by the verb ‘will try;’ _which_, the relative part, is in the nom. case to ‘can be found.’ ‘I have heard _what_ (i.e. _that which_, or _the thing which_) has been alleged.’ “–_Kirkham’s Gram._, p. 111. Here, we sec, the author’s “_which-that_” becomes _that which_, or something else. But this is not a full view of his method. The following vile rigmarole is a further sample of that “_New Systematick Order of Parsing_,” by virtue of which he so very complacently and successfully sets himself above all other grammarians: “‘From _what_ is recorded, he appears, &c.’ _What_ is a comp. rel. pron. including both the antecedent and the relative, and is equivalent to _that which_, or the _thing which.–Thing_, the antecedent part of _what_, is a noun, the name of a thing–com. the name of a species–neuter gender, it has no sex–third person, spoken of–sing. number, it implies but one–and in the obj. case, it is the object of the relation expressed by the prep. ‘from,’ and gov. by it: RULE 31. (Repeat the Rule, and _every other Rule_ to which I refer.) _Which_, the relative part of _what_, is a pronoun, a word used instead of a noun–relative, it relates to ‘thing’ for its antecedent–neut. gender, third person, sing, number, because the antecedent is with which it agrees, according to RULE 14. _Rel. pron_. &c. _Which_ is _in_ the nom. case to the verb ‘is recorded,’ agreeably to RULE 15. _The relative is the nominative case to the verb, when no nominative comes between it and the verb._”–_Kirkham’s Gram._, p. 113.
OBS. 34.–The distinction which has been made by Murray and others, between etymological parsing and syntactical–or, between that exercise which simply classifies and describes the words of a sentence, and that which adds to this the principles of their construction–is rejected by Kirkham, and also by Ingersoll, Fuller, Smith, Sanborn, Mack, and some others, it being altogether irreconcilable with their several modes of confounding the two main parts of grammar. If such a distinction is serviceable, the want of it is one of the inherent faults of the schemes which they have adopted. But, since “grammar is the art of speaking and writing with _propriety_” who that really values clearness and accuracy of expression, can think the want of them excusable in _models_ prescribed for the exercise of parsing? And is it not better to maintain the distinction above named, than to interlace our syntactical parsing with broken allusions to the definitions which pertain to etymology? If it is, this new mode of parsing, which Kirkham claims to have invented, and Smith pretends to have got from Germany, whatever boast may be made of it, is essentially defective and very immethodical.[219] This remark applies not merely to the forms above cited, respecting the pronoun _what_, but to the whole method of parsing adopted by the author of “_English Grammar in Familiar Lectures_.”
OBS. 35.–The forms of etymological parsing which I have adopted, being designed to train the pupil, in the first place, by a succession of easy steps, to a rapid and accurate description of the several species of words, and a ready habit of fully defining the technical terms employed in such descriptions, will be found to differ more from the forms of syntactical parsing, than do those of perhaps any other grammarian. The definitions, which constitute so large a portion of the former, being omitted as soon as they are thoroughly learned, give place in the latter, to the facts and principles of syntax. Thus have we fullness in the one part, conciseness in the other, order and distinctness in both. The separation of etymology from syntax, however, though judiciously adopted by almost all grammarians, is in itself a mere matter of convenience. No one will pretend that these two parts of grammar are in their nature _totally_ distinct and independent. Hence, though a due regard to method demands the maintenance of this ancient and still usual division of the subject, we not unfrequently, in treating of the classes and modifications of words, exhibit contingently some of the principles of their construction. This, however, is very different from a purposed blending of the two parts, than which nothing can be more unwise.
OBS. 36.–The great peculiarity of the pronoun _what_, or of its compound _whatever_ or _whatsoever_, is a peculiarity of construction, rather than of etymology. Hence, in etymological parsing, it may be sufficient to notice it only as a relative, though the construction be double. It is in fact a relative; but it is one that reverses the order of the antecedent, whenever the noun is inserted with it. But as the noun is usually suppressed, and as the supplying of it is attended with an obvious difficulty, arising from the transposition, we cut the matter short, by declaring the word to have, as it appears to have, a double syntactical relation. Of the foregoing example, therefore–viz., “From _what_ is recorded,” &c.,–a pupil of mine, in parsing _etymologically_, would say thus: “_What_ is a relative pronoun, of the third person, singular number, neuter gender, and nominative case. 1. A pronoun is a word used in stead of a noun. 2. A relative pronoun is a pronoun that represents an antecedent word or phrase, and connects different clauses of a sentence. 3. The third person is that which denotes the person or thing merely spoken of. 4. The singular number is that which denotes but one. 5. The neuter gender is that which denotes things that are neither male nor female. 6. The nominative case is that form or state of a noun or pronoun, which denotes the subject of a verb.” In parsing _syntactically_, he would say thus: “_What_ is a double relative, including both antecedent and relative, being equivalent to _that which_. As _antecedent_, it is of the third person, singular number, neuter gender, and objective case; being governed by _from_; according to the rule which says, ‘A Noun or a Pronoun made the object of a preposition, is goverved [sic–KTH] by it in the objective case.’ Because the meaning is–_from what_. As _relative_, it is of the third person, singular number, neuter gender, and nominative case; being the subject of _is recorded_; according to the rule which says, ‘A Noun or a Pronoun which is the subject of a finite verb, must be in the nominative case.’ Because the meaning is–_what is recorded_.”
OBS. 37.–The word _what_, when uttered independently as a mark of surprise, or as the prelude to an emphatic question which it does not ask, becomes an interjection; and, as such, is to be parsed merely as other interjections are parsed: as, “_What!_ came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?”–_1 Cor._, xiv, 36. “_What!_ know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God?”–_1 Cor._, vi, 19. “But _what!_ is thy servant a dog, that he should do this great thing?”–_2 Kings_, viii, 13. “_What!_ are you so ambitious of a man’s good word, who perhaps in an hour’s time shall curse himself to the pit of hell?”–_Collier’s Antoninus_, p. 152.
“_What!_ up and down, carv’d like an apple-tart?”–_Shakspeare_.
“_What!_ can you lull the winged winds asleep?”–_Campbell_.
EXAMPLES FOR PARSING.
PRAXIS V.–ETYMOLOGICAL.
_In the Fifth Praxis, it is required of the pupil–to distinguish and define the different parts of speech, and the classes and modifications of the_ ARTICLES, NOUNS, ADJECTIVES, and PRONOUNS.
_The definitions to be given in the Fifth Praxis, are two for an article, six for a noun, three for an adjective, six for a pronoun, and one for a verb, a participle, an adverb, a conjunction, a preposition, or an interjection. Thus_:–
EXAMPLE PARSED.
“Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus.”–_Rom._, ix, 20.
_Nay_ is an adverb. 1. An adverb is a word added to a verb, a participle, an adjective, or an other adverb; and generally expresses time, place, degree, or manner.
_But_ is a conjunction. 1. A conjunction is a word used to connect words or sentences in construction, and to show the dependence of the terms so connected.
_O_ is an interjection. 1. An interjection is a word that is uttered merely to indicate some strong or sudden emotion of the mind.
_Man_ is a common noun, of the second person, singular number, masculine gender, and nominative case. 1. A noun is the name of any person, place, or thing, that can be known or mentioned. 2. A common noun is the name of a sort, kind, or class, of beings or things. 3. The second person is that which denotes the hearer, or the person addressed. 4. The singular number is that which denotes but one. 5. The masculine gender is that which denotes persons or animals of the male kind. 6. The nominative case is that form or state of a noun or pronoun, which usually denotes the subject of a finite verb.
_Who_ is an interrogative pronoun, of the third person, singular number, masculine gender, and nominative case. 1. A pronoun is a word used in stead of a noun. 2. An interrogative pronoun is a pronoun with which a question is asked. 3. The third person is that which denotes the person or thing merely spoken of. 4. The singular number is that which denotes but one. 5. The masculine gender is that which denotes persons or animals of the male kind. 6. The nominative case is that form or state of a noun or pronoun which usually denotes the subject of a finite verb.
_Art_ is a verb. 1. A verb is a word that signifies _to be, to act_, or _to be acted upon_.
_Thou_ is a personal pronoun, of the second person, singular number, masculine gender, and nominative case. 1. A pronoun is a word used in stead of a noun. 2. A personal pronoun is a pronoun that shows, by its form, of what person it is. 3. The second person is that which denotes the hearer, or the person addressed. 4. The singular number is that which denotes but one. 5. The masculine gender is that which denotes persons or animals of the male kind. 6. The nominative case is that form or state of a noun or pronoun which usually denotes the subject of a finite verb.
_That_ is a relative pronoun, of the second person, singular number, masculine gender, and nominative case. 1. A pronoun is a word used in stead of a noun. 2. A relative pronoun is a pronoun that represents an antecedent word or phrase, and connects different clauses of a sentence. 3. The second person is that which denotes the hearer, or the person addressed. 4. The singular number is that which denotes but one. 5. The masculine gender is that which denotes persons or animals of the male kind. 6. The nominative case is that form or state of a noun or pronoun, which usually denotes the subject of a finite verb.
_Repliest_ is a verb. 1. A verb is a word that signifies _to be, to act_, or _to be acted upon_.
_Against_ is a preposition. 1. A preposition is a word used to express some relation of different things or thoughts to each other, and is generally placed before a noun or a pronoun.
_God_ is a proper noun, of the third person, singular number, masculine gender, and objective case. 1. A noun is the name of any person, place, or thing, that can be known, or mentioned. 2. A proper noun is the name of some particular individual, or people, or group. 3. The third person is that which denotes the person or thing merely spoken of. 4. The singular number is that which denotes but one. 5. The masculine gender is that which denotes persons or animals of the male kind. 6. The objective case is that form or state of a noun or pronoun, which usually denotes the object of a verb, participle, or preposition.
_Shall_ is a verb, auxiliary to _say_, and may be taken with it.
_The_ is the definite article. 1. An article is the word _the, an_, or _a_, which we put before nouns to limit their signification. 2. The definite article is _the_, which denotes some particular thing or things.
_Thing_ is a common noun of the third person, singular number, neuter gender, and nominative case. 1. A noun is the name of any person, place, or thing, that can be known or mentioned. 2. A common noun is the name of a sort, kind, or class, of beings or things. 3. The third person is that which denotes the person or thing merely spoken of. 4. The singular number is that which denotes but one. 5. The neuter gender is that which denotes things that are neither male nor female. 6. The nominative case is that form or state of a noun or pronoun, which usually denotes the subject of a finite verb.
_Formed_ is a participle. 1. A participle is a word derived from a verb, participating the properties of a verb, and of an adjective or a noun; and is generally formed by adding _ing, d_, or _ed_, to the verb.
_Say_, or _shall say_, is a verb. 1. A verb is a word that signifies _to be, to act_, or _to be acted upon_.
_To_ is a preposition. 1. A preposition is a word used to express some relation of different things or thoughts to each other, and is generally placed before a noun or a pronoun.
_Him_ is a personal pronoun, of the third person, singular number, masculine gender, and objective case. 1. A pronoun is a word used in stead of a noun. 2. A personal pronoun is a pronoun that shows, by its form, of what person it is. 3. The third person is that which denotes the person or thing merely spoken of. 4. The singular number is that which denotes but one. 5. The masculine gender is that which denotes persons or animals of the male kind. 6. The objective case is that form or state of a noun or pronoun which usually denotes the object of a verb, participle, or preposition.
_That_ is a relative pronoun, of the third person, singular number, masculine gender, and nominative case. 1. A pronoun is a word used in stead of a noun. 2. A relative pronoun is a pronoun that represents an antecedent word or phrase, and connects different clauses of a sentence. 3. The third person is that which denotes the person or thing merely spoken of. 4. The singular number is that which denotes but one. 5. The masculine gender is that which denotes persons or animals of the male kind. 6. The nominative case is that form or state of a noun or pronoun, which usually denotes the subject of a finite verb.
_Formed_ is a verb. 1. A verb is a word that signifies _to be, to act_, or _to be acted upon_. _It_ is a personal pronoun, of the third person, singular number, neuter gender, and objective case. 1. A pronoun is a word used in stead of a noun. 2. A personal pronoun is a pronoun that shows, by its form, of what person it is. 3. The third person is that which denotes the person or thing merely spoken of. 4. The singular number is that which denotes but one. 5. The neuter gender is that which denotes things that are neither male nor female. 6. The objective case is that form or state of a noun or pronoun, which usually denotes the object of a verb, participle, or preposition.
_Why_ is an adverb. 1. An adverb is a word added to a verb, a participle, an adjective, or an other adverb; and generally expresses time, place, degree, or manner.
_Hast_ is a verb, auxiliary to _made_, and may be taken with it.
_Thou_ is a personal pronoun, of the second person, singular number, masculine gender, and nominative case. 1. A pronoun is a word used in stead of a noun. 2. A personal pronoun is a pronoun that shows, by its form, of what person it is. 3. The second person is that which denotes the hearer, or the person addressed. 4. The singular number is that which denotes but one. 5. The masculine gender is that which denotes persons or animals of the male kind. 6. The nominative case is that form or state of a noun or pronoun, which usually denotes the subject of a finite verb.
_Made_, or _hast made_, is a verb. 1. A verb is a word that signifies _to be, to act_, or _to be acted upon_.
_Me_ is a personal pronoun, of the first person, singular number, neuter gender, and objective case. 1. A pronoun is a word used in stead of a noun. 2. A personal pronoun is a pronoun that shows, by its form, of what person it is. 3. The first person is that which denotes the speaker or writer. 4. The singular number is that which denotes but one. 5. The neuter gender is that which denotes things that are neither male nor female. 6. The objective case is that form or state of a noun or pronoun which usually denotes the object of a verb, participle, or preposition.
_Thus_ is an adverb. 1. An adverb is a word added to a verb, a participle, an adjective, or an other adverb; and generally expresses time, place, degree, or manner.
LESSON I.–PARSING.
“Every man has undoubtedly an inward perception of the celestial goodness by which he is quickened. But, if to obtain some ideas of God, it be not necessary for us to go beyond ourselves, what an unpardonable indolence it is in those who will not descend into themselves that they may find him?”–_Calvin’s Institutes_, B. i, Ch. 5.
“Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God: yet ye have not known him; but I know him.”–_John_, viii, 54.
“What! have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.”–_1 Cor._, xi, 22.
“We know not what we ought to wish for, but He who made us, knows.”–_Burgh’s Dignity_, Vol. ii, p. 20.
“And who is he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is good?”–_1 Peter_, iii, 13.
“For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they, measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.”–_2 Cor._, x, 12.
“Whatever is humane, is wise; whatever is wise, is just; whatever is wise, just, and humane, will be found the true interest of states.”–_Dr. Rush, on Punishments_, p. 19.
“But, methinks, we cannot answer it to ourselves, as-well-as to our Maker, that we should live and die ignorant of ourselves, and thereby of him, and of the obligations which we are under to him for ourselves.”–_William Penn_.
“But where shall wisdom be found? and where is the place of understanding? The depth saith, ‘It is not in me;’ and the sea saith, ‘It is not with me.’ Destruction and death say, ‘We have heard the fame thereof with our ears.'”–See _Job_, xxviii, 12, 14, 22; and _Blair’s Lect._, p. 417.
“I still had hopes, my latest hours to crown, Amidst these humble bow’rs to lay me down.”–_Goldsmith_.
“Why dost thou then suggest to me distrust, Knowing who I am, as I know who thou art?”–_Milton_, P. R.
LESSON II.–PARSING.
“I would, methinks, have so much to say for myself, that if I fell into the hands of him who treated me ill, he should be sensible when he did so: his conscience should be on my side, whatever became of his inclination.”–_Steele, Spect._, No. 522.
“A boy should understand his mother tongue well before he enters upon the study of a dead language; or, at any rate, he should be made perfect master of the meaning of all the words which are necessary to furnish him with a translation of the particular author which he is studying.”–_Gallaudet, Lit. Conv._, p. 206.
“No discipline is more suitable to man, or more congruous to the dignity of his nature, than that which refines his taste, and leads him to distinguish, in every subject, what is regular, what is orderly, what is suitable, and what is fit and proper.”–_Kames’s El. of Crit._, i, 275.
“Simple thoughts are what arise naturally; what the occasion or the subject suggests unsought; and what, when once suggested, are easily apprehended by all. Refinement in writing, expresses a less natural and [less] obvious train of thought.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 184.
“Where the story of an epic poem is founded on truth, no circumstances must be added, but such as connect naturally with what are known to be true: history may be supplied, but it must not be contradicted.”–See _Kames’s El. of Crit._, ii, 280.
“Others, I am told, pretend to have been once his friends. Surely they are their enemies, who say so; for nothing can be more odious than to treat a friend as they have treated him. But of this I cannot persuade myself, when I consider the constant and eternal aversion of all bad writers to a good one.”–_Cleland, in Defence of Pope_.
“From side to side, he struts, he smiles, he prates, And seems to wonder what’s become of Yates.”–_Churchill_.
“Alas! what sorrows gloom’d that parting day, That call’d them from their native walks away!”–_Goldsmith_.
LESSON III.–PARSING.
“It is involved in the nature of man, that he cannot be indifferent to an event that concerns him or any of his connexions: if it be fortunate, it gives him joy; if unfortunate, it gives him sorrow.”–_Kames’s El. of Crit._, i, 62.
“I knew a man who had relinquished the sea for a country life: in the corner of his garden he reared an artificial mount with a level summit, resembling most accurately a quarter-deck, not only in shape, but in size; and here he generally walked.”–_Ib._, p. 328.
“I mean, when we are angry with our Maker. For against whom else is it that our displeasure is pointed, when we murmur at the distribution of things here, either because our own condition is less agreeable than we would have it, or because that of others is more prosperous than we imagine they deserve?”–_Archbishop Seeker_.
“Things cannot charge into the soul, or force us upon any opinions about them; they stand aloof and are quiet. It is our fancy that makes them operate and gall us; it is we that rate them, and give them their bulk and value.”–_Collier’s Antoninus_, p. 212.
“What is your opinion of truth, good-nature, and sobriety? Do any of these virtues stand in need of a good word; or are they the worse for a bad one? I hope a diamond will shine ne’er the less for a man’s silence about the worth of it.”–_Ib._, p. 49.
“Those words which were formerly current and proper, have now become obsolete and barbarous. Alas! this is not all: fame tarnishes in time too; and men grow out of fashion, as well as languages.”–_Ib._, p. 55.
“O Luxury! thou curs’d by Heaven’s decree, How ill exchang’d are things like these for thee.”–_Goldsmith_.
“O, then, how blind to all that truth requires, Who think it freedom when a part aspires!”–_Id._
IMPROPRIETIES FOR CORRECTION.
ERRORS OF PRONOUNS.
LESSON I.–RELATIVES.
“At the same time that we attend to this pause, every appearance of sing-song and tone must be carefully guarded against.”–_Murray’s English Reader_, p. xx.
[FORMULE.–Not proper, because the word _that_ had not clearly the construction either of a pronoun or of a conjunction. But, according to Observation 18th, on the Classes of Pronouns, “The word _that_, or indeed any other word, should never be so used as to leave the part of speech uncertain.” Therefore, the expression should be altered: thus, “_While_ we attend to this pause, every appearance of _singsong_ must be carefully _avoided_.”]
“For thou shalt go to all that I shall send thee.”–_Jeremiah_, i, 7; _Gurney’s Obs._, p. 223. “Ah! how happy would it have been for me, had I spent in retirement these twenty-three years that I have possessed my kingdom.”–See _Sanborn’s Gram._, p. 242. “In the same manner that relative pronouns and their antecedents are usually parsed.”–_Ib._, p. 71. “Parse or mention all the other nouns in the parsing examples, in the same manner that you do the word in the form of parsing.”–_Ib._, p. 8. “The passive verb will always be of the person and number that the verb _be_ is, of which it is in part composed.”–_Ib._, p. 53. “You have been taught that a verb must always be of the same person and number that its nominative is.”–_Ib._, p. 68. “A relative pronoun, also, must always be of the same person, number, and even gender that its antecedent is.”–_Ib._, p. 68. “The subsequent is always in the same case that the word is, which asks the question.”–_Ib._, p. 95. “_One_ sometimes represents an antecedent noun in the same definite manner that personal pronouns do.”–_Ib._, p. 98. “The mind being carried forward to the time that an event happens, easily conceives it to be present.”–_Ib._, p. 107. “_Save_ and _saving_ are parsed in the same manner that _except_ and _excepting_ are.”–_Ib._, p. 123. “Adverbs describe, qualify, or modify the meaning of a verb in the same manner that adjectives do nouns.”–_Ib._, p. 16. “The third person singular of verbs, is formed in the same manner, that the plural number of nouns is.”–_Ib._, p. 41. “He saith further: ‘that the apostles did not anew baptize such persons, that had been baptized with the baptism of John.'”–_Barclay’s Works_, i, 292. “For we which live, are always delivered unto death for Jesus’ sake.”–_2 Cor._, iv, 11. “For they, which believe in God, must be careful to maintain good works.”–_Barclay’s Works_, i, 431. “Nor yet of those which teach things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake.”–_Ib._, i, 435. “So as to hold such bound in heaven, whom they bind on earth, and such loosed in heaven, whom they loose on earth.”–_Ib._, i, 478. “Now, if it be an evil to do any thing out of strife; then such things that are seen so to be done, are they not to be avoided and forsaken?”–_Ib._, i, 522. “All such who satisfy themselves not with the superficies of religion.”–_Ib._, ii, 23. “And he is the same in substance, what he was upon earth, both in spirit, soul and body.”–_Ib._, iii, 98. “And those that do not thus, are such, to whom the Church of Rome can have no charity.”–_Ib._, iii, 204. “Before his book he placeth a great list of that he accounts the blasphemous assertions of the Quakers.”–_Ib._, iii, 257. “And this is that he should have proved.”–_Ib._, iii, 322. “Three of which were at that time actual students of philosophy in the university.”–_Ib._, iii, 180. “Therefore it is not lawful for any whatsoever * * * to force the consciences of others.”–_Ib._, ii, 13. “What is the cause that the former days were better than these?”–_Eccl._, vii, 10. “In the same manner that the term _my_ depends on the name _books_.”–_O. B. Peirce’s Gram._, p. 54. “In the same manner as the term _house_ depends on the relative _near_.”–_Ib._, p. 58. “James died on the day that Henry returned.”–_Ib._, p. 177.
LESSON II.–DECLENSIONS.
“_Other_ makes the plural _others_, when it is found without it’s substantive.”–_Priestley’s Gram._, p. 12.
[FORMULE.–Not proper, because the pronoun _it’s_ is written with an apostrophe. But, according to Observation 25th, on the Declensions of Pronouns, “The possessive case of pronouns should never be written with an apostrophe.” Therefore, this apostrophe should be omitted; thus, “_Other_ makes the plural _others_, when it is found without its substantive.”]
“But _his, her’s, our’s, your’s, their’s_, have evidently the form of the possessive case.”–_Lowth’s Gram._, p. 23. “To the Saxon possessive cases, _hire, ure, eower, hira_, (that is, _her’s, our’s, your’s, their’s_,) we have added the _s_, the characteristic of the possessive case of nouns.”–_Ib._, p. 23. “Upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their’s and our’s.”–FRIENDS’ BIBLE: _1 Cor._, i, 2. “In this Place _His_ Hand is clearly preferable either to Her’s or It’s.” [220]–_Harris’s Hermes_, p. 59. “That roguish leer of your’s makes a pretty woman’s heart ake.”–ADDISON: _in Joh. Dict._ “Lest by any means this liberty of your’s become a stumbling-block.”–FRIENDS’ BIBLE: _1 Cor._, viii, 9. “First person: Sing. I, mine, me; Plur. we, our’s, us.”–_Wilbur and Livingston’s Gram._, p. 16. “Second person: Sing. thou, thine, thee; Plur. ye or you, your’s, you.”–_Ib._ “Third person: Sing. she, her’s, her; Plur. they, their’s, them.”–_Ib._ “So shall ye serve strangers in a land that is not your’s.”–SCOTT ET AL.: _Jer._, v, 19. “Second person, Singular: Nom. thou or you, Poss. thine or yours, Obj. thee or you.”–_Frost’s El. of E. Gram._, p. 13. “Second person, Dual: Nom. Gyt, ye two; Gen. Incer, of ye two; Dat. Inc, incrum, to ye two; Acc. Inc, ye two; Voc. Eala inc, O ye two; Abl. Inc, incrum, from ye two.”–_Gwill’s Saxon Gram._, p. 12. “Second person, Plural; Nom. Ge, ye; Gen. Eower, of ye; Dat. Eow, to ye; Acc. Eow, ye; Voc. Eala ge, O ye; Abl. Eow, from ye.”–_Ib._ (_written in_ 1829.) “These words are, _mine, thine, his, her’s, our’s, your’s, their’s_, and _whose_.”–_Cardell’s Essay_, p. 88. “This house is _our’s_, and that is _your’s. Their’s_ is very commodious.”–_Ib._, p. 90. “And they shall eat up thine harvest, and thy bread: they shall eat up thy flocks and thine herds.”–_Jeremiah_, v, 17. “_Whoever_ and _Whichever_ are thus declined. _Sing._ and _Plu. nom._ whoever, _poss._ whoseever, _obj._ whomever. _Sing._ and _Plu. nom._ whichever, _poss._ whoseever, _obj._ whichever.”–_Cooper’s Plain and Practical Gram._, p. 38. “The compound personal pronouns are thus declined; _Sing. N._ Myself, _P._ my-own, _O._ myself; _Plur. N._ ourselves, _P._ our-own, _O._ ourselves. _Sing. N._ Thyself or yourself, _P._ thy-own or your-own, _O._ thyself or yourself;” &c.–_Perley’s Gram._, p. 16. “Every one of us, each for hisself, laboured how to recover him.”–SIDNEY: _in Priestley’s Gram._, p. 96. “Unless when ideas of their opposites manifestly suggest their selves.”–_Wright’s Gram._, p. 49. “It not only exists in time, but is time its self.”–_Ib._, p. 75. “A position which the action its self will palpably deny.”–_Ib._, p. 102. “A difficulty sometimes presents its self.”–_Ib._, p. 165. “They are sometimes explanations in their selves.”–_Ib._, p. 249. “Our’s, Your’s, Their’s, Her’s, It’s.”–_S. Barrett’s Gram._, p. 24.
“Their’s the wild chace of false felicities: His, the compos’d possession of the true.” –_Murray’s E. Reader_, p. 216.
LESSON III.–MIXED.
“It is the boast of Americans, without distinction of parties, that their government is the most free and perfect, which exists on the earth.”–_Dr. Allen’s Lectures_, p. 18.
[FORMULE.–Not proper, because the relative _which_ is here intended to be taken in a restrictive sense. But, according to Observation 26th, on the Classes of Pronouns, (and others that follow it,) the word _who_ or _which_, with a comma before it, does not usually limit the preceding term. Therefore, _which_ should be _that_, and the comma should be omitted; thus,–“that their government is the most free and perfect _that_ exists on the earth.”]
“Children, who are dutiful to their parents, enjoy great prosperity.”–_Sanborn’s Gram._, p. 69. “The scholar, who improves his time, sets an example worthy of imitation.”–_Ib._, p. 69. “Nouns and pronouns, which signify the same person, place, or thing, agree in case.”–_Cooper’s Gram._, p. 115. “An interrogative sentence is one, which asks a question.”–_Ib._, p. 114. “In the use of words and phrases, which in point of time relate to each other, a _due regard_ to _that relation_ should be _observed_.”–_Ib._, p. 146; see _L. Murray_’s Rule xiii. “The same observations, which have been made respecting the effect of the article and participle, appear to be applicable to the pronoun and participle.”–_Murray’s Gram._, p. 193. “The reason that they have not the same use of them in reading, may be traced to the very defective and erroneous method, in which the art of reading is taught.”–_Ib._, p. 252. “Since the time that reason began to exert her powers, thought, during our waking hours, has been active in every breast, without a moment’s suspension or pause.”–_Murray’s Key_, p. 271; _Merchant’s Gram._, p. 212. “In speaking of such who greatly delight in the same.”–_Notes to Dunciad_, 177. “Except such to whom the king shall hold out the golden sceptre, that he may live.”–_Esther_, iv, 11.–“But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom, it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.”–_Luke_, xvii, 29. “In the next place I will explain several cases of nouns and pronouns which have not yet come under our notice.”–_Kirkham’s Gram._, p. 129. “Three natural distinctions of time are all which can exist.”–_Rail’s Gram._, p. 15. “We have exhibited such only as are obviously distinct; and which seem to be sufficient, and not more than sufficient.”–_Murray’s Gram._, p. 68; _Hall’s_, 14. “This point encloses a part of a sentence which may be omitted without materially injuring the connexion of the other members.”–_Hall’s Gram._, p. 39. “Consonants are letters, which cannot be sounded without the aid of a Vowel.”–_Bucke’s Gram._, p. 9. “Words are not simple sounds, but sounds, which convey a meaning to the mind.”–_Ib._, p. 16. “Nature’s postures are always easy; and which is more, nothing but your own will can put you out of them.”–_Collier’s Antoninus_, p. 197. “Therefore ought we to examine our ownselves, and prove our ownselves.”–_Barclay’s Works_, i, 426. “Certainly it had been much more natural, to have divided Active Verbs into _Immanent_, or such whose Action is terminated in it self, and _Transient_, or such whose Action is terminated in something without it self.”–_Johnson’s Gram. Com._, p. 273. “This is such an advantage which no other lexicon will afford.”–DR. TAYLOR: _in Pike’s Lex._, p. iv. “For these reasons, such liberties are taken in the Hebrew tongue with those words as are of the most general and frequent use.”–_Pike’s Heb. Lexicon_, p. 184. “At the same time that we object to the laws, which the antiquarian in language would impose upon us, we must enter our protest against those authors, who are too fond of innovations.”–_Murray’s Gram._, Vol. i, p. 136.
CHAPTER VI.–VERBS.
A Verb is a word that signifies _to be, to act_, or _to be acted upon_: as, I _am_, I _rule_, I _am ruled_; I _love_, thou _lovest_, he _loves_. VERBS are so called, from the Latin _Verbum_, a _Word_; because the verb is that word which most essentially contains what is said in any clause or sentence.
An English verb has four CHIEF TERMS, or PRINCIPAL PARTS, ever needful to be ascertained in the first place; namely, the _Present_, the _Preterit_, the _Imperfect Participle_, and the _Perfect Participle_. The _Present_ is that form of the verb, which is the root of all the rest; the verb itself; or that simple term which we should look for in a dictionary: as, _be, act, rule, love, defend, terminate_.
The _Preterit_ is that simple form of the verb, which denotes time past; and which is always connected with some noun or pronoun, denoting the subject of the assertion: as, _I was, I acted, I ruled, I loved, I defended_.
The _Imperfect Participle_ is that which ends commonly[221] in _ing_, and implies a _continuance_ of the being, action, or passion: as, _being, acting, ruling, loving, defending, terminating_.
The _Perfect Participle_ is that which ends commonly in _ed_ or _en_, and implies a _completion_ of the being, action, or passion: as, _been, acted, ruled, loved_.
CLASSES.
Verbs are divided, with respect to their _form_, into four classes; _regular_ and _irregular, redundant_ and _defective_.
I. A _regular verb_ is a verb that forms the preterit and the perfect participle by assuming _d_ or _ed_; as, _love, loved, loving, loved_.
II. 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_.
III. 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_.
IV. A _defective verb_ is a verb that forms no participles, and is used in but few of the moods and tenses; as, _beware, ought, quoth_.
Verbs are divided again, with respect to their _signification_, into four classes; _active-transitive, active-intransitive, passive_, and _neuter_.
I. An _active-transitive_ verb is a verb that expresses an action which has some person or thing for its object; as, “Cain _slew Abel_.”–“Cassius _loved Brutus_.”
II. An _active-intransitive_ verb is a verb that expresses an action which has no person or thing for its object; as, “John _walks_.”–“Jesus _wept_.”
III. A. _passive verb_ is a verb that represents its subject, or what the nominative expresses, as being acted upon; as, “I _am compelled_.”–“Caesar _was slain_.”
IV. A _neuter verb_ is a verb that expresses neither action nor passion, but simply being, or a state of being; as, “There _was_ light.”–“The babe _sleeps_.”
OBSERVATIONS.
OBS. 1.–So various have been the views of our grammarians, respecting this complex and most important part of speech, that almost every thing that is contained in any theory or distribution of the English verbs, may be considered a matter of opinion and of dispute. Nay, the essential nature of a verb, in Universal Grammar, has never yet been determined by any received definition that can be considered unobjectionable. The greatest and most acute philologists confess that a faultless definition of this part of speech, is difficult, if not impossible, to be formed. Horne Tooke, at the close of his Diversions of Purley, cites with contempt nearly a dozen different attempts at a definition, some Latin, some English, some French; then, with the abruptness of affected disgust, breaks off the catalogue and the conversation together, leaving his readers to guess, if they can, what he conceived a verb to be. He might have added some scores of others, and probably would have been as little satisfied with any one of them. A definition like that which is given above, may answer in some degree the purpose of distinction; but, after all, we must judge what is, and what is not a verb, chiefly from our own observation of the sense and use of words.[222]
OBS. 2.–Whether _participles_ ought to be called verbs or not, is a question that has been much disputed, and is still variously decided; nor is it possible to settle it in any way not liable to some serious objections. The same may perhaps be said of all the forms called _infinitives_. If the essence of a verb be made to consist in affirmation, predication, or assertion, (as it is in many grammars,) neither infinitives nor participles can be reckoned verbs, without a manifest breach of the definition. Yet are the former almost universally treated as verbs, and by some as the only pure verbs; nor do all deny them this rank, who say that affirmation is _essential_ to a verb. Participles, when unconnected with auxiliaries, are most commonly considered a separate part of speech; but in the formation of many of our moods and tenses, we take them as _constituent parts of the verb_. If there is absurdity in this, there is more in undertaking to avoid it; and the inconvenience should be submitted to, since it amounts to little or nothing in practice. With auxiliaries, then, participles _are verbs_: without auxiliaries, they are _not verbs_, but form a separate part of speech.
OBS. 3.–The number of verbs in our language, amounts unquestionably to four or five thousand; some say, (perhaps truly,) to eight thousand. All these, whatever be the number, are confessedly _regular_ in their formation, except about two hundred. For, though the catalogues in our grammars give the number somewhat variously, all the irregular, redundant, and defective verbs, put together, are _commonly_ reckoned fewer than two hundred. I admit, in all, two hundred and nineteen. The regular verbs, therefore, are vastly more numerous than those which deviate from the stated form. But, since many of the latter are words of very frequent occurrence, the irregular verbs appear exceedingly numerous in practice, and consequently require a great deal of attention. The defective verbs being very few, and most of these few being mere auxiliaries, which are never parsed separately, there is little occasion to treat them as a distinct class; though Murray and others have ranked them so, and perhaps it is best to follow their example. The redundant verbs, which are regular in one form and irregular in an other, being of course always found written either one way or the other, as each author chooses, may be, and commonly have been, referred in parsing to the class of regular or irregular verbs accordingly. But, as their number is considerable, and their character peculiar, there may be some advantage in making them a separate class. Besides, the definition of an irregular verb, as given in any of our grammars, seems to exclude all such as _may_ form the preterit and the perfect participle by assuming _d_ or _ed_.
OBS. 4.–In most grammars and dictionaries, verbs are divided, with respect to their signification, into three classes only; _active, passive_, and _neuter_. In such a division, the class of _active_ verbs includes those only which are _active-transitive_, and all the _active-intransitive_ verbs are called _neuter_. But, in the division adopted above, _active-intransitive_ verbs are made a distinct class; and those only are regarded as neuter, which imply a state of existence without action. When, therefore, we speak of verbs without reference to their regimen, we may, if we please, apply the simple term active to all those which express _action_, whether _transitive_ or _intransitive_. “We _act_ whenever we _do_ any thing; but we _may act_ without _doing_ any thing.”–_Crabb’s Synonymes_.
OBS. 5.–Among the many English grammars in which verbs are divided, as above mentioned, into _active, passive_, and _neuter_, only, are those of the following writers: Lowth, Murray, Ainsworth, Alden, Allen, Alger, Bacon, Bicknell, Blair, Bullions, (at first,) Charles Adams, Bucke, Cobbett, Cobbin, Dilworth, A. Flint, Frost, (at first,) Greenleaf, Hall, Johnson,[223] Lennie, Picket, Pond, Sanborn, R. C. Smith, Rev. T. Smith, and Wright. These authors, and many more, agree, that, “A _verb neuter_ expresses neither action nor passion, but being, or a state of being.”–_L. Murray_. Yet, according to their scheme, such words as _walk, run, fly, strive, struggle, wrestle, contend_, are verbs _neuter_. In view of this palpable absurdity, I cannot but think it was a useful improvement upon the once popular scheme of English grammar, to make active-intransitive verbs a distinct class, and to apply the term _neuter_ to those few only which accord with the foregoing definition. This had been done before the days of Lindley Murray, as may be seen in Buchanan’s English Syntax, p. 56, and in the old British Grammar, p. 153, each published many years before the appearance of his work;[224] and it has often been done since, and is preferred even by many of the professed admirers and followers of Murray; as may be seen in the grammars of Comly, Fisk, Merchant, Kirkham, and others.
OBS. 6.–Murray himself quotes this improved distribution, and with some appearance of approbation; but strangely imagines it must needs be _inconvenient_ in practice. Had he been a schoolmaster, he could hardly have so judged. He says, “Verbs have been distinguished by some writers, into the following kinds:–
“1st. _Active-transitive_, or those which denote an action that passes from the agent to some object: as, Caesar conquered Pompey.
“2d. _Active-intransitive_, or those which express that kind of action, which has no effect upon any thing beyond itself: as, Caesar walked.
“3d. _Passive_, or those which express, not action, but passion, whether pleasing or painful: as, Portia was loved; Pompey was conquered.
“4th. _Neuter_, or those which express an attribute that consists neither in action nor passion: as, Caesar stood.
“This appears to be an orderly arrangement. But if the class of _active-intransitive_ verbs were admitted, _it would rather perplex_ than assist the learner: for the difference between verbs active and neuter, as transitive and intransitive is easy and obvious: but the difference between verbs absolutely neuter and [those which are] intransitively active, is not always clear. It is, indeed, often _very difficult_, if not impossible to be ascertained.”–_Murray’s Gram._, 8vo, p. 60.[225]
OBS. 7.–The following note, from a book written on purpose to apply the principles of Murray’s Grammar, and of Allen’s, (the two best of the foregoing two dozen,) may serve as an offset to the reason above assigned for rejecting the class of active-intransitive verbs: “It is possible that some teachers may look upon the nice distinction here made, between the active _transitive_ and the active _intransitive verbs_, as totally unnecessary. They may, perhaps, rank the latter with the neuter verbs. The author had his choice of difficulties: on the one hand, he was aware that his arrangement might not suit the views of the above-mentioned persons; and, on the other, he was so sensible of the inaccuracy of their system, and of its clashing with the definitions, as well as rules, laid down in almost every grammar, that he was unwilling to bring before the public a work containing so well-known and manifest an error. Of what use can Murray’s definition of the _active_ verb be, to one who endeavours to prove the propriety of thus assigning an epithet to the various parts of speech, in the course of parsing? He says, ‘A verb active expresses an action, and necessarily implies an agent, and an object acted upon.’ In the sentence, ‘William hastens away,’ the active intransitive verb _hastens_ has indeed an _agent_, ‘William,’ but where is the _object_? Again, he says, ‘Active verbs govern the objective case;’ although it is clear it is not the _active_ meaning of the verb which requires the objective case, but the _transitive_, and that only. He adds, ‘A verb neuter expresses _neither action, nor passion_, but being, or a state of being;’ and the accuracy of this definition is borne out by the assent of perhaps every other grammarian. If, with this clear and forcible definition before our eyes, we proceed to class _active_ intransitive verbs with neuter verbs, and direct our pupils to prove such a classification by reciting Murray’s definition of the _neuter_ verb, we may indeed expect from a thinking pupil the remonstrance which was actually made to a teacher on that system, while parsing the verb ‘_to run_.’ ‘Sir,’ asks the boy, ‘does not _to run_ imply action, for it always makes me perspire?'”–_Nixon’s English Parser_, p. 9.
OBS. 8.–For the consideration of those classical scholars who may think we are bound by the authority of _general usage_, to adhere to the old division of verbs into active, passive, and neuter, it may be proper to say, that the distribution of the verbs in Latin, has been as much a matter of dispute among the great grammarians of that language, as has the distribution of English verbs, more recently, among ourselves; and often the points at issue were precisely the same.[226] To explain here the different views of the very old grammarians, as Charisius, Donatus, Servius, Priscian; or even to notice the opinions of later critics, as Sanctius, Scioppius, Vossius, Perizonius; might seem perhaps a needless departure from what the student of mere English grammar is concerned to know. The curious, however, may find interesting citations from all these authors, under the corresponding head, in some of our Latin grammars. See _Prat’s Grammatica Latina_, 8vo, London, 1722. It is certain that the division of _active_ verbs, into _transitive_ and _intransitive_–or, (what is the same thing,) into “_absolute_ and _transitive_”–or, into “_immanent_ and _transient_”–is of a very ancient date. The notion of calling _passive_ verbs _transitive_, when used in their ordinary and proper construction, as some now do, is, I think, a _modern_ one, and no small error.
OBS. 9.–Dr. Adam’s distribution of verbs, is apparently the same as the first part of Murray’s; and his definitions are also in nearly the same words. But he adds, “The verb _Active_ is also called _Transitive_, when the action _passeth over_ to the object, or hath an effect on some other thing; as, _scribo literas_, I write letters: but when the action is confined within the agent, and _passeth not over_ to any object, it is called _Intransitive_; as, _ambulo_, I walk; _curro_, I run: [fist] which are likewise called _Neuter Verbs_.”–_Adam’s Latin and English Gram._, p. 79. But he had just before said, “A _Neuter_ verb properly expresses neither action nor passion, but _simply the being, state, or condition_ of things; as, _dormio_, I sleep; _sedeo_, I sit.”–_Ibid._ Verbs of motion or action, then, must needs be as improperly called neuter, in Latin, as in English. Nor is this author’s arrangement orderly in other respects; for he treats of “_Deponent_ and _Common_ Verbs,” of “_Irregular_ Verbs,” of “_Defective_ Verbs,” and of “_Impersonal_ Verbs,” none of which had he mentioned in his distribution. Nor are the late revisers of his grammar any more methodical.
OBS. 10.–The division of our verbs into _active-transitive, active-intransitive, passive_, and _neuter_, must be understood to have reference not only to their _signification_ as of themselves, but also to their _construction_ with respect to the government of an objective word after them. The latter is in fact their most important distinction, though made _with reference_ to a different part of speech. The classical scholar, too, being familiar with the forms of Latin and Greek verbs, will doubtless think it a convenience, to have the arrangement as nearly correspondent to those ancient forms, as the nature of our language will admit. This is perhaps the strongest argument for the recognition of the class of _passive verbs_ in English. Some grammarians, choosing to parse the passive participle separately, reject this class of verbs altogether; and, forming their division of the rest with reference to the construction alone, make but two classes, _transitive_ and _intransitive_. Such is the distribution adopted by C. Alexander, D. Adams, Bingham, Chandler, E. Cobb, Harrison, Nutting, and John Peirce; and supported also by some British writers, among whom are McCulloch and Grant. Such too was the distribution of Webster, in his Plain and Comprehensive Grammar, as published in 1800. He then taught: “We have no _passive_ verb in the language; and those which are called _neuter_ are mostly _active_.”–Page 14. But subsequently, in his Philosophical, Abridged, and Improved Grammars, he recognized “a more natural and comprehensive division” of verbs, “_transitive, intransitive, and passive_.”–_Webster’s Rudiments_, p. 20. This, in reality, differs but little from the old division into _active, passive_, and _neuter_. In some grammars of recent date, as Churchill’s, R. W. Bailey’s, J. R. Brown’s, Butler’s, S. W. Clark’s, Frazee’s, Hart’s, Hendrick’s, Perley’s, Pinneo’s, Weld’s, Wells’s, Mulligan’s, and the _improved_ treatises of Bullions and Frost, verbs are said to be of _two_ kinds only, _transitive_ and _intransitive_; but these authors allow to transitive verbs a “passive form,” or “passive voice,”–absurdly making all passive verbs transitive, and all neuters intransitive, as if _action_ were expressed by both. For this most faulty classification, Dr. Bullions pretends the authority of “Mr. Webster;” and Frazee, that of “Webster, Bullions, and others.”–_Frazee’s Gram._, Ster. Ed., p. 30. But if Dr. Webster ever taught the absurd doctrine _that passive verbs are transitive_, he has contradicted it far too much to have any weight in its favour.
OBS. 11.–Dalton makes only two classes; and these he will have to be _active_ and _passive_: an arrangement for which he might have quoted Scaliger, Sanctius, and Scioppius. Ash and Coar recognize but two, which they call _active_ and _neuter_. This was also the scheme of Bullions, in his Principles of E. Gram., 4th Edition, 1842. Priestley and Maunder have two, which they call _transitive_ and _neuter_; but Maunder, like some named above, will have transitive verbs to be susceptible of an active and a passive voice, and Priestley virtually asserts the same. Cooper, Day, Davis, Hazen, Hiley, Webster, Wells, (in his 1st Edition,) and Wilcox. have three classes; _transitive, intransitive_, and _passive_. Sanders’s Grammar has _three_; “_Transitive, Intransitive_, and _Neuter_;” and two voices, both _transitive!_ Jaudon has four: _transitive, intransitive, auxiliary_, and _passive_. Burn has four; _active, passive, neuter_, and _substantive_. Cardell labours hard to prove that all verbs are _both active and transitive_; and for this, had he desired their aid, he might have cited several ancient authorities.[227] Cutler avers, “_All verbs are active_;” yet he divides them “into _active transitive, active intransitive_, and _participial verbs_.”–_Grammar and Parser_, p. 31. Some grammarians, appearing to think all the foregoing modes of division useless, attempt nothing of the kind. William Ward, in 1765, rejected all such classification, but recognized three voices; “Active, Passive, and Middle; as, _I call, I am called, I am calling_.” Farnum, in 1842, acknowledged the first two of these voices, but made no division of verbs into classes.
OBS. 12.–If we admit the class of _active-intransitive_ verbs, that of verbs _neuter_ will unquestionably be very small. And this refutes Murray’s objection, that the learner will “_often_” be puzzled to know which is which. Nor can it be of any consequence, if he happen in some instances to decide wrong. To _be_, to _exist_, to _remain_, to _seem_, to _lie_, to _sleep_, to _rest_, to _belong_, to _appertain_, and perhaps a few more, may best be called _neuter_; though some grammarians, as may be inferred from what is said above, deny that there are any neuter verbs in any language. “Verba Neutra, ait Sanctius, nullo pacto esse possunt; quia, teste Aristotele, omnis motus, actio, vel passio, nihil medium est.”–_Prat’s Latin Gram._, p. 117. John Grant, in his Institutes of Latin Grammar, recognizes in the verbs of that language the distinction which Murray supposes to be so “very difficult” in those of our own; and, without falling into the error of Sanctius, or of Lily,[228] respecting neuter verbs, judiciously confines the term to such as are neuter in reality.
OBS. 13.–Active-transitive verbs, in English, generally require, that the agent or doer of the action be expressed _before_ them in the nominative case, and the object or receiver of the action, _after_ them in the objective; as, “Caesar _conquered_ Pompey.” Passive verbs, which are never primitives, but always derived from active-transitive verbs, (in order to form sentences of like import from natural opposites in voice and sense,) reverse this order, change the cases of the nouns, and denote that the subject, named before them, is affected by the action; while the agent follows, being introduced by the preposition _by_: as, “Pompey _was conquered_ by Caesar.” But, as our passive verb always consists of two or more separable parts, this order is liable to be varied, especially in poetry; as,
“How many things _by season seasoned are_ To their right praise and true perfection!”–_Shakspeare_.
“Experience _is by industry achieved_, And _perfected by_ the swift _course_ of time.”–_Id._
OBS. 14.–Most active verbs may be used either transitively or intransitively. Active verbs are transitive whenever there is any person or thing expressed or clearly implied on which the action terminates; as, “I _knew_ him well, and every truant _knew_.”–_Goldsmith_. When they do not govern such an object, they are intransitive, whatever may be their power on other occasions; as, “The grand elementary principles of pleasure, by which he _knows_, and _feels_, and _lives_, and _moves_.”–_Wordsworth’s Pref._, p. xxiii. “The Father _originates_ and _elects_. The Son _mediates_ and _atones_. The Holy Spirit _regenerates_ and _sanctifies_.”–_Gurney’s Portable Evidences_, p. 66. “Spectators _remark_, judges _decide_, parties _watch_.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 271. “In a sermon, a preacher _may explain, demonstrate, infer, exhort, admonish, comfort_.”–_Alexander’s E. Gram._, p. 91.
OBS. 15.–Some verbs may be used in either an active or a neuter sense. In the sentence, “Here I rest,” _rest_ is a neuter verb; but in the sentence, “Here I rest my hopes,” _rest_ is an active-transitive verb, and governs _hopes_. And a few that are always active in a grammatical sense, as necessarily requiring an object after them, do not always indicate such an exertion of force as we commonly call _action_. Such perhaps are the verbs to _have_, to _possess_, to _owe_, to _cost_; as, “They _have_ no wine.”–“The house _has_ a portico.”–“The man _possesses_ no real estate.”–“A son _owes_ help and honour to his father.”–_Holyday_. “The picture _cost_ a crown.”–_Wright_, p. 181. Yet possibly even these may be sometimes rather active-intransitive; as, “I can bear my part; ’tis my occupation: _have_ at it with you.”–_Shakspeare_. “Kings _have_ to deal with their neighbours.”–_Bacon_. “She will let her instructions enter where folly now _possesses_.”–_Shakspeare._
“Thou hast deserv’d more love than I can show; But ’tis thy fate to give, and mine to _owe_.”–_Dryden_.
OBS. 16.–An active-intransitive verb, followed by a preposition and its object, will sometimes admit of being put into the passive form: the object of the preposition being assumed for the nominative, and the preposition itself being retained with the verb, as an adverb: as, (_Active_,) “They _laughed_ at him.”–(_Passive_,) “He _was laughed at_.” “For some time the nonconformists _were connived at_.”–_Robertson’s America_, Vol. ii, p. 414. “Every man _shall be dealt_ equitably with.”–_Butler’s Analogy_, p. 212. “If a church _would be looked up to_, it must stand high.”–_Parker’s Idea_, p. 15.
OBS. 17.–In some instances, what is commonly considered the active form of the verb, is used in a passive sense; and, still oftener, as we have no other passive form that so well denotes continuance, we employ the participle in _ing_ in that sense also: as, “I’ll teach you all what’s _owing_ to your Queen.”–_Dryden_. That is–what is _due_, or _owed_. “The books continue _selling_; i.e. _upon the sale_, or _to be sold_.”–_Priestley’s Gram._, p. 111. “So we say the brass is _forging_; i.e. _at the forging_, or _in_ [_being forged_.”]–_Ib._ “They are to _blame_; i.e. to _be blamed._”–_Ib._ Hence some grammarians seem to think, that in our language the distinction between active and passive verbs is of little consequence: “Mr. Grant, however, observes, p. 65, ‘The component parts of the English verb, or name of action, are few, simple, and natural; they, consist of three words, as _plough, ploughing, ploughed_. Now these words, and their inflections, may be employed either actively or passively. Actively, ‘They _plough_ the fields; they _are ploughing_ the fields; they _ploughed_, or _have ploughed_, the fields.’ Passively, ‘The fields _plough_ well; the fields _are ploughing_; the fields _are ploughed_.’ This passive use of the present tense and participle is, however, restricted to what he denominates ‘verbs of _external, material_, or _mechanical action_;’ and not to be extended to verbs of _sensation_ and _perception_; e.g. _love, feel, see, &c_.”–_Nutting’s Gram._, p. 40.
MODIFICATIONS.
Verbs have modifications of four kinds; namely, _Moods, Tenses, Persons_ and _Numbers_.
MOODS.
Moods [229] are different forms of the verb, each of which expresses the being, action, or passion, in some particular manner.
There are five moods; the _Infinitive_, the _Indicative_, the _Potential_, the _Subjunctive_, and the _Imperative_.
The _Infinitive mood_ is that form of the verb, which expresses the being, action, or passion, in an unlimited manner, and without person or number: as, “To _die_,–to _sleep_;–To _sleep_!–perchance, to _dream!_”
The _Indicative mood_ is that form of the verb, which simply indicates or declares a thing: as, I _write_; you _know_: or asks a question; as, “Do you _know?_”–“_Know_ ye not?”
The _Potential mood_ is that form of the verb which expresses the power, liberty, possibility, or necessity, of the being, action, or passion: as, “I _can walk_; he _may ride_; we _must go_.”
The _Subjunctive mood_ is that form of the verb, which represents the being, action, or passion, as conditional, doubtful, and contingent: as, “If thou _go_, see that thou _offend_ not.”–“See thou _do_ it not.”–_Rev._, xix, 10.
The _Imperative mood_ is that form of the verb which is used in commanding, exhorting, entreating, or permitting: as, “_Depart_ thou.”–“Be _comforted_.”–“_Forgive_ me.”–“_Go_ in peace.”
OBSERVATIONS.
OBS. 1.–The _Infinitive_ mood is so called in opposition to the other moods, in which the verb is said to be _finite_. In all the other moods, the verb has a strict connexion, and necessary agreement in person and number, with some subject or nominative, expressed or understood; but the infinitive is the mere verb, without any such agreement, and has no power of completing sense with a noun. In the nature of things, however, all being, action, or passion, not contemplated abstractly as a _thing_, belongs to something that is, or acts, or is acted upon. Accordingly infinitives have, in most instances, a _reference_ to some subject of this kind; though their grammatical dependence connects them more frequently with some other term. The infinitive mood, in English, is distinguished by the preposition to; which, with a few exceptions, immediately precedes it, and may be said to govern it. In dictionaries, and grammars, _to_ is often used as a mere _index_, to distinguish verbs from the other parts of speech. But this little word has no more claim to be ranked as a part of the verb, than has the conjunction _if_, which is the sign of the subjunctive. It is the nature of a preposition, to show the relation of different things, thoughts, or words, to each other; and this “sign of the infinitive” may well be pursued separately as a preposition, since in most instances it manifestly shows the relation between the infinitive verb and some other term. Besides, by most of our grammarians, the present tense of the infinitive mood is declared to be the _radical form_ of the verb; but this doctrine must be plainly untrue, upon the supposition that this tense is a compound.
OBS. 2.–The _Indicative_ mood is so called because its chief use is, to _indicate_, or declare positively, whatever one wishes to say. It is that form of the verb, which we always employ when we affirm or deny any thing in a direct and independent manner. It is more frequently used, and has a greater number of tenses, than any other mood; and is also, in our language, the only one in which the principal verb is varied in termination. It is not, however, on all occasions, confined to its primary use; else it would be simply and only declarative. But we use it sometimes interrogatively, sometimes conditionally; and each of these uses is different from a simple declaration. Indeed, the difference between a question and an assertion is practically very great. Hence some of the old grammarians made the form of inquiry a separate mood, which they called the _Interrogative Mood_. But, as these different expressions are distinguished, not by any difference of form in the verb itself, but merely by a different order, choice, or delivery of the words, it has been found most convenient in practice, to treat them as one mood susceptible of different senses. So, in every conditional sentence, the _prot’asis_, or condition, differs considerably from the _apod’osis_, or principal clause, even where both are expressed as facts. Hence some of our modern grammarians, by the help of a few connectives, absurdly merge a great multitude of Indicative or Potential expressions in what they call the _Subjunctive Mood_. But here again it is better to refer still to the Indicative or Potential mood whatsoever has any proper sign of such mood, even though it occur in a dependent clause.
OBS. 3.–The _Potential_ mood is so called because the leading idea expressed by it, is that of the _power_ of performing some action. This mood is known by the signs _may, can, must, might, could, would_, and _should_. Some of these auxiliaries convey other ideas than that of power in the agent; but there is no occasion to explain them severally here. The potential mood, like the indicative, may be used in asking a question; as, “_Must_ I _budge_? _must_ I _observe_ you? _must_ I _stand_ and _crouch_ under your testy humour?”–_Shakspeare_. No question can be asked in any other mood than these two. By some grammarians, the potential mood has been included in the subjunctive, because its meaning is often expressed in Latin by what in that language is called the subjunctive. By others, it has been entirely rejected, because all its tenses are compound, and it has been thought the words could as well be parsed separately. Neither of these opinions is sufficiently prevalent, or sufficiently plausible, to deserve a laboured refutation. On the other hand, James White, in his Essay on the English Verb, (London, 1761,) divided this mood into the following five: “the _Elective_,” denoted by _may_ or _might_; “the _Potential_,” by _can_ or _could_; “the _Determinative_” by _would_; “the _Obligative_,” by _should_; and “the _Compulsive_,” by _must_. Such a distribution is needlessly minute. Most of these can as well be spared as those other “moods, _Interrogative, Optative, Promissive, Hortative, Precative_, &c.”, which Murray mentions only to reject. See his _Octavo Gram._, p. 68.
OBS. 4.–The _Subjunctive_ mood is so called because it is always _subjoined_ to an other verb. It usually denotes some doubtful contingency, or some supposition contrary to fact. The manner of its dependence is commonly denoted by one of the following conjunctions; _if, that, though, lest, unless_. The indicative and potential moods, in all their tenses, may be used in the same dependent manner, to express any positive or potential condition; but this seems not to be a sufficient reason for considering them as parts of the subjunctive mood. In short, the idea of a “subjunctive mood in the indicative form,” (which is adopted by Chandler, Frazee, Fisk, S. S. Greene, Comly, Ingersoll, R. C. Smith, Sanborn, Mack, Butler, Hart, Weld, Pinneo, and others,) is utterly inconsistent with any just notion of what a mood is; and the suggestion, which we frequently meet with, that the regular indicative or potential mood may be _thrown into the subjunctive_ by merely prefixing a conjunction, is something worse than nonsense. Indeed, no mood can ever be made _a part of an other_, without the grossest confusion and absurdity. Yet, strange as it is, some celebrated authors, misled by an _if_, have tangled together three of them, producing such a snarl of tenses as never yet can have been understood without being thought ridiculous. See _Murray’s Grammar_, and others that agree with his late editions.
OBS. 5.–In regard to the number and form of the tenses which should constitute the _subjunctive mood_ in English, our grammarians are greatly at variance; and some, supposing its distinctive parts to be but elliptical forms of the indicative or the potential,[230] even deny the existence of such a mood altogether. On this point, the instructions published by Lindley Murray, however commended and copied, are most remarkably vague and inconsistent.[231] The early editions of his Grammar gave to this mood _six tenses_, none of which had any of the personal inflections; consequently there was, in all the tenses, _some difference_ between it and the indicative. His later editions, on the contrary, make the subjunctive exactly like the indicative, except in the present tense, and in the choice of auxiliaries for the second-future. Both ways, he goes too far. And while at last he restricts the _distinctive form_ of the subjunctive to narrower bounds than he ought, and argues against, “If thou _loved_, If thou _knew_,” &c., he gives to this mood not only the last five tenses of the indicative, but also all those of the potential, with its multiplied auxiliaries; alleging, “that as the indicative mood _is converted_ into the subjunctive, by the expression of a condition, motive, wish, supposition, &c.[232] being superadded to it, so the potential mood may, in like manner, _be turned into_ the subjunctive.”–_Octavo Gram._, p. 82. According to this, the subjunctive mood of every regular verb embraces, in one voice, as many as one hundred and thirty-eight different expressions; and it may happen, that in one single tense a verb shall have no fewer than fifteen different forms in each person and number. Six times fifteen are ninety; and so many are the several phrases which now compose Murray’s pluperfect tense of the subjunctive mood of the verb _to strow_–a tense which most grammarians very properly reject as needless! But this is not all. The scheme not only confounds the moods, and utterly overwhelms the learner with its multiplicity, but condemns as bad English what the author himself once adopted and taught for the imperfect tense of the subjunctive mood, “If thou _loved_, If thou _knew_,” &c., wherein he was sustained by Dr. Priestley, by Harrison, by Caleb Alexander, by John Burn, by Alexander Murray, the schoolmaster, and by others of high authority. Dr. Johnson, indeed, made the preterit subjunctive like the indicative; and this may have induced the author to change his plan, and inflect this part of the verb with _st_. But Dr. Alexander Murray, a greater linguist than either of them, very positively declares this to be wrong: “When such words as _if, though, unless, except, whether_, and the like, are used before verbs, they lose their terminations of _est, eth_, and _s_, in those persons which commonly have them. No speaker of good English, expressing himself conditionally, says, Though thou _fallest_, or Though he _falls_, but, Though thou _fall_, and Though he _fall_; nor, Though thou _camest_, but, Though, or although, thou _came_.”–_History of European Languages_, Vol. i, p. 55.
OBS. 6.–Nothing is more important in the grammar of any language, than a knowledge of the _true forms_ of its verbs. Nothing is more difficult in the grammar of our own, than to learn, in this instance and some others, what forms we ought to prefer. Yet some authors tell us, and Dr. Lowth among the rest, that our language is wonderfully simple and easy. Perhaps it is so. But do not its “simplicity and facility” appear greatest to those who know least about it?–i.e., least of its grammar, and least of its history? In citing a passage from the eighteenth chapter of Ezekiel, Lord Kames has taken the liberty to change the word _hath_ to _have_ seven times in one sentence. This he did, upon the supposition that the subjunctive mood has a perfect tense which differs from that of the indicative; and for such an idea he had the authority of Dr. Johnson’s Grammar, and others. The sentence is this: “But if he _be_ a robber, a shedder of blood; if he _have_ eaten upon the mountains, and defiled his neighbour’s wife; if he _have_ oppressed the poor and needy, _have_ spoiled by violence, _have_ not restored the pledge, _have lift_ up his eyes to idols, _have_ given forth upon usury, and _have_ taken increase: shall he live? he shall not live.”–_Elements of Criticism_, Vol. ii, p. 261. Now, is this good English, or is it not? One might cite about half of our grammarians in favour of this reading, and the other half against it; with Murray, the most noted of all, first on one side, and then on the other. Similar puzzles may be presented concerning three or four other tenses, which are sometimes ascribed, and sometimes denied, to this mood. It seems to me, after much examination, that the subjunctive mood in English should have _two tenses_, and no more; the _present_ and the _imperfect_. The present tense of this mood naturally implies contingency and futurity, while the imperfect here becomes an _aorist_, and serves to suppose a case as a mere supposition, a case contrary to fact. Consequently the foregoing sentence, if expressed by the subjunctive at all, ought to be written thus: “But if he _be_ a robber, a shedder of blood; if he _eat_ upon the mountains, and _defile_ his neighbour’s wife; if he _oppress_ the poor and needy, _spoil_ by violence, _restore_ not the pledge, _lift_ up his eyes to idols, _give_ forth upon usury, and _take_ increase; shall he live? he shall not live.”
OBS. 7.–“Grammarians _generally_ make a present and a past time under the subjunctive mode.”–_Cobbett’s E. Gram._, 100. These are the tenses which are given to the subjunctive by _Blair_, in his “_Practical Grammar_.” If any one will give to this mood _more_ tenses than these, the five which are adopted by _Staniford_, are perhaps the least objectionable: namely, “_Present_, If thou love, or do love; _Imperfect_, If thou loved, or did love; _Perfect_, If thou have loved; _Pluperfect_, If thou had loved; _Future_, If thou should or would love.”–_Staniford’s Gram._, p. 22. But there are no sufficient reasons for even this extension of its tenses.–Fisk, speaking of this mood, says: “Lowth restricts it entirely to the present tense.”–“Uniformity on this point is highly desirable.”–“On this subject, we adopt the opinion of Dr. Lowth.”–_English Grammar Simplified_, p. 70. His desire of uniformity he has both heralded and backed by a palpable misstatement. The learned Doctor’s subjunctive mood, in the second person singular, is this: “_Present time_. Thou love; AND, Thou _mayest_ love. _Past time_. Thou _mightest_ love; AND, Thou _couldst_, &c. love; and have loved.”–_Lowth’s Gram._, p. 38. But Fisk’s subjunctive runs thus: “_Indic. form_, If thou lovest; _varied form_, If thou love.” And again: “_Present tense_, If thou art, If thou be; _Imperfect tense_, If thou wast, If thou wert.”–_Fisk’s Grammar Simplified_, p. 70. His very definition of the subjunctive mood is illustrated _only by the indicative_; as, “If thou _walkest_.”–“I will perform the operation, if he _desires_ it.”–_Ib._, p. 69. Comly’s subjunctive mood, except in some of his early editions, stands thus: “_Present tense_, If thou lovest; _Imperfect tense_, If thou lovedst or loved; _First future tense_, If thou (shalt) love.”–_Eleventh Ed._, p. 41. This author teaches, that the indicative or potential, when preceded by an _if_, “should be _parsed_ in the subjunctive mood.”–_Ib._, p. 42. Of what is in fact the true subjunctive, he says: “_Some writers_ use the singular number in the present tense of the subjunctive mood, without any variation; as, ‘if I _love_, if thou _love_, if he _love_.’ But this usage _must be ranked amongst the anomalies_ of our language.”–_Ib._, p. 41. Cooper, in his pretended “_Abridgment of Murray’s Grammar, Philad._, 1828,” gave to the subjunctive mood the following form, which contains all six of the tenses: “2d pers. If thou love, If thou do love, If thou loved, If thou did love, If thou have loved, If thou had loved, If thou shall (or will) love, If thou shall (or will) have loved.” This is almost exactly what Murray at first adopted, and afterwards rejected; though it is probable, from the abridger’s preface, that the latter was ignorant of this fact. Soon afterwards, a perusal of Dr. Wilson’s Essay on Grammar dashed from the reverend gentleman’s mind the whole of this fabric; and in his “Plain and Practical Grammar, Philad., 1831,” he acknowledges but four moods, and concludes some pages of argument thus: “From the above considerations, it will appear _to every sound grammarian_, that our language does not admit a subjunctive mode, at least, separate and distinct from the indicative and potential.”–_Cooper’s New Gram._, p. 63.
OBS. 8.–The true _Subjunctive_ mood, in English, is virtually rejected by some later grammarians, who nevertheless acknowledge under that name a greater number and variety of forms than have ever been claimed for it in any other tongue. All that is peculiar to the Subjunctive, all that should constitute it a distinct mood, they represent as an archaism, an obsolete or antiquated mode of expression, while they willingly give to it every form of both the indicative and the potential, the two other moods which sometimes follow an _if_. Thus Wells, in his strange entanglement of the moods, not only gives to the subjunctive, as well as to the indicative, a “Simple” or “Common Form,” and a “Potential Form;” not only recognizes in each an “Auxiliary Form,” and a “Progressive Form;” but encumbers the whole with distinctions of style,–with what he calls the “Common Style,” and the “Ancient Style;” or the “Solemn Style,” and the “Familiar Style:” yet, after all, his own example of the Subjunctive, “Take heed, lest any man _deceive_ you,” is obviously different from all these, and not explainable under any of his paradigms! Nor is it truly consonant with any part of his theory, which is this: “The subjunctive of all verbs except _be_, takes _the same form as the indicative_. Good writers were formerly much accustomed to _drop_ the personal termination in the _subjunctive present_, and write ‘If he _have_,’ ‘If he _deny_,’ etc., for ‘If he _has_,’ ‘If he _denies_,’ etc.; but this termination is now _generally retained_, unless _an auxiliary is understood_. Thus, ‘If he _hear_,’ may properly be used for ‘If he _shall hear_’ or ‘If he _should hear_,’ but not for ‘If he _hears_.'”–_Wells’s School Gram._, 1st Ed., p. 83; 3d Ed., p. 87. Now every position here taken is demonstrably absurd. How could “good writers” indite “much” bad English by _dropping_ from the subjunctive an indicative ending which never belonged to it? And how can a needless “auxiliary” be “_understood_,” on the principle of equivalence, where, by awkwardly changing a mood or tense, it only helps some grammatical theorist to convert good English into bad, or to pervert a text? The phrases above may all be right, or all be wrong, according to the correctness or incorrectness of their application: when each is used as best it may be, there is no exact equivalence. And this is true of half a dozen more of the same sort; as, “If he _does hear_,”–“If he _do hear_,”–“If he is _hearing_,”–“If he _be hearing_,”–“If he _shall be hearing_,”–“If he _should be hearing_.”
OBS. 9.–Similar to Wells’s, are the subjunctive forms of Allen H. Weld. Mistaking _annex_ to signify _prefix_, this author teaches thus: “ANNEX _if, though, unless, suppose, admit, grant, allow_, or any word implying a _condition_, to each tense of the _Indicative and Potential modes_, to form the subjunctive; as, If thou lovest or love. If he loves, or love. Formerly it was customary to _omit the terminations_ in the second and third persons of the present tense of the Subjunctive mode. But now the terminations are _generally retained_, except when the ellipsis of _shall_ or _should_ is implied; as, If he obey, i. e., if he _shall_, or _should_ obey.”–_Weld’s Grammar, Abridged Edition_, p. 71. Again: “_In general_, the form of the verb in the Subjunctive, _is the same as that of the Indicative_; but an _elliptical form_ in the second and third _person_ [persona] singular, is used in the following instances: (1.) _Future contingency_ is expressed by the _omission of the Indicative termination_; as, If he go, for, if he _shall_ go. Though he slay me, i.e., though he _should_ slay me. (2.) _Lest_ and _that_ annexed to a command are followed by the _elliptical form_ of the Subjunctive; as, Love not sleep [,] lest thou _come_ to poverty. (3.) _If_ with _but_ following it, when futurity is denoted, requires the _elliptical form_; as, If he _do_ but _touch_ the hills, they shall smoke.”–_Ib._, p. 126. As for this scheme, errors and inconsistencies mark every part of it. First, the rule for forming the subjunctive is false, and is plainly contradicted _by all that is true_ in the examples: “_If thou love_,” or, “_If he love_” contains not the form of the indicative. Secondly, no terminations have ever been “generally” omitted from, or retained in, the form of the subjunctive present; because that part of the mood, as commonly exhibited, is well known to be made of the _radical verb_, without inflection. One might as well talk of suffixes for the imperative, “_Love_ thou,” or “_Do_ thou love.” Thirdly, _shall_ or _should_ can never be really implied in the subjunctive present; because the supposed ellipsis, needless and unexampled, would change the tense, the mood, and commonly also the meaning. “If he _shall_,” properly implies a condition of _future certainty_; “If he _should_,” a supposition of _duty_: the true subjunctive suggests neither of these. Fourthly, “the ellipsis of _shall_, or _should_,” is most absurdly called above, “the omission of the _Indicative termination_.” Fifthly, it is very strangely supposed, that to omit what pertains to the _indicative_ or the _potential_ mood, will produce an “elliptical form of _the Subjunctive_.” Sixthly, such examples as the last, “If he _do_ but _touch_ the hills,” having the auxiliary _do_ not inflected as in the indicative, disprove the whole theory.
OBS. 10.–In J. B. Chandler’s grammars, are taken nearly the same views of the “Subjunctive or Conditional Mood,” that have just been noticed. “This mood,” we are told, “is _only_ the indicative _or_ potential mood, with the word _if_ placed before the nominative case.”–_Gram. of_ 1821, p. 48; _Gram. of_ 1847, p. 73. Yet, of even _this_, the author has said, in the former edition, “It would, perhaps, be _better to abolish the use_ of the subjunctive mood entirely. _Its use_ is a continual source of dispute among grammarians, and of perplexity to scholars.”–Page 33. The suppositive verb _were_,–(as, “_Were_ I a king,”–“If I _were_ a king,”–) which this author formerly rejected, preferring _was_, is now, after six and twenty years, replaced in his own examples; and yet he still attempts to _disgrace it_, by falsely representing it as being only “the indicative _plural_” very grossly misapplied! See _Chandler’s Common School Gram._, p. 77.
OBS. 11.–The _Imperative_ mood is so called because it is chiefly used in _commanding_. It is that brief form of the verb, by which we directly urge upon others our claims and wishes. But the nature of this urging varies according to the relation of the parties. We command inferiors; exhort equals; entreat superiors; permit whom we will;–and all by this same imperative form of the verb. In answer to a request, the imperative implies nothing more than permission. The will of a superior may also be urged imperatively by the indicative, future. This form is particularly common in solemn prohibitions; as, “Thou _shalt not kill_. * * * Thou _shalt not steal_.”–_Exodus_, xx, 13 and 15. Of the ten commandments, eight are negative, and all these are indicative in form. The other two are in the imperative mood: “_Remember_ the sabbath day to keep it holy. _Honour_ thy father and thy mother.”–_Ib._ But the imperative form may also be negative: as, “_Touch not; taste not; handle not_.”–_Colossians_, ii, 21.
TENSES.
Tenses are those modifications of the verb, which distinguish time. There are six tenses; the _Present_, the _Imperfect_, the _Perfect_, the _Pluperfect_, the _First-future_, and the _Second-future_.
The _Present tense_ is that which expresses what _now exists_, or _is taking_ place: as, “I _hear_ a noise; somebody _is coming_.”
The _Imperfect tense_ is that which expresses what _took place_, or _was occurring_, in time fully past: as, “I _saw_ him yesterday, and _hailed_ him as he _was passing_.”
The _Perfect tense_ is that which expresses what _has taken_ place, within some period of time not yet fully past: as, “I _have seen_ him to-day; something _must have detained_ him.”
The _Pluperfect tense_ is that which expresses what _had taken_ place, at some past time mentioned: as, “I _had seen_ him, when I met you.”
The _First-future tense_ is that which expresses what _will take_ place hereafter: as, “I _shall see_ him again, and I _will inform_ him.”
The _Second-future tense_ is that which expresses what _will have taken_ place, at some future time mentioned: as, “I _shall have seen_ him by tomorrow noon.”
OBSERVATIONS.
OBS. 1.–The terms here defined are the names usually given to those parts of the verb to which they are in this work applied; and though some of them are not so strictly appropriate as scientific names ought to be, it is thought inexpedient to change them. In many old grammars, and even in the early editions of Murray, the three past tenses are called the _Preterimperfect, Preterperfect_, and _Preterpluperfect_. From these names, the term _Preter_, (which is from the Latin preposition _praeter_, meaning _beside, beyond_, or _past_,) has been well dropped for the sake of brevity.[233]
OBS. 2.–The distinctive epithet _Imperfect_, or _Preterimperfect_, appears to have been much less accurately employed by the explainers of our language, than it was by the Latin grammarians from whom it was borrowed. That tense which passes in our schools for the _Imperfect_, (as, I _slept, did sleep_, or _was sleeping_,) is in fact, so far as the indicative mood is concerned, _more completely past_, than that which we call the _Perfect_. Murray indeed has attempted to show that the name is right; and, for the sake of consistency, one could wish he had succeeded. But every scholar must observe, that the simple preterit, which is the first form of this tense, and is never found in any other, as often as the sentence is declarative, tells what _happened_ within some period of time _fully past_, as _last week, last year_; whereas the perfect tense is used to express what _has happened_ within some period of time _not yet fully past_, as _this week, this year_. As to the completeness of the action, there is no difference; for what _has been done_ to-day, is as _completely done_, as what _was achieved_ a year ago. Hence it is obvious that the term _Imperfect_ has no other applicability to the English tense so called, than what it may have derived from the participle in _ing_, which we use in translating the Latin imperfect tense: as, _Dormiebam, I was sleeping; Legebam, I was reading; Docebam, I was teaching_. And if for this reason the whole English tense, with all its variety of forms in the different moods, “may, with propriety, be denominated _imperfect_;” surely, the participle itself should be so denominated _a fortiori_: for it always conveys this same idea, of “_action not finished_,” be the tense of its accompanying auxiliary what it may.
OBS. 3.–The tenses do not all express time with equal precision; nor can the whole number in any language supersede the necessity of adverbs of time, much less of dates, and of nouns that express periods of duration. The tenses of the indicative mood, are the most definite; and, for this reason, as well as for some others, the explanations of all these modifications of the verb, are made with particular reference to that mood. Some suppose the compound or participial form, as _I am writing_, to be more definite in time, than the simple form, as _I write_, or the emphatic form, as _I do write_; and accordingly they divide all the tenses into _Indefinite_ and _Definite_. Of this division Dr. Webster seems to claim the invention; for he gravely accuses Murray of copying it unjustly from him, though the latter acknowledges in a note upon his text, it “is, _in part_, taken from Webster’s Grammar.”–_Murray’s Octavo Gram._, p. 73. The distribution, as it stands in either work, is not worth quarrelling about: it is evidently more cumbersome than useful. Nor, after all, is it true that the compound form is more definite in time than the other. For example; “Dionysius, tyrant of Syracuse, _was always betraying_ his unhappiness.”–_Art of Thinking_, p. 123. Now, if _was betraying_ were a more definite tense than _betrayed_, surely the adverb “_always_” would require the latter, rather than the former.
OBS. 4.–The present tense, of the indicative mood, expresses not only what is now actually going on, but general truths, and customary actions: as, “Vice _produces_ misery.”–“He _hastens_ to repent, who _gives_ sentence quickly.”–_Grant’s Lat. Gram._, p. 71. “Among the Parthians, the signal _is given_ by the drum, and not by the trumpet.”–_Justin_. Deceased authors may be spoken of in the present tense, because they seem to live in their works; as, “Seneca _reasons_ and _moralizes_ well.”–_Murray_. “Women _talk_ better than men, from the superior shape of their tongues: an ancient writer _speaks_ of their loquacity three thousand years ago.”–_Gardiner’s Music of Nature_, p. 27.
OBS. 5.–The text, John, viii, 58, “Before Abraham _was_, I _am_,” is a literal Grecism, and not to be cited as an example of pure English: our idiom would seem to require, “Before Abraham _was_, I _existed_.” In animated narrative, however, the present tense is often substituted for the past, by the figure _enallage_. In such cases, past tenses and present may occur together; because the latter are used merely to bring past events more vividly before us: as, “Ulysses _wakes_, not knowing where he _was_.”–_Pope_. “The dictator _flies_ forward to the cavalry, beseeching them to dismount from their horses. They _obeyed_; they _dismount, rush_ onward, and for vancouriers _show_ their bucklers.”–_Livy_. On this principle, perhaps, the following couplet, which Murray condemns as bad English, may be justified:–
“Him portion’d maids, apprentic’d orphans blest, The young who _labour_, and the old who _rest_.” See _Murray’s Key_, R. 13.
OBS. 6.–The present tense of the subjunctive mood, and that of the indicative when preceded by _as soon as, after, before, till_, or _when_, is generally used with reference to future time; as, “If he _ask_ a fish, will he give him a serpent?”–_Matt._, vii, 10. “If I _will_ that he _tarry_ till I _come_, what is that to thee? Follow thou me.”–_John_, xxi, 22. “When he _arrives_, I will send for you.” The imperative mood has but one tense, and that is always present with regard to the giving of the command; though what is commanded, must be done in the future, if done at all. So the subjunctive may convey a present supposition of what the will of an other may make uncertain: as, “If thou _count_ me therefore a partner, _receive_ him as myself.”–_St. Paul to Philemon_, 17. The perfect indicative, like the present, is sometimes used with reference to time that is relatively future; as, “He will be fatigued before he _has walked_ a mile.”–“My lips shall utter praise, when thou _hast taught_ me thy statutes.”–_Psalms_, cxix, 171. “Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that _are_ in the graves, shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that _have done_ good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that _have done_ evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.”–_John_, v, 28.
OBS. 7.–What is called the _present_ infinitive, can scarcely be said to express any particular time.[234] It is usually dependent on an other verb, and therefore relative in time. It may be connected with any tense of any mood: as, “I _intend to do_ it; I _intended to do_ it; I _have intended to do_ it; I _had intended to do_ it;” &c. For want of a better mode of expression, we often use the infinitive to denote futurity, especially when it seems to be taken adjectively; as, “The time _to come_,”–“The world _to come_,”–“Rapture yet _to be_.” This, sometimes with the awkward addition of _about_, is the only substitute we have for the Latin future participle in _rus_, as _venturus, to come_, or _about to come_. This phraseology, according to Horne Tooke, (see _Diversions of Purley_, Vol. ii, p. 457,) is no fitter than that of our ancestors, who for this purpose used the same preposition, but put the participle in _ing_ after it, in lieu of the radical verb, which we choose to employ: as, “Generacions of eddris, who shewide to you to fle fro wraththe _to comynge?_”–_Matt._, iii, 7. Common Version: “O generation of vipers! who hath warned you to flee from the wrath _to come_?” “Art thou that art _to comynge_, ether abiden we another?”–_Matt._, xi, 3. Common Version: “Art thou he that _should come_, or do we look for another?” “Sotheli there the ship was _to puttyng out_ the charge.”–_Dedis_, xxi, 3. Common Version: “For there the ship was _to unlade_ her burden.”–_Acts_, xxi, 3. Churchill, after changing the names of the two infinitive tenses to “_Future imperfect_” and “_Future perfect_,” adds the following note: “The tenses of the infinitive mood are usually termed _present_ and _preterperfect_: but this is certainly improper; for they are so completely future, that what is called the present tense of the infinitive mood is often employed simply to express futurity; as, ‘The life _to come_.'”–_New Gram._, p. 249.
OBS. 8.–The pluperfect tense, when used conditionally, in stead of expressing what actually _had taken place_ at a past time, almost always implies that the action thus supposed _never was performed_; on the contrary, if the supposition be made in a _negative form_, it suggests that the event _had occurred_: as, “Lord, if thou _hadst been here_, my brother _had not died_.”–_John_, xi, 32. “If I _had not come_ and spoken unto them, they _had not had_ sin; but now they have no cloak for their sin.”–_John_, xv, 22. “If thou _hadst known_, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! But now they are hid from thine eyes.”–_Luke_, xix, 42. The supposition is sometimes indicated by a mere transposition of the verb and its subject; in which case, the conjunction _if_ is omitted; as, “_Had ye believed_ Moses, ye would have believed me.”–_John_, v, 46.
“_Had I but fought_ as wont, one thrust _Had laid_ De Wilton in the dust.”–_Scott_
OBS. 9.–In the language of prophecy we find the past tenses very often substituted for the future, especially when the prediction is remarkably clear and specific. Man is a creature of present knowledge only; but it is certain, that He who sees the end from the beginning, has sometimes revealed to him, and by him, things deep in futurity. Thus the sacred seer who is esteemed the most eloquent of the ancient prophets, more than _seven hundred years_ before the events occurred, spoke of the vicarious sufferings of Christ as of things already past, and even then described them in the phraseology of historical facts: “Surely he _hath borne_ our griefs, _and carried_ our sorrows: yet we _did esteem_ him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he _was wounded_ for our transgressions; he _was bruised_ for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace _was_ upon him; and by his stripes we are healed.”–_Isaiah_, liii, 4 and 5. Multiplied instances of a similar application of the past tenses to future events, occur in the Bible, especially in the writings of this prophet.
PERSONS AND NUMBERS.
The person and number of a verb are those modifications in which it agrees with its subject or nominative.
In each number, there are three persons; and in each person, two numbers: thus,
_Singular._ _Plural._
1st per. I love, 1st per. We love, 2d per. Thou lovest, 2d per. You love,
3d per. He loves; 3d per. They love.
Definitions universally applicable have already been given of all these things; it is therefore unnecessary to define them again in this place.
Where the verb is varied, the second person singular is regularly formed by adding _st_ or _est_ to the first person; and the third person singular, in like manner, by adding _s_ or _es_: as, I _see_, thou _seest_, he _sees_; I _give_, thou _givest_, he _gives_; I _go_, thou _goest_, he _goes_; I _fly_, thou _fliest_, he _flies_; I _vex_, thou _vexest_, he _vexes_; I _lose_, thou _losest_, he _loses._
Where the verb is not varied to denote its person and number, these properties are inferred from its subject or nominative: as, If I _love_, if thou _love_, if he _love_; if we _love_, if you _love_, if they _love_.
OBSERVATIONS.
OBS. 1.–It is considered a principle of Universal Grammar, that a finite verb must agree with its subject or nominative in person and number. Upon this principle, we ascribe to every such verb the person and number of the nominative word, whether the verb itself be literally modified by the relation or not. The doctrine must be constantly taught and observed, in every language in which the verbs have _any variations_ of this kind. But suppose an instance, of a language in which all the verbs were entirely destitute of such inflections; the principle, as regards that language, must drop. Finite verbs, in such a case, would still relate to their subjects, or nominatives, agreeably to the sense; but they would certainly be rendered incapable of adding to this relation any agreement or disagreement. So the concords which belong to adjectives and participles in Latin and Greek, are rejected in English, and there remains to these parts of speech nothing but a simple relation to their nouns according to the sense. And by the fashionable substitution of _you_ for _thou_, the concord of English verbs with their nominatives, is made to depend, in common practice, on little more than one single terminational _s_, which is used to mark one person of one number of one tense of one mood of each verb. So near does this practice bring us to the dropping of what is yet called a universal principle of grammar.[235]
OBS. 2.–In most languages, there are in each tense, through all the moods of every verb, six different terminations to distinguish the different persons and numbers. This will be well understood by every one who has ever glanced at the verbs as exhibited in any Latin, Greek, French, Spanish, or Italian grammar. To explain it to others, a brief example shall be given: (with the remark, that the Latin pronouns, here inserted, are seldom expressed, except for emphasis:) “_Ego amo_, I love; _Tu amas_, Thou lovest; _Ille amat_, He loves; _Nos amamus_, We love; _Vos amatis_, You love; _Illi amant_, They love.” Hence it may be perceived, that the paucity of variations in the English verb, is a very striking peculiarity of our language. Whether we are gainers or losers by this simplicity, is a question for learned idleness to discuss. The common people who speak English, have far less inclination to add new endings to our verbs, than to drop or avoid all the remains of the old. Lowth and Murray tell us, “This scanty provision of terminations _is sufficient_ for all the purposes of discourse;” and that, “_For this reason_, the plural termination _en_, (they _loven_, they _weren_,) formerly in use, was laid aside as _unnecessary_, and has long been obsolete.”–_Lowth’s Gram._, p. 31; _Murray’s_, 63.
OBS. 3.–Though modern usage, especially in common conversation, evidently inclines to drop or shun all unnecessary suffixes and inflections, still it is true, that the English verb in some of its parts, varies its termination, to distinguish, or agree with, the different persons and numbers. The change is, however, principally confined to the second and third persons singular of the present tense of the indicative mood, and to the auxiliaries _hast_ and _has_ of the perfect. In the ancient biblical style, now used only on solemn occasions, the second person singular is distinguished through all the tenses of the indicative and potential moods. And as the use of the pronoun _thou_ is now mostly confined to the solemn style, the terminations of that style are retained in connexion with it, through all the following examples of the conjugation of verbs. In the plural number, there is no variation of ending, to denote the different persons; and the verb in the three persons plural, (with the two exceptions _are_ and _were_, from _am_ and _was_,) is the same as in the first person singular. Nor does the use of _you_ for the singular, warrant its connexion with any other than the plural form of the verb. This strange and needless confusion of the numbers, is, in all languages that indulge it, a practical inconvenience. It would doubtless have been much better, had _thou_ and _you_ still kept their respective places–the one, nominative singular–the other, objective plural–as they appear in the Bible. But as the English verb is always attended by a noun or a pronoun, expressing the subject of the affirmation, no ambiguity arises from the want of particular terminations in the verb, to distinguish the different persons and numbers.
OBS. 4.–Although our language, in its ordinary use, exhibits the verbs in such forms only, as will make, when put together, but a very simple conjugation; there is probably no other language on earth, in which it would be so difficult for a learned grammarian to fix, settle, and exhibit, to the satisfaction of himself and others, the principles, paradigms, rules, and exceptions, which are necessary for a full and just exhibition of this part of speech. This difficulty is owing, partly to incompatibilities or unsettled boundaries between the solemn and the familiar style; partly to differences in the same style between ancient usage and modern; partly to interfering claims of new and old forms of the preterit and the perfect participle; partly to the conflicting notions of different grammarians respecting the subjunctive mood; and partly to the blind tenacity with which many writers adhere to rugged derivatives, and prefer unutterable contractions to smooth and easy abbreviations. For example: a clergyman says to a lucky gamester, (1.) “_You dwell_ in a house which _you_ neither _planned_ nor _built_.” A member of the Society of Friends would say, (2.) “_Thou dwellst_ in a house which _thou_ neither _planned_ nor _built_.” Or, if not a scholar, as likely as not, (3.) “_Thee dwells_ in a house which _thee_ neither _planned_ nor _built_.” The old or solemn style would b3, (4.) “_Thou dwellest_ in a house which _thou_ neither _plannedst_ nor _buildedst_.” Some untasteful and overgrammatical poet will have it, (5.) “_Thou dwell’st_ in halls _thou_ neither _plann’dst_ nor _build’dst_.” The doctrine of Murray’s Grammar, and of most others, would require, (6.) “_Thou dwellest_ in a house which _thou_ neither _plannedst_ nor _builtest_.” Or, (according to this author’s method of avoiding unpleasant sounds,) the more complex form, (7.) “_Thou dost dwell_ in a house which _thou_ neither _didst plan_ nor _didst build_.” Out of these an other poet will make the line, (8.) “_Dost dwell_ in halls which _thou_ nor _plann’dst_ nor _built’st_.” An other, more tastefully, would drop the _st_ of the preterit, and contract the present, as in the second instance above: thus,
(9.) “_Thou dwellst_ in halls _thou_ neither _planned_ nor _built_, And _revelst_ there in riches won by guilt.”
OBS. 5.–Now let all these nine different forms of saying the same thing, by the same verbs, in the same mood, and the same two tenses, be considered. Let it also be noticed, that for these same verbs within these limits, there are yet other forms, of a complex kind; as, “_You do dwell_,” or, “_You are dwelling_;” used in lieu of, “_Thou dost dwell_,” or, “_Thou art dwelling_:” so, “_You did plan_,” or, “_You were planning_;” used in lieu of, “_Thou didst plan_,” or, “_Thou wast planning_.” Take into the account the opinion of Dr. Webster and others, that, “_You was planning_,” or, “_You was building_,” is a still better form for the singular number; and well “established by national usage, both here and in England.”–_Improved Gram._, p. 25. Add the less inaccurate practice of some, who use _was_ and _did_ familiarly with _thou_; as, “_Thou was planning, did thou build?_” Multiply all this variety tenfold, with a view to the other moods and tenses of these three verbs, _dwell, plan_, and _build_; then extend the product, whatever it is, from these three common words, to _all_ the verbs in the English language. You will thus begin to have some idea of the difficulty mentioned in the preceding observation. But this is only a part of it; for all these things relate only to the second person singular of the verb. The double question is, Which of these forms ought to be approved and taught for that person and number? and which of them ought to be censured and rejected as bad English? This question is perhaps as important, as any that can arise in English grammar. With a few candid observations by way of illustration, it will be left to the judgement of the reader.
OBS. 6.–The history of _youyouing_ and _thoutheeing_ appears to be this. Persons in high stations, being usually surrounded by attendants, it became, many centuries ago, a species of court flattery, to address individuals of this class, in the plural number, as if a great man were something more than one person. In this way, the notion of greatness was agreeably _multiplied_, and those who laid claim to such honour, soon began to think themselves insulted whenever they were addressed with any other than the plural pronoun.[236] Humbler people yielded through fear of offence; and the practice extended, in time, to all ranks of society: so that at present the customary mode of familiar as well as complimentary address, is altogether plural; both the verb and the pronoun being used in that form.[237] This practice, which confounds one of the most important distinctions of the language, affords a striking instance of the power of fashion. It has made propriety itself _seem_ improper. But shall it be allowed, in the present state of things, to confound our conjugations and overturn our grammar? Is it right to introduce it into our paradigms, as the only form of the second person singular, that modern usage acknowledges? Or is it expedient to augment by it that multiplicity of other forms, which must either take this same place or be utterly rejected? With due deference to those grammarians who have adopted one or the other of these methods, the author of this work answers all these questions decidedly in the negative. It is not to be denied, that the use of the plural _for the singular_ is now so common as to form the _customary mode_ of address to individuals of every rank. The Society of Friends, or Quakers, however, continue to employ the singular number in familiar discourse; and custom, which has now destroyed the compliment of the plural, has removed also the supposed opprobrium of the singular, and placed it on an equality with the plural in point of respect. The singular is universally employed in reference to the Supreme Being; and is generally preferred in poetry. It is the language of Scripture, and of the Prayer-Book; and is consistently retained in nearly all our grammars; though not always, perhaps, consistently treated.
OBS. 7.–Whatever is fashionable in speech, the mere disciples of fashion will always approve; and, probably, they will think it justifiable to despise or neglect all that is otherwise. These may be contented with the sole use of such forms of address as, “_You, you, sir_;”–“_You, you, madam_.” But the literati who so neglect all the services of religion, as to forget that these are yet conducted in English independently of all this fashionable youyouing, must needs be poor judges of what belongs to their own justification, either as grammarians or as moral agents. A fashion by virtue of which millions of youths are now growing up in ignorance of that form of address which, in their own tongue, is most appropriate to poetry, and alone adapted to prayer, is perhaps not quite so light a matter as some people imagine. It is at least so far from being a good reason for displacing that form from the paradigms of our verbs in a grammar, that indeed no better needs be offered for tenaciously retaining it. Many children may thus learn at school what all should know, and what there is little chance for them to learn elsewhere. Not all that presume to minister in religion, are well acquainted with what is called the solemn style. Not all that presume to explain it in grammars, do know what it is. A late work, which boasted the patronage of De Witt Clinton, and through the influence of false praise came nigh to be imposed by a law of New York on all the common schools of that State; and which, being subsequently sold in Philadelphia for a great price, was there republished under the name of the “National School Manual;” gives the following account of this part of grammar: “In the solemn and poetic styles, the second person singular, in both the above tenses, is thou; and the second person plural, is ye, _or you_. The verb, to agree with the second person singular, changes its termination. Thus: 2d person, sing. Pres. Tense, Thou walkest, _or Thou walketh_. Imperfect Tense, Thou walkedst. In the third person singular, _in the above styles_, the verb has sometimes _a different_ termination; as, Present Tense, He, she, or _it walks_ or walketh. The _above form of inflection_ may be applied _to all verbs_ used in the solemn _or_ poetic _styles_; but for ordinary purposes, I have supposed it proper to employ the form of the verb, adopted in common conversation, as least perplexing to young minds.”–_Bartlett’s Common School Manual_, Part ii, p. 114. What can be hoped from an author who is ignorant enough to think “_Thou walketh_” is good English? or from one who tells us, that “_It walks_” is of the solemn style? or from one who does not know that _you_ is never a _nominative_ in the style of the Bible?
OBS. 8.–Nowhere on earth is fashion more completely mistress of all the tastes and usages of society, than in France. Though the common French Bible still retains the form of the second person singular, which in that language is shorter and perhaps smoother than the plural; yet even that sacred book, or at least the New Testament, and that by different persons, has been translated into more fashionable French, and printed at Paris, and also at New York, with the form of address everywhere plural; as, “Jesus anticipated him, saying, ‘What _do you think_, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take taxes and tribute?'”–_Matt._, xvii, 24. “And, going to prayers, they said, ‘0 Lord, _you who know_ the hearts of all men, show which of these two _you have chosen_.'”–_Acts_, i, 24. This is one step further in the progress of politeness, than has yet been taken in English. The French grammarians, however, as far as I can perceive, have never yet disturbed the ancient order of their conjugations and declensions, by inserting the plural verb and pronoun in place of the singular; and, in the familiarity of friendship, or of domestic life, the practice which is denominated _tutoyant_, or _thoutheeing_, is far more prevalent in France than in England. Also, in the prayers of the French, the second person singular appears to be yet generally preserved, as it is in those of the English and the Americans. The less frequent use of it in the familiar conversation of the latter, is very probably owing to the general impression, that it cannot be used with propriety, except in the solemn style. Of this matter, those who have laid it aside themselves, cannot with much modesty pretend to judge for those who have not; or, if they may, there is still a question how far it is right to lay it aside. The following lines are a sort of translation from Horace; and I submit it to the reader, whether it is comely for a Christian divine to be less reverent toward God, than a heathen poet; and whether the plural language here used, does not lack the reverence of the original, which is singular:–
“Preserve, Almighty Providence!
Just what _you gave_ me, competence.”–_Swift_.
OBS. 9.–The terms, _solemn style, familiar style, modern style, ancient style, legal style, regal style, nautic style, common style_, and the like, as used in grammar, imply no certain divisions of the language; but are designed merely to distinguish, in a general way, the _occasions_ on which some particular forms of expression may be considered proper, or the _times_ to which they belong. For what is grammatical sometimes, may not be so always. It would not be easy to tell, definitely, in what any one of these styles consists; because they all belong to one language, and the number or nature of the peculiarities of each is not precisely fixed. But whatever is acknowledged to be peculiar to any one, is consequently understood to be improper for any other: or, at least, the same phraseology cannot belong to styles of an opposite character; and words of general use belong to no particular style.[238] For example: “So then it is not of him that _willeth_, nor of him that _runneth_, but of God that _showeth_ mercy.”–_Rom._, ix, 16. If the termination _eth_ is not obsolete, as some say it is, all verbs to which this ending is added, are of the solemn style; for the common or familiar expression would here be this; “So then it is not of him that _wills_, nor of him that _runs_, but of God that _shows_ mercy.” Ben Jonson, in his grammar, endeavoured to arrest this change of _eth_ to _s_; and, according to Lindley Murray, (_Octavo Gram._, p. 90,) Addison also injudiciously disapproved it. In spite of all such objections, however, some future grammarian will probably have to say of the singular ending _eth_, as Lowth and Murray have already said of the plural _en_: “It was laid aside as unnecessary.”
OBS. 10.–Of the origin of the personal terminations of English verbs, that eminent etymologist Dr. Alexander Murray, gives the following account: “The readers of our modern tongue may be reminded, that the terminations, _est, eth_, and _s_, in our verbs, as in _layest, layeth_, and _laid’st_, or _laidest_; are the faded _remains of the pronouns_ which were formerly joined to the verb itself, and placed the language, in respect of concise expression, on a level with the Greek, Latin, and Sanscrit, its sister dialects.”–_History of European Languages_, Vol. i, p. 52. According to this, since other signs of the persons and numbers are now employed with the verb, it is not strange that there should appear a tendency to lay aside such of these endings as are least agreeable and least necessary. Any change of this kind will of course occur first in the familiar style. For example: “Thou _wentest_ in to men uncircumcised, and _didst eat_ with them.”–_Acts_, xi, 3. “These things write I unto thee, that thou _mayst_ know how thou _oughtest_ to behave thyself in the house of God.”–_1 Tim._, iii, 15. These forms, by universal consent, are now of the solemn style; and, consequently, are really good English in no other. For nobody, I suppose, will yet pretend that the inflection of our preterits and auxiliaries by _st_ or _est_, is entirely _obsolete_;[239] and surely no person of any literary taste ever uses the foregoing forms familiarly. The termination _est_, however, has _in some instances_ become obsolete; or has faded into _st_ or _t_, even in the solemn style. Thus, (if indeed, such forms ever were in good use,) _diddest_ has become _didst; havest, hast; haddest, hadst; shallest, shalt; willest, wilt_; and _cannest, canst. Mayest, mightest, couldest, wouldest_, and _shouldest_, are occasionally found in books not ancient; but _mayst, mightst, couldst, wouldst_, and _shouldst_, are abundantly more common, and all are peculiar to the solemn style. _Must, burst, durst, thrust, blest, curst, past, lost, list, crept, kept, girt, built, felt, dwelt, left, bereft_, and many other verbs of similar endings, are seldom, if ever, found encumbered with an additional _est_. For the rule which requires this ending, has always had many exceptions that have not been noticed by grammarians.[240] Thus Shakspeare wrote even in the present tense, “Do as thou _list_,” and not “Do as thou _listest_.” Possibly, however, _list_ may here be reckoned of the subjunctive mood; but the following example from Byron is certainly in the indicative:–
“And thou, who never yet of human wrong _Lost_ the unbalanced scale, great Nemesis!”–_Harold_, C. iv, st. 132.
OBS. 11.–Any phraseology that is really obsolete, is no longer fit to be imitated even in the solemn style; and what was never good English, is no more to be respected in that style, than in any other. Thus: “Art not thou that Egyptian, _which_ before these days _madest_ an uproar, and _leddest_ out into the wilderness four thousand men that were murderers?”–_Acts_, xxi, 38. Here, (I think,) the version ought to be, “Art not thou that Egyptian, _who_ a while ago _made_ an uproar, and _led_ out into the wilderness four thousand men, that were murderers?” If so, there is in this no occasion to make a difference between the solemn and the familiar style. But what is the familiar form of expression for the texts cited before? The fashionable will say, it is this: “_You went_ in to men uncircumcised, and _did eat_ with them.”–“I write these things to _you_, that _you may know_ how _you ought_ to behave _yourself_ in the house of God.” But this is not _literally_ of the singular number: it is no more singular, than _vos_ in Latin, or _vous_ in French, or _we_ used for _I_ in English, is singular. And if there remains to us any other form, that is both singular and grammatical, it is unquestionably the following: “_Thou went_ in to men uncircumcised, and _did eat_ with them.”–“I write these things to _thee_, that thou _may know_ how _thou ought_ to behave _thyself_ in the house of God.” The acknowledged doctrine of all the teachers of English grammar, that the inflection of our auxiliaries and preterits by _st_ or _est_ is peculiar to “the solemn style,” leaves us no other alternative, than either to grant the propriety of here dropping the suffix for the familiar style, or to rob our language of any familiar use of the pronoun _thou_ forever. Who, then, are here the neologists, the innovators, the impairers of the language? And which is the greater _innovation_, merely to drop, on familiar occasions, or _when it suits our style_, one obsolescent verbal termination,–a termination often dropped _of old_ as well as now,–or to strike from the conjugations of all our verbs one sixth part of their entire scheme?[241]
“O mother myn, that cleaped _were_ Argyue, Wo worth that day that thou me _bare_ on lyue.”–_Chaucer_.
OBS. 12.–The grammatical propriety of distinguishing from the solemn style both of the forms presented above, must be evident to every one who considers with candour the reasons, analogies, and authorities, for this distinction. The support of the latter is very far from resting solely on the practice of a particular sect; though this, if they would forbear to corrupt the pronoun while they simplify the verb, would deserve much more consideration than has ever been allowed it. Which of these modes of address is the more grammatical, it is useless to dispute; since fashion rules the one, and a scruple of conscience is sometimes alleged for the other. A candid critic will consequently allow all to take their choice. It is enough for him, if he can demonstrate to the candid inquirer, what phraseology is in any view allowable, and what is for any good reason reprehensible. That the use of the plural for the singular is ungrammatical, it is neither discreet nor available to affirm; yet, surely, it did not originate in any regard to grammar rules. Murray the schoolmaster, whose English Grammar appeared some years before that of Lindley Murray, speaks of it as follows: “_Thou_, the second person singular, though _strictly grammatical_, is seldom used, except in addresses to God, in poetry, and by the people called Quakers. In all other cases, a _fondness for foreign manners_,[242] and the power of custom, have given a sanction to the use of _you_, for the second person singular, though _contrary to grammar_,[243] and attended with this particular inconveniency, that a plural verb must be used to agree with the pronoun in number, and both applied to a _single person_; as, _you are_, or _you were_,–not _you wast_, or _you was_.”–_Third Edition_, Lond., 1793, p. 34. This author everywhere exhibits the auxiliaries, _mayst, mightst, couldst, wouldst_, and _shouldst_, as words of one syllable; and also observes, in a marginal note, “Some writers begin to say, ‘_Thou may, thou might_,’ &c.”–_Ib._, p. 36. Examples of this are not very uncommon: “Thou _shall_ want ere I want.”–_Old Motto; Scott’s Lay_, Note 1st to Canto 3. “Thyself the mournful tale _shall_ tell.”–_Felton’s Gram._, p. 20.
“One sole condition would I dare suggest, That _thou would save_ me from my own request.”–_Jane Taylor_.
OBS. 13.–In respect to the second person singular, the grammar of Lindley Murray makes no distinction between the solemn and the familiar style; recognizes in no way the fashionable substitution of _you_ for _thou_; and, so far as I perceive, takes it for granted, that every one who pretends to speak or write grammatically, must always, in addressing an individual, employ the singular pronoun, and inflect the verb with _st_ or _est_, except in the imperative mood and the subjunctive present. This is the more remarkable, because the author was a valued member of the Society of Friends; and doubtless his own daily practice contradicted his doctrine, as palpably as does that of every other member of the Society. And many a schoolmaster, taking that work for his text-book, or some other as faulty, is now doing precisely the same thing. But what a teacher is he, who dares not justify as a grammarian that which he constantly practices as a man! What a scholar is he, who can be led by a false criticism or a false custom, to condemn his own usage and that of every body else! What a casuist is he, who dares pretend conscience for practising that which he knows and acknowledges to be wrong! If to speak in the second person singular without inflecting our preterits and auxiliaries, is a censurable corruption of the language, the Friends have no alternative but to