depends on a relation between the two verbs, which the preposition to sometimes expresses, and sometimes does not?

OBS. 12.—­All authors admit that in some instances, 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,”