PERFECT INFINITIVEの発達 : 序説

抄録

I This essay is only an attempt to explain how perfect infinitives have come into existence. Before we proceed to begin it, it is necessary to know when the form of the perfect infinitive began to appear. While C. F. Koch supposes that the perfect infinitive "mag schon im Ags. vorkommen," other grammarians, such as Matzner, Jespersen, Franz, Bogholm assert that it appeared in ME.; for instance, Franz states "Die Konstruktion tauscht schon im 13. Jahrhundert auf," and Bogholm, "The OE. inf. had no preterite form." In OE. period, simple tense forms or infinitives were used where perfect infinitives are required in Mod E. (e.g. gif pet fulle maegen pare waere. ne eodan hi naefre eft to scipon. [Sax. Chron., 1004]/for oaemde he Oa ne worhte, oa oe he oa wyrcan sceolde. [Alfred, Pastoral Care, p. 445]),but in the 13th century English some perfect infinitives are found (e.g. Ich mihte habben bet idon. [Poema Morale]/pus wolde eue i nouhreade habben i-onswered. [Ancrene Riwle; p. 23]). Then it would be more advisable to accept the theory of ME.-origin. Then there comes the problem: how the perfect infinitive has come into existence. Franz explains: "Den Ausgangspunkt fur dieselbe kann ein Satz wie me. he hadde iwriten 'er hatte geschrieben' bilden, indem dieser durch die neuere, den veraltenden Konjunktiv hadde umschreibende Form he would have written ersetzt wurde. Leztere Satztyp, der ubrigens auch fur sich als Ausgangspunkt augesehen werden kann, ist aber zweideutig, er heisst nicht nur 'er hatte geschrieben,' sondern auch 'er wunschte geschrieben zu haben,' sobald would als Begriffsverb (Konj. Prat.) gefasst wird and dadurch have in engere Verbindung mit Partizip tritt and so den Infmitiv des Perfekts bildet." This theory of Franz's serves well as a logical or psychological explanation of the construction, but not as a historical one. If this is a historical explanation, the former expression of this formula: hadde iwriten → would have written, must be a common one in the preceding period to the period of the latter expression, i.e. in OE. period, since the perfect infinitive in early ME. (the 13th century). This was not the case in OE., where subjunctive preterite was used instead of subjunctive past perfect. And besides this, we have such expressions as "Ich mihte habben bet idon [Poema Morale]," "his deciples, pe schulden stonden and habben ibeon his siden" (Ancrene Wisse. q. Mosse). Here the periphrases (by means of the aux.) would probably have been adopted from the start, and then possibly the use of the perfect infinitive ought to be attributed not to the "Zweideutigkeit" of the auxiliaries, but to some other difference in their meanings. But before the shifting is carried out, it is necessary for the perfect (tense) form to have been more or less established. At any rate, this analytical examination of Franz's theory would lead us not only to doubt its validity, but also to assume that the perfect infinitive was brought about through extension in the use of perfect tense forms; which idea is practically the same as that of Koch's position: "Er (i.e. Inf. der Perfects) kann erst nach Bildung des Perfects entstanden sein. However, to make the matter clearer, it would be necessary and advisable to examine the meanings of the perfect tense forms in OE. (the period preceding the appearance of perfect infinitives), and then their relation to the meanings of perfect infinitives. Perfect tense forms in OE., not fully established but more or less developed under the influence of popular Latin, are found to mean: (a) Completed action, e.g. Ic haebbe be nu todaeg gesetne ofer rice ... (Alfred, Pastoral Care); (b)=Preterite, e.g. be we on bissum carcerne betyned haebbap. (Blickl. Hom. 245); (c) Pluperfect [Anterior Past], e.g. oa oa he hi geunrotsod haefde.

(View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)