This from Shelmerdine (on which see my initial post viewtopic.php?f=6&t=11643): it's from chapter 21, and all the emphasis is hers. This is simply incorrect. Shockingly, reprehensibly incorrect. Historic infinitives have a subject in the nominative, and even if Shelmerdine somehow thinks that doesn't count, there are plenty of other kinds of exception. Luckily for me (a total coincidence, honestly!) this very subject has been fully discussed in a thread posted earlier today: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11748, so I have no need to go into detail about those exceptions. It's clear from that discussion, I hope, that infinitives have a nominative subject in sentences such as Hercules fortis esse vult/videtur/dicitur = Hercules wants/seems/is said to be strong. Here's one from Livy where the nominative is visible in the infinitive itself: Non ultra uidebatur latura plebes dilationem agrariae legis (Livy 2.63) = The plebs seemed not to be likely to put up with any further delay of the agrarian law. The subject of the infinitive can also be in the dative: atqui licet esse beatis (Hor. Sat. 1.1.19) = but it's possible for them to be happy. I haven't been able to find any examples of the subject being in the genitive or ablative, but as far as the infinitive is concerned, there would be no objection. If that seems paradoxical, it's probably because of the term 'subject of the infinitive' itself, which I detest -- seems a kind of contradiction in terms, like 'the god of the atheists'. Can I use the term 'word that controls the infinitive'? So in 'volo te venire', you would say that te 'controls' venire. Contrast Shelmerdine's terminology, where the object is the subject of the objective infinitive. Ugh. And I have to teach this stuff. So let's try this out as a rule: in Latin the infinitive doesn't care about the case of the word which controls it, but all other things being equal -- ie if there isn't a strong reason for it to be in any particular case -- it will tend to default to the accusative. This defaulting to the accusative is unsurprising: the other cases are too specialised (the nominative, for example, is too urgently the subject of the main verb). And of course in actual practice we see an accusative controlling the infinitive the vast majority of the time, so it feels normal, natural. So normal that we end up with things like 'te esse tristem me facit gaudere' (you being sad makes me happy), where te is used by default instead of tu because, logically 'you' is not the subject of 'facit'. Anyway, that was Shelmerdine's worst crime, and here the prosecution rests.