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."—"CÆsar 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, CÆsar conquered Pompey.
"2d. Active-intransitive, or those which express that kind of action, which has no effect upon any thing beyond itself: as, CÆsar 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, CÆsar 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, "CÆsar 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 CÆsar." 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 [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 prÆter, 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.
e; and some have supposed that either of them may be active, passive, or neuter. Nor is there any more unanimity among grammarians, in respect to the compounds. Hence several different names have been loosely given to each of the participles: and sometimes with manifest impropriety; as when Buchanan, in his conjugations, calls being, "Active,"—and been, having been, having had, "Passive." Learned men may differ in opinion respecting the nature of words, but grammar can never well deserve the name of science, till at least an ordinary share of reason and knowledge appears in the language of those who teach it.
OBS. 2.—The FIRST participle has been called the Present, the Progressive, the Imperfect, the Simple Imperfect, the Indefinite, the Active, the Present Active, the Present Passive, the Present Neuter, and, in the passive voice, the Preterimperfcct, the Compound Imperfect, the Compound Passive, the Passive. The SECOND, which, though it is always but one word, some authors treat as being two participles, or three, has been called the Perfect, the Preter, the Preterperfect, the Imperfect, the Simple Perfect, the Past, the Simple Past, the First Past, the Preterit, the Passive, the Present Passive, the Perfect Active, the Past Active, the Auxiliary Perfect, the Perfect Passive, the Perfect Neuter, the Simple Perfect Active, the Simple Perfect Passive. The THIRD has been called the Compound, the Compound Active, the Compound Passive, the Compound Perfect, the Compound Perfect Active, the Compound Perfect Passive, the Compound Preter, the Present, the Present Perfect, the Past, the Second Past, the Past Compound, the Compound Past, the Prior-perfect, the Prior-present, the Perfect, the Pluperfect, the Preterperfect, the Preperfect.[302]
In teaching others to speak and write well, it becomes us to express our doctrines in the most suitable terms; but the application of a name is of no great consequence, so that the thing itself be rightly understood by the learner. Grammar should be taught in a style at once neat and plain, clear and brief. Upon the choice of his terms, the writer of this work has bestowed much reflection; yet he finds it impossible either to please everybody, or to explain, without intolerable prolixity, all the reasons for preference.
OBS. 3.—The participle in ing represents the action or state as continuing and ever incomplete; it is therefore rightly termed the IMPERFECT participle: whereas the participle in ed always, or at least usually, has reference to the action as done and complete; and is, by proper contradistinction, called the PERFECT participle. It is hardly necessary to add, that the terms perfect and imperfect, as thus applied to the English participles, have no reference to time, or to those tenses of the verb which are usually (but not very accurately) named by these epithets. The terms present and past, which some still prefer to imperfect and perfect, do denote time, and are in a kind of oblique contradistinction; but how well they apply to the participles, may be seen by the following texts: "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself."—"We pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God."—ST. PAUL: 2 Cor., v, 19, 20. Here reconciling refers to the death of Christ, and reconciled, to the desired conversion of the Corinthians; and if we call the former a present participle, and the latter a past, (as do Bullions, Burn, Clark, Felton, S. S. Greene, Lennie, Pinneo, and perhaps others,) we nominally reverse the order of time in respect to the events, and egregiously misapply both terms.
OBS. 4.—Though the participle in ing has, by many, been called the Present participle, it is as applicable to past or future, as to present time; otherwise, such expressions as, "I had been writing,"—"I shall be writing," would be solecisms. It has also been called, almost as frequently, the Active participle. But it is not always active, even when derived from an active verb; for such expressions as, "The goods are selling,"—"The ships are now building," are in use, and not without good authority: as, "And hope to allay, by rational discourse, the pains of his joints tearing asunder."—Locke's Essay, p. 285. "Insensible of the designs now forming by Philip."—Goldsmith's Greece, ii, 48. "The improved edition now publishing."—BP. HALIFAX: Pref. to Butler. "The present tense expresses an action now doing."—Emmons's Gram., p. 40. The distinguishing characteristic of this participle is, that it denotes an unfinished and progressive state of the being, action, or passion; it is therefore properly denominated the IMPERFECT participle. If the term were applied with reference to time, it would be no more objectionable than the word present, and would be equally supported by the usage of the Greek linguists. I am no more inclined to "innovation," than are the pedants who, for the choice here made, have ignorantly brought the false charge against me. This name, authorized by Beattie and Pickbourn, is approved by Lindley Murray,[303] and adopted by several of the more recent grammarians. See the works of Dr. Crombie, J. Grant, T. O. Churchill, R. Hiley, B. H. Smart, M. Harrison, and W. G. Lewis, published in London; and J. M. M'Culloch's Grammar, published in Edinburgh; also some American grammars, as E. Hazen's, N. Butler's, D. B. Tower's, W. H. Wells's, the Sanderses'.
OBS. 5.—The participle in ed, as is mentioned above, usually denotes a completion of the being, action, or passion, and should therefore be denominated the PERFECT participle. But this completion may be spoken of as present, past, or future; for the participle itself has no tenses, and makes no distinction of time, nor should the name be supposed to refer to the perfect tense. The conjugation of any passive verb, is a sufficient proof of all this: nor is the proof invalidated by resolving verbs of this kind into their component parts. Of the participles in ed applied to present time, the following is an example: "Such a course would be less likely to produce injury to health, than the present course pursued at our colleges."—Literary Convention, p. 118. Tooke's notion of grammatical time, appears to have been in several respects a strange one: he accords with those who call this a past participle, and denies to the other not only the name and notion of a tense, but even the general idea of time. In speaking of the old participial termination and or ende,[304] which our Anglo-Saxon ancestors used where we write ing, he says, "I do not allow that there are any present participles, or any present tense of the verb." [305]—Diversions of Purley, Vol. ii, p. 41.
OBS. 6.—The Perfect participle of transitive verbs, being used in the formation of passive verbs, is sometimes called the Passive participle. It usually has in itself a passive signification, except when it is used in forming the compound tenses of the active verb. Hence the difference between the sentences, "I have written a letter," and, "I have a letter written;" the former being equivalent to Scripsi literas, and the latter to Sunt mihi literÆ scriptÆ. But there are many perfect participles which cannot with any propriety be called passive. Such are all those which come from intransitive or neuter verbs; and also those which so often occur in the tenses of verbs not passive. I have already noticed some instances of this misnomer; and it is better to preclude it altogether, by adhering to the true name of this Participle, THE PERFECT. Nor is that entirely true which some assert, "that this participle in the active is only found in combination;" that, "Whenever it stands alone to be parsed as a participle, it is passive."—Hart's English Gram., p. 75. See also Bullions's Analyt. and Pract. Gram., p. 77; and Greene's Analysis, or Gram., p. 225. "Rebelled," in the following examples, cannot with any propriety be called a passive participle:
"Rebelled, did I not send them terms of peace, Which not my justice, but my mercy asked?"—Pollok, x, 253.
"Arm'd with thy might, rid Heav'n of these rebell'd, To their prepar'd ill mansion driven down."—Milton, vi, 737.
OBS. 7.—The third participle has most generally been called the Compound, or the Compound perfect. The latter of these terms seems to be rather objectionable on account of its length; and against the former it may be urged that, in the compound forms of conjugation, the first or imperfect participle is a compound: as, being writing, being seen. Dr. Adam calls having loved the perfect participle active, which he says must be rendered in Latin by the pluperfect of the subjunctive; as, he having loved, quum amavisset; (Lat. and Eng. Gram., p. 140;) but it is manifest that the perfect participle of the verb to love, whether active or passive, is the simple word loved, and not this compound. Dr. Adam, in fact, if he denies this, only contradicts himself; for, in his paradigms of the English Active Voice, he gives the participles as two only, and both simple, thus: "Present, Loving; Perfect, Loved:"—"Present, Having; Perfect, Had." So of the Neuter Verb: "Present, Being; Perfect, Been."—Ib., pp. 81 and 82. His scheme of either names or forms is no model of accuracy. On the very next page, unless there is a misprint in several editions, he calls the Second participle the "imperfect;" saying, "The whole of the passive voice in English is formed by the auxiliary verb to be, and the participle imperfect; as, I am loved, I was loved, &c." Further: "In many verbs," he adds, "the present participle also is used in a passive sense; as, These things are doing, were doing, &c.; The house is building, was building, &c."—Ib., p. 83. N. Butler, in his Practical Grammar, of 1845, names, and counts, and orders, the participles very oddly: "Every verb," he says, "has two participles—the imperfect and the perfect."—P. 78. Yet, for the verb love, he finds these six: two "IMPERFECT, Loving and Being loved;" two "PERFECT, Having loved, and Having been loved;" one "AUXILIARY PERFECT, Loved," of the "Active Voice;" and one "PASSIVE, Loved," of the "Passive Voice." Many old writers erroneously represent the participle in ing as always active, and the participle in ed or en as always passive; and some, among whom is Buchanan, making no distinction between the simple perfect loved and the compound having loved, place the latter with the former, and call it passive also. The absurdity of this is manifest: for having loved or having seen is active; having been or having sat is neuter; and having been loved or having been seen is passive. Again, the triple compound, having been writing, is active; and having been sitting is neuter; but if one speak of goods as having been selling low, a similar compound is passive.
OBS. 8.—Now all the compound participles which begin with having are essentially alike; and, as a class of terms, they ought to have a name adapted to their nature, and expressive of their leading characteristic. Having loved differs from the simple participle loved, in signification as well as in form; and, if this participle is to be named with reference to its meaning, there is no more suitable term for it than the epithet PREPERFECT,—a word which explains itself, like prepaid or prerequisite. Of the many other names, the most correct one is PLUPERFECT,—which is a term of very nearly the same meaning. Not because this compound is really of the pluperfect tense, but because it always denotes being, action, or passion, that is, or was, or will be, completed before the doing or being of something else; and, of course, when the latter thing is represented as past, the participle must correspond to the pluperfect tense of its verb; as, "Having explained her views, it was necessary she should expatiate on the vanity and futility of the enjoyments promised by Pleasure."—Jamieson's Rhet., p. 181. Here having explained is exactly equivalent to when she had explained. Again: "I may say, He had commanded, and we obeyed; or, He having commanded, we obeyed."—Fetch's Comprehensive Gram., p. ix. Here the two phrases in Italics correspond in import, though not in construction.
OBS. 9.—Pluperfect is a derivative contracted from the Latin plusquam-perfectum, and literally signifies more than complete, or beyond the perfect; i. e., (as confirmed by use,) antecedently finished, or completed before. It is the usual name of our fourth tense; is likewise applicable to a corresponding tense in other tongues; and is a word familiar to every scholar. Yet several grammarians,—too ready, perhaps, for innovation,—have shown their willingness to discard it altogether. Bullions, Butler, Hiley, Perley, Wells, and some others, call the English pluperfect tense, the past-perfect, and understand either epithet to mean—"completed at or before a certain past time;" (Bullions's E. Gram., p. 39;) that is—"finished or past, at some past time."—Butler's Pract. Gram., p. 72. The relation of the tense is before the past, but the epithet pluperfect is not necessarily limited to this relation, any more than what is perfect is necessarily past. Butler has urged, that, "Pluperfect does not mean completed before," but is only "a technical name of a particular tense;" and, arguing from this erroneous assumption, has convinced himself, "It would be as correct to call this the second future participle, as the pluperfect."—Ib., p. 79. The technical name, as limited to the past, is preterpluperfect, from the older term prÆteritum plusquam perfectum; so preterperfect, from prÆteritum perfectum, i. e. past perfect, is the name of an other tense, now called the perfect: wherefore the substitution of past-perfect for pluperfect is the less to be commended. There may be a convenience in having the name of the tense to differ from that of the participle, and this alone induces me to prefer preperfect to pluperfect for the name of the latter.
OBS. 10.—From the participle in ed or en, we form three tenses, which the above-named authors call perfect;—"the present-perfect, the past-perfect, and the future-perfect;"—as, have seen, had seen, will have seen. Now it is, doubtless, the participle, that gives to these their perfectness; while diversity in the auxiliaries makes their difference of time. Yet it is assumed by Butler, that, in general, the simple participle in ed or en, "does not denote an action done and completed," and is not to be called perfect; (p. 80;)—that, "If we wish to express by a participle, an action completed at any time, we use the compound form, and this is THE perfect participle;" (p. 79;)—that, "The characteristic of the participle in ed is, that it implies the reception of an action;" (p. 79;)—that, hence, it should be called the passive, though it "is usually called the perfect participle;" (p. 79;)—that, "The use of this participle in the perfect tenses of the active voice should not be taken into consideration in giving it a name or a definition;" (p. 80;)—that its active, neuter, or intransitive use is not a primitive idiom of the language, but the result of a gradual change of the term from the passive to the active voice; (p. 80;)—that, "the participle has changed its mode of signification, so that, instead of being passive, it is now active in sense;" (p. 105;)—that, "having changed its original meaning so entirely, it should not be considered the same participle;" (p. 78;)—that, "in such cases, it is a perfect participle," and, "for the sake of distinction [,] this may be called the auxiliary perfect participle."—Ib. These speculations I briefly throw before the reader, without designing much comment upon them. It will be perceived that they are, in several respects, contradictory one to an other. The author himself names the participle in reference to a usage which he says, "should not be taken into consideration;" and names it absurdly too; for he calls that "the auxiliary," which is manifestly the principal term. He also identifies as one what he professes to distinguish as two.
OBS. 11.—Participles often become adjectives, and are construed before nouns to denote quality. The terms so converted form the class of participial adjectives. Words of a participial form may be regarded as adjectives, under the following circumstances: 1. When they reject the idea of time, and denote something customary or habitual, rather than a transient act or state; as, "A lying rogue,"—i.e., one that is addicted to lying. 2. When they admit adverbs of comparison; as, "A more learned man." 3. When they are compounded with something that does not belong to the verb; as, "unfeeling, unfelt:" there is no verb to unfeel, therefore these words cannot be participles. Adjectives are generally placed before their nouns; participles, after them. The words beginning with un, in the following lines may be classed with participial adjectives:
"No king, no subject was; unscutcheoned all; Uncrowned, unplumed, unhelmed, unpedigreed; Unlaced, uncoroneted, unbestarred." —Pollok, C. of T., B. viii, l. 89.
OBS. 12.—Participles in ing often become nouns. When preceded by an article, an adjective or a noun or pronoun of the possessive case, they are construed as nouns; and, if wholly such, have neither adverbs nor active regimen: as, "He laugheth at the shaking of a spear."—Job, xli, 29. "There is no searching of his understanding."—Isaiah, xl, 28. "In their setting of their threshold by ray threshold."—Ezekiel, xliii, 8. "That any man should make my glorying void."—1 Cor., ix, 15. The terms so converted form the class of verbal or participial nouns. But some late authors—(J. S. Hart, S. S. Greene, W. H. Wells, and others—) have given the name of participial nouns to many participles,—such participles, often, as retain all their verbal properties and adjuncts, and merely partake of some syntactical resemblance to nouns. Now, since the chief characteristics of such words are from the verb, and are incompatible with the specific nature of a noun, it is clearly improper to call them nouns. There are, in the popular use of participles, certain mixed constructions which are reprehensible; yet it is the peculiar nature of a participle, to participate the properties of other parts of speech,—of the verb and adjective,—of the verb and noun,—or sometimes, perhaps, of all three. A participle immediately preceded by a preposition, is not converted into a noun, but remains a participle, and therefore retains its adverb, and also its government of the objective case; as, "I thank you for helping him so seasonably." Participles in this construction correspond with the Latin gerund, and are sometimes called gerundives.
OBS. 13.—To distinguish the participle from the participial noun, the learner should observe the following four things: 1. Nouns take articles and adjectives before them; participles, as such, do not. 2. Nouns may govern the possessive case before them, but not the objective after them; participles may govern the objective case, but not so properly the possessive. 3. Nouns, if they have adverbs, require the hyphen; participles take adverbs separately, as do their verbs. 4. Participial nouns express actions as things, and are sometimes declined like other nouns; participles usually refer actions to their agents or recipients, and have in English no grammatical modifications of any kind.
OBS. 14.—To distinguish the perfect participle from the preterit of the same form, observe the sense, and see which of the auxiliary forms will express it: thus, loved for being loved, is a participle; but loved for did love, is a preterit verb. So held for did hold, stung for did sting, taught for did teach, and the like, are irregular verbs; but held for being held, stung for being stung, taught for being taught, and the like, are perfect participles.
OBS. 15.—Though the English participles have no inflections, and are consequently incapable of any grammatical agreement or disagreement, those which are simple, are sometimes elegantly taken in a plural sense, with the apparent construction of nouns; but, under these circumstances, they are in reality neither nouns nor participles, but participial adjectives construed elliptically, as other adjectives often are, and relating to plural nouns understood. The ellipsis is sometimes of a singular noun, though very rarely, and much less properly. Examples: "To them who are the called according to his purpose."—Rom., x, 28. That is—"the called ones or persons." "God is not the God of the dead, but of the living."—Matt., xxii, 32. "Neither is it found in the land of the living."—Job, xxviii, 13. "The living, the living, he shall praise thee, as I do this day."—Isaiah, xxxviii, 19. "Till we are made fit to live and reign with him and all his redeemed, in the heavenly glory forever."—Jenks's Prayers, p. 18.
"Ye blessed of my Father, come, ye just, Enter the joy eternal of your Lord."—Pollok, B. x, l. 591.
"Depart from me, ye cursed, into the fire Prepared eternal in the gulf of Hell."—Id., B. x, l. 449.
EXAMPLES FOR PARSING.
PRAXIS VII.—ETYMOLOGICAL.
In the Seventh 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, PRONOUNS, VERBS, and PARTICIPLES.
The definitions to be given in the Seventh Praxis, are two for an article, six for a noun, three for an adjective, six for a pronoun, seven for a verb finite, five for an infinitive, two for a participle,—and one for an adverb, a conjunction, a preposition, or an interjection. Thus:—
EXAMPLE PARSED.
"Religion, rightly understood and practised, has the purest of all joys attending it."
Religion 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.
Rightly 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.
Understood is a perfect participle, from the irregular active-transitive verb, understand, understood, understanding, understood. 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. 2. The perfect participle is that which ends commonly in ed or en, and implies a completion of the being, action, or passion.
And 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.
Practised is a perfect participle, from the regular active-transitive verb, practise, practised, practising, practised. 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. 2. The perfect participle is that which ends commonly in ed or en, and implies a completion of the being, action, or passion.
Has is an irregular active-transitive verb, from have, had, having, had; found in the indicative mood, present tense, third person, and singular number. 1. A verb is a word that signifies to be, to act, or to be acted upon. 2. An irregular verb is a verb that does not form the preterit and the perfect participle by assuming d or ed. 3. An active-transitive verb is a verb that expresses an action which has some person or thing for its object. 4. The indicative mood is that form of the verb, which simply indicates or declares a thing, or asks a question. 5. The present tense is that which expresses what now exists, or is taking place. 6. The third person is that which denotes the person or thing merely spoken of. 7. The singular number is that which denotes but one.
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.
Purest is a common adjective, of the superlative degree; compared regularly, pure, purer, purest. 1. An adjective is a word added to a noun or pronoun, and generally expresses quality. 2. A common adjective is any ordinary epithet, or adjective denoting quality or situation. 3. The superlative degree is that which is most or least of all included with it.
Of 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.
All is a pronominal adjective, not compared. 1. An adjective is a word added to a noun or pronoun, and generally expresses quality. 2. A pronominal adjective is a definitive word which may either accompany its noun or represent it understood. 3. Those adjectives whose signification does not admit of different degrees, cannot be compared.
Joys is a common noun, of the third person, plural number, neuter gender, and objective 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 plural number is that which denotes more than 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.
Attending is an imperfect participle, from the regular active-transitive verb, attend, attended, attending, attended. 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. 2. The imperfect participle is that which ends commonly in ing, and implies a continuance of the being, action, or passion.
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.
LESSON I.—PARSING.
"A Verb is a word whereby something or other is represented as existing, possessing, acting, or being acted upon, at some particular time, past, present, or future; and this in various manners."—White, on the English Verb, p. 1.
"Error is a savage, lurking about on the twilight borders of the circle illuminated by truth, ready to rush in and take possession, the moment her lamp grows dim."—Beecher.
"The science of criticism may be considered as a middle link, connecting the different parts of education into a regular chain."—Ld. Kames, El. of Crit., p. xxii.
"When I see a man walking, a tree growing, or cattle grazing, I cannot doubt but that these objects are really what they appear to be. Nature determines us to rely on the veracity of our senses; for otherwise they could not in any degree answer their end, that of laying open things existing and passing around us."—Id., ib., i, 85.
"But, advancing farther in life, and inured by degrees to the crooked ways of men; pressing through the crowd, and the bustle of the world; obliged to contend with this man's craft, and that man's scorn; accustomed, sometimes, to conceal their sentiments, and often to stifle their feelings; they become at last hardened in heart, and familiar with corruption."—BLAIR: Murray's Sequel, p. 140.
"Laugh'd at, he laughs again; and stricken hard, Turns to his stroke his adamantine scales, That fear no discipline of human hands."—Cowper's Task, p. 47.
LESSON II.—PARSING.
"Thus shame and remorse united in the ungrateful person, and indignation united with hatred in the hearts of others, are the punishments provided by nature for injustice."—Kames, El. of Crit., Vol. i, p. 288.
"Viewing man as under the influence of novelty, would one suspect that custom also should influence him?—Human nature, diversified with many and various springs of action, is wonderfully, and, indulging the expression, intricately constructed."—Id., ib., i, 325.
"Dryden frequently introduces three or four persons speaking upon the same subject, each throwing out his own notions separately, without regarding what is said by the rest."—Id., ib., ii, 294.
"Nothing is more studied in Chinese gardens, than to raise wonder and surprise. Sometimes one is led insensibly into a dark cavern, terminating unexpectedly in a landscape enriched with all that nature affords the most delicious."—Id., ib., ii, 334.
"The answer to the objection here implied, is obvious, even on the supposition of the questions put being answered in the affirmative."—Prof. Vethake.
"As birds flying, so will the Lord of hosts defend Jerusalem; defending also, he will deliver it; and, passing over, he will preserve it."—Isaiah, xxxi, 5.
"Here, by the bonds of nature feebly held, Minds combat minds, repelling and repell'd."—Goldsmith.
"Suffolk first died, and York, all haggled over, Comes to him where in gore he lay insteeped."—Shakspeare.
LESSON III.—PARSING.
"Every change in the state of things is considered as an effect, indicating the agency, characterizing the kind, and measuring the degree, of its cause."—Dr. Murray, Hist. of En. L., i, 179.
"Having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them unto the end. And supper being ended, (the devil having now put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him,) Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hand, and that he had come from God and was going to God, arose from supper, and laid aside his coat, and, taking a towel, girded himself: then he poured some water into a basin, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel with which he was girded."—See John, xiii.
"Spiritual desertion is naturally and judicially incurred by sin. It is the withdrawal of that divine unction which enriches the acquiescent soul with moral power and pleasure. The subtraction leaves the mind enervated, obscured, confused, degraded, and distracted."—HOMO: N. Y. Observer.
"Giving no offence in any thing, but in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God: as unknown, and yet well known; as dying, and, behold, we live; as chastened, and not killed; as sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, and yet possessing all things."—2 Cor., vi.
"O may th' indulgence of a father's love, Pour'd forth on me, be doubled from above."—Young.
IMPROPRIETIES FOR CORRECTION.
ERRORS OF PARTICIPLES.
[Fist] [As the principles upon which our participles ought to be formed, were necessarily anticipated in the preceding chapter on verbs, the reader must recur to that chapter for the doctrines by which the following errors are to be corrected. The great length of that chapter seemed a good reason for separating these examples from it, and it was also thought, that such words as are erroneously written for participles, should, for the sake of order, be chiefly noticed in this place. In many of these examples, however, the participle is not really a separate part of speech, but is in fact taken with an auxiliary to form some compound tense of its verb.]
LESSON I.—IRREGULARS.
"Many of your readers have mistook that passage."—Steele, Spect., No. 544.
[FORMULE.—Not proper, because the preterit verb mistook is here used for the perfect participle. But, according to the table of irregular verbs, we ought to say, mistake, mistook, mistaking, mistaken; after the form of the simple verb, take, took, taking, taken. Therefore, the sentence should be amended thus: "Many of your readers have mistaken that passage."]
"Had not my dog of a steward ran away."—Addison, Spect. "None should be admitted, except he had broke his collar-bone thrice."—Spect., No. 474. "We could not know what was wrote at twenty."—Pref. to Waller. "I have wrote, thou hast wrote, he has wrote; we have wrote, ye have wrote, they have wrote."—Ash's Gram., p. 62. "As if God had spoke his last words there to his people."—Barclay's Works, i, 462. "I had like to have came in that ship myself."—N. Y. Observer, No. 453. "Our ships and vessels being drove out of the harbour by a storm."—Hutchinson's Hist. of Mass., i, 470. "He will endeavour to write as the ancient author would have wrote, had he writ in the same language."—Bolingbroke, on Hist., i, 68. "When his doctrines grew too strong to be shook by his enemies."—Atterbury. "The immortal mind that hath forsook Her mansion."—Milton. "Grease that's sweaten from the murderer's gibbet, throw into the flame."—Shak., Macbeth. "The court also was chided for allowing such questions to be put."—Col. Stone, on Freemasonry, p. 470. "He would have spoke."— Milton, P. L., B. x, 1. 517. "Words interwove with sighs found out their way."—Id., ib., i, 621. "Those kings and potentates who have strove."—Id., Eiconoclast, xvii. "That even Silence was took."—Id., Comus, l. 557. "And envious Darkness, ere they could return, had stole them from me."—Id., Comus, 1. 195. "I have chose this perfect man."—Id., P. R., B. i, l. 165. "I will scarce think you have swam in a gondola."—Shak., As You Like It. "The fragrant brier was wove between."—Dryden, Fables. "Then finish what you have began."—Id., Poems, ii, 172. "But now the years a numerous train have ran."—Pope's Odyssey, B. xi, l. 555. "Repeats your verses wrote on glasses."—Prior. "Who by turns have rose."—Id. "Which from great authors I have took."—Id., Alma. "Ev'n there he should have fell."—Id., Solomon.
"The sun has rose, and gone to bed, Just as if Partridge were not dead."—Swift.
"And though no marriage words are spoke, They part not till the ring is broke."—Id., Riddles.
LESSON II.—REGULARS.
"When the word is stript of all the terminations."—Dr. Murray's Hist. of En. L., i, 319.
[FORMULE.—Not proper, because the participle stript is terminated in t. But, according to Observation 2d, on the irregular verbs, stript is regular. Therefore, this t should be changed to ed; and the final p should be doubled, according to Rule 3d for Spelling: thus, "When the word is stripped of all the terminations."]
"Forgive him, Tom; his head is crackt."—Swift's Poems, p. 397. "For 'tis the sport, to have the engineer hoist with his own petar."—Hamlet, Act 3. "As great as they are, I was nurst by their mother."—Swift's Poems, p. 310. "If he should now be cry'd down since his change."—Ib., p. 306. "Dipt over head and ears—in debt."—Ib., p. 312. "We see the nation's credit crackt."—Ib., p. 312. "Because they find their pockets pickt."—Ib., p. 338. "O what a pleasure mixt with pain!"—Ib., p. 373. "And only with her Brother linkt."—Ib., p. 387. "Because he ne'er a thought allow'd, That might not be confest."—Ib., p. 361. "My love to Sheelah is more firmly fixt."—Ib., p. 369. "The observations annext to them will be intelligible."—Philological Museum, Vol. i, p. 457. "Those eyes are always fixt on the general principles."—Ib., i, 458. "Laborious conjectures will be banisht from our commentaries."—Ib., i, 459. "Tiridates was dethroned, and Phraates was reestablisht in his stead."—Ib., i, 462. "A Roman who was attacht to Augustus."—Ib., i, 466. "Nor should I have spoken of it, unless Baxter had talkt about two such."—Ib., i, 467. "And the reformers of language have generally rusht on."—Ib., i, 649. "Three centuries and a half had then elapst since the date."—Ib., i, 249. "Of such criteria, as has been remarkt already, there is an abundance."—Ib., i, 261. "The English have surpast every other nation in their services."—Ib., i, 306. "The party addrest is next in dignity to the speaker."—Harris's Hermes, p. 66. "To which we are many times helpt."—Walker's Particles, p. 13. "But for him, I should have lookt well enough to myself."—Ib., p. 88. "Why are you vext, Lady? why do frown?"—Milton, Comus, l. 667. "Obtruding false rules prankt in reason's garb."—Ib., l. 759. "But, like David equipt in Saul's armour, it is encumbered and oppressed."—Campbell's Rhet., p. 378.
"And when their merchants are blown up, and crackt, Whole towns are cast away in storms, and wreckt." —Butler, p. 163.
LESSON III.—MIXED.
"The lands are holden in free and common soccage." —Trumbull's Hist, i, 133.
[FORMULE.—Not proper, because the participle holden is not in that form which present usage authorizes. But, according to the table of irregular verbs, the four parts of the verb to hold, as now used, are hold, held, holding, held. Therefore, holden should be held; thus, "The lands are held in free and common soccage."]
"A stroke is drawed under such words."—Cobbett's E. Grammar, Edition of 1832, ¶ 154. "It is striked even, with a strickle."—Walkers Particles, p. 115. "Whilst I was wandring, without any care, beyond my bounds."—Ib., p. 83. "When one would do something, unless hindred by something present."—Johnson's Gram. Com., p. 311. "It is used potentially, but not so as to be rendred by these signs."—Ib., p. 320. "Now who would dote upon things hurryed down the stream thus fast?"—Collier's Antoninus, p. 89. "Heaven hath timely try'd their growth."—Milton, Comus, l. 970. "O! ye mistook, ye should have snatcht his wand."—Ib., p. 815. "Of true virgin here distrest."—Ib., p. 905. "So that they have at last come to be substitute in the stead of it."—Barclay's Works, i, 339. "Though ye have lien among the pots."—Psal., lxviii, 13. "And, lo, in her mouth was an olive-leaf pluckt off."—FRIENDS' BIBLE, and BRUCE'S: Gen., viii, 11. "Brutus and Cassius Are rid like madmen, through the gates of Rome."—Shak. "He shall be spitted on."—Luke, xviii, 32. "And are not the countries so overflown still situate between the tropics?"—Bentley's Sermons. "Not trickt and frounc't as she was wont, But kercheft in a comely cloud."—Milton, Il Penseroso, l. 123. "To satisfy his rigor, Satisfy'd never."—Id., P. L., B. x, l. 804. "With him there crucify'd."—Id., P. L., B. xii, l. 417. "Th' earth cumber'd, and the wing'd air darkt with plumes."—Id., Comus, l. 730. "And now their way to Earth they had descry'd."—Id., P. L., B. x, l. 325. "Not so thick swarm'd once the soil Bedropt with blood of Gorgon."—Ib., B. x, l. 527. "And in a troubled sea of passion tost."—Ib., B. x, l. 718. "The cause, alas, is quickly guest."—Swift's Poems, p. 404. "The kettle to the top was hoist"—Ib., p. 274. "In chains thy syllables are linkt."—Ib., p. 318. "Rather than thus be overtopt, Would you not wish their laurels cropt?"—Ib., p. 415. "The hyphen, or conjoiner, is a little line, drawed to connect words, or parts of words."—Cobbett's E. Gram., 1832, ¶ 150. "In the other manners of dependence, this general rule is sometimes broke."—Joh. Gram. Com., p. 334. "Some intransitive verbs may be rendered transitive by means of a preposition prefixt to them."—Grant's Lat. Gram., p. 66. "Whoever now should place the accent on the first syllable of Valerius, would set every body a-laughing."—Walker's Dict. "Being mocked, scourged, spitted on, and crucified."—Gurney's Essays, p. 40.
"For rhyme in Greece or Rome was never known, Till by barbarian deluges o'erflown."—Roscommon.
"In my own Thames may I be drownded, If e'er I stoop beneath a crown'd-head."—Swift.
