In Latin the infinitive is article-free; for example, since the Sibyl of Cumae lived near Naples, she ought to have said, `cupido mori.' But in Old English the rules are very similar to modern English; I am actually not too sure about your idea that it was really a preposition in ME with the verb as an object. In French, it is somewhat more legitimately a preposition: Andre Gide's Hamlet asks (IV.iv), `que vaut un homme, dont le bien supreme et le meilleur emploi du temps, est de manger et de dormir?' (the prepositions on the infinitives are `de'), but to put yours into French, `Etre ou ne pas etre, telle est la question' has no preposition. But `pour' when used with the infinitive is more like a particle, similar to English `to.' The usage you might be thinking of in Middle English seems to derive from the French, and appears in the Irish song Whiskey in the Jar:
I went up to my chamber, all for to take a slumber,...
The `for' is the key to why `to' is a particle. An infinitive verb builds an infinitival phrase by adding a noun phrase: the Sibyl's `to die' becomes `me to die.' An infinitival phrase builds an infinitival clause by adding an object phrase; `to die' is reflexive so this is unnecessary. Now the general rule is that an infinitive can always be substituted for an infinitival clause, if you had the particle `for' to the beginning of the clause: `I want for me to die,' and the second sentence will be grammatical if the first one is. `For' is categorically not a preposition to put `me' into the dative case, and no dative preposition can be substituted for it. The same goes for `to' in the infinitive. It is just a particle.
As for the Star Trek business-- didn't Dr Johnson tell you not to do that?
You might have a look at: English Syntax, by the late Lee Baker, if you ever get the formal syntax itch; but it is not always very satisfying if your urgings are mainly diachronic.