is frequently governed by adjectives, substantives, and participles; but in this instance also, a preposition is understood, though never expressed; as, ‘Eager to learn;’ that is, ‘eager for to learn;’ or, ‘for learning;’ ‘A desire to improve;’ that is, ’for to improve.’”—­Hiley’s Gram., p. 89.  Here we see the origin of some of Bullions’s blunders. To is so small a word, it slips through the fingers of these gentlemen.  Words utterly needless, and worse than needless, they foist into our language, in instances beyond number, to explain infinitives that occur at almost every breath.  Their students must see that, “I read to learn,” and, “I study to improve,” with countless other examples of either sort, are very different constructions, and not to be parsed by the same rule!  And here the only government of the infinitive which Hiley affirms, is immediately contradicted by the supposition of a needless for “understood.”

OBS. 15.—­In all such examples as, “I read to learn,”—­“I strive to learn”—­“Some eat to live,”—­“Some live to eat,”—­“She sings to cheer him,”—­“I come to aid you,”—­“I go to prepare a place for you,”—­the action and its purpose are connected by the word to; and if, in the countless instances of this kind, the former verbs do not govern the latter, it is not because the phraseology is elliptical, or ever was elliptical,[405] but because in no case is there any such government, except in the construction of those verbs which take the infinitive after them without the preposition to.  Professor Bullions will have the infinitive to be governed by a finite verb, “when the attribute expressed by the infinitive is the subject of the other verb.”  An infinitive may be made the subject of a finite verb; but this grammarian has mistaken the established meaning of subject, as well as of attribute, and therefore written nonsense.  Dr. Johnson defines his adverb TO, “A particle coming between two verbs, and noting the second as the object of the first.”  But of all the words which, according to my opponents and their oracles, govern the infinitive, probably not more than a quarter are such verbs as usually have an object after them.  Where then is the propriety of their notion of infinitive government?  And what advantage has it, even where it is least objectionable?

OBS. 16.—­Take for an example of this contrast the terms, “Strive to enter in—­many will seek to enter in.”—­Luke, xiii, 24.  Why should it be thought more eligible to say, that the verb strive or will seek governs the infinitive verb to enter; than to say, that to is a preposition, showing the relation between strive and enter, or between will seek and enter, and governing