_Singular_. 1. I saw, 2. Thou sawest, 3. He saw;
_Plural_. 1. We saw, 2. You saw, 3. They saw.
PERFECT TENSE.
_Singular_. 1. I have seen, 2. Thou hast seen, 3. He has seen;
_Plural_. 1. We have seen, 2. You have seen, 3. They have seen.
PLUPERFECT TENSE.
_Singular_. 1. I had seen, 2. Thou hadst seen, He had seen;
_Plural_. 1. We had seen, 2. You had seen, 3. They had seen.
FIRST-FUTURE TENSE.
_Singular_. 1. I shall see, 2. Thou wilt see, He will see;
_Plural_. 1. We shall see, 2. You will see, 3. They will see.
SECOND-FUTURE TENSE.
_Singular_. 1. I shall have seen, 2. Thou wilt have seen, 3. He will have seen;
_Plural_. 1. We shall have seen, 2. You will have seen, 3. They will have seen.
POTENTIAL MOOD.
PRESENT TENSE.
_Singular_. 1. I may see, 2. Thou mayst see, 3. He may see;
_Plural_. 1. We may see, 2. You may see, 3. They may see.
IMPERFECT TENSE.
_Singular_. 1. I might see, 2. Thou mightst see, 3. He might see;
_Plural_. 1. We might see, 2. You might see, 3. They might see.
PERFECT TENSE.
_Singular_. 1. I may have seen, 2. Thou mayst have seen, 3. He may have seen;
_Plural._ 1. We may have seen, 2. You may have seen, 3. They may have seen.
PLUPERFECT TENSE.
_Singular_. 1. I might have seen, 2. Thou mightst have seen, 3. He might have seen;
_Plural_. 1. We might have seen, 2. You might have seen, 3. They might have seen.
SUBJUNCTIVE MOOD.
PRESENT TENSE.
_Singular_. 1. If I see, 2. If thou see, 3. If he see;
_Plural_. 1. If we see, 2. If you see, 3. If they see.
IMPERFECT TENSE.
_Singular_. 1. If I saw, 2. If thou saw, 3. If he saw;
_Plural_. 1. If we saw, 2. If you saw, 3. If they saw.
IMPERATIVE MOOD.
PRESENT TENSE.
_Singular._ 2. See [thou,] _or_ Do thou see; _Plural._ 2. See [ye _or_ you,] _or_ Do you see.
PARTICIPLES.
1. _The Imperfect_. 2. _The Perfect_. 3. _The Preperfect_.
Seeing. Seen. Having seen.
NOTES.
NOTE I–The student ought to be able to rehearse the form of a verb, not only according to the order of the entire conjugation, but also according to the synopsis of the several persons and numbers. One sixth part of the paradigm, thus recited, gives in general a fair sample of the whole: and, in class recitations, this mode of rehearsal will save much time: as, IND. I see _or_ do see, I saw _or_ did see, I have seen, I had seen, I shall _or_ will see, I shall _or_ will have seen. POT. I may, can, _or_ must see; I might, could, would, _or_ should see; I may, can, _or_ must have seen; I might, could, would, _or_ should have seen. SUBJ. If I see, If I saw.
NOTE II.–In the familiar style, the second person singular of this verb is usually and more properly formed thus: IND. Thou seest _or_ dost see, Thou saw _or_ did see, Thou hast seen, Thou had seen, Thou shall _or_ will see, Thou shall _or_ will have seen. POT. Thou may, can, _or_ must see; Thou might, could, would, _or_ should see; Thou may, can, _or_ must have seen; Thou might, could, would, _or_ should have seen. SUBJ. If thou see, If thou saw. IMP. See [thou,] _or_ Do thou see.
THIRD EXAMPLE.
_The irregular neuter verb BE, conjugated affirmatively_.
PRINCIPAL PARTS.
_Present._ _Preterit._ _Imp. Participle._ _Perf. Participle._ Be. Was. Being. Been.
INFINITIVE MOOD.
PRESENT TENSE.
To be.
PERFECT TENSE.
To have been.
INDICATIVE MOOD.
PRESENT TENSE.
_Singular._ _Plural._
1. I am, 1. We are,
2. Thou art, 2. You are, 3. He is; 3. They are.
IMPERFECT TENSE.
_Singular._ _Plural._
1. I was, 1. We were,
2. Thou wast, (_or_ wert,)[262] 2. You were, 3. He was; 3. They were.
PERFECT TENSE.
_Singular._ _Plural._
1. I have been, 1. We have been, 2. Thou hast been, 2. You have been, 3. He has been; 3. They have been.
PLUPERFECT TENSE.
_Singular._ _Plural._
1. I had been, 1. We had been, 2. Thou hadst been, 2. You had been, 3. He had been; 3. They had been.
FIRST-FUTURE TENSE.
_Singular._ _Plural._
1. I shall be, 1. We shall be, 2. Thou wilt be, 2. You will be, 3. He will be; 3. They will be.
SECOND-FUTURE TENSE.
_Singular._ _Plural._
1. I shall have been, 1. We shall have been, 2. Thou wilt have been, 2. You will have been, 3. He will have been; 3. They will have been.
POTENTIAL MOOD.
PRESENT TENSE.
_Singular._ _Plural._
1. I may be, 1. We may be, 2. Thou mayst be, 2. You may be, 3. He may be, 3. They may be.
IMPERFECT TENSE.
_Singular_. _Plural_.
1. I might be, 1. We might be, 2. Thou mightst be, 2. You might be, 3. He might be; 3. They might be.
PERFECT TENSE.
_Singular_. _Plural_.
1. I may have been, 1. We may have been, 2. Thou mayst have been, 2. You may have been, 3. He may have been; 3. They may have been.
PLUPERFECT TENSE.
_Singular_. _Plural_.
1. I might have been, 1. We might have been, 2. Thou mightst have been, 2. You might have been, 3. He might have been; 3. They might have been.
SUBJUNCTIVE MOOD.
PRESENT TENSE.
_Singular_. _Plural_.
1. If I be, 1. If we be, 2. If thou be, 2. If you be,
3. If he be; 3. If they be.
IMPERFECT TENSE.
_Singular_. _Plural_.
1. If I were,[263] 1. If we were, 2. If thou were, _or_ wert,[264] 2. If you were, 3. If he were; If they were.
IMPERATIVE MOOD.
PRESENT TENSE.
_Singular_. 2. Be [thou,] _or_ Do thou be; _Plural_. 2. Be [ye _or_ you,] _or_ Do you be.
PARTICIPLES.
1. _The Imperfect_. 2. _The Perfect_. 3. _The Preperfect_. Being. Been. Having been.
FAMILIAR FORM WITH ‘THOU.’
NOTE.–In the familiar style, the second person singular of this verb, is usually and more properly formed thus: IND. Thou art, Thou was, Thou hast been, Thou had been, Thou shall _or_ will be, Thou shall _or_ will have been. POT. Thou may, can, _or_ must be; Thou might, could, would, _or_ should be; Thou may, can, _or_ must have been; Thou might, could, would, _or_ should have been. SUBJ. If thou be, If thou were. IMP. Be [thou,] _or_ Do thou be.
OBSERVATIONS.
OBS. 1.–It appears that _be_, as well as _am_, was formerly used for the indicative present: as, “I be, Thou beest, He be; We be, Ye be, They be.” See _Brightland’s Gram._, p. 114. Dr. Lowth, whose Grammar is still preferred at Harvard University, gives both forms, thus: “I am, Thou art, He is; We are, Ye are, They are. Or, I be, Thou beest, He _is_; We be, Ye be, They be.” To the third person singular, he subjoins the following example and remark: “‘I think it _be_ thine indeed, for thou liest in it.’ Shak. Hamlet. _Be_, in the singular number of this time and mode, especially in the third person, is obsolete; and _is become_ somewhat antiquated _in the plural_.”–_Lowth’s Gram._, p. 36. Dr. Johnson gives this tense thus: “_Sing_. I am; thou art; he is; _Plur_. We are, _or_ be; ye are, _or_ be; they are, _or_ be.” And adds, “The plural _be_ is now little in use.”–_Gram. in Johnson’s Dict._, p. 8. The Bible commonly has _am, art, is_, and _are_, but not always; the indicative _be_ occurs in some places: as, “We _be_ twelve brethren.”–_Gen._, xlii, 32. “What _be_ these two olive branches?”–_Zech._, iv, 12. Some traces of this usage still occur in poetry: as,
“There _be_ more things to greet the heart and eyes In Arno’s dome of Art’s most princely shrine, Where Sculpture with her rainbow sister vies; There _be_ more marvels yet–but not for mine.” –_Byron’s Childe Harold_, Canto iv, st. 61.
OBS. 2.–Respecting the verb _wert_, it is not easy to determine whether it is most properly of the indicative mood only, or of the subjunctive mood only, or of both, or of neither. The _regular_ and _analogical_ form for the indicative, is “Thou _wast_;” and for the subjunctive, “If thou _were_.” Brightland exhibits, “I _was_ or _were_, Thou _wast_ or _wert_, He _was_ or _were_,” without distinction of mood, for the three persons singular; and, for the plural, _were_ only. Dr. Johnson gives us, for the indicative, “Thou wast, _or_ wert;” with the remark, “_Wert_ is properly of the _conjunctive_ mood, and ought not to be used in the indicative.”–_Johnson’s Gram._, p. 8. In his conjunctive (or subjunctive) mood, he has, “Thou _beest_,” and “Thou _wert_.” So Milton wrote, “If thou _beest_ he.”–_P. Lost_, B. i, l. 84. Likewise Shakspeare: “If thou _beest_ Stephano.”–_Tempest_. This inflection of _be_ is obsolete: all now say, “If thou _be_.” But _wert_ is still in use, to some extent, _for both moods_; being generally placed by the grammarians in the subjunctive only, but much oftener written for the indicative: as, “Whate’er thou art or _wert_.”–_Byron’s Harold_, Canto iv, st. 115. “O thou that _wert_ so happy!”–_Ib._, st. 109. “Vainly _wert_ thou wed.”–_Ib._, st. 169.
OBS. 3.–Dr. Lowth gave to this verb, BE, that form of the subjunctive mood, which it now has in most of our grammars; appending to it the following examples and questions: “‘Before the sun, Before the Heavens, thou _wert_.’–_Milton_. ‘Remember what thou _wert_.’–_Dryden_. ‘I knew thou _wert_ not slow to hear.’–_Addison_. ‘Thou who of old _wert_ sent to Israel’s court.’–_Prior_. ‘All this thou _wert_.’–_Pope_. ‘Thou, Stella, _wert_ no longer young.’–_Swift_. Shall we, in deference to these great authorities,” asks the Doctor, “allow _wert_ to be the same with _wast_, and common to the indicative and [the] subjunctive mood? or rather abide by the practice of our best ancient writers; the propriety of the language, which requires, as far as may be, distinct forms, for different moods; and the analogy of formation in each mood; I _was_, thou _wast_; I _were_, thou _wert_? all which conspire to make _wert_ peculiar to the subjunctive mood.”–_Lowth’s Gram._, p. 37; _Churchill’s_, p. 251. I have before shown, that several of the “best ancient writers” _did not inflect_ the verb _were_, but wrote “_thou were_;” and, surely, “the analogy of formation,” requires that the subjunctive _be not inflected_. Hence “the propriety which requires distinct forms,” requires not _wert_, in either mood. Why then should we make this contraction of the old indicative form _werest_, a _solitary exception_, by fixing it in the subjunctive only, and that in opposition to the best authorities that ever used it? It is worthier to take rank with its kindred _beest_, and be called an _archaism_.
OBS. 4.–The chief characteristical difference between the indicative and the subjunctive mood, is, that in the latter the verb is _not inflected at all_, in the different persons: IND. “Thou _magnifiest_ his work.” SUBJ. “Remember that thou _magnify_ his work.”–_Job_, xxxvi, 24. IND. “He _cuts_ off, _shuts_ up, and _gathers_ together.” SUBJ. “If he _cut_ off, and _shut_ up, or _gather_ together, then who can hinder him?”–_Job_, xl, 10. There is also a difference of meaning. The Indicative, “If he _was_,” admits the fact; the Subjunctive, “If he _were_,” supposes that he was not. These moods may therefore be distinguished by the sense, even when their forms are alike: as, “Though _it thundered_, it did not rain.”–“Though _it thundered_, he would not hear it.” The indicative assumption here is, “Though it _did thunder_,” or, “Though there _was thunder_;” the subjunctive, “Though it _should thunder_,” or, “Though there _were_ thunder.” These senses are clearly different. Writers however are continually confounding these moods; some in one way, some in an other. Thus S. R. Hall, the teacher of a _Seminary for Teachers_: “SUBJ. _Present Tense_. 1. If I be, _or_ am, 2. If thou be, _or_ art, 3. If he be, _or_ is; 1. If we be, _or_ are, 2. If ye _or_ you be, _or_ are, 3. If they be, _or_ are. _Imperfect Tense_. 1. If I were, _or_ was, 2. If thou wert, _or_ wast, 3. If he were, _or_ was; 1. If we were, 2. If ye _or_ you were, 3. If they were.”–_Hall’s Grammatical Assistant_, p. 11. Again: “SUBJ. _Present Tense_. 1. If I love, 2. If thou _lovest_, 3. If he love,” &c. “The remaining tenses of this _mode_, are, _in general_, similar to the correspondent tenses of the Indicative _mode, only_ with the conjunction prefixed.”–_Ib._, p. 20. Dr. Johnson observes, “The indicative and conjunctive moods are by modern writers frequently confounded; or rather the conjunctive is wholly neglected, when some convenience of versification does not invite its revival. It is used among the purer writers of former times; as, ‘Doubtless thou art our father, though Abraham _be_ ignorant of us, and Israel _acknowledge_ us not.'”–_Gram. in Joh. Dict._, p. 9. To neglect the subjunctive mood, or to confound it with the indicative, is to augment several of the worst faults of the language.
II. COMPOUND OR PROGRESSIVE FORM.
Active and neuter verbs may also be conjugated, by adding the Imperfect Participle to the auxiliary verb BE, through all its changes; as, “I _am writing_ a letter.”–“He _is sitting_ idle.”–“They _are going_.” This form of the verb denotes a _continuance_ of the action or state of being, and is, on many occasions, preferable to the simple form of the verb.
FOURTH EXAMPLE.
_The irregular active verb READ, conjugated affirmatively, in the Compound Form._
PRINCIPAL PARTS OF THE SIMPLE VERB.
_Present._ _Preterit._ _Imp. Participle._ _Perf. Participle._ R=ead. R~ead. R=eading. R~ead.
INFINITIVE MOOD.
PRESENT TENSE.
To be reading.
PERFECT TENSE.
To have been reading.
INDICATIVE MOOD.
PRESENT TENSE.
_Singular._ _Plural._
1. I am reading, 1. We are reading, 2. Thou art reading, 2. You are reading, 3. He is reading; 3. They are reading.
IMPERFECT TENSE.
_Singular._ _Plural._
1. I was reading, 1. We were reading, 2. Thou wast reading, 2. You were reading, 3. He was reading; 3. They were reading.
PERFECT TENSE.
_Singular._ _Plural._
1. I have been reading, 1. We have been reading, 2. Thou hast been reading, 2. You have been reading, 3. He has been reading; 3. They have been reading.
PLUPERFECT TENSE.
_Singular._ _Plural._
1. I had been reading, 1. We had been reading, 2. Thou hadst been reading, 2. You had been reading, 3. He had been reading; 3. They had been reading.
FIRST-FUTURE TENSE.
_Singular._ _Plural._
1. I shall be reading, 1. We shall be reading, 2. Thou wilt be reading, 2. You will be reading, 3. He will be reading; 3. They will be reading.
SECOND-FUTURE TENSE.
_Singular._ _Plural._
1. I shall have been reading, 1. We shall have been reading, 2. Thou wilt have been reading, 2. You will have been reading, 3. He will have been reading; 3. They will have been reading.
POTENTIAL MOOD.
PRESENT TENSE.
_Singular_. _Plural_.
1. I may be reading, 1. We may be reading, 2. Thou mayst be reading, 2. You may be reading, 3. He may be reading; 3. They may be reading.
IMPERFECT TENSE.
_Singular_. _Plural_.
1. I might be reading, 1. We might be reading, 2. Thou mightst be reading, 2. You might be reading, 3. He might be reading; 3. They might be reading.
PERFECT TENSE.
_Singular_. _Plural_.
1. I may have been reading, 1. We may have been reading, 2. Thou mayst have been reading, 2. You may have been reading, 3. He may have been reading; 3. They may have been reading.
PLUPERFECT TENSE.
_Singular_. _Plural_.
1. I might have been reading, 1. We might have been reading, 2. Thou mightst have been reading, 2. You might have been reading, 3. He might have been reading; 3. They might have been reading.
SUBJUNCTIVE MOOD.
PRESENT TENSE.
_Singular_. _Plural_.
1. If I be reading, 1. If we be reading, 2. If thou be reading, 2. If you be reading, 3. If he be reading; 3. If they be reading.
IMPERFECT TENSE.
_Singular_. _Plural_.
1. If I were reading, 1. If we were reading, 2. If thou were reading, 2. If you were reading, 3. If he were reading; 3. If they were reading.
IMPERATIVE MOOD.
Sing. 2. Be [thou] reading, _or_ Do thou be reading; Plur. 2. Be [ye or you] reading, _or_ Do you be reading.
PARTICIPLES.
1. _The Imperfect_. 2. _The Perfect_. 3. _The Preperfect_. Being reading. ——— Having been reading.
FAMILIAR FORM WITH ‘THOU.’
NOTE.–In the familiar style, the second person singular of this verb, is usually and more properly formed thus: IND. Thou art reading, Thou was reading, Thou hast been reading, Thou had been reading, Thou shall _or_ will be reading, Thou shall _or_ will have been reading. POT. Thou may, can, _or_ must be reading; Thou might, could, would, _or_ should be reading; Thou may, can, _or_ must have been reading; Thou might, could, would, _or_ should have been reading. SUBJ. If thou be reading, If thou were reading. IMP. Be [thou,] reading, _or_ Do thou be reading.
OBSERVATIONS.
OBS. 1.–Those verbs which, in their simple form, imply continuance, do not admit the compound form: thus we say, “I _respect_ him;” but not, “I _am respecting_ him.” This compound form seems to imply that kind of action, which is susceptible of intermissions and renewals. Affections of the mind or heart are supposed to last; or, rather, actions of this kind are complete as soon as they exist. Hence, _to love, to hate, to desire, to fear, to forget, to remember_, and many other such verbs, are _incapable_ of this method of conjugation.[265] It is true, we often find in grammars such models, as, “I _was loving_, Thou _wast loving_, He _was loving_,” &c. But this language, to express what the authors intend by it, is not English. “He _was loving_,” can only mean, “He was _affectionate_:” in which sense, loving is an adjective, and susceptible of comparison. Who, in common parlance, has ever said, “He _was loving me_,” or any thing like it? Yet some have improperly published various examples, or even whole conjugations, of this spurious sort. See such in _Adam’s Gram._, p. 91; _Gould’s Adam_, 83; _Bullions’s English Gram._, 52; _his Analyt. and Pract. Gram._, 92; _Chandler’s New Gram._, 85 and 86; _Clark’s_, 80; _Cooper’s Plain and Practical_, 70; _Frazee’s Improved_, 66 and 69; _S. S. Greene’s_, 234; _Guy’s_, 25; _Hallock’s_, 103; _Hart’s_, 88; _Hendrick’s_, 38; _Lennie’s_, 31; _Lowth’s_, 40; _Harrison’s_, 34; _Perley’s_, 36; _Pinneo’s Primary_, 101.
OBS. 2.–Verbs of this form have sometimes a passive signification; as, “The books _are now selling_.”–_Allen’s Gram._, p. 82. “As the money _was paying_ down.”–_Ainsworth’s Dict., w._ As. “It requires no motion in the organs whilst it _is forming_.”–_Murray’s Gram._, p. 8. “Those works _are long forming_ which must always last.”–_Dr. Chetwood_. “While the work of the temple _was carrying_ on.”–_Dr. J. Owen_. “The designs of Providence _are carrying on_.”–_Bp. Butler_. “A scheme, which _has been carrying_ on, and _is_ still _carrying_ on.”–_Id., Analogy_, p. 188. “We are permitted to know nothing of what _is transacting_ in the regions above us.”–_Dr. Blair_. “While these things _were transacting_ in Germany.”–_Russell’s Modern Europe_, Part First, Let. 59. “As he _was carrying_ to execution, he demanded to be heard.”–_Goldsmith’s Greece_, Vol. i, p. 163. “To declare that the action _was doing_ or done.”–_Booth’s Introd._, p. 28. “It _is doing_ by thousands now.”–_Abbott’s Young Christian_, p. 121. “While the experiment _was making_, he was watching every movement.”–_Ib._, p. 309. “A series of communications from heaven, which _had been making_ for fifteen hundred years.”–_Ib._, p. 166. “Plutarch’s Lives _are re-printing_.”–_L. Murray’s Gram._, 8vo, p. 64. “My Lives _are reprinting_.”–DR. JOHNSON: _Worcester’s Univ. and Crit. Dict._, p. xlvi. “All this _has been transacting_ within 130 miles of London.”–BYRON: _Perley’s Gram._, p. 37. “When the heart _is corroding_ by vexations.”–_Student’s Manual_, p. 336. “The padlocks for our lips _are forging_.”–WHITTIER: _Liberator_, No. 993. “When his throat _is cutting_.”–_Collier’s Antoninus_. “While your story _is telling_.”–_Adams’s Rhet._, i, 425. “But the seeds of it _were sowing_ some time before.”–_Bolingbroke, on History_, p. 168. “As soon as it was formed, nay even whilst it _was forming_.”–_Ib._, p. 163. “Strange schemes of private ambition _were formed and forming_ there.”–_Ib._, p. 291. “Even when it _was making and made_.”–_Ib._, 299. “Which have been made and _are making_.”–HENRY CLAY: _Liberator_, ix, p. 141. “And they are in measure _sanctified_, or _sanctifying_, by the power thereof.”–_Barclay’s Works_, i, 537. “Which _is_ now _accomplishing_ amongst the uncivilized countries of the earth.”–_Chalmers, Sermons_, p. 281. “Who _are ruining_, or _ruined_, [in] this way.”–_Locke, on Ed._, p. 155. “Whilst they _were undoing_.”–_Ibid._ “Whether he was employing fire to consume [something,] or _was_ himself _consuming_ by fire.”–_Crombie, on Etym. and Syntax_, p. 148. “At home, the greatest exertions _are making_ to promote its progress.”–_Sheridan’s Elocution_, p. iv. “With those [sounds] which _are uttering_.”–_Ib._, p. 125. “Orders _are now concerting_ for the dismissal of all officers of the Revenue marine.”–_Providence Journal_, Feb. 1, 1850. Expressions of this kind are condemned by some critics, under the notion that the participle in _ing_ must never be passive; but the usage is unquestionably of far better authority, and, according to my apprehension, in far better taste, than the more complex phraseology which some late writers adopt in its stead; as, “The books _are_ now _being sold_.”–“In all the towns about Cork, the whiskey shops _are being closed_, and soup, coffee, and tea houses [are] _establishing_ generally.”–_Dublin Evening Post_, 1840.
OBS. 3.–The question here is, Which is the most correct expression, “While the bridge _was building_,”–“While the bridge was _a_ building,”–or, “While the bridge _was being built_?” And again, Are they all wrong? If none of these is right, we must reject them all, and say, “While _they were building_ the bridge;”–“While the bridge _was in process of erection_;”–or resort to some other equivalent phrase. Dr. Johnson, after noticing the compound form of active-intransitives, as, “I _am going_”–“She _is dying_,”–“The tempest _is raging_,”–“I _have been walking_,” and so forth, adds: “There is another manner of using the active participle, which gives it a _passive_ signification:[266] as, The grammar is now printing, _Grammatica jam nunc chartis imprimitur_. The brass is forging, _AEra excuduntur_. This is, in my opinion,” says he, “a _vitious_ expression, probably corrupted from a phrase more pure, but now somewhat obsolete: The book is _a_ printing, The brass is _a_ forging; _a_ being properly _at_, and _printing_ and _forging_ verbal nouns signifying action, according to the analogy of this language.”–_Gram. in Joh. Dict._, p. 9.
OBS. 4.–_A_ is certainly sometimes a _preposition_; and, as such, it may govern a participle, and that without converting it into a “_verbal noun_.” But that such phraseology ought to be preferred to what is exhibited with so many authorities, in a preceding paragraph, and with an example from Johnson among the rest, I am not prepared to concede. As to the notion of introducing a new and more complex passive form of conjugation, as, “The bridge is _being built_,” “The bridge _was being built_,” and so forth, it is one of the most absurd and monstrous innovations ever thought of. Yet some two or three men, who seem to delight in huge absurdities, declare that this “modern _innovation_ is _likely to supersede_” the simpler mode of expression. Thus, in stead of, “The work _is now publishing_,” they choose to say, “The work is _now being published_.”–_Kirkham’s Gram._, p. 82. This is certainly no better English than, “The work _was being published, has been being published, had been being published, shall or will be being published, shall or will have been being published_;” and so on, through all the moods and tenses. What a language shall we have when our verbs are thus conjugated!
OBS. 5.–A certain _Irish_ critic, who even outdoes in rashness the above-cited American, having recently arrived in New York, has republished a grammar, in which he not only repudiates the passive use of the participle in _ing_, but denies the usual passive form of the present tense, “_I am loved, I am smitten_” &c., as taught by Murray and others, to be good English; and tells us that the true form is, “_I am being loved, I am being smitten_,” &c. See the 98th and 103d pages of _Joseph W. Wright’s Philosophical Grammar_, (_Edition of_ 1838,) _dedicated_ “TO COMMON SENSE!” [267] But both are offset, if not refuted, by the following observations from a source decidedly better: “It has lately become common to use the present participle passive [,] to express the suffering of an action as _continuing_, instead of the participle in _-ing_ in the passive sense; thus, instead of, ‘The house _is building_,’ we now very frequently hear, ‘The house _is being built_.’ This mode of expression, besides being awkward, is incorrect, and _does not express the idea intended_. This will be obvious, I think, from the following considerations.
“1. The expression, ‘_is being_,’ is equivalent to ‘_is_,’ and expresses no more; just as, ‘_is loving_,’ is equivalent to, ‘_loves_.’ Hence, ‘_is being built_,’ is precisely equivalent to, ‘_is built_.’
“2. ‘_Built_,’ is a perfect participle; and therefore cannot, in any connexion, express an action, or the suffering of an action, _now in progress_. The verb _to be_, signifies _to exist_; ‘_being_,’ therefore, is equivalent to ‘_existing_.’ If then we substitute the synonyme, the nature of the expression will be obvious; thus, ‘the house is _being built_,’ is, in other words, ‘the house is _existing built_,’ or more simply as before, ‘the house _is built_;’ plainly importing an action not progressing, but now _existing in a finished state_.
“3. If the expression, ‘_is being built_,’ be a correct form of the present indicative passive, then it must be equally correct to say in the perfect, ‘_has been being built_;’ in the past perfect, ‘_had been being built_;’ in the present infinitive,’_to be being built_;’ in the perfect infinitive,’_to have been being built_;’ and in the present participle, ‘_being being built_;’ which all will admit to be expressions as incorrect as they are inelegant, but precisely analogous to that which now begins to prevail.”–_Bullions’s Principles of English Gram._, p. 58.
OBS. 6.–It may be replied, that the verbs _to be_ and _to exist_ are not always synonymous; because the former is often a mere auxiliary, or a mere copula, whereas the latter always means something positive, as _to be in being, to be extant_. Thus we may speak of a thing as _being destroyed_, or may say, it _is annihilated_; but we can by no means speak of it as _existing destroyed_, or say, it _exists annihilated_. The first argument above is also nugatory. These drawbacks, however, do not wholly destroy the force of the foregoing criticism, or at all extenuate the obvious tautology and impropriety of such phrases as, _is being, was being_, &c. The gentlemen who affirm that this new form of conjugation “_is being introduced_ into the language,” (since they allow participles to follow possessive pronouns) may very fairly be asked, “What evidence have you of _its being being introduced_?” Nor can they, on their own principles, either object to the monstrous phraseology of this question, or tell how to better it![268]
OBS. 7.–D. H. Sanborn, an other recent writer, has very emphatically censured this innovation, as follows: “English and American writers have of late introduced a new kind of phraseology, which has become quite prevalent in the periodical and popular publications of the day. Their intention, doubtless, is, to supersede the use of the verb in the _definite form_, when it has a passive signification. They say, ‘The ship is _being_ built,’–‘time is _being wasted_,”–‘the work is _being advanced_,’ instead of, ‘the ship is _building_, time is _wasting_, the work is _advancing_.’ Such a phraseology is a solecism too palpable to receive any favor; it is at war with the practice of the most distinguished writers in the English language, such as Dr. Johnson and Addison. “When an individual says, ‘a house is being burned,’ he declares that a house is _existing, burned_, which is impossible; for _being_ means existing, and _burned, consumed by fire_. The house ceases to exist as such, after it is consumed by fire. But when he says, ‘a house _is burning_,’ we understand that it is _consuming by fire_; instead of inaccuracy, doubt, and ambiguity, we have a form of expression perfectly intelligible, beautiful, definite, and appropriate.”–_Sanborn’s Analytical Gram._, p. 102.
OBS. 8.–Dr. Perley speaks of this usage thus: “An attempt has been made of late to introduce a kind of passive participial voice; as, ‘The temple is being built.’ This ought not to be encouraged. For, besides being an innovation, it is less convenient than the use of the present participle in the passive sense. _Being built_ signifies action _finished_; and how can, _Is being built_, signify an _action unfinished?”–Perley’s Gram._, p. 37.
OBS. 9.–The question now before us has drawn forth, on either side, a deal of ill scholarship and false logic, of which it would be tedious to give even a synopsis. Concerning the import of some of our most common words and phrases, these ingenious masters,–Bullions, Sanborn, and Perley,–severally assert some things which seem not to be exactly true. It is remarkable that critics can err in expounding terms so central to the language, and so familiar to all ears, as “_be, being, being built, burned, being burned, is, is burned, to be burned_,” and the like. _That to be_ and _to exist_, or their like derivatives, such as _being_ and _existing, is_ and _exists_, cannot always explain each other, is sufficiently shown above; and thereby is refuted Sanborn’s chief argument, that, “_is being burned_,” involves the contradiction of “_existing, burned_,” or “_consumed by fire_.” According to his reasoning, as well as that of Bullions, _is burned_ must mean _exists consumed; was burned, existed consumed_; and thus our whole passive conjugation would often be found made up of bald absurdities! That this new _unco-passive_ form conflicts with the older and better usage of taking the progressive form sometimes passively, is doubtless a good argument against the innovation; but that “Johnson and Addison” are fit representatives of the older “practice” in this case, may be doubted. I know not that the latter has anywhere made use of such phraseology; and one or two examples from the former are scarcely an offset to his positive verdict against the usage. See OBS. 3rd, above.
OBS. 10.–As to what is called “_the present_ or _the imperfect participle passive_,”–as, “_being burned_,” or “_being burnt_,”–if it is rightly interpreted in _any_ of the foregoing citations, it is, beyond question, very improperly _thus_ named. In participles, _ing_ denotes _continuance_: thus _being_ usually means _continuing to be; loving, continuing to love; building, continuing to build_,–or (as taken passively) _continuing to be built_: i. e., (in words which express the sense more precisely and certainly,) _continuing to be in process of construction_. What then is “being built,” but “_continuing to be built_,” the same, or nearly the same, as “_building_” taken passively? True it is, that _built_, when alone, being a perfect participle, does not mean “_in process of construction_,” but rather, “_constructed_” which intimates _completion_; yet, in the foregoing passive phrases, and others like them, as well as in all examples of this unco-passive voice, continuance of the passive state being first suggested, and cessation of the act being either regarded as future or disregarded, the imperfect participle passive is for the most part received as equivalent to the simple imperfect used in a passive sense. But Dr. Bullions, who, after making “_is being built_ precisely equivalent to _is built_,” classes the two participles differently, and both erroneously,–the one as a “_present_ participle,” and the other, of late, as a “_past_,”–has also said above, “‘_Built_,’ is a _perfect_ participle: and THEREFORE cannot, in _any connexion_, express an action, or the suffering of an action, _now in progress_.” And Dr. Perley, who also calls the compound of _being_ a “_present_ participle,” argues thus: “_Being built_ signifies an _action, finished_; and how can _Is being built_, signify an _action unfinished_?” To expound a _passive_ term _actively_, or as “signifying _action_,” is, at any rate, a near approach to absurdity; and I shall presently show that the fore-cited notion of “a perfect participle,” now half abandoned by Bullions himself, has been the seed of the very worst form of that ridiculous neology which the good Doctor was opposing.
OBS. 11.–These criticisms being based upon the _meaning_ of certain participles, either alone or in phrases, and the particular terms spoken of being chiefly meant to represent _classes_, what is said of them may be understood of their _kinds_. Hence the appropriate _naming_ of the kinds, so as to convey no false idea of any participle’s import, is justly brought into view; and I may be allowed to say here, that, for the first participle passive, which begins with “_being_,” the epithet “_Imperfect_” is better than “_Present_,” because this compound participle denotes, not always what is _present_, but always _the state_ of something by which an action is, _or was, or will be, undergone or undergoing–a state continuing_, or so regarded, though perhaps the action causative may be ended–or sometimes perhaps imagined only, and not yet really begun. With a marvellous instability of doctrine, for the professed systematizer of different languages and grammars, Dr. Bullions has recently changed his names of the second and third participles, in both voices, from “_Perfect_” and “_Compound Perfect_,” to “_Past_” and “_Perfect_.” His notion now is, that, “_The Perfect_ participle is always compound; as, _Having finished, Having been finished_.”–_Bullions’s Analyt. and Pract. Grammar_, 1849, p. 77. And what was the “_Perfect_” before, in his several books, is now called the “_Past_;” though, with this change, he has deliberately made an other which is repugnant to it: this participle, being the basis of three tenses always, and of all the tenses sometimes, is now allowed by the Doctor to lend the term “_perfect_” to the three,–“_Present-perfect, Past-perfect, Future-perfect,”_–even when itself is named otherwise!
OBS. 12.–From the erroneous conception, that a perfect participle must, in every connexion, express “_action finished_,” _action past_,–or perhaps from only a moiety of this great error,–the notion that such a participle cannot, in connexion with an auxiliary, constitute a passive verb of the _present tense_,–J. W. Wright, above-mentioned, has not very unnaturally reasoned, that, “The expression, ‘_I am loved_,’ which Mr. Murray has employed to exhibit the passive conjugation of the _present tense_, may much more _feasibly_ represent _past_ than _present_ time.”–See _Wright’s Philosophical Gram._, p. 99. Accordingly, in his own paradigm of the passive verb, he has formed _this_ tense solely from what he calls the participle _present_, thus: “I _am being smitten_, Thou _art being smitten_,” &c.–_Ib._, p. 98. His “_Passed Tense_,” too, for some reason which I do not discover, he distinguishes above the rest by a _double form_, thus: “I _was smitten, or being smitten_; Thou _wast smitten, or being smitten_;” &c.–P. 99. In his opinion, “Few will object to _the propriety of_ the more familiar phraseology, ‘_I am in the_ ACT,–or, _suffering_ the ACTION _of_ BEING SMITTEN;’ and yet,” says he, “in substance and effect, it is wholly the same as, ‘_I am being smitten_,’ which is THE TRUE FORM of the verb in the _present_ tense of the _passive voice!_”–_Ibid._ Had we not met with some similar expressions of English or American blunderers, “the _act_ or _action of being smitten_,” would be accounted a downright Irish bull; and as to this ultra notion of neologizing all our passive verbs, by the addition of “_being_,”–with the author’s cool talk of “_the presentation of this theory, and_ [_the_] _consequent suppression of that hitherto employed_,”–there is a transcendency in it, worthy of the most sublime aspirant among grammatical newfanglers.
OBS. 13.–But, with all its boldness of innovation, Wright’s Philosophical Grammar is not a little _self-contradictory_ in its treatment of the passive verb. The entire “suppression” of the usual form of its present tense, did not always appear, even to this author, quite so easy and reasonable a matter, as the foregoing citations would seem to represent it. The passive use of the participle in _ing_, he has easily disposed of: despite innumerable authorities for it, one false assertion, of seven syllables, suffices to make it quite impossible.[269] But the usual passive form, which, with some show of truth, is accused of not having always precisely the same meaning as the progressive used passively,–that is, of not always denoting _continuance in the state of receiving continued action_,–and which is, for that remarkable reason, judged worthy of _rejection_, is nevertheless admitted to have, in very many instances, a conformity to this idea, and therefore to “belong [thus far] to the present tense.”–P. 103. This contradicts to an indefinite extent, the proposition for its rejection. It is observable also, that the same examples, ‘_I am loved_’ and ‘I _am smitten_,’–the same “_tolerated, but erroneous forms_,” (so called on page 103,) that are given as specimens of what he would reject,–though at first pronounced “_equivalent_ in grammatical construction,” censured for the same pretended error, and proposed to be changed alike to “_the true form_” by the insertion of “_being_,”–are subsequently declared to “belong to” different classes and different tenses. “_I am loved_,” is referred to that “numerous” class of verbs, which “_detail_ ACTION _of prior, but retained, endured, and continued existence_; and therefore, in this sense, _belong to the present tense_.” But “_I am smitten_,” is idly reckoned of an opposite class, (said by Dr. Bullions to be “perhaps the greater number,”) whose “ACTIONS described are neither _continuous_ in their nature, nor _progressive_ in their duration; but, on the contrary, _completed_ and _perfected_; and [which] are consequently descriptive of _passed_ time and ACTION.”–_Wright’s Gram._, p. 103. Again: “In what instance soever this latter form and signification _can_ be introduced, _their import should be, and, indeed, ought to be, supplied by the perfect tense construction_:–for example, ‘_I am smitten_,’ [should] be, ‘_I have been smitten_.'”–_Ib._ Here is self-contradiction indefinitely extended _in an other way_. Many a good phrase, if not every one, that the author’s first suggestion would turn to the unco-passive form, his present “_remedy_” would about as absurdly convert into “the perfect tense.”
OBS. 14.–But Wright’s inconsistency, about this matter, ends not here: it runs through all he says of it; for, in this instance, error and inconsistency constitute his whole story. In one place, he anticipates and answers a question thus: “To what tense do the constructions, ‘I am pleased;’ ‘He is expected;’ ‘_I am smitten_;’ ‘He is bound;’ belong?” “We answer:–_So far as_ these and like constructions are applicable to the delineation of _continuous_ and _retained_ ACTION, they express _present_ time; and must be treated accordingly.”–P. 103. This seems to intimate that even, “_I am smitten_,” and its likes, as they stand, may have some good claim to be of the present tense; which suggestion is contrary to several others made by the author. To expound this, or any other passive term, _passively_, never enters his mind: with him, as with sundry others, “ACTION,” “_finished_ ACTION,” or “_progressive_ ACTION,” is all any _passive_ verb or participle ever means! No marvel, that awkward perversions of the forms of utterance and the principles of grammar should follow such interpretation. In Wright’s syntax a very queer distinction is apparently made between a passive verb, and the participle chiefly constituting it; and here, too, through a fancied ellipsis of “_being_” before the latter, most, if not all, of his other positions concerning passives, are again disastrously overthrown by something worse–a word “_imperceptibly understood_.” “‘_I am smitten_;’ ‘_I was smitten_;’ &c., are,” he says, “the _universally acknowledged forms_ of the VERBS in these tenses, in the passive voice:–not of the _PARTICIPLE_. In all verbal constructions of the character of which we have hitherto treated, (see page 103) _and, where_ the ACTIONS described are _continuous_ in their _operations_,–the participle BEING is _imperceptibly omitted, by ellipsis_.”–P. 144.
OBS. 15.–Dr. Bullions has stated, that, “The present participle active, and the present participle passive, are _not counterparts_ to each other in signification; [,] the one signifying the present doing, and the other the present suffering of an action, [;] for the latter _always intimates the present being of an_ ACT, _not in progress, but completed_.”–_Prin. of Eng. Gram._, p. 58. In this, he errs no less grossly than in his idea of the “_action_ or the suffering” expressed by “a _perfect_ participle,” as cited in OBS. 5th above; namely, that it must have _ceased_. Worse interpretation, or balder absurdity, is scarcely to be met with; and yet the reverend Doctor, great linguist as he should be, was here only trying to think and tell the common import of a very common sort of _English_ participles; such as, “_being loved_” and “_being seen_.” In grammar, “_an act_,” that has “_present being_,” can be nothing else than an act now doing, or “_in progress_;” and if, “_the present being of an_ ACT _not in progress_,” were here a possible thought, it surely could not be intimated by any _such_ participle. In Acts, i, 3 and 4, it is stated, that our Saviour showed himself to the apostles, “alive after his passion, by many infallible proofs, _being seen_ of them forty days, and _speaking_ of the things _pertaining_ to the kingdom of God; and, _being assembled_ together with them commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem.” Now, of these misnamed “_present_ participles,” we have here one “_active_,” one “_passive_,” and two others–(one in each form–) that are _neuter_; but _no present time_, except what is in the indefinite date of “_pertaining_.” The events are past, and were so in the days of St. Luke. Yet each of the participles denotes _continuance_: not, indeed, in or to the _present time_, but _for a time_. “_Being seen_” means _continuing to be seen_; and, in this instance, the period of the continuance was “forty days” of time past. But, according to the above-cited “_principle of English Grammar_,” so long and so widely inculcated by “the Rev. Peter Bullions, D. D., Professor of Languages,” &c.,–a central principle of interpretation, presumed by him to hold “_always_”–this participle must intimate “_the present being of an act, not in progress, but completed_;”–that is, “_the present being of” the apostles’ act in formerly seeing the risen Saviour_!
OBS. 16.–This grammarian has lately taken a deal of needless pains to sustain, by a studied division of verbs into two classes, similar to those which are mentioned in OBS. 13th above, a part of the philosophy of J. W. Wright, concerning our usual form of passives in the present tense. But, as he now will have it, that the two voices sometimes tally as counterparts, it is plain that he adheres but partially to his former erroneous conception of a perfect or “past” participle, and the terms which hold it “in any connexion.” The awkward substitutes proposed by the Irish critic, he does not indeed countenance; but argues against them still, and, in some respects, very justly. The doctrine now common to these authors, on this point, is the highly important one, that, in respect to half our verbs, what we commonly take for the passive present, _is not such_–that, in “the _second_ class, (perhaps the greater number,) the _present-passive_ implies that _the act expressed by the active voice has ceased_. Thus, ‘The house is built.’ * * * Strictly speaking, then,” says the Doctor, “the PAST PARTICIPLE with the verb TO BE _is not the present tense in the passive voice of verbs thus used_; that is, this form does not express passively the _doing_ of the act.”–_Bullions’s Analyt. and Pract. Grammar_, Ed. of 1849, p. 235. Thus far these two authors agree; except that Wright seems to have avoided the incongruity of _calling_ that “_the present-passive_” which he _denies_ to be such. But the Doctor, approving none of this practitioner’s “remedies,” and being less solicitous to provide other treatment than expulsion for the thousands of present passives which both deem spurious, adds, as from the chair, this verdict: “These verbs either _have no present-passive_, or it is made by annexing the participle in _ing_, in its passive sense, to the verb _to be_; as, ‘The house _is building_.'”–_Ib._, p. 236.
OBS. 17.–It would seem, that Dr. Bullions thinks, and in reality Wright also, that nothing can be a present passive, but what “_expresses passively the_ DOING _of the act_.” This is about as wise, as to try to imagine every active verb to _express actively the receiving of an act_! It borders exceedingly hard upon absurdity; it very much resembles the nonsense of “_expressing receptively the giving of something_!” Besides, the word “DOING,” being used substantively, does not determine well what is here meant; which is, I suppose, _continuance_, or an _unfinished state_ of the act received–an idea which seems adapted to the participle in _ing_, but which it is certainly no fault of a participle ending in _d, t_, or _n_, not to suggest. To “_express passively the doing of the act_,” if the language means any thing rational, may be, simply to say, that the act _is_ or _was done_. For “_doings_” are, as often as any-wise, “_things done_,” as _buildings_ are _fabrics built_; and “_is built_,” and “_am smitten_,” the gentlemen’s choice examples of _false passives_, and of “_actions finished_,”–though neither of them necessarily intimates either continuance or cessation of the act suffered, or, if it did, would be the less or the more passive or present,–may, in such a sense, “express _the doing_ of the act,” if any passives can:–nay, the “finished act” has such completion as may be stated with degrees of progress or of frequency; as, “The house _is partly built_.”–“I _am oftener smitten_.” There is, undoubtedly, some difference between the assertions, “The house _is building_,”–and, “The house _is partly built_;” though, for practical purposes, perhaps, we need not always be very nice in choosing between them. For the sake of variety, however, if for nothing else, it is to be hoped, the doctrine above-cited, which limits half our passive verbs of the present tense, _to the progressive form only_, will not soon be generally approved. It impairs the language more than unco-passives are likely ever to corrupt it.
OBS. 18.–“No _startling novelties_ have been introduced,” says the preface to the “Analytical and Practical Grammar of the English Language.” To have shunned all shocking innovations, is only to have exercised common prudence. It is not pretended, that any of the Doctor’s errors here remarked upon, or elsewhere in this treatise, will _startle_ any body; but, if errors exist, even in plausible guise, it may not be amiss, if I tell of them. To suppose every verb or participle to be either “_transitive_” or “_intransitive_,” setting all _passives_ with the former sort, all _neuters_ with the latter; (p. 59;)–to define the _transitive_ verb or participle as expressing always “_an act_ DONE _by one person or thing to another_;” (p. 60;)–to say, after making passive verbs transitive, “The object of a transitive verb is in the _objective case_,” and, “A verb that does not make sense with an objective after it, is intransitive;” (p. 60;)–to insist upon a precise and almost universal _identity of “meaning_” in terms so obviously _contrasted_ as are the two voices, “active” and “passive;” (pp. 95 and 235;)–to allege, as a general principle, “that whether we use the active, or the passive voice, _the meaning is the same_, except in some cases in the present tense;” (p. 67;)–to attribute to the forms naturally opposite in voice and sense, that sameness of meaning which is observable only in certain _whole sentences_ formed from them; (pp. 67, 95, and 235;)–to assume that each “VOICE is a particular _form of the verb_,” yet make it include _two cases_, and often a preposition before one of them; (pp. 66, 67, and 95;)–to pretend from the words, “The PASSIVE VOICE represents the subject of the verb as _acted upon_,” (p. 67,) that, “_According to the_ DEFINITION, the passive voice expresses, passively, _the same thing_ that the active does actively;” (p. 235;)–to affirm that, “‘Caesar _conquered_ Gaul,’ and ‘Gaul _was conquered_ by Caesar,’ express _precisely the same idea_,”–and then say, “It will be felt at once that the expressions, ‘Caesar _conquers_ Gaul,’ and ‘Gaul _is conquered_ by Caesar,’ _do not express the same thing_;” (p. 235;)–to deny that passive verbs or neuter are worthy to constitute a distinct class, yet profess to find, in one single tense of the former, such a difference of meaning as warrants a general division of verbs in respect to it; (_ib._;)–to announce, in bad English, that, “_In regard to this matter_ [,] there are evidently Two CLASSES of verbs; namely, those _whose_ present-passive expresses precisely the same thing, passively, as the active voice does actively, and those _in which it_ does not:” (_ib._;)–to do these several things, as they have been done, is, to set forth, not “novelties” only, but errors and inconsistencies.
OBS. 19.–Dr. Bullions still adheres to his old argument, that _being_ after its own verb must be devoid of meaning; or, in his own words, “that _is being built_, if it mean anything, can mean nothing more than _is built_, which is not the idea intended to be expressed.”–_Analyt. and Pract. Gram._, p. 237. He had said, (as cited in OBS. 5th above,) “The expression, ‘_is being_,’ is equivalent to _is_, and expresses _no more_; just as, ‘_is loving_,’ is equivalent to ‘_loves_.’ Hence, ‘_is being built_,’ is precisely equivalent to ‘_is built_.'”–_Principles of E. Gram._, p. 58. He has now discovered “that _there is no progressive form_ of the verb _to be_, and no need of it:” and that, “hence, _there is no such expression_ in English as _is being_.”–_Analyt. and Pract. Gram._, p. 236. He should have noticed also, that “_is loving_” is not an authorized “equivalent to _loves_;” and, further, that the error of saying “_is being built_,” is only in the relation of the _first two words_ to each other. If “_is being_,” and “_is loving_,” are left unused for the same reason, the truth may be, that _is_ itself, like _loves_, commonly denotes “_continuance_;” and that _being_ after it, in stead of being necessary or proper, can only be awkwardly tautologous. This is, in fact, THE GRAND OBJECTION to the new phraseology–“_is being practised_”–“_am being smitten_”–and the like. Were there no danger that petty writers would one day seize upon it with like avidity, an other innovation, exactly similar to this in every thing but tense–similar in awkwardness, in tautology, in unmistakeableness–might here be uttered for the sake of illustration. Some men conceive, that “The _perfect_ participle is always compound; as, _having seen, having written_;”–and that the simple word, _seen_ or _written_, had originally, and still ought to have, only a passive construction. For such views, they find authorities. Hence, in lieu of the common phrases, “_had we seen_,” “_we have written_,” they adopt such English as this; “_Had we having seen_ you, we should have stopped.”–“_We have having written_ but just now, to our correspondent.” Now, “_We are being smitten_,” is no better grammar than this;–and no worse: “The idea intended” is in no great jeopardy in either case.
OBS. 20.–J. R. Chandler, of Philadelphia, in his Common School Grammar of 1847, has earnestly undertaken the _defence_ of this new and much-mooted passive expression: which he calls “_the Definite Passive Voice_,” or “_the Passive Voice of the Definite Form_.” He admits it, however, to be a form that “does not _sound well_,”–a “_novelty_ that strikes the ear unpleasantly;” but he will have the defect to be, not in the tautologous conceit of “_is being_,” “_was being_,” “_has been being_,” and the like, but in everybody’s organ of hearing,–supposing all ears corrupted, “from infancy,” to a distaste for correct speech, by “the habit of _hearing_ and using words _ungrammatically_!”–See p. 89. Claiming this new form as “_the true passive_,” in just contrast with the progressive active, he not only rebukes all attempts “to evade” the use of it, “by some real or supposed _equivalent_,” but also declares, that, “The attempt to deprive the transitive definite verb of [this] _its passive voice_, is _to strike at the foundation of the language_, and _to strip it of one of its most important qualities_; that of making both actor and sufferer, each in turn and at pleasure, the subject of conversation.”–_Ibid._ Concerning _equivalents_, he evidently argues fallaciously; for he urges, that the using of them “_does not dispense with the necessity of the definite passive voice_.”–P. 88. But it is plain, that, of the many fair substitutes which may in most cases be found, if any one is preferred, this form, and all the rest, are of course rejected for the time.
OBS. 21.–By Chandler, as well as others, this new passive form is justified only on the supposition, that the simple participle in _ing_ can never with propriety be used passively. No plausible argument, indeed, can be framed for it, without the assumption, that the simpler form, when used in the same sense, _is ungrammatical_. But this is, in fact, a begging of the main question; and that, in opposition to abundant authority for the usage condemned. (See OBS. 3d, above.) This author pretends that, “_The RULE of all grammarians_ declares the verb _is_, and a _present participle_ (_is building_, or _is writing_), to be in the active voice” only.–P. 88. (I add the word “_only_,” but this is what he means, else he merely quibbles.) Now in this idea he is wrong, and so are the several grammarians who support the principle of this imaginary “_RULE_.” The opinion of critics in general would be better represented by the following suggestions of the Rev. W. Allen: “When the English verb does not signify _mental affection_, the distinction of voice is often disregarded: thus we say, _actively_, they _were selling_ fruit; and, _passively_, the books _are_ now _selling_. The same remark applies to the participle used as a noun: as, actively, _drawing_ is an elegant amusement, _building_ is expensive; and, passively, his _drawings_ are good, this is a fine _building_.”–_Allen’s Elements of E. Gram._, p. 82.
OBS. 22.–Chandler admits, that, “When it is said, ‘The house is _building_,’ the meaning is easily obtained; though,” he strangely insists, “_it is exactly opposite to the assertion_.”–P. 89. He endeavours to show, moreover, by a fictitious example made for the purpose, that the progressive form, if used in both voices, will be liable to ambiguity. It may, perhaps, be so in some instances; but, were there weight enough in the objection to condemn the passive usage altogether, one would suppose there might be found, somewhere, _an actual example or two_ of the abuse. Not concurring with Dr. Bullions in the notion that the active voice and the passive usually “express precisely the same thing,” this critic concludes his argument with the following sentence: “There is an _important difference_ between _doing_ and _suffering_; and that _difference is grammatically shown_ by the appropriate use of the active and passive voices of a verb.”–_Chandler’s Common School Gram._, p. 89.
OBS. 23.–The opinion given at the close of OBS. 2d above, was first published in 1833. An opposite doctrine, with the suggestion that it is “_improper_ to say, ‘_the house is building_,’ instead of ‘the house _is being built_,'”–is found on page 64th of the Rev. David Blair’s Grammar, of 1815,–“Seventh Edition,” with a preface dated, “_October 20th_, 1814.” To any grammarian who wrote at a period much earlier than that, the question about _unco-passives_ never occurred. Many critics have passed judgement upon them since, and so generally with reprobation, that the man must have more hardihood than sense, who will yet disgust his readers or hearers with them.[270] That “This new form has been used by _some respectable writers_,” we need not deny; but let us look at the given “_instances of it_: ‘For those who _are being educated_ in our seminaries.’ R. SOUTHEY.–‘It _was being uttered_.’ COLERIDGE.–‘The foundation _was being laid_.’ BRIT. CRITIC.”–_English Grammar with Worcester’s Univ. and Crit. Dict._, p. xlvi. Here, for the first example, it would be much better to say, “For those who _are educated_,” [271]–or, “who _are receiving their education_;” for the others, “It _was uttering_,”–“_was uttered_,”–or, “_was in uttering_.”–“The foundation _was laying_,”–“_was laid_,”–or, “_was about being laid_.” Worcester’s opinion of the “new form” is to be inferred from his manner of naming it in the following sentence: “Within a few years, a _strange and awkward_ neologism has been introduced, by which the _present passive participle_ is substituted, in such cases as the above, for the participle in _ing_.”–_Ibid._ He has two instances more, in each of which the phrase is linked with an expression of disapprobation; “‘ It [[Greek: tetymmenos]] signifies properly, though _in uncouth English_, one who _is being beaten_.’ ABP. WHATELY.–‘The bridge _is being built_, and other phrases of the like kind, _have_ pained the eye.’ D. BOOTH.”–_Ibid._[272]
OBS. 24.–Richard Hiley, in the third edition of his Grammar, published in London, in 1840, after showing the passive use of the participle in _ing_, proceeds thus: “No ambiguity arises, we presume, from the use of the participle in this manner. To avoid, however, affixing a passive signification to the participle in _ing_, an attempt has lately been made to substitute the passive participle in its place. Thus instead of ‘The house was _building_,’ ‘The work _imprinting_,’ we sometimes hear, ‘The house was _being built_,’ ‘The work is _being printed_.’ But this mode is _contrary to the English idiom_, and has not yet obtained the sanction of reputable authority.”–_Hiley’s Gram._, p. 30.
OBS. 25.–Professor Hart, of Philadelphia, whose English Grammar was first published in 1845, justly prefers the usage which takes the progressive form occasionally in a passive sense; but, in arguing against the new substitute, he evidently remoulds the early reasoning of Dr. Bullions, errors and all; a part of which he introduces thus: “I know the correctness of this mode of expression has lately been very much assailed, and an attempt, to some extent successful, has been made [,] to introduce the form [,] _’is being built.’_ But, in the first place, the old mode of expression is a well established usage of the language, being found in our best and most correct writers. Secondly, _is being built_ does not convey the idea intended, [;] namely [,] that of _progressive action. Is being_, taken together, means simply _is_, just as _is writing_ means _writes_; therefore, _is being built_ means _is built_, a perfect and not a progressive ACTION. Or, if _being_ [and] _built_ be taken together, _they signify an_ ACTION COMPLETE, and the phrase means, as before, _the house is_ (EXISTS) _being built_.”–_Hart’s Gram._, p. 76. The last three sentences here are liable to many objections, some of which are suggested above.
OBS. 26.–It is important, that the central phraseology of our language be so understood, as not to be _misinterpreted with credit_, or falsely expounded by popular critics and teachers. Hence errors of _exposition_ are the more particularly noticed in these observations. In “_being built_,” Prof. Hart, like sundry authors named above, finds nothing but “ACTION COMPLETE.” Without doubt, Butler interprets better, when he says, “‘The house _is built_,’ denotes an _existing state_, rather than a _completed action_.” But this author, too, in his next three sentences, utters as many errors; for he adds: “The name of the agent _cannot be expressed_ in phrases of this kind. We _cannot say_, ‘The house is built _by John_.’ When we say, ‘The house is built by mechanics,’ we _do not express an existing state_.”–_Butler’s Practical Gram._, p. 80. Unquestionably, “_is built by mechanics_,” expresses _nothing else_ than the “_existing state_” of being “built by mechanics,” together with an affirmation:–that is, the “existing state” of receiving the action of mechanics, is affirmed of “the house.” And, in my judgement, one may very well say, “_The house is built by John_;” meaning, “_John is building the house._” St. Paul says, “Every house _is builded by_ SOME MAN.”–_Heb._, iii, 4. In this text, the common “name of the agent” is “expressed.”
OBS. 27.–Wells and Weld, whose grammars date from 1846, being remarkably chary of finding anything wrong in “respectable writers,” hazard no opinion of their own, concerning the correctness or incorrectness of either of the usages under discussion. They do not always see absurdity in the approbation of opposites; yet one should here, perhaps, count them with the majorities they allow. The latter says, “The participle in _ing_ is sometimes used passively; as, forty and six years was this temple in _building_; not in _being built_.”–_Weld’s English Gram._, 2d Ed., p. 170. Here, if he means to suggest, that “_in being built_” would “not” be good English, he teaches very erroneously; if his thought is, that this phrase would “not” express the sense of the former one, “_in building_,” he palpably contradicts his own position! But he proceeds, in a note, thus: “The form of expression, _is being built, is being committed_, &c., is almost universally condemned by grammarians; but it is _sometimes_ met with in respectable writers. It occurs most frequently in newspaper paragraphs, and in hasty compositions.”–_Ibid._ Wells comments thus: “Different opinions have long existed among critics respecting this passive use of the imperfect participle. Many respectable writers substitute the compound passive participle; as, ‘The house is _being built_;’ ‘The book is _being printed_.’ But the prevailing practice of the best authors is in favor of the _simple form_; as, ‘The house _is building_.'”–_Wells’s School Gram._, 1st Ed., p. 148; 113th Ed., p. 161.[273]
OBS. 28.–S. W. Clark, in the second edition of his Practical Grammar, stereotyped and published in New York in 1848, appears to favour the insertion of “_being_” into passive verbs; but his instructions are so obscure, so often inaccurate, and so incompatible one with an other, that it is hard to say, with certainty, what he approves. In one place, he has this position: “The Passive Voice of a verb is formed by adding the _Passive Participle_ of that verb, to the verb _be_. EXAMPLES–To _be_ loved. I _am_ feared. They _are_ worshipped.”–Page 69. In an other, he has this: “When the Subject is to be represented as receiving the action, _the Passive Participle_ should be used. EXAMPLE–Henry’s _lesson_ is BEING RECITED.”–P. 132. Now these two positions utterly confound each other; for they are equally general, and “_the Passive Participle_” is first one thing, and then an other. Again, he has the following assertions, both false: “The Present (or First) Participle _always_ ends in _ing_, and is _limited to the Active Voice_. The Past (or Second) Participle of Regular Verbs ends in _d_ or _ed_, and is _limited to the Passive Voice_.”–P. 131. Afterwards, in spite of the fancied limitation, he acknowledges the passive use of the participle in _ing_, and that there is “_authority_” for it; but, at the same time, most absurdly supposes the word to predicate “_action_,” and also to be _wrong_: saying, “_Action_ is _sometimes_ predicated of a _passive_ subject. EXAMPLE–‘The _house is building_,.. for.. ‘The _house is being built_,’.. which means.. The house _is becoming built_.” On this, he remarks thus: “This is one of the instances in which _Authority_ is against _Philosophy_. For an _act_ cannot _properly_ be predicated of a _passive agent_. Many good writers _properly reject_ this idiom. ‘Mansfield’s prophecy _is being realized_.’–MICHELET’S LUTHER.”–_Clark’s Practical Gram._, p. 133. It may require some study to learn from this _which idiom it is_. that these “many good writers reject:” but the grammarian who can talk of “_a passive agent_,” without perceiving that the phrase is self-contradictory and absurd, may well be expected to entertain a “Philosophy” which is against “Authority,” and likewise to prefer a ridiculous innovation to good and established usage.
OBS. 29.–As
most verbs are susceptible of both forms, the simple active and the compound or progressive, and likewise of a transitive and an intransitive sense in each; and as many, when taken intransitively, may have a meaning which is scarcely distinguishable from that of the passive form; it often happens that this substitution of the imperfect participle passive for the simple imperfect in _ing_, is quite needless, even when the latter is not considered passive. For example: “See by the following paragraph, how widely the bane _is being circulated!_”–_Liberator_, No. 999, p. 34. Here _is circulating_ would be better; and so would _is circulated_. Nor would either of these much vary the sense, if at all; for “_circulate_” may mean, according to Webster, “_to be diffused_,” or, as Johnson and Worcester have it, “_to be dispersed_.” See the second marginal note on p. 378.
OBS. 30.–R. G. Parker appears to have formed a just opinion of the “modern innovation,” the arguments for which are so largely examined in the foregoing observations; but the “principle” which he adduces as “conclusive” against it, if _principle_ it can be called, has scarcely any bearing on the question; certainly no more than has the simple assertion of one reputable critic, that our participle in _ing_ may occasionally be used passively. “Such expressions as the following,” says he, “have recently become very common, not only in the periodical publications of the day, but are likewise finding favor with popular writers; as, ‘The house _is being built_.’ ‘The street _is being paved_.’ ‘The actions that _are_ now _being performed_,’ &c. ‘The patents _are being prepared_.’ The usage of the best writers does not sanction these expressions; and Mr. Pickbourn lays down the following principle, which is conclusive upon the subject. ‘_Whenever the participle_ in _ing_ is joined by an auxiliary verb to a nominative capable of the action, it is taken actively; but, when joined to one incapable of the action, it becomes passive. If we say, _The man are building a house_, the participle _building_ is evidently used in an active sense; _because_ the men are capable of the action. But when we say, _The house is building_, or, _Patents are preparing_, the participles _building_ and _preparing_ must necessarily be understood in a passive sense; because neither the house nor the patents are capable of action.’–See Pickbourn on the English Verb, pp. 78-80.”–_Parker’s Aids to English Composition_, p. 105. Pickbourn wrote his Dissertation before the question arose which he is here supposed to decide. Nor is he right in assuming that the common Progressive Form, of which he speaks, must be either _active-transitive_ or _passive_: I have shown above that it may be _active-intransitive_, and perhaps, in a few instances, _neuter_. The class of the verb is determined by something else than the mere _capableness_ of the “_nominative_.”
III. FORM OF PASSIVE VERBS.
Passive verbs, in English, are always of a compound form; being made from active-transitive verbs, by adding the Perfect Participle to the auxiliary verb BE, through all its changes: thus from the active-transitive verb _love_, is formed the passive verb _be loved_.
FIFTH EXAMPLE.
The regular passive verb BE LOVED, conjugated affirmatively.
PRINCIPAL PARTS or THE ACTIVE VERB.
_Present_. _Preterit_. _Imp. Participle_. _Perf. Participle_.
Love. Loved. Loving. Loved.
INFINITIVE MOOD.
PRESENT TENSE.
To be loved.
PERFECT TENSE.
To have been loved.
INDICATIVE MOOD.
PRESENT TENSE.
_Singular_. _Plural_.
1. I am loved, 1. We are loved, 2. Thou art loved, 2. You are loved, 3. He is loved; 3. They are loved.
IMPERFECT TENSE.
_Singular_. _Plural_.
1. I was loved, 1. We were loved, 2. Thou wast loved, 2. You were loved, 3. He was loved; 3. They were loved.
PERFECT TENSE.
_Singular_. _Plural_.
1. I have been loved, 1. We have been loved, 2. Thou hast been loved, 2. You have been loved, 3. He has been loved; 3. They have been loved.
PLUPERFECT TENSE.
_Singular_. _Plural_.
1. I had been loved, 1. We had been loved, 2. Thou hadst been loved, 2. You had been loved, 3. He had been loved; 3. They had been loved.
FIRST-FUTURE TENSE.
_Singular_. _Plural_.
1. I shall be loved, 1. We shall be loved, 2. Thou wilt be loved, 2. You will be loved, 3. He will be loved; 3. They will be loved.
SECOND-FUTURE TENSE.
_Singular_. _Plural_.
1. I shall have been loved, 1. We shall have been loved, 2. Thou wilt have been loved, 2. You will have been loved, 3. He will have been loved; 3. They will have been loved.
POTENTIAL MOOD.
PRESENT TENSE.
_Singular_. _Plural_.
1. I may be loved, 1. We may be loved, 2. Thou mayst be loved, 2. You may be loved, 3. He may be loved; 3. They may be loved.
IMPERFECT TENSE.
_Singular_. _Plural_.
1. I might be loved, 1. We might be loved, 2. Thou mightst be loved, 2. You might be loved, 3. He might be loved; 3. They might be loved.
PERFECT TENSE.
_Singular_. _Plural_.
1. I may have been loved, 1. We may have been loved, 2. Thou mayst have been loved, 2. You may have been loved, 3. He may have been loved; 3. They may have been loved.
PLUPERFECT TENSE.
_Singular_. _Plural_.
1. I might have been loved, 1. We might have been loved, 2. Thou mightst have been loved, 2. You might have been loved, 3. He might have been loved; 3. They might have been loved.
SUBJUNCTIVE MOOD.
PRESENT TENSE.
_Singular_. _Plural_.
1. If I be loved, 1. If we be loved, 2. If thou be loved, 2. If you be loved, 3. If he be loved; 3. If they be loved.
IMPERFECT TENSE.
_Singular_. _Plural_.
1. If I were loved, 1. If we were loved, 2. If thou were loved, 2. If you were loved, 3. If he were loved; 3. If they were loved.
IMPERATIVE MOOD.
PRESENT TENSE.
_Singular_. 2. Be [thou] loved, _or_ Do thou be loved; _Plural_. 2. Be [ye or you] loved, _or_ Do you be loved.
PARTICIPLES.
1. _The Imperfect_. 2. _The Perfect_. 3. _The Preperfect_. Being loved. Loved. Having been loved.
FAMILIAR FORM WITH ‘THOU.’ NOTE.–In the familiar style, the second person singular of this verb, is usually and more properly formed thus: IND. Thou art loved, Thou was loved, Thou hast been loved, Thou had been loved, Thou shall or will be loved, Thou shall or will have been loved. POT. Thou may, can, _or_ must be loved; Thou might, could, would, _or_ should be loved; Thou may, can, _or_ must have been loved; Thou might, could, would, _or_ should have been loved. SUBJ. If thou be loved, If thou were loved. IMP. Be [thou] loved, or Do thou be loved.
OBSERVATIONS.
OBS. 1.–A few active-intransitive verbs, that signify mere motion, change of place, or change of condition, may be put into this form, with a _neuter_ signification; making not _passive_ but _neuter_ verbs, which express nothing more than the state which results from the change: as, “_I am come_.”–“She _is gone_.”–“He _is risen_.”–“They _are fallen_.” These are what Dr. Johnson and some others call “_neuter_ passives;” a name which never was very proper, and for which we have no frequent use.
OBS. 2.–Most neuter verbs of the passive form, such as, “_am grown, art become, is lain, are flown, are vanished, are departed, was sat, were arrived_,” may now be considered errors of conjugation, or perhaps of syntax. In the verb, _to be mistaken_, there is an irregularity which ought to be particularly noticed. When applied to _persons_, this verb is commonly taken in a _neuter_ sense, and signifies, _to be in error, to be wrong_; as, “I _am mistaken_, thou _art mistaken_, he _is mistake_.” But, when used of _things_, it is a proper passive verb, and signifies, _to be misunderstood_, or _to be taken wrong_; as, “The sense of the passage _is mistaken_; that is, not rightly understood.” See _Webster’s Dict., w. Mistaken_. “I have known a shadow across a brook _to be mistaken_ for a footbridge.”
OBS. 3.–Passive verbs may be easily distinguished from neuter verbs of the same form, by a reference to the agent or instrument, common to the former class, but not to the latter. This frequently is, and always may be, expressed after _passive_ verbs; but never is, and never can be, expressed after _neuter_ verbs: as, “The thief has been caught _by the officer_.”– “Pens are made _with a knife_.” Here the verbs are passive; but, “_I am not yet ascended_,” (John, xx, 17,) is not passive, because it does not convey the idea of being ascended _by_ some one’s agency.
OBS. 4.–Our ancient writers, after the manner of the French, very frequently employed this mode of conjugation in a neuter sense; but, with a very few exceptions, present usage is clearly in favour of the auxiliary _have_ in preference to _be_, whenever the verb formed with the perfect participle is not passive; as, “They _have_ arrived,”–not, “They _are_ arrived.” Hence such examples as the following, are not now good English: “All these reasons _are_ now ceased.”–_Butler’s Analogy_, p. 157. Say, “_have now_ ceased.” “Whether he _were_ not got beyond the reach of his faculties.”–_Ib._, p. 158. Say, “_had_ not got.” “Which _is_ now grown wholly obsolete.”–_Churchill’s Gram._, p. 330. Say, “_has_ now grown.” “And when he _was_ entered into a ship.”–_Bible_. Say, “_had_ entered.”– “What _is_ become of decency and virtue?”–_Murray’s Key_, p. 196. Say, “_has_ become.”
OBS. 5.–Dr. Priestley says, “It seems _not to have been determined_ by the English grammarians, whether the _passive_ participles of verbs neuter require the auxiliary _am_ or _have_ before them. The French, in this case, confine themselves strictly to the former. ‘What _has become_ of national liberty?’ Hume’s History, Vol. 6. p. 254. The French would say, _what is become_; and, in this instance, perhaps, with more propriety.”– _Priestley’s Gram._, p. 128. It is no marvel that those writers who have not rightly made up their minds upon this point of English grammar, should consequently fall into many mistakes. The perfect participle of a neuter verb is not “_passive_,” as the doctor seems to suppose it to be; and the mode of conjugation which he here inclines to prefer, is a mere _Gallicism_, which is fast wearing out from our language, and is even now but little countenanced by good writers.
OBS. 6.–There are a few verbs of the passive form which seem to imply that a person’s own mind is the agent that actuates him; as, “The editor _is rejoiced_ to think,” &c.–_Juvenile Keepsake_. “I _am resolved_ what to do.”–_Luke_, xvi, 4. “He _was resolved_ on going to the city to reside.”–_Comly’s Gram._, p. 114. “James _was resolved_ not to indulge himself.”–_Murray’s Key_, ii, 220. “He _is inclined_ to go.”–“He _is determined_ to go.”–“He _is bent_ on going.” These are properly passive verbs, notwithstanding there are active forms which are nearly equivalent to most of them; as, “The editor _rejoices_ to think.”–“I _know_ what to do.”–“He _had resolved_ on going.”–“James _resolved_ not to indulge himself.” So in the phrase, “I _am ashamed_ to beg,” we seem to have a passive verb of this sort; but, the verb _to ashame_ being now obsolete, _ashamed_ is commonly reckoned an _adjective_. Yet we cannot put it before a noun, after the usual manner of adjectives. _To be indebted_, is an other expression of the same kind. In the following example, “_am remember’d_” is used for _do remember_, and, in my opinion, _inaccurately_:
“He said mine eyes were black, and my hair black; And, now I _am remember’d_, scorn’d at me.”–_Shakspeare_.
IV. FORM OF NEGATION.
A verb is conjugated _negatively_, by placing the adverb _not_ after it, or after the first auxiliary; but the infinitive and participles take the negative first: as, Not to love, Not to have loved; Not loving, Not loved, Not having loved.
FIRST PERSON SINGULAR.
IND. I love not, _or_ I do not love; I loved not, _or_ I did not love; I have not loved; I had not loved; I shall not, _or_ will not, love; I shall not, _or_ will not, have loved. POT. I may, can, _or_ must not love; I might, could, would, _or_ should not love; I may, can, _or_ must not have loved; I might, could, would, _or_ should not have loved, SUBJ. If I love not, If I loved not.
SECOND PERSON SINGULAR.
SOLEMN STYLE:–IND. Thou lovest not, _or_ Thou dost not love; Thou lovedst not, _or_ Thou didst not love; Thou hast not loved; Thou hadst not loved; Thou shalt not, _or_ wilt not, love; Thou shalt not, _or_ wilt not, have loved. POT. Thou mayst, canst, _or_ must not love; Thou mightst, couldst, wouldst, _or_ shouldst not love; Thou mayst, canst, _or_ must not have loved; Thou mightst, couldst, wouldst, _or_ shouldst not have loved. SUBJ. If thou love not, If thou loved not. IMP. Love [thou] not, _or_ Do thou not love.
FAMILIAR STYLE:–IND. Thou lov’st not, _or_ Thou dost not love; Thou loved not, _or_ Thou did not love; Thou hast not loved; Thou had not loved; Thou shall not, _or_ will not, love; Thou shall not, _or_ will not, have loved. POT. Thou may, can, _or_ must not love; Thou might, could, would, _or_ should not love; Thou may, can, _or_ must not have loved; Thou might, could, would, _or_ should not have loved. SUBJ. If thou love not, If thou loved not. IMP. Love [thou] not, _or_ Do [thou] not love.
THIRD PERSON SINGULAR.
IND. He loves not, _or_ He does not love; He loved not, _or_ He did not love; He has not loved; He had not loved; He shall not, _or_ will not, love; He shall not, _or_ will not, have loved. POT. He may, can, _or_ must not love; He might, could, would, _or_ should not love; He may, can, _or_ must not have loved; He might, could, would, _or_ should not have loved. SUBJ. If he love not, If he loved not.
V. FORM OF QUESTION.
A verb is conjugated _interrogatively_, in the indicative and potential moods, by placing the nominative after it, or after the first auxiliary: as,
FIRST PERSON SINGULAR.
IND. Love I? _or_ Do I love? Loved I? _or_ Did I love? Have I loved? Had I loved? Shall I love? Shall I have loved? POT. May, can, _or_ must I love? Might, could, would, _or_ should I love? May, can, _or_ must I have loved? Might, could, would, _or_ should I have loved?
SECOND PERSON SINGULAR.
SOLEMN STYLE:–IND. Lovest thou? _or_ Dost thou love? Lovedst thou? _or_ Didst thou love? Hast thou loved? Hadst thou loved? Wilt thou love? Wilt thou have loved? POT. Mayst, canst, _or_ must thou love? Mightst, couldst, wouldst, _or_ shouldst thou love? Mayst, canst, _or_ must thou have loved? Mightst, couldst, wouldst, _or_ shouldst thou have loved?
FAMILIAR STYLE:–IND. Lov’st thou? _or_ Dost thou love? Loved thou? _or_ Did thou love? Hast thou loved? Had thou loved? Will thou love? Will thou have loved? POT. May, can, _or_ must thou love? Might, could, would, _or_ should thou love? May, can, _or_ must thou have loved? Might, could, would, _or_ should thou have loved?
THIRD PERSON SINGULAR.
IND. Loves he? _or_ Does he love? Loved he? _or_ Did he love? Has he loved? Had he loved? Shall _or_ will he love? Will he have loved? POT. May, can, _or_ must he love? Might, could, would, _or_ should he love? May, can, _or_ must he have loved? Might, could, would, _or_ should he have loved?
VI. FORM OF QUESTION WITH NEGATION.
A verb is conjugated _interrogatively and negatively_, in the indicative and potential moods, by placing the nominative and the adverb _not_ after the verb, or after the first auxiliary: as,
FIRST PERSON PLURAL.
IND. Love we not? _or_ Do we not love? Loved we not? _or_ Did we not love? Have we not loved? Had we not loved? Shall we not love? Shall we not have loved? POT. May, can, _or_ must we not love? Might, could, would, _or_ should we not love? May, can, _or_ must we not have loved? Might, could, would, _or_ should we not have loved?
SECOND PERSON PLURAL.
IND. See ye not? _or_ Do you not see? Saw ye not? _or_ Did you not see? Have you not seen? Had you not seen? Will you not see? Will you not have seen? POT. May, can, _or_ must you not see? Might, could, would, _or_ should you not see? May, can, _or_ must you not have seen? Might, could, would, _or_ should you not have seen?
THIRD PERSON PLURAL.
IND. Are they not loved? Were they not loved? Have they not been loved? Had they not been loved? Shall _or_ will they not be loved? Will they not have been loved? May, can, _or_ must they not be loved? Might, could, would, _or_ should they not be loved? May, can, _or_ must they not have been loved? Might, could, would, _or_ should they not have been loved?
OBSERVATIONS.
OBS. 1.–In a familiar question or negation, the compound or auxiliary form of the verb is, in general, preferable to the simple: as, “No man lives to purpose, who _does not live_ for posterity.”–_Dr. Wayland_. It is indeed so much more common, as to seem the only proper mode of expression: as, “_Do I say_ these things as a man?”–“_Do you think_ that we excuse ourselves?”–“_Do you not know_ that a little leaven _leavens_ the whole lump?”–“_Dost thou revile?_” &c. But in the solemn or the poetic style, though either may be used, the simple form is more dignified, and perhaps more graceful: as, “_Say I_ these things as a man?”–_1 Cor._, ix, 8. “_Think ye_ that we excuse ourselves?”–_2 Cor._, xii, 19. “_Know ye not_ that a little leaven _leaveneth_ the whole lump?”–_1 Cor._, v, 6. “_Revilest thou_ God’s high priest?”–_Acts_. “King Agrippa, _believest thou_ the prophets?”–_Ib._ “_Understandest thou_ what thou readest?”–_Ib._ “Of whom _speaketh_ the prophet this?”–_Id._ “And the man of God said, Where _fell it?_”–_2 Kings_, vi, 6.
“What! _heard ye not_ of lowland war?”–_Sir W. Scott, L. L._
“_Seems he not_, Malise, like a ghost?”–_Id., L. of Lake_.
“Where _thinkst thou_ he is now? _Stands he_, or _sits he?_ Or _does he walk?_ or _is he_ on his horse?”–_Shak., Ant. and Cleop._
OBS. 2.–In interrogative sentences, the auxiliaries _shall_ and _will_ are not always capable of being applied to the different persons agreeably to their use in simple declarations: thus, “_Will_ I go?” is a question which there never can be any occasion to ask in its literal sense; because none knows better than I, what my will or wish is. But “_Shall_ I go?” may properly be asked; because _shall_ here refers to _duty_, and asks to know what is agreeable to the will of an other. In questions, the first person generally requires _shall_; the second, _will_; the third admits of both: but, in the second-future, the third, used interrogatively, seems to require _will_ only. Yet, in that figurative kind of interrogation which is sometimes used to declare a negative, there may be occasional exceptions to these principles; as, “_Will I eat_ the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats?”–_Psalms_, 1, 13. That is, _I will not eat_, &c.
OBS. 3.–_Cannot_ is not properly one word, but two: in parsing, the adverb must be taken separately, and the auxiliary be explained with its principal. When power is denied, _can_ and _not_ are now _generally united_–perhaps in order to prevent ambiguity; as, “I _cannot_ go.” But when the power is affirmed, and something else is denied, the words are written separately; as, “The Christian apologist _can not merely_ expose the utter baseness of the infidel assertion, but he has positive ground for erecting an opposite and confronting assertion in its place.”–_Dr. Chalmers._ The junction of these terms, however, is not of much importance to the sense; and, as it is plainly contrary to analogy, some writers,–(as Dr. Webster, in his late or “improved” works; Dr. Bullions, in his; Prof. W. C. Fowler, in his new “English Grammar,” 8vo; R. C. Trench, in his “Study of Words;” T. S. Pinneo, in his “revised” grammars; J. R. Chandler, W. S. Cardell, O. B. Peirce,–) always separate them. And, indeed, why should we write, “I _cannot_ go, Thou _canst not_ go, He _cannot_ go?” Apart from the custom, we have just as good reason to join _not_ to _canst_ as to _can_; and sometimes its union with the latter is a gross error: as, “He _cannot only_ make a way to escape, but with the injunction to duty can infuse the power to perform.”–_Maturin’s Sermons_, p. 287. The fear of ambiguity never prevents us from disjoining _can_ and _not_ whenever we wish to put a word between them: as, “Though the waves thereof toss themselves, yet _can_ they _not_ prevail; though they roar, yet _can_ they _not_ pass over it.”–_Jeremiah_, v, 22. “Which then I _can_ resist _not_.”–_Byron’s Manfred_, p. 1.
“_Can_ I _not_ mountain maiden spy, But she must bear the Douglas eye?”–_Scott_.
OBS. 4.–In negative questions, the adverb _not_ is sometimes placed before the nominative, and sometimes after it: as, “Told _not I_ thee?”–_Numb._, xxiii, 26. “Spake _I not_ also to thy messengers?”–_Ib._, xxiv, 12. “_Cannot I_ do with you as this potter?”–_Jer._, xviii, 6. “Art _not thou_ a seer?”–_2 Sam._, xv, 27. “Did _not Israel_ know?”–_Rom._, x, 19. “Have _they not_ heard?”–_Ib._, 18. “Do _not they_ blaspheme that worthy name?”–_James_, ii, 7. This adverb, like every other, should be placed where it will sound most agreeably, and best suit the sense. Dr. Priestley imagined that it could not properly come before the nominative. He says, “When the nominative case is put after the verb, on account of _an_ interrogation, _no other word_ should be interposed between them. [EXAMPLES:] ‘May _not we_ here say with Lucretius?’–Addison on Medals, p. 29. May _we not_ say? ‘Is _not it_ he.’ [?] Smollett’s Voltaire, Vol 18, p. 152. Is _it not_ he. [?]”–_Priestley’s Gram._, p. 177.
OBS. 5.–In grave discourse, or in oratory, the adverb _not_ is spoken as distinctly as other words; but, _ordinarily_, when placed before the nominative, it is rapidly slurred over in utterance and the _o_ is not heard. In fact, it is _generally_ (though inelegantly) contracted in familiar conversation, and joined to the auxiliary: as, IND. Don’t they do it? Didn’t they do it? Haven’t they done it? Hadn’t they done it? Shan’t, _or_ won’t they do it? Won’t they have done it? POT. Mayn’t, can’t, _or_ mustn’t they do it? Mightn’t, couldn’t, wouldn’t, _or_ shouldn’t they do it? Mayn’t, can’t, _or_ mustn’t they have done it? Mightn’t, couldn’t, wouldn’t, _or_ shouldn’t they have done it?
OBS. 6.–Well-educated people commonly utter their words with more distinctness and fullness than the vulgar, yet without adopting ordinarily the long-drawn syllables of poets and orators, or the solemn phraseology of preachers and prophets. Whatever may be thought of the grammatical propriety of such contractions as the foregoing, no one who has ever observed how the English language is usually spoken, will doubt their commonness, or their antiquity. And it may be observed, that, in the use of these forms, the distinction of persons and numbers in the verb, is almost, if not entirely, dropped. Thus _don’t_ is used for _dost not_ or _does not_, as properly as for _do not_; and, “_Thou can’t_ do it, or _shan’t_ do it,” is as good English as, “_He can’t_ do it, or _shan’t_ do it.” _Will_, according to Webster, was anciently written _woll_: hence _won’t_ acquired the _o_, which is long in Walker’s orthoepy. _Haven’t_, which cannot be used for _has not_ or _hast not_, is still further contracted by the vulgar, and spoken _ha’nt_, which serves for all three. These forms are sometimes found in books; as, “WONT, a contraction of _woll not_, that is, _will not_.”–_Webster’s Dict._ “HA’NT, a contraction of _have not_ or _has not_.”–_Id._ “WONT, (w=ont _or_ w~unt,) A contraction of _would not_:– used for _will_ not.”–_Worcester’s Dict._ “HAN’T, (haent or h=ant,) A vulgar contraction for _has not_, or _have not_.”–_Id._ In the writing of such contractions, the apostrophe is not always used; though some think it necessary for distinction’s sake: as, “Which is equivalent, because what _can’t_ be done _won’t_ be done.”–_Johnson’s Gram. Com._, p. 312.
IRREGULAR VERBS.
An _irregular verb_ is a verb that does not form the preterit and the perfect participle by assuming _d_ or _ed_; as, _see, saw, seeing, seen_. Of this class of verbs there are about one hundred and ten, beside their several derivatives and compounds.
OBSERVATIONS.
OBS. 1.–Regular verbs form their preterits and perfect participles, by adding _d_ to final _e_, and _ed_ to all other terminations; the final consonant of the verb being sometimes doubled, (as in _dropped_,) and final _y_ sometimes changed into _i_, (as in _cried_,) agreeably to the rules for spelling in such cases. The verb _hear, heard, hearing, heard_, adds _d_ to _r_, and is therefore irregular. _Heard_ is pronounced _h~erd_ by all our lexicographers, except _Webster_: who formerly wrote it _heerd_, and still pronounces it so; alleging, in despite of universal usage against him, that it is written “more correctly _heared_.”–_Octavo Dict._, 1829. Such pronunciation would doubtless require this last orthography, “_heared_;” but both are, in fact, about as fanciful as his former mode of spelling, which ran thus: “_Az_ I had _heerd_ suggested by _frends_ or indifferent _reeders_.”–_Dr. Webster’s Essays, Preface_, p. 10.
OBS. 2.–When a verb ends in a sharp consonant, _t_ is sometimes improperly substituted for _ed_, making the preterit and the perfect participle irregular in spelling, when they are not so in sound; as, _distrest_ for _distressed, tost_ for _tossed, mixt_ for _mixed, cract_ for _cracked_. These contractions are now generally treated as _errors_ in writing; and the verbs are accordingly (with a few exceptions) accounted regular. Lord Kames commends Dean Swift for having done “all in his power to restore the syllable _ed_;” says, he “possessed, if any man ever did, the true genius of the English tongue;” and thinks that in rejecting these ugly contractions, “he well deserves to be imitated.”–_Elements of Criticism_, Vol. ii, p. 12. The regular orthography is indeed to be preferred in all such cases; but the writing of _ed_ restores no syllable, except in solemn discourse; and, after all, the poems of Swift have so very many of these irregular contractions in _t_, that one can hardly believe his lordship had ever read them. Since the days of these critics still more has been done towards the restoration of the _ed_, in orthography, though not in sound; but, even at this present time, our poets not unfrequently write, _est_ for _essed_ or _ess’d_, in forming the preterits or participles of verbs that end in the syllable _ess_. This is an ill practice, which needlessly multiplies our redundant verbs, and greatly embarrasses what it seems at first to simplify: as,
“O friend! I know not which way I must look For comfort, being, as I am, _opprest_, To think that now our life is only _drest_ For show.”–_Wordsworth’s Poetical Works_, 8vo, p. 119.
OBS. 3.–When the verb ends with a smooth consonant, the substitution of _t_ for _ed_ produces an irregularity in sound as well as in writing. In some such irregularities, the poets are indulged for the sake of rhyme; but the best speakers and writers of prose prefer the regular form, wherever good use has sanctioned it: thus _learned_ is better than _learnt; burned_, than _burnt; penned_, than _pent; absorbed_, than _absorbt; spelled_, than _spelt; smelled_, than _smelt_. So many of this sort of words as are allowably contracted, belong to the class of redundant verbs, among which they may be seen in a subsequent table.
OBS. 4.–Several of the irregular verbs are variously used by the best authors; redundant forms are occasionally given to some verbs, without sufficient authority; and many preterits and participles which were formerly in good use, are now obsolete, or becoming so. The _simple_ irregular verbs in English are about one hundred and ten, and they are nearly all monosyllables. They are derived from the Saxon, in which language they are also, for the most part, irregular.
OBS. 5.–The following alphabetical list exhibits the simple irregular verbs, as they are _now generally_ used. In this list, those preterits and participles which are supposed to be preferable, and best supported by authorities, are placed first. Nearly all compounds that follow the form of their simple verbs, or derivatives that follow their primitives, are here purposely omitted. _Welcome_ and _behave_ are always regular, and therefore belong not here. Some words which are obsolete, have also been omitted, that the learner might not mistake them for words in present use. Some of those which are placed last, are now little used.
LIST OF THE IRREGULAR VERBS.
_Imperfect Perfect_ _Present. Preterit. Participle. Participle_. Arise, arose, arising, arisen. Be, was, being, been.
Bear, bore _or_ bare, bearing, borne _or_ born.[274] Beat, beat, beating, beaten _or_ beat. Begin, began _or_ begun,[275] beginning, begun. Behold, beheld, beholding, beheld. Beset, beset, besetting, beset. Bestead, bestead, besteading, bestead.[276] Bid, bid _or_ bade, bidding, bidden _or_ bid. Bind, bound, bing, bound. Bite, bit, biting, bitten _or_ bit. Bleed, bled, bleeding, bled. Break, broke,[277] breaking, broken. Breed, bred, breeding, bred. Bring, brought, bringing, brought. Buy, bought, buying, bought. Cast, cast, casting, cast. Chide, chid, chiding, chidden _or_ chid. Choose, chose, choosing, chosen. Cleave,[278] cleft _or_ clove, cleaving, cleft _or_ cloven. Cling, clung, clinging, clung. Come, came, coming, come. Cost, cost, costing, cost. Cut, cut, cutting, cut.
Do, did, doing, done. Draw, drew, drawing, drawn. Drink, drank, drinking, drunk, _or_ drank.[279] Drive, drove, driving, driven. Eat, ate _or_ ~eat, eating, eaten _or_ eat. Fall, fell, falling, fallen. Feed, fed, feeding, fed.
Feel, felt, feeling, felt. Fight, fought, fighting, fought. Find, found, finding, found. Flee, fled, fleeing, fled. Fling, flung, flinging, flung. Fly, flew, flying, flown. Forbear, forbore, forbearing, forborne. Forsake, forsook, forsaking, forsaken. Get, got, getting, got _or_ gotten. Give, gave, giving, given. Go, went, going, gone.
Grow, grew, growing, grown. Have, had, having, had.
Hear, heard, hearing, heard. Hide, hid, hiding, hidden _or_ hid. Hit, hit, hitting, hit.
Hold, held, holding, held _or_ holden.[280] Hurt, hurt, hurting, hurt.[281] Keep, kept,[282] keeping, kept. Know, knew, knowing, known. Lead, led, leading, led.
Leave, left, leaving, left. Lend, lent, lending, lent. Let, let, letting, let
Lie,[283] lay, lying, lain. Lose, lost, losing, lost. Make, made, making, made. Meet, met, meeting, met.
Outdo, outdid, outdoing, outdone. Put, put, putting, put.
Read, r~ead, reading, r~ead. Rend, rent, rending, rent.[284] Rid, rid, ridding, rid.
Ride, rode, riding, ridden _or_ rode. Ring, rung _or_ rang, ringing, rung. Rise, rose, rising, risen. Run, ran _or_ run, running, run. Say, said, saying, said.[285] See, saw, seeing, seen.
Seek, sought, seeking, sought. Sell, sold, selling, sold. Send, sent, sending, sent. Set, set, setting, set.
Shed, shed, shedding, shed. Shoe, shod, shoeing, shod.[286] Shoot, shot, shooting, shot. Shut, shut, shutting, shut. Shred, shred, shredding, shred. Shrink, shrunk _or_ shrank, shrinking, shrunk _or_ shrunken. Sing, sung _or_ sang,[287] singing, sung. Sink, sunk _or_ sank, sinking, sunk. Sit, sat, sitting, sat.[288] Slay, slew, slaying, slain. Sling, slung, slinging, slung. Slink, slunk _or_ slank, slinking, slunk. Smite, smote, smiting, smitten _or_ smit. Speak, spoke, speaking, spoken. Spend, spent, spending, spent. Spin, spun, spinning, spun. Spit, spit _or_ spat, spitting, spit _or_ spitten. Spread, spread, spreading, spread. Spring, sprung _or_ sprang, springing, sprung. Stand, stood, standing, stood. Steal, stole, stealing, stolen. Stick, stuck, sticking, stuck. Sting, stung, stinging, stung. Stink, stunk _or_ stank, stinking, stunk. Stride, strode _or_ strid, striding, stridden _or_ strid.[289] Strike, struck, striking, struck _or_ stricken. Swear, swore, swearing, sworn. Swim, swum _or_ swam, swimming, swum. Swing, swung _or_ swang, swinging, swung. Take, took, taking, taken. Teach, taught, teaching, taught. Tear, tore, tearing, torn. Tell, told, telling, told. Think, thought, thinking, thought. Thrust, thrust, thrusting, thrust. Tread, trod, treading, trodden _or_ trod. Wear, wore, wearing, worn. Win, won, winning, won.
Write, wrote, writing, written.[290]
REDUNDANT VERBS.
A _redundant verb_ is a verb that forms the preterit or the perfect participle in two or more ways, and so as to be both regular and irregular; as, _thrive, thrived_ or _throve, thriving, thrived_ or _thriven_. Of this class of verbs, there are about ninety-five, beside sundry derivatives and compounds.
OBSERVATIONS.
OBS. 1.–Those irregular verbs which have more than one form for the preterit or for the perfect participle, are in some sense redundant; but, as there is no occasion to make a distinct class of such as have double forms that are never regular, these redundancies are either included in the preceding list of the simple irregular verbs, or omitted as being improper to be now recognized for good English. Several examples of the latter kind, including both innovations and archaisms, will appear among the improprieties for correction, at the end of this chapter. A few old preterits or participles may perhaps be accounted good English in the solemn style, which are not so in the familiar: as, “And none _spake_ a word unto him.”–_Job_, ii, 13. “When I _brake_ the five loaves.”–_Mark_, viii, 19. “And he _drave_ them from the judgement-seat.”–_Acts_, xviii, 16. “Serve me till I have eaten and _drunken_.”–_Luke_, xvii, 8. “It was not possible that he should be _holden_ of it.”–_Acts_, ii, 24. “Thou _castedst_ them down into destruction.”–_Psal._, lxxiii, 18. “Behold, I was _shapen_ in iniquity.”–_Ib._, li, 5. “A meat-offering _baken_ in the oven.”–_Leviticus_, ii, 4.
“With _casted_ slough, and fresh celerity.”–SHAK., _Henry V_.
“Thy dreadful vow, _loaden_ with death.”–ADDISON: _in Joh. Dict._
OBS. 2.–The verb _bet_ is given in Worcester’s Dictionary, as being always regular: “BET, _v. a._ [_i_. BETTED; _pp_. BETTING, BETTED.] To wager; to lay a wager or bet. SHAK.”–_Octavo Dict._ In Ainsworth’s Grammar, it is given as being always irregular: “_Present_, Bet; _Imperfect_, Bet; _Participle_, Bet.”–Page 36. On the authority of these, and of some others cited in OBS. 6th below, I have put it with the redundant verbs. The verb _prove_ is redundant, if _proven_, which is noticed by Webster, Bolles, and Worcester, is an admissible word. “The participle _proven_ is used in Scotland and in some parts of the United States, and sometimes, though rarely, in England.–‘There is a mighty difference between _not proven_ and _disproven_.’ DR. TH. CHALMERS. ‘Not _proven_.’ QU. REV.”–_Worcester’s Universal and Critical Dict._ The verbs _bless_ and _dress_ are to be considered redundant, according to the authority of Worcester, Webster, Bolles, and others. Cobbett will have the verbs, _cast, chide, cling, draw, grow, shred, sling, slink, spring, sting, stride, swim, swing_, and _thrust_, to be always regular; but I find no sufficient authority for allowing to any of them a regular form; and therefore leave them, where they always have been, in the list of simple irregulars. These fourteen verbs are a part of the long list of _seventy_ which this author says, “are, by some persons, _erroneously_ deemed irregular.” Of the following _nine_ only, is his assertion true; namely, _dip, help, load, overflow, slip, snow, stamp, strip, whip_. These nine ought always to be formed regularly; for all their irregularities may well be reckoned obsolete. After these deductions from this most erroneous catalogue, there remain forty-five other very common verbs, to be disposed of contrary to this author’s instructions. All but two of these I shall place in the list of _redundant_ verbs; though for the use of _throwed_ I find no written authority but his and William B. Fowle’s. The two which I do not consider redundant are _spit_ and _strew_, of which it may be proper to take more particular notice.
OBS. 3.–_Spit_, to stab, or to put upon a spit, is regular; as, “I _spitted frogs_, I crushed a heap of emmets.”–_Dryden. Spit_, to throw out saliva, is irregular, and most properly formed thus: _spit, spit, spitting, spit. “Spat_ is obsolete.”–_Webster’s Dict._ It is used in the Bible; as, “He _spat_ on the ground, and made clay of the spittle.”–_John_, ix, 6. L. Murray gives this verb thus: “Pres. _Spit_; Imp. _spit, spat_; Perf. Part. _spit, spitten_.” NOTE: “_Spitten_ is nearly obsolete.”–_Octavo Gram._, p. 106. Sanborn has it thus: “Pres. _Spit_; Imp. _spit_; Pres. Part. _spitting_; Perf. Part. _spit, spat_.”–_Analytical Gram._, p. 48. Cobbett, at first, taking it in the form, “to _spit_, I _spat, spitten_,” placed it among the seventy which he so erroneously thought should be made regular; afterwards he left it only in his list of irregulars, thus: “to _spit_, I _spit, spitten_.”–_Cobbett’s E. Gram._, of 1832, p. 54. Churchill, in 1823, preferring the older forms, gave it thus: “_Spit, spat_ or _spit, spitten_ or _spit_.”–_New Gram._, p. 111. NOTE:–“Johnson gives _spat_ as the preterimperfect, and _spit_ or _spitted_ as the participle of this verb, when it means to pierce through with a pointed instrument: but in this sense, I believe, it is always regular; while, on the other hand, the regular form is now never used, when it signifies to eject from the mouth; though we find in _Luke_, xviii, 32, ‘He shall be _spitted_ on.'”–_Churchill’s New Gram._, p. 264. This text ought to have been, “He shall be _spit_ upon.”
OBS. 4.–_To strew_ is in fact nothing else than an other mode of spelling the verb _to strow_; as _shew_ is an obsolete form for _show_; but if we pronounce the two forms differently, we make them different words. Walker, and some others, pronounce them alike, _stro_; Sheridan, Jones, Jameson, and Webster, distinguish them in utterance, _stroo_ and _stro_. This is convenient for the sake of rhyme, and perhaps therefore preferable. But _strew_, I incline to think, is properly a regular verb only, though Wells and Worcester give it otherwise: if _strewn_ has ever been proper, it seems now to be obsolete. EXAMPLES: “Others cut down branches from the trees, and _strewed_ them in the way.”–_Matt._, xxi, 8. “Gathering where thou hast not _strewed_.”–_Matt._, xxv, 24.
“Their name, their years, _spelt_ by th’ unletter’d _muse_, The place of fame and elegy supply;
And many _a holy text_ around she _strews_, _That teach_ the rustic moralist to die.”–_Gray_.
OBS. 5.–The list which I give below, prepared with great care, exhibits the redundant verbs, as they are now generally used, or as they may be used without grammatical impropriety.[291] Those forms which are supposed to be preferable, and best supported by authorities, are placed first. No words are inserted here, but such as some modern authors countenance. L. Murray recognizes _bereaved, catched, dealed, digged, dwelled, hanged, knitted, shined, spilled_; and, in his early editions, he approved of _bended,