... to handling ...

There is a difference between the 'to' of an infinitive and the 'to' which is a preposition. After the preposition 'to' a verb is in the -ing form.

close [to the bank]. [prepositional phrase]
close [to handling it] [prepositional phrase]

See

CJ

Just to add to what's already been said, the "to" that sometimes appears before an infinintive is a subordinator, not a preposition.

It would be nice to see you again. (subordinate infinitival clause)

BillJ

BillJthe "to" that sometimes appears before an infinintive is a subordinator

Didn't it use to be called a modal as well?

CJ

Yes, some do see "to" as an auxiliary (not a modal) verb; albeit a somewhat defective one with no forms other than the 'plain' form. I think the arguments in favour of it being an auxiliary verb are flawed.

I particularly dislike the fact that in, for example, To lend him the money, "to" as an auxiliary verb becomes the head of the verb phrase even though it is meaningless and so u

BillJYes, some do see "to" as an auxiliary (not a modal) verb;

I have not come across this idea before. I fail to see any justification at all for considering 'to' as an auxiliary verb.

fivejedjonBillJYes, some do see "to" as an auxiliary (not a modal) verb;I have not come across this idea before. I fail to see any justification at all for considering 'to' as an auxiliary verb.

It is not all that common, though some linguists have defended that view.

One argument in favour of that analysis concerns elliptical constructions where "to"

Radford (Transformational Grammar, Cambridge University Press, 1988) calls 'to' an I (an inflectional element). He claims, where C is a complementizer,

"Any Clause which contains C contains a compatible I."

Hence, the complementizers for and whether being nonfinite, they go with the nonfinite "to". His examples:

They are anxious [for you

Like I said, some linguists support that view. But "modals" - is he serious?

Now let's hear your personal opinion, with some supporting reasons for your coming out in favour of one analysis or the other. And do you really think that transformational grammar is at all appropriate here?

BillJ

BillJNow let's hear your personal opinion

I'm too confused to have an opinion, but thanks for thinking I might actually have a coherent one!

I'm more familiar with Radford's view, but I have no idea how I would go about arguing against it. It seems to me that he says modals and 'to' belong to the same category without saying what category that is. Y

BillJOne argument in favour of that analysis concerns elliptical constructions where "to" can stand alone, i.e. it can be stranded as in I don't have to __.In this respect it is like auxiliary verbs, for these too can be stranded, e.g. "but I won't ___", or "but I shouldn't __".

CalifJimRadford also claims, "The plausibility of