The history of the development of impersonal forms of the verb is the history of their gradual inclusion in the verbal system, as a result of which, in order to identify their specificity in modern English, their verbal properties are of greater importance than their original nominal features. With regard to nominal features, impersonal forms retain their characteristic historical connections with the noun (infinitive and gerund) and with the adjective (participle), while verbal features are mainly the result of their gradual and long-term development [1].

This article discusses the infinitive, its development in Middle English and New English periods. The infinitive is one of the most controversial linguistic phenomena in linguistics and to this day generates disputes and discussions among linguists regarding the definition of the term, the essence of the infinitive and its functioning in a sentence [2].

Some researchers resolutely separated the infinitive from the verb, believing that the infinitive does not belong to either the predicative or attributive forms of the verb, but is a noun with a verbal base, and therefore the infinitive was declared a special part of speech and was considered a word that is not subject to conjugation. Other researchers emphasized that the infinitive in English is a “verbal nominative,” i.e., the basic, original form of the verb [3].

It is necessary to turn to history to consider this impersonal form of the English verb in its development. The infinitive is a verbal noun by its origin. In Old English (7th-10th centuries), it had all the morphological and syntactic properties inherent to a noun, in particular, it changed by case. In the English language of the ancient period, the infinitive had forms of two cases: nominative and dative. However, in Old English, the infinitive had already lost its case endings [4].

From a structural-grammatical point of view, the forms of the infinitive are no different from the forms of the personal verb in their method of formation; each form of the infinitive is, as it were, a generalization of the corresponding personal forms of the verb [5].

In the Middle English period, due to the reduction of endings, the formal distinction between the declinable and indeclinable forms of the infinitive disappears. Both endings -an, -anne (-enne) are reduced to a single form -e(n). At the same time, the former preposition to loses its meaning, undergoes phonetic reduction and begins to be perceived as a pre-infinitive particle, which can optionally act in any function.

To highlight the infinitive of purpose, a new form is created with the preposition «for», and the infinitive in this function always acts with the particle «to»:

«Se kyng hit dide for to hevene sibbe of se eorl of Angeow» – «This king did it to become related to the Count of Anjou.»

The use of the infinitive of purpose with the preposition «for» is widespread until the end of the Middle English period.

From the Middle English period, the particle «to» becomes a formal indicator of the infinitive. In the Early Modern English period, the same verb could be used with or without the particle «to» in the same circumstances:

«I see him come»; «I saw her coral lips to move».

Only with modal verbs was the infinitive with «to» never used, with the exception of the verb ought (to):

He ought to know it better.

The particle «to» was established as a morphological marker of the infinitive at the very end of the Early Modern English period. At this time, the infinitive, having completely lost its inflection, coincided in form with some personal forms of the verb and therefore began to need a special morphological marker. In modern English, it is a means of distinguishing the infinitive from the homonymous conjugation forms of the verb [6].

The first instances of the use of the «split» infinitive appear from the 14th century, that is, the placement of a pronoun, adverb or particle between «to» and the infinitive:

«He sal send Angels for to pe defend» – «He will send angels to protect you.» In the early modern English period, the «split» infinitive ceased to be used as widely as in the 15th century. Normative grammarians finally condemned this form as incorrect. The use of the split infinitive began to be considered a gross violation of grammatical norms. In modern language, its use has still been preserved, but only to a very limited extent [7].

In the Middle English period, the infinitive acquired new verbal features, the main one being the emergence of analytical forms. The infinitive acquired a whole system of forms built parallel to the analytical personal-verb forms.

Thus, in the Middle English period, the perfect and passive forms of the infinitive emerged, and in the Early Modern English period, the Continuous and Perfect Continuous forms of the infinitive emerged.

The perfect infinitive is formed from the infinitive of the verb have and the participle II of the conjugated verb. Just like the simple infinitive, it can appear up until the end of the Early Modern English period with or without the particle to:

«We wened haf lorn pe seignorie» – «We thought that we had lost the estate».

Since its inception, the perfect infinitive has denoted an action that preceded another action. In addition, the perfect infinitive conveyed a desired action that, however, did not take place and therefore belongs to the past tense:

«With how mochel woldestow han bought the fulle knowe of thys?» – «For how much would you like to buy full knowledge of this?»

Specific to Middle English was the use of the perfect infinitive to convey an intended action, simultaneous with the action expressed by the personal form of the verb. This use occurs after verbs expressing desire, intention, assumption, hope, fear, etc.:

«And on hir bare knees adoun they falle and wolde have kist his feet» – «And they fell on their knees and wanted to kiss his feet.»

This use of the perfect infinitive almost completely disappears in the 14th-15th centuries.

In Middle English and partly in Early Modern English, the antecedent action could sometimes be expressed by means of a simple infinitive (especially when the infinitive was formed from liminal verbs). The emergence of the passive form of the infinitive played a major role in clarifying the object-predicative relations between the infinitive and the person or thing with which it was related.

The passive form of the infinitive was formed with the help of the auxiliary verb «ben» (less often «wurrpenn») and the participle II of the conjugated verb.

The passive form of the infinitive is used with or without the particle to and performs all the functions characteristic of the infinitive.

For example:

In the function of an attribute: «All alls he w re an lamb to ben offredd» – «As if he were a lamb that needed to be sacrificed»;

In the function of a circumstance of purpose: «Pu … cumest her att me to wurrpenn fullhnedd» – «You … will come here to me to be baptized»;

In the function of an object: «Him pynceo to ben overcumen» – «It seems to him that he is defeated»;

By the end of the Middle English period, the perfect passive form of the infinitive also appears:

«I nolde to han ben crowed queene» – «I would not like to be crowned queen».

In the second half of the Early Modern English period, the continuous form of the infinitive appears:

«I do not know as I have any right to be talking about Mostyn’s affairs».

The perfect continuous infinitive appears last:

«I pretended to have been looking for my papers for the last half hour».

In Middle English, the infinitive, acting as a definition, mainly enters into an objective-predicative relationship with its determinate, i.e., the determinate is the person or object to which the action of the infinitive is directed. In this case, the defined can act both as a subject and as an object:

«Nere ther non emptistude I’the heorte to underuongen fiesliche leihtern» – «There was no free space in the heart in which carnal joy could be found»; «He hade schame to schryfe hym of many synnys» – «He had a shame to write to him about many sins».

In the 14th-15th centuries, there is a further clarification of the object-predicative relations of the infinitive with its defined. This is manifested, on the one hand, in the use of the passive infinitive in the function of definition. The passive infinitive most clearly indicates that the defined word is the object of its action:

«We have sent you a letter to be taken unto my Lord of Bedferd» – «We have sent you a letter that needs to be delivered to Lord Bedford». On the other hand, the clarification of the object relations between the infinitive and the word it defines is expressed in the use of a preposition after the infinitive. In the 15th century, the use of such prepositions as «in», «upon», «with», «to», «for» with the infinitive in the function of definition was recorded:

«And gaffe hem londe to lyve upon» – «And they gave them land on which they could live.»

Beginning in the 16th century, there were a large number of cases in which the attributive infinitive entered into subject-predicative relations with its determinate:

» We sent … my brother to the knight to know wether they were spyes or men to kepe the passage.»

By the end of the 17th century, the subject and object relations of the infinitive with its determinate had received a clear form of expression, however, from the moment the attributive infinitive emerged and to this day, there have been constructions in the language in which the active infinitive appears with a passive meaning:

15th century: «But there is no water to drynke.»

16th century: «For there is no tyme in which the ploughman hath not some special worke to do.»

17th century: «Indeed we find our men never so cheerful as when there is work to do.»

Modernity: «There was nothing to do (=to be done)».

Since the end of the 14th century, the range of verbs that can be followed by «Complex Object» has expanded. This expansion occurs due to borrowings from French, as well as due to the expansion of the compatibility of verbs of a number of semantic groups, such as verbs of mental and psychic activity:

«He knowith me admytte the writings of doctouris».

In the early modern English period, a second secondary predicative construction with the infinitive «The for-to-Infinitive Construction» appears. With the appearance of this construction, the infinitive gains the ability to combine with its own subject, acting as any member of the sentence.

This construction arises as a result of the re-decomposition of the syntactic structure of the sentence. In Middle and Early Modern English, there were sentences in which the preposition «for» introduced a prepositional complement with the meaning of a person. The infinitive with the words related to it also formed a separate member of the sentence. Between these two members of the sentence there was an intonation pause, which was an external designer of the separateness of these two syntactic units.

However, during the Early Modern English period, there is a rethinking of the relationships in sentences of this type. Since the complement in content expressed the subject of the infinitive’s action and since it was during this period that the subject-object relationships of the infinitive with the nominal member of the sentence were clarified, the complement was united intentally with the infinitive. As a result, instead of two independent members of the sentence, one, complex member of the sentence arose, expressed by the newly emerged infinitive secondary-predicative construction.

The indicator of the final morphologization of this construction is the possibility of using it as a subject. This indicates that the prepositional group has only an internal connection with the infinitive and does not have an external syntactic connection with any other verb:

«For man to tell how life began is hard.»

At the same time, an absolute secondary-predicative infinitive construction appears:

«Heaven would that she these gifts should have? And I to live and die her slave.»

In the Early Modern English period, there was a tendency to use the infinitive where in modern language a subordinate clause or gerund would be used:

• Early Modern English period: «To say to goe with you I cannot»;
• modern version: «I cannot say that I’ll go with you.»

The peculiarity of impersonal forms of the verb, including the infinitive, is that historically they go back to names, but in the process of development they gravitate towards the verb, acquiring verbal categories, while preserving their individual features. According to researchers, the infinitive is not the center of the verbal system, but its outskirts. Therefore, it is quite natural that there remain questions that require further research and study, in particular, this is related to a detailed study of the use of the infinitive in constructions.