POSSESSIVE CASE.

"Ageneraljoy atthis glad newesappear'd."

Cowley's Davideis, book 1.

"Now by St. Paulthis newsis bad indeed!"

The same.

"No news so bad abroad asthisat home."

Rich. III. scene 1.

Such is the language at this day, and a man would expose himself to ridicule, who should say,these news are good.

Late writers seem to considerrichesas plural; but erroneously. It is merely a contraction ofrichesse, the French singular, which was probably introduced into England under the Norman kings. Chaucer usesrichesseas the singular:

"But for ye speken of swiche gentillesse,As is descended out of oldrichesse."

Cant. Tales, 6691.

—"And he that ones to love doeth his homageFull oftentymes dere boughtis the richesse."

La Belle Dame sans mercy, 323.

The wordrichessehere is no more plural thangentilnesse,distresse,doublenesse, which the author uses in the same poem; andrichesnow, in strictness of speech, is no more plural thangentleness,distress, or any other word of similar ending. When Chaucer had occasion for a plural, he wrote the wordrichesses; as in the Tale of Melibeus: "Thou hast dronke so muche hony of swete temporalrichessesand delices and honors of this world," &c.—— Works, vol. 4. p. 170. Bell's edit.

The wordrichestherefore is in the singular number and merely an abbreviation ofrichesse; asdistressis ofdistresse;weakness, ofweaknesse, &c. and the reason why the pluralrichesseshas been neglected, may be, that the idea it conveys does not admit of number any more than that ofwealth, which is also destitute of a plural form.

"Was everrichesgotten by your golden mediocrities?"——Cowley on Cromwell's Gov.

"When love has taken all thou hast away,His strength by too much riches will decay."

Cowley.

"The envy and jealousy which greatrichesis always attended with."——Moyle's Essay on Lacedem. Gov. 48.

"In one hourisso greatrichescome to nought."——Bible.

Hererichesis considered in its true light. Notwithstanding this, the termination of the word has led late writers into the opinion, that it is plural; so that we generally see it followed by a plural verb: Should this become the unanimous opinion and a general correspondent practice ensue,richeswill be established as aplural, contrary to etymology and ancient usage.

Almsis also in the singular number; being a contraction of the old Norman French,almesse, the plural of which wasalmesses. So in Chaucer:

"Ye knowen wel that I am poure and olde, Kithe (show) youralmesseupon me poure wretche."Freres Tale, 7190.

"Ye knowen wel that I am poure and olde, Kithe (show) youralmesseupon me poure wretche."

Freres Tale, 7190.

"This almesseshouldest thou do of thy propre thinges," &c.—— Vol. 5. p. 217. Bell.

"These ben generally thealmessesand werkes of charitie of hem that have temporel richesses."——The same.

Almsis used as a noun singular in the Bible; "To askan alms." "He gavemuch alms;" that is,almesse, or charity. The plural of this word is not used.

Largessis a word of this class. It is from the old Frenchlargesse; but the idea admits of number, and accordingly we find the plural,largesses, still in use.

Laches, from the Frenchlachesse, is still retained in the law stile; but custom hasabbreviated the word intolache, a single syllable.

Amendsmay properly be considered as in the singular number, and so it is used by one of our best writers. "They must needs think that this honor to him, when dead, was butanecessaryamendsfor the injury which they had done him, when living."——Middleton's L. of Cic. vol. 3. p. 131.

The idea here conveyed byamendsis as single as that expressed bycompensation. The word has no change of termination, and may be considered as singular or plural, at the choice of the writer.

Wagesis a word of the same kind.

Victualsis derived from the old Frenchvitaille,[97]and was formerly used in the singular form,victual. But the latter is now wholly disused, andvictualsgenerally used with a singular verb and pronoun. So Swift uses the word. "We had such very finevictualsthat I could not eatit."[98]Theeditor of his works remarks,that here is false concord; but I believe Swift has followed the general practice of the English. The word seems to have lost the plurality of ideas, annexed to many different articles included in the term, and to have assumed the general meaning of the wordfood, which does not admit of the plural.

The wordoddsseems to be of the same kind. We sometimes find a plural verb united to it, as in Pope's translation of Homer:

"On valor's side theoddsof combatlie,The brave live glorious, or lamented die."

Iliad, b. 15. l. 670.

But in common practiceoddsis considered as in the singular number. We always say, "Whatistheodds;" and I should rank this among the words, which, altho they have the termination of regular plurals, more properly belong to the singular number.

The wordgallowsis evidently of this class. "Leta gallowsbe made," say the translators of the Bible, with perfect propriety. Indeed I cannot conceive how any man who has read English authors, can consider this word as in the plural.

Bellows,tongs,sheers,scissors,snuffers,pincers, have no change of termination, and it is the practice to prefix to them the wordpair. Yet notwithstanding these articles are composed of two principal parts, both are necessary to form a single indivisible instrument, and the names might have been considered as nouns in the singular.[99]Pairis more properly applied to two separate articles of the same kind, and used together; apair of shoes, orgloves. Custom, however, has sanctioned the use of it before the words just enumerated, and therefore a pair of tongs, &c. must be admitted as good English.[100]

There are many other words in our language which have the plural termination; asbilliards,ethics,metaphysics,mathematics,measles,hysterics, and many others;which properly belong to the singular number.Ethics is a science, is better English thanethics are.

On the other hand, there are many words, which, without ever taking the plural termination, often belong to the plural.Sheep,deerandhose, are often mentioned as belonging to this description. To these we may add many names of fish; astrout,salmon,carp,tenchand others, which are in fact names of species; but which apply equally to the individuals of the species. We saya trout, orfive trout; but neverfive trouts.

In many instances we find two or three words used to describe or designate a particular person or thing; in which case they are to be considered as a single noun or name, and the sign of the possessive annexed to the last; as, "theKing of France'sarmy."

"Fletcher of Salton's planof a militia differs little from that of Harrington."[101]—— Home, Sketch 9.

Most grammarians have given the article the first rank among the parts of speech. To me this arrangement appears very incorrect; for the article is a mere appendage of the noun, and without it cannot even be defined. Thenounis the primary and principal part of speech, of which thearticle,pronounandadjectiveare mere adjuncts, attendants, or substitutes, and the latter therefore should follow the former in grammatical order and definition.

Under this head I will introduce a few observations on the use ofa. Grammarians have supposed thata, in the phrasesa going,a hunting, is a corruption of the prepositionon; a supposition, which, if we attend to the sense of the phrases, appears highly absurd, but which etymology, in a great measure, overthrows.

In the first place, the preposition is not among the original parts of language; its use, and consequently its formation, are not necessary among rude nations; it is a part of speech of a late date in the progress of language, and is itself a derivative fromother words. I have, in another place,[102]given some reasons to proveonto be an abbreviation of the numeralone, ortop one. It is very evident thatonis a contraction ofupon, which was formerly writtenuppone; and there are good reasons for believing the latter to be derived fromtop one. In addition to the authorities quoted in the Institute, an example or two from Chaucer will almost place the question beyond a doubt.

"There lith on—up myn hed."

Cant. Tales, 4288.

That is, there lieth one upon my head; whereupis used forupon, as it is in other places.

"No more,up paineof losing of your hed."

Ibm. 1709.

That is,upon pain of losing your head.

The wordupis undoubtedly but a corruption oftop, or a noun derived from the same root, and this hypothesis is supported by the true theory of language; which is, that rude nations converse mostly by names.Up myn hed, istop mine head. An improvement of this phrase would be theuse ofone,aneoran, to ascertain particular things;uppone,upon. In the progress of language, these words would be contracted intoon, which we denominate a preposition.

I am very sensible that Chaucer usedonin the manner mentioned by Lowth;on liveforalive;on hunting;on hawking; which would seem to warrant the supposition of that writer, thatais a contraction ofon, consideringonoriginally as a preposition. But it is contrary to all just ideas of language to allow such a primitive part of speech. On the other hand, Chaucer usesonfor other purposes, which cannot be explained on Lowth's hypothesis.

"His brede, his ale, was alwayafter on."

Cant. Tales, 343.

So also in line 1783. In this exampleonis allowed on all hands to be a contraction ofone;after one(way, manner) that is,alike, or in the same manner.

"They wereat on;" line 4195. They wereat one; that is, together or agreed.

"Everin on;" line 1773, and 3878; everin one(way, course, &c.) that is,continually.

If therefore we supposeonto be merely a corruption ofone, we can easily explain all its uses.On hunting, or contractedly,a hunting, isone hunting.On live,on life, oralive, is merelyone life. This form of expression is very natural, however childish or improper it may appear to us. It seems very obvious to resolveashore,abed, intoon shore,on bed; but even Lowth himself would be puzzled to make us believe thatadry,athirst, came fromon dry,on thirst; and Wallis would find equal difficulty to convince us that they came fromat dry,at thirst. If we supposeato be a contraction ofone, or the Saxonaneoran, the solution of all these phrases is perfectly easy, and corresponds with Horne's theory of the particles. For if rude nations converse without particles, they must saygo shore, orgo one shore;he is bed, orhe is one bed;he is dry, orone dry;I am thirst, orI am one thirst. Indeed every person who will attend to the manner of speaking among the American savages, must believe this explanation of the phrases to be probably just.

Thatonwas formerly used both as a preposition and an adjective, is acknowleged by the Editor of the British Poets;[103]but its uses in all cases may be easily explained on the single principle before mentioned.

This hypothesis however will be confirmed by the fact, that the English articlea, "is nothing more than a corruption of the Saxon adjective,aneoran(one) before a substantive beginning with a consonant." Editor of Chaucer's works, Gloss. p. 23. And the articleaand the numeralonehave still the same signification. Thataneoran, andoneare originally the same, is a point not to be controverted. We have therefore the strongest reason to believe thatain the phrasesa going,a hunting,a fishingis derived fromone.On, as a contraction ofupon, has, in modern language, a different sense, and cannot be well substituted fora; foron going,on fishing, have an awkward appearance and will not obtain in the language, to the exclusion ofa going,a fishing. The vulgar practice is more correct than Lowth's correction, and ought by no means to be rejected.

"O let my life, if thou so many deathsa comingfind,With thine old year its voyage take."——

Cowley's Ode to the New Year.

"But these fantastic errors of our dream,Lead us to solid wrong;We pray God, our friend's torments to prolong,And wish uncharitably for them,To be as longa dyingas Methusalem."

Cowley.

If the foregoing opinion of the origin ofain such phrases, should not be deemed satisfactory, we may perhaps ascribe its origin to a mere custom of forming expletive sounds in the transition from one word to another.[104]

The following phrases,three shillings a piece,a day,a head,a bushel, it is said are elliptical forms of speech; some preposition being implied, as,fororby. This assertion can proceed only from an imperfect view of the subject. Unless grammarians can prove that some preposition was formerly used, which is now omitted, they cannot prove that any is implied, nor should they have recourse to implication to find a rule to parse the phrases. The truth is, no such preposition can be found, nor is there need of any.A, in this form ofspeech, carries the full meaning of the Latinper, and the substitution of the latter, for want, as it is said, of an English word, in the phrases,per day,per head,per pound, is a burlesque upon the English to this day. We see continually a wretched jargon of Latin and English in every merchant's book, even to the exclusion of a pure English phrase, more concise, more correct, and more elegant. It is to be wished thatamight be restored to its true dignity, as it is used by some of the purest English writers.

"He had read almost constantly, twelve or fourteen hoursa day;" that is,one day.—— Bolingbroke on History, letter 4.

"To the sixteen scholars twenty poundsa piece."——Cowley.

This is pure elegant English, and the common people have the honor of preserving it, unadulterated by foreign words.

The most difficult branch of this subject is the verb. Next to the noun, this is the most important part of speech, and as it includes all the terms by which weexpress action and existence, in their numberless varieties, it must, in all languages, be very comprehensive.

The English verb suffers very few inflections or changes of termination, to express the different circumstances of person, number, time and mode. Its inflections are confined to the three persons of the singular number, in the present tense, indicative mode, and the first and second persons of the past tense; unless we consider the irregular participles as a species of inflection belonging to the verb. All the other varieties of person, number, time and mode, are expressed by prefixing other words, by various combinations of words, or by a particular manner of utterance.

This simplicity, as it is erroneously called, is said to render our language easy of acquisition. The reverse however of this is true; for the use of auxiliaries or combinations of words, constitutes the most perplexing branch of grammar; it being much easier to learn to change the termination of the verb, than to combine two, three or four words for the same purpose.

Grammarians have usually divided the English verbs intoactive,passiveandneuter. "Activeverbs," say they,[105]"express action, and necessarily imply an agent and an object acted upon." But is not a manpassiveinhearing? Yethearis called anactiveverb.

"A verbneuterexpresses being, or a state or condition of being; when the agent and object coincide, and the event is properly neither action nor passion, but rather something between both." But is there neitheractionnorpassioninwalking,running,existing? One would think thatrunningat least might be calledaction.

The common definitions, copied, in some measure, from the Latin Grammars, are very inaccurate. The most correct and general division of English verbs, is, intotransitiveandintransitive; the former term comprehending all verbs that may be followed by any object receiving the action, or of which any thing is affirmed; the latter, all those verbs, the affirmation in which is limited to the agent. Thushearis atransitiveverb, for it affirms something of an object;I hear the bell.

Runis anintransitiveverb, for the action mentioned is confined to the agent;he runs. Yet the last is anactiveverb, and the first, strictly speaking, is not;[106]so that there is a distinction to be made between a verbactiveandtransitive.

In strict propriety, we have in English no passive verb; that is, we have no single word which conveys the idea of passion or suffering, in the manner of the Greek or Latin passive verb. It may be useful, in teaching English to youth or foreigners, to exhibit a specimen of the combinations of the verbbe, with the participles of other verbs in all their varieties; but each word should be parsed as a distinct part of speech; altho two or more may be necessary to convey an idea which is expressed by a single word in another language.

Time is naturally divided intopast,presentandfuture. The English verb has but two variations of ending to express time; the present, aslove,write; and thepast, asloved,wrote. The usual division of tenses, or combinations of words corresponding to the Latin tenses, is not wholly accurate. The definition of the second tense, in the ordinary arrangement of them in Latin grammars, may be correct, as it relates to the Roman tongue; but does not apply to the English tense, which is commonly called by the same name, theImperfect. The Latin wordsmovebam,legebam, are translatedI moved,I read. Now the English words express actionsperfectly past, and therefore the time or tense cannot be justly denominatedimperfect. If the Latin words expressed, in the Roman tongue, actionsimperfectly past, they should be rendered by us,I was moving,was reading, which convey ideas of actions, as taking place at some preceding period, but not then past. In this sense, the name of the tense might have been used with propriety. But the English form of expression,he moved, conveys the idea of an action completely past, and does not fall within the definition of the LatinImperfect.

It is surprizing that the great Lowth should rank this form of the verb,they moved, under the head ofindefiniteorundeterminedtime; and yet place this form,have moved, or what is called the perfect tense, under the head ofdefiniteordeterminedtime. The truth is, the first is the mostdefinite.I have loved, ormoved, expresses an action performed and completed, generally within a period of time not far distant; but leaves the particular point of time whollyindefiniteorundetermined. On the other hand,I lovedis necessarily employed, when a particularperiodorpointof time is specified. Thus it is correct to say,I read a book yesterday,last week,ten years ago, &c. but it is not grammatical to say,I have read a book yesterday,last week, &c. so that, directly contrary to Lowth's rule,I moved, is thedefinite, andI have moved, theindefinitetime.

Great inaccuracy is likewise indulged in the usual description of the English future tense. There is no variation of the verb to express a future action; to remedy this defect, the English useshallandwill, before the verb in its radical form. But these words are both in the present time; being merely the Teutonic verbssollenandwollen, which formerly had, and in the German still have, most of the inflections of regular verbs. Thus:

Ind. Pref.Ich soll, I ought or should.Ich will, I will.Imp.Ich sollt, I ought or should.Ich wollt, I would.Preter.Ich habe gesollt, I ought or should have.Ich habe gewollt, I would or would have, &c. &c.[107]

Ind. Pref.Ich soll, I ought or should.Ich will, I will.

Imp.Ich sollt, I ought or should.Ich wollt, I would.

Preter.Ich habe gesollt, I ought or should have.Ich habe gewollt, I would or would have, &c. &c.[107]

I will gois really nothing more than apresentpromise of afutureaction. Ishall gois apresentprediction of afutureaction. In the second and third persons,willexpresses the prediction; and as one cannot promise for a second or third person,shall, in these persons, implies a promise of the first person, that he willcommandorobligethe second or third person to do an action in some future time. The whole may be thus explained:

I will go,

Is my ownpresentpromise to do a future action.

Thou wilt go—He will go,

are my (the speaker's)presentpredictions that the persons mentioned will do a future action; or perhaps more properly, a declaration of their inclination or intention.

I shall go,

is mypresentprediction of a future action.

Thou shalt go—He shall go,

are my (the speaker's)presentpromise that the second and third persons will do a future action. But as a man cannot compel a superior, he can promise only for himself or inferiors; therefore these last expressions imply a promise in the speaker, and a right to command the second and third persons to do the thing promised; for which reason they are used only in addressing or speaking of, inferiors or subjects. The same remarks apply to the three persons in the plural number.

Hence we observe the inaccuracy of translating the future tense of the Greeks, Romans, and French, byshallorwillindifferently. It is probable that the future tense in those languages, and perhaps in others, where the tense is formed by inflections, was employed merely toforetell.If so,shallonly should be used in the first person of the English translation, andwill, in the second and third. Thus:

Latin.French.English.Habebo,J'aurai,I shall have.Habebimus,nous aurons,we shall have.Habebis,tu auras,thou wilt have.Habebit,il aura,he will have.Habebitis,vous aurez,you will have.Habebunt,ils auront,they will have.

On the other hand, a promise in the first person expressed in English bywill, and a promise or command in the second and third, expressed byshall, seem, in these languages, to be communicated by other words or a circumlocution.

In strictness of speech therefore, we have no future tense of the verb in English; but we use auxiliaries, which, in the present tense, express a prediction of an action, or a disposition of mind to produce an action. These auxiliaries, united with the verb or affirmation, answer the purposes of the future tenses of verbs in other languages; and no inconvenience can arise from calling such a combination atense.

Most languages are so constructed, that the verbs change their terminations for the purpose of expressing themannerof being or action. In this particular, the English is singular; there being but one inflection of a single verb, which can be said to be peculiar to the conditional or subjunctive mode.[108]In all other respects, the verbs in the declaratory and conditional modes are the same; and the condition is known only by some other word prefixed to the verb.

It is astonishing to see how long and how stupidly English grammarians have followed the Latin grammars in their divisions of time and mode; but in particular the latter. By this means, we often findmay,can,shouldandmustin a conditional mode, when they are positive declarations and belong to the indicative. All unconditional declarations, whether of an action, or of aright,powerornecessityof doing an action, belong to theindicative; and the distinction between theindicativeandpotentialis totally useless.Shouldis commonlyplaced in the imperfect time of the subjunctive; yet is frequently used to express an unconditional obligation, ashe should go; and belongs to the present time of the indicative, as much ashe ought, or the Frenchil fautoril doit.

Wouldis sometimes employed in a declaratory sense to express a present volition, and then belongs to the indicative. In the past time,should,would,might,could, often express unconditional ideas, and belong to the indicative. In short, the usual arrangement of the English verbs and auxiliaries in our grammars is calculated to perplex and mislead a learner; and I have never found a foreigner who could use them with tolerable propriety.

Under this head, I shall remark on a single article only, the use ofyouin the singular number, with a plural verb. The use of the pluralnosandvos, foregoandtuin Latin; ofnousandvousforjeandtuin French; seems to have been very ancient, and to have been originally intended to soften the harshness of egotism, or to make a respectful distinction in favor of greatpersonages. But the practice became general in the French nation, was introduced by them into England, and gradually imitated by the English in their own tongue.You, in familiar discourse, is applied to an individual, except by a single sect of Christians; the practice is general and of long standing; it has become correct English, and ought to be considered, in grammar, as a pronoun in the singular number. It may be objected, that we unite with it a verb in the plural number,you are,you have; this is true, but the verb, in these instances, becomes singular; and both the pronoun and verb should be placed in the singular number.

In the union ofyouwith a plural verb in the present time, we are all unanimous; but in the past time, there is a difference between books and common practice in a single instance. In books,youis commonly used with the plural of the verbbe,you were; in conversation, it is generally followed by the singular,you was. Notwithstanding the criticisms of grammarians, the antiquity and universality of this practice must give it the sanction of propriety; for what but practice forms a language? This practice is not merely vulgar; it isgeneral among men of erudition who do not affect to be fettered by the rules of grammarians, and some late writers have indulged it in their publications. I should therefore inflect the verbbein the past time after this manner;I was,thou wast, oryou was,he was, &c. Whatever objections may be raised to this inflection,it is the language of the English, and rules can hardly change a general practice of speaking; nor would there be any advantage in the change, if it could be effected.

There are several verbs in English, which, from the necessity of their union with other verbs, have obtained the name ofauxiliaries. Originally they were principal verbs, with regular Saxon infinitives, and the usual inflections; as may be observed by any person, who has the smallest acquaintance with the modern German, which retains more of the ancient structure, than any other branch of the primitive language.

The verbs, calledauxiliariesorhelpers, aredo,be,have,shall,will,may,can,must. The three first are often employed alone, and are therefore acknowleged to be sometimes principal verbs. That the otherswere so, will be made obvious by a specimen from the German, with the corresponding English.

German.English.Inf.Wollen,to will.Ind. Pref.Ich will,I will.Wir wollen,[109]we will.Imper.Ich wolte,I would.Preterit.Ich habe gewolt,I have would, or willed.Plup.Ich hatte gewolt,I had would.Fut.Ich werde wollen,I shall will.Imp.Wolle du,will thou.Subj.Ich wolle,(if) I would, &c.Inf.Wollen,to will.Gewolte haben,to have would, or willed.Part.Wollend,willing.Gewollte,having would, or willed.

Sollen, to shall, is inflected in the same manner.Koennen, to can, or be able, is inflected much in the same manner.Ich kann, I can, &c. Imperfect,Ich konnte, I could. Preterit,Ich habe gehonnt, I have could (or been able.) Participle,Kænnend,canning, being able. Thusmægen, tomay, makes, in the past tenses,Ich mochte, I might or mought, as the vulgar sometimes pronounce it;Ich habe gemocht,I have might.Mustalso, which in English has lost all inflection, is varied in the German;mussen, to must, or be obliged; Imperfect,Ich muste, I must, or was obliged.

But whatever these verbs may have once been, yet from their loss of several inflections and the participles, with their singular use in combination with other verbs, they may very well be denominatedauxiliary verbs. Their true force in English should be ascertained and explained in grammars for the benefit of learners, and particularly for the assistance of foreigners;[110]yet in resolving sentences, each should be considered as a verb or distinct part of speech.

For want of a clear and accurate knowlege of the English auxiliaries, foreigners are apt to fall into material errors in constructing sentences. The most numerous errors appear in the use ofwillandshall, and their inflections. The Scots and Irish, even of the first rank, generally usewillforshallin the first person; by which means, they substitute apromisefor an intendedprediction. Several errors of this kind have escaped the notice of the most celebrated writers.

"Without having attended to this, wewillbe at a loss in understanding several passages in the classics, which relate to the public speaking, and the theatrical entertainments of the ancients."——Blair's Lectures, p. 48. Philad. edit.

"In the Latin language, there are no two words, wewouldmore readily take to be synonimous, thanamareanddiligere."——The same, p. 83.

In these and several other instances which occur in Blair's writings, the wordswillandwouldare used very improperly, forshallandshould. The author means only toforetellcertain events, and has employed words which carry, to an English ear, the full force of apromise.

English writers have rarely fallen into this error; yet a few instances may be found in authors of reputation.

"If I draw a catgut or any other cord to a great length between my fingers, Iwillmake it smaller than it was before," &c.—— Goldsmith's Survey of Experimental Philosophy, book 2. chap. 2.

In the middle and southern states of America, this error is frequent, both in writing and conversation.

"Let us suppose the charter repealed and the bank annihilated;willwe be better situated?"——Argument against repealing the charter of the Bank of North America.

This is very incorrect; there is hardly a possible case, in whichwillcan be properly employed to ask a question in the first person.

"As soon as the diploma is made out, Iwillhave the honor to transmit it to you."——Letter to Count Rochambeau.

Is not thispromisingto have the honor of a communication, an engagement which delicacy forbids? It is impossible for a foreigner to have a just idea of the absurdity of usingwillin this manner; but a correct English ear revolts at the practice.

Dr. Priestley observes very justly, that the form of the auxiliaries,shall,will,which is generally conditional, viz.shouldandwould, is elegantly used to express a slight assertion, with modest diffidence.

"The royal power,it should seem, might be intrusted in their hands."——Hume's History, vol. 3. p. 383.

We say also, "Iwouldnot choose any." In these cases, the verbs are not conditional; they modestly declare a fact, and therefore properly belong to the indicative mode. But in the following passage,shouldis improperly employed:

"In judging only from the nature of things, and without the surer aid of divine revelation, oneshouldbe apt to embrace the opinion of Diodorus Siculus," &c.—— Warburton's Divine Legation, vol. 2. p. 81.

Should, in the second and third persons, expressesduty, and the idea of the author was, to express an event, under a condition, or a modest declaration; heshouldhave usedwould.

"There is not a girl in town, but let her have her will in going to a mask, and sheshalldress as a shepherdess."——Spect. No. 9.

Shall, in this example, expressescommand, an idea very different from the author's meaning.

"Think what reflectionshallmost probably arise."——Blair, Serm. 9.

"A person, highly entertained at a play,shallremember perfectly the impression made on him by a very moving scene."——Nugent's Trans. of Condillac, p. 1. s. 1.

I would just remark here, that the errors in the use of the auxiliary verbs before mentioned, are not English; that they are little known among the inhabitants of South Britain, and still less among their descendants in New England. This is a new proof of the force of national customs. I do not remember to have heard once in the course of my life, an improper use of the verbswillandshall, among the unmixed English descendants in the eastern states.

But of all the errors or inaccuracies in speaking or writing the English language, the most numerous class appear in the improper use of verbs in the subjunctive mode. Not only illiterate men, but authors of the first rank, often use the present tense for the future, the future for the present, and the past for both.

"If any memberabsentshimself, he shall forfeit a penny for the use of the club, unless in case of sickness and imprisonment."——Rules of the Two Penny Club, Spect. No. 9.

"If thouneglectestordostunwillingly what I command, I'll rack thee with old cramps."——Temp. act 1. s. 4.

In both these examples, the events mentioned in the verbs arefuture; "if any membershallabsent himself;" "if thoushaltneglect;" therefore the auxiliary verbshallshould have been employed, or the sentences should have been elliptical, "if any memberabsenthimself;" "if thouneglect;" whereshallis understood and easily supplied by the reader.

Numberless examples of the same kind of inaccuracy may be found in good authors. Thus in Haley's Happy Prescription, act 2.

Back to Index Next