"I AM the first, and I, the last,Thro endless years the same;I AM is my memorial still,And my eternal name."Watts' Hymn.
"I AM the first, and I, the last,Thro endless years the same;I AM is my memorial still,And my eternal name."
Watts' Hymn.
Ask the Jews the meaning of thisneuter verbin their language. They hold it in the most profound and superstitious reverence. After the captivity of their nation they never dared pronounce the name except once a year when the high priest went into the Holy of Holies, and hence the true pronunciation of it was lost. Unto this day they dare not attempt to utter it. In all their writings it remains in characters untranslated. When their Messiah comes they expect he will restore the pronunciation, and by it they shall be able to accomplish all things.[15]
According to Plutarch the Greeks had the letters EI,thou art, engraven on the temple of Apollo at Delphi, which is the second person ofEimi,I am.[16]
This motto was doubtless borrowed from the Jews, to whom it was given as the name of the God of Jacob. The same name you may see engraven on monuments, on pictures of the bible, on masonic implements, and in various places, untranslated.
Who can suppose that this word "expresses no action," when the very person incapable of it can not utter it, and no one else can speak it for him? It denotes the highest conceivable action applied to Deity or to man, and it is questionable philosophy which dares contradict this fact. The action expressed by it, is not changed, because it does not terminate on a foreign object. It remains the same. It is self-action.
He is.
This word is constructed from an old verb signifyingto stand forth,to appear,to show one's self, and may be traced, I think, to the latineo,to go, andexist, toexeo,to go from; that is, ourbeingorexistence,cameorstood forthfrom God. It is certainly a contraction from the old englishto exist.Istis the spelling still retained in the german and some other languages. It denotes self-action. One man does notexistanother, but himself. Hekeeps himselfin existence.
We are,thou are-est,arst, orart.
Be notsurprisedwhen I tell you this is the same word asair, for such is the fact. It signifies to inhale air, toair ourselves, orbreathe air. "Godbreathedinto man thebreath of life, and man became aliving soul." The new born infantinhales air,inflates its lungswithair, and begins to live. We all know how essentialairis to the preservation of life. No animal can live an instant without it. Drop a squirrel into a receiver from which allairhas been extracted, and it can not live. Even vegetables will die where there is no air.Lightis also indispensable tolifeandhealth.Airisinhaledandexhaled, and from it life receives support. The fact being common, it is not so distinctly observed by the careless, as tho it was more rare. But did you never see the man dying of a consumption, when the pulmonary or breathing organs were nearly decayed? How he labors for breath! He asks to have the windows thrown open. At length hesuffocatesand dies. Most persons struggle hard forbreathin the hour of dissolving nature. The heaving bosom, the hollow gasp forair, tells us that the lamp of life is soon to be extinguished, that the hour of their departure has come.
When a person faints, we carry them into theair, or blowairupon them, that nature may be restored to its regular course. In certain cases physicians find it necessary to force air into the lungs of infants; they can after thatair, themselves,imbibeordrink in air, orinspiritthemselves with air. But I need not enlarge. Whoever has been deprived of air and labored hard for breath in a stifled or unwholesome air, can appreciate what we mean.
We were;he was.
I have said before that these words are the same, and are used in certain cases irrespective of number. I have good authority for this opinion, altho some etymologists give them different derivations.
Were,wert;worth,werth;wordandwerde, are derived from the same etymon and retain a similarity of meaning. They signifyspirit,life,energy. "In the beginning was theword, and thewordwas with God." "By thewordof his grace."
"They were," theyinspiritedthemselves,possessedthe life, vitality, orspirit, the Creator gave them, and having that spirit, life, or energy, under proper regulation, in due degree, they wereworthyof the esteem, regard, sympathy, and goodwordof others.
To be.
This is considered the root of all the words we have considered, and to it all others are referred for a definition. Dictionaries give no definition toam,is,are,was, andwere, all of them as truly principal verbs asbe, and possessed ofas distinct a meaning. It can hardly be possible that they should form so important a part of our language, and yet be incapable of definition. But such is the fact, the most significant words in our language, and those most frequently used, are undefined in the books.
Mr. Webster saysto besignifies, "to exist, tohavea realstateorexistence," and so say Walker and Johnson. Now if it is possible to "havea state of beingwithout action or passion," then may this word express neutrality. But the very definition requires activity, and an object expressed. It denotes theact of being, or living; toexercisethe powers of life, tomaintaina position or rank in the scale of existent things.
The name of the action isbeing, and applies to the Almighty BEING whoexistsunchanged as the source of all inferiorbeingsand things, whose name isJehovah, I AM, the Being of beings, the Fountain oflight,life, andwisdom.
Beis used in the imperative and infinitive moods correctly, by every body who employs language. "Behere in ten minutes." "Be itfar from thee." "I willbein Boston before noon." If there is any action in going from Providence to Boston at rail-road speed, in two hours, or before noon, it is all expressed by the verbbe, which we are told expressesno action.
The teacher says to his scholars when out at play, "I want youto bein your seats in five minutes." What would they understand him to mean? that they should stand still? or that they shouldchange their state of beingfrom play in the yard, to a state of being in their seats? There is no word to denote such change, except the wordto be.Beoff,begone,behere,bethere, are commands frequently given and correctly understood.
The master says to a bright little lad, who has well learned his grammar, "Behere in a minute."
"Yes, sir, I willbethere;" but he does not move.
"Behere immediately."
"Yes, yes, I willbethere."
"Don't you understand me? I say,behere instantly."
"Oh, yes, I understand you and will obey."
The good man is enraged. "You scoundrel," says he, "do you mean to disobey my orders and insult me?"
"Insult you and disobey you; I have done neither," replies the honest boy.
"Yes you have, and I will chastise you severely for it."
"No, master, I have not; I declare, I have not. I have obeyed you as well as I know how, to the very letter and spirit of your command."
"Didn't I tell youto behere in a minute, and have not youremainedwhere you were? and didn't you say you wouldbehere?"
"Yes, sir; and did not I do just what you told me to?"
"Why, no, you blockhead; I told youto behere."
"Well, I told you I wouldbethere."
"Youwasnot here."
"Nor did you expect I wouldbe, if you have taught me tospeak,write, and understand correctly."
"What do you mean, you saucy boy?"
"I mean to mind my master, and do what he tells me to."
"Why didn't you do so then?"
"I did."
"You didn't."
"I did."
"You lie, you insult me, you contradict me, you saucy fellow. You are not fit to be in school. I will punish youseverely." And in a passion he starts for his ferrule, takes the boys hand, and bruises him badly; the honest little fellow all the while pleading innocence of any intended wrong.
In a short time they commenceparsingthis sentence: "It is necessaryto bevery particular in ascertaining the meaning of words before we use them." The master putsto beto the same boy. He says it is anactive verb, infinitive mood.
"How is that? anactiveverb?"
"Yes, sir."
"No, it is not. It is aneuterverb."
"Begging your pardon, master, it is not. It is active."
"Have I got to punish you again so soon, you impudent fellow. You are not fit to be in school. I will inform your parents of your conduct."
"What have I done that is wrong?"
"You sayto beis anactiveverb, whenItell you, and thegrammaranddictionarytell you, it isneuter!"
"What is aneuterverb, master?"
"It expresses 'neither action nor passion, but being or a state of being.' Have you forgotten it?"
"No, sir, Ithoughtthat was the case."
"What did you ask me for then?"
"Because I supposed you had found another meaning for it."
"To what do you allude, you troublesome fellow, you? I'll not bear your insults much longer."
"For what did you punish me so severely just now?"
"For disobeying my orders."
"What did you order me to do?"
"To behere in a minute."
"Well, did not I do what you told me?"
"No; you kept your seat, and did not come near me."
"Well, I thought and did just what you now tell me; thatto beis aneuterverb, expressing noaction, butbeing. I had astateofbeing, and promised to keep it, and did keep it, and you punished me for doing the very thing you told me to do!!"
The master looked down, shut up his book, and began to say that grammar is a "dry,cold, anduseless" study, hardly worth the trouble of learning it.
"I amAlpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, whois, and whowas, and whoisto come, the Almighty."—Rev. 1: 8.
If there is any action in maintaining eternal existence, by which all things were created and are upheld, it is expressed in the verbsam,is, andwas.
God said, "Let therebelight, and therewaslight;" or more properly rendered, "Lightbe, and lightwas."
Was there no action in setting the sun, moon and stars in the firmament, and in causing them tosendforth the rays of light todispelthe surrounding darkness? If there was,beandwasdenote that action.
"You are commandedto beandappearbefore the court of common pleas," etc. A heavy penalty is imposed upon those who fail to comply with this citation—for neglecting to do what is expressed by theneuter verbtobe.
Such cases might be multiplied without number, where this verb is correctly used by all who employ language, and correctly understood by all who are capable of knowing the meaning of words. But I think you must all be convinced of the truth of our proposition, that all verbs express action, eitherrealorrelative; and in all cases have an object, expressed or necessarily implied, which stands as theeffect, and an agent, as the cause of action: and hence that language, as a means for the communication of thought, does not deviate from the soundest principles of philosophy, but in all cases, rightly explained, serves to illustrate them, in the plainest manner.
A few remarks on the "Passive Verb," and I will conclude this part of our subject, which has already occupied much more of our attention than I expected at the outset.
"A verb passiveexpresses a passion or a suffering, or the receiving of an action; and necessarily implies an object acted upon, and an agent by which it is acted upon; as, to be loved; Penelope is loved by me."
In the explanation of this verb, grammarians further tell us that a passive verb is formed by adding the verbto be, which is thus made auxiliary, to a past participle; as, Portiawas loved. Pompeywas conquered.
It is singular how forgetful our great men sometimes are about observing their own rules. Take an instance in Mr. Walker's octavo dictionary. Look for the wordsimeter, a small sword. You will find it spelledscimitar. Then turn over, and you will find itsimitar, with the same definition, and the remark, "more properlycimetar." Then turn back, and find the correct word as he spells it, and there you will find it cimeter.
Unsettled as to the true spelling, go to our own honored Webster. Look for "scimiter." He says, see cimitar. Then look for "cimitar;" see cimeter. Then hunt up the true word, be itarorer, and you will find it still another way, cimiter. Here the scholar has seven different waysto spell this word, and neither of his authorities have followed their own examples. I cite this as one of a thousand instances, where our savans have laid down rules for others, and disregarded them themselves.
Portiais lovedandhappy. She isrespectable,virtuous,talented, andrespectedby all who know her. Sheis seated by the door. Does thedoorseat her? What agent, then, causes herpassionorsuffering?
The book is printed. Will you parseis printed? It is a passive verb, indicative mood,present tense. Whoisprinting it? causing it, in the present tense, tosufferorreceivethe action? The act of printingwas performeda hundred years ago. How can it be present time?
Penelopeis lovedby me. The blowis receivedby me. Itis givenby me. Penelopeis seatedby me. The earthquakeis feltby her. The evilsare sufferedby her. The thunderis heardby her. Does this mean that she is the agent, and the earthquake, evils, and thunder, are the objects which receive theeffectswhich she produces? That would be singular philosophy, indeed. Butto feel,to suffer, andto hear, are active, and are constructed into passive verbs. Why is it not as correct to say sheis sufferingby another's wrongs,is ragingby the operation of passion, oris travellingby rail-road, are passive verbs? The fact is, our language can notbe explainedby set rules or forms of speech. We must regard the sense. The past participle, as it is called, becomes an adjective by use, and describes her as some way affected by a previous action. She islearned,handsome,modest, and, of course,belovedby all who know her.
To say "sheis placedby the water's edge," is a passive verb, and that the water's edge, as the agent, causes her"passion, suffering, or receiving of the action," is false and ridiculous, for sheplacedherself there.
"Weare seatedon our seats by the stove." What power isnowoperating on us to make us suffer or receive the action of being seated on our seats? Does the stove perform this action? This is a passive verb,present tense, which requires an "object acted upon, and anagentby which it is acted upon." But we came in andseated ourselveshere an hour ago.
The manis acquitted. Hestands acquittedbefore the public. Heis learned, wise, and happy, very muchimprovedwithin a few years. Heisalways active, studious, andengagedin his own affairs. Heis renowned, andvalorous. Sheis respected. Shelives respected.
If there is such a thing as a passive verb, it can never be used in the present tense, for the action expressed by the principal verb which is produced by the agent operating upon the object, is alwayspasttense, and the auxiliary, or helping verbto be, is always present. Let this verb be analyzed, and the true meaning of each word understood, little difficulty will be found in giving it an explanation.
I will not spend more time in exposing the futility of this attempted distinction. It depends solely on a verbal form, but can neverbe explainedso asto be understoodby any scholar. Most grammarians have seen the fallacy of attempting to give the meaning of this verb. They can show itsform, butarefrequentlycompelled, as in the cases above, to sort out the "passedparticiples" from a host of adjectives, and it willbe foundexceeding troublesome to make scholars perceive any difference in the use of the words, or in the construction of a sentence. But it may be they have never thought that duty belonged to them; thatthey have nothing to do but to show them what the book says. Suppose they should teach arithmetic on the same principles, and learn the scholars to set down 144 as the product of 12 times 12. Let them look at the form of the figures, observe just how they appear, and make some more like them, and thus go thro the book. What would the child know of arithmetic? Just as much as they do of grammar, and no more. They would understand nothing of the science of numbers, of proportion, or addition. They would exercise the power of imitation, and make one figure look like another. Beyond that, all would be aterra incognita, a land unknown. So in the science of language; children may learn that the verbto be, joined with the past participle of an active verb, makesa passive verb; but what that passive verb is when made, or how to apply it, especially in the present tense, they have no means of knowing. Their knowledge is all taken on trust, and when thrown upon their own resources, they have none on which to rely.
Mood. — Indicative. — Imperative. — Infinitive. — Former distinctions. — Subjunctive mood. —Time. — Past. — Present. — Future. — The future explained. — How formed. — Mr. Murray's distinction of time. — Imperfect. — Pluperfect. — Second future. — How many tenses. —Auxiliary Verbs. — Will. — Shall. — May. — Must. — Can. — Do. — Have.
Mood. — Indicative. — Imperative. — Infinitive. — Former distinctions. — Subjunctive mood. —Time. — Past. — Present. — Future. — The future explained. — How formed. — Mr. Murray's distinction of time. — Imperfect. — Pluperfect. — Second future. — How many tenses. —Auxiliary Verbs. — Will. — Shall. — May. — Must. — Can. — Do. — Have.
We are now come to consider the different relations of action in reference tomannerandtime. We shall endeavor to be as brief as possible upon this subject, keeping in view meanwhile that candor and perspicuity which are indispensable in all our attempts to explain new views.
Moodsignifiesmanner. Applied to verbs it explainshow, inwhat manner, by what means, under what circumstances, actions are performed.
There arethreemoods, theindicativeor declarative, theimperativeor commanding, and theinfinitiveor unlimited.
The indicative mood declares an action to bedoneordoing,not done, ornot doing. It is always in the past or present tense; as, DavidkilledGoliath; scholarslearnknowledge; Ispoke nota word; theysing not.
The imperative mood denotes a command given from the firstpersonto thesecond,to doornot doan action. It expresses the wish or desire of the first person to have a certain action performed which depends on the agency of thesecond. The command ispresent, but the action signified by the word isfutureto the giving of the command. The second person cannot comply with the will of the first till such will is made known; as, bring me a book; go to the door.
Theinfinitivemood has no direct personal agent, but is produced as a necessary consequence, growing out of a certain condition of things. It is alwaysfutureto such condition; that is, some prior arrangement must be had before such consequences will follow. It is alwaysfuture; as, they are collecting a forceto besiegethe city. We study grammarto acquirea knowledge of language. Windows are madeto admitlight. The act of besieging the city depends on the previous circumstance, the collection of a forceto doit. Were there no windows, the light would not be admitted to the room.
These distinctions in regard to action must be obvious to every hearer. You all are aware of the fact that action necessarily implies an actor, as every effect must have an efficient cause; and such action clearly or distinctlyindicated, must have such an agent to produce it. 2d. You are acquainted with the fact that one person can express his will to the second, directing him to do or avoid some thing. 3d. From an established condition of things, it is easy to deduce a consequence which will follow, in the nature of things, as an unavoidable result of such a combination of power, cause, and means.
With these principles you are all familiar, whether you have studied grammar or not. They are clearly marked, abundantly simple, and must be obvious to all. They form the only necessary, because the only real, distinction, in the formation and use of the verb to express action. Any minor distinctions are only calculated to perplex and embarrass the learner.
But some grammarians have passed these natural barriers, and built to themselves schemes to accord with their own vain fancies. The remarks of Mr. Murray upon this point are very appropos. He says:
"Some writers have given our moods a much greater extent than we have assigned to them. They assert that the english language may be said, without any great impropriety, to have as many moods as it has auxiliary verbs; and they allege, in support of their opinion, that the compound expression which they help to form, point out those various dispositions and actions, which, in other languages, are expressed by moods. This would be to multiply the moods without advantage. It is, however, certain, that the conjugation or variation of verbs, in the english language, is effected, almost entirely, by the means of auxiliaries. We must, therefore, accommodate ourselves to this circumstance; and do that by their assistance, which has been done in the learned languages (a few instances to the contrary excepted) in another manner, namely, by varying the form of the verb itself. At the same time, it is necessary to set proper bounds to this business, so as not to occasion obscurity and perplexity, when we mean to be simple and perspicuous. Instead, therefore, of making a separate mood for every auxiliary verb, and introducing moodsinterrogative,optative,promissive,hortative,precative, &c., we have exhibited such only as are obviously distinct; and which, whilst they are calculated to unfold and display the subject intelligibly to the learner, seem to be sufficient, and not more than sufficient, to answer all the purposes for which moods were introduced.
"From grammarians who form their ideas, and make their decisions, respecting this part of english grammar, on the principles and constructions of languages which, in these points, do not suit the peculiar nature of our own, but differ considerably from it, we may naturally expect grammatical schemes that are not very perspicuous nor perfectly consistent, and which will tend more to perplex than to inform the learner."
Had he followed this rule, he would have saved weeks and months to every student in grammar in the community. But his remarks were aimed at Mr. Harris, who was by far the most popular writer on language in England at that time. He has adopted the very rules of Mr. Murray, and carried them out. By a careful observance of the different forms and changes of the verb and its auxiliaries, he makes out quite evidently to his own mind,fourteenmoods, which I forbear to name.
Most grammarians contend forfivemoods, two of which, thepotentialor powerful, and thesubjunctive, are predicated on the same principles as Mr. Harris' optative, interrogative, etc., which they condemn. It is impossible to explain the character of these moods so as to be understood.If, it is said, is the sign of the subjunctive, andmayandcanof the potential; and yet they are often found together; as, "I will goif I can." No scholar can determine in what mood to put this last verb. It of right belongs to both the potential and subjunctive.IfImaybe allowed to speak my mind, Ishouldsay that such distinctions were false.
I will not go into an exposure of these useless and false distinctions, which are adopted to help carry out erroneous principles. The only pretence for a subjunctive mood is founded on the fact thatbeandwerewere formerly used ina character different from what they are at present.Bewas used in the indicative mood, present tense, when doubt or supposition was implied; as, If Ibethere; if theybewise.BeI a man, andreceivesuch treatment?Werewas also used instead ofwasin the past tense; as, "WereI an American I would fight for liberty. If Iwereto admit the fact." In this character these words are rapidly becoming obsolete. We now say, "If Iamthere; am I a man, andreceivesuch abuses?wasI an American; if I was to admit," etc.
All the round about, perplexing, and tedious affair of conjugating verbs thro the different modes and tenses will appear in its true character, when we come to give you a few brief examples, according to truth and plain sense. But before doing that it will be necessary to make some remarks on time.
Tensemeanstime. We distinguish time according to certain events which are generally observed. In the use of the verb we express action in reference to periods of time when it is performed.
There are three tenses, or divisions of time;past,present, andfuture.
Past tenseapplies to actions which are accomplished; as, Iwrotea book; herecitedhis lesson.
Present tensedenotes actions commenced, but not finished, and now in operation; as, hereadshis book; wesiton our seats andhearthe lecture.
Future tenserefers to actions, which areto takeplace hereafter; as, I amto gofrom the Institute; we desireto learngrammar correctly.
Every body can mark three plain distinctions of time, past, present, and future. With the past we have been acquainted. It has ceased to be. Its works are ended. The present is a mere line—, nothing as it were—which is constantly passing unchecked from the past to the future. It is a mere division of the past and future. The Hebrew, which is strictly a philosophic language, admits no present; only apastandfuture. We speak of the present as denoting an action begun and not finished. In the summer, we say the trees grow, and bear fruit. But when the fruit is fallen, and the leaves seared by the frost, we change the expression, and say, itgrewandborefruit.
Of thefuturewe can know nothing definitely. Heaven has hung before all human eyes an impenetrable veil which obscures all future events. No man without prophetic vision bestowed by Him who "sees the end from the beginning," can know what isto be, and no expression can be made, no words employed which will positively declare a future action. We may see a present condition of things, and from it argue what isto be, or take place hereafter; but all that knowledge is drawn from the past and deduced from a review of the present relation and tendencies of things.
I hold the paper near the fire and you say itwillburn, and you say truly, for it has awill, or what is the same, an inherent tendencyto burn. It is made of combustible matter, like paper which we have seen burn, and hence we argue this has the same tendency to be consumed. But how does your mind arrive at that fact? If you had never seen a substance like it burn, why should you conclude thiswill? Does the child know itwillburn? No; for it has not yet learned the quality of the paper. It is not till the child has been burned that it dreads the fire. Suppose I take someasbestus, of the kind called amianthus, which is a mineral, and is formed of slender flexible fibres like flax; and in eastern countries, especially in Savoy and Corsica, is manufactured into cloth, paper, and lamp wicks. It was used in making winding sheets for the dead, in which the bodies were burned, and the ashes, retained in the incombustible sheet, were gathered into an urn, and revered as the manes of the dead. Suppose I take some of this incombustible paper or cloth, and present to you. You say itwillburn. Why do you say thus? Because you have seen other materials which appear like this, consume to ashes. Let us put it into the fire. Itwill notburn. It has notendencyto burn; no quality which will consume. But this is a new idea to you and hence your mistake. You did not know itwouldburn, nor could youindicatesuch a fact. You only told your opinion derived from the present appearance of things, and hence you made an assertion in theindicativemood, present tense, and added to it aninfinitivemood, in order to deduce the consequence of this future action—itwills, or has atendencyto burn. But you were mistaken, because ignorant of thenatureof things. This amianthus looks like flax, and to a person unacquainted with it, appears to be as truly combustible; but the mineralogist, and all who know its properties, know very well that itwillnot—wills nothing, has no inclination, or tendency, to burn.
Take another example. Here is a steel needle. I hold it before you. You say, "if I let go of it, itwillfall," and you say correctly, for it has such a tendency. But suppose a magnet, as great as that which is said to have drawn the iron coffin of Mohammed to the roof of the temple at Mecca, should be placed in the room above us. The needle, instead of falling to the floor, would be drawn in the nearestdirection to that magnet. Thewillortendencyof the needle, as generally understood, would be overcome, the natural law of gravitation would lose its influence, by the counteracting power of the loadstone.
I say, "I will go home in an hour." But does that expressionindicatethe act ofgoing? It is placed in the indicative mood in our grammars; andgois the principal, andwillthe auxiliary verb. May be I shall fall and die before I reach my home. But the expression is correct;willispresent, gofuture. Iwill, I nowresolve, am now inclinedto gohome.
You see the correctness of our position, that we can not positively assert a future active in the indicative mood. Try and form to yourselves a phrase by which it can be done. Should you succeed, you would violate a law of nature. You would penetrate the dark curtain of the future, and claim to yourself what you do not possess, a power to declare future actions. Prophets, by the help of the Almighty, had this power conferred upon them. But in the revelation of the sublime truths they were instructed to make known, they were compelled to adopt human language, and make it agree with our manner of speech.
The only method by which we express a future event, is to make an assertion in the indicative mood, present tense, and to that append the natural consequence in the infinitive or unlimited; as, Iam to goto Boston. He is preparingto visitNew-York. The infinitive mood is always future to the circumstance on which it depends.
Mr. Murray says, that "tense, being the distinction of time, might seem to admit of only the present, past, and future; but to mark it moreaccurately, it is made to consist of six variations, viz.: the present, imperfect, perfect, pluperfect, first and second future tenses." Thismore accurate mark, only serves to expose the author's folly, and distract the learner's mind. Before, all was plain. The past, present, and future are distinct, natural divisions, easily understood by all. But what idea can a person form of animperfecttense in action. If there was ever such an action in the world, it was whengrammariansmadetheir grammars, which is, if I mistake not, according to their own authority, in theim-perfecttense! Iwrotea letter. Hereadhis piece well. The scholar learnedand recitedhis lessonperfectly; and yetlearned, tho madeperfectby thequalificationof anadverb, is animperfectaction!
But this explains the whole mystery in the business of grammar. We can here discover the cause of all the troubles and difficulties we have encountered in the whole affair. When authorsmadetheir books, theydiditimperfectly; when teacherstaughtthem, it wasimperfectly; and when scholarslearnedthem, it wasimperfectly!! So at last, we have found the origin of this whole difficulty, in the grammars themselves; it was all imperfectly done.
But here, again,mirabile dictu!wonderful to tell, we are presented with aplu-perfecttense; that is,—plusmeansmore,—amorethan perfect tense! What must that be? If a thing is perfect, we can not easily conceive any thing beyond. That is ane plus ultrato all advancement—there can be no more beyond. If any change is introduced, it must be by falling fromperfectback toimperfect.
Ihave said, "many of the distinctions in the grammar bookshave provedmischievous; that they are as false as frivolous;" and this is saidperfectly, in the perfect tense. If I should say, "theyhad beenof some benefit," that would bemorethanperfect—plu-perfect. But when I say, "theyexhibitedgreat depth of research, andconveyedsome light on the subject of which theytreated," it would all beim-perfect.
Next, we are presented with asecond futuretense, which attempts a division of time unbounded and unknown. In the greek, they have what is called a "paulo post future," which in plain english, means a "little after the future;" that is, I suppose, when futurity has come to an end, this tense will commence! At that time we may expect to meet a "præter plus quam perfectum"—a more than perfect tense! But till that period shall arrive, we see little need of making such false and unphilosophic distinctions.
A teacher once told me that he explained the distinctions of time to his scholars from the clock dial which stood in the school room. Supposetwelveo'clock represents thepresenttense;ninewould signify theperfect; any thing between nine and twelve would beimperfect; any thing beyond,pluperfect. On the other hand, any act, forward of twelve, would befuture; and atthreethesecond futurewould commence. I remarked that I thought this a wonderful improvement, especially to those who were able to have clocks by which to teach grammar, but that I could not discover why he did not havethree future, as well asthree pasttenses. Why, he said, there were no such tenses marked in the books, and hence there was no occasion to explain them. I asked him why he did not have a tense for every hour, and so he could distinguish with Mr. Webster,twelvetenses, without any trouble whatever; and, by going three times round the dial, he could easily prove the correctness of Dr. Beattie's division; for he says, in his grammar, there arethirty-sixtenses, and thinks there can not be less without "introducing confusion in the grammaticalart." But he thought such a course would serve rather to perplex than enlighten; and so thought I. But he was the teacher of a popular school in the city of ——, and had published a duodecimo grammar of over 300 pages, entitled "Murray's Grammar,improved, by ——." I will not give his name; it would be libellous!
Mr. Murray thinks because certain things which he asserts, but does not prove, are found in greek and latin, "we may doubtless apply them to the english verb; and extend the principleas far as convenience, and the idiom of our language require." He found it to his "convenience" to notesixprincipal, and as manyindefinitetenses. Mr. Webster does the same. Dr. Beattie found it "convenient" to havethirty-six. In the greek they havenine. Mr. Bauzee distinguishes in the frenchtwentytenses; and the royal academy of Spain present a very learned and elaborate treatise onseven future tensesin that language. The clock dial of my friend would be found quite "convenient" in aiding the "convenience" of such distinctions.
The fact is, there are only three real divisions of time in any language, because there are only three in nature, and the ideas of all nations must agree in this respect. In framing language it was found impossible to mark any other distinctions, without introducing other words than those which express simple action. These words became compounded in process of time, till they are now used as changes of the same verb. I would here enter into an examination of the formation of the tenses of greek, latin, french, spanish, and german verbs, did I conceive it necessary, and show you how, by compounding two words, they form the various tenses found in the grammars. But it will be more edifying to you to confine my remarks to our own language.Here it will be found impossible to distinguish more than three tenses, or find the verb in any different form, except by the aid of other words, wholly foreign from those that express the action under consideration.
It is by the aid of auxiliary verbs that the perfect, pluperfect, or future tenses are formed. But when it is shown you that these are principal verbs, and like many other words, are used before the infinitive mood without the wordtoprefixed to them, you will perceive the consistency of the plan we propose. That such is the fact we have abundant evidence to show, and with your consent we will introduce it in this place. I repeat, all the words long considered auxiliaries, areprincipalverbs, declarative of positive action, and as such are in extensive use in our language. We can hardly agree that the wordswill,shall,may,must,can,could,would,should, etc. have no meaning, as our grammars and dictionaries would teach us; for you may look in vain for a definition of them, as principal verbs, with a few exceptions.
The reason these words are not found in the same relation to other words, with atoafter them, is because they are so often used that we are accustomed to drop that word. The same may be said of all small words in frequent use; as,bid,do,dare,feel,hear,have,let,make,see, and sometimesneeds,tell, and a few others. Bid him go. Idare sayso. Ifeelitmove. Wehearhimsing.Letusgo.Makehimdoit. Hemust gothro Samaria.Tellhimdoit immediately.
It is a singular fact, but in keeping with neuter verb systems, that all theneuterverbs as well as the active, take these auxiliary orhelpingverbs, which, according to theirshowinghelp them do nothing—"express neitheractionor passion." A wonderfulhelpindeed!
Will.This verb signifies towish, toresolve, toexercise volition, in reference to a certain thing or action. "I will go." Inow resolveto perform the act of going. When applied to inanimate things incapable of volition, it signifies what is analogous to it,inherent tendency; as, paperwillburn; ironwillsink; waterwillrun. All these things have an inherent or active tendency to change. Water is composed of minute particles of a round form, piled together. While on a level they do not move; but let a descent be made, and these particles, under the influence of gravitation,willchange position, and roll one over another with a rapidity equalled to the condition in which they are placed. The same may be observed in a quantity of shot opened at one side whichwillrun thro the aperture; but the particles being larger, they will not find a level like water. Grain, sand, and any thing composed of small particles,willexhibit the same tendency. Iron, lead, or any mineral, in a state of igneous solution,willrun, has the sameinclinationto run as water, or any other liquid. In oil, tallow, and lard, when expanded by heat, the same tendency is observed; but severely chilled with the cold, it congeals, andwillnot, has no suchtendency, to run.
You have doubtless observed a cask filled with water and nearly tight, (if it is possible, make it quite so,) and when an aperture is made in the side, itwillrun but a trifle before it will stop. Open a vent upon the top of the cask and itwillrun freely. Thiswillor tendency was counteracted by other means which I will not stop here to explain.
This is a most important word in science, physical andmoral, and may be traced thro various languages where it exerts the same influence in the expression of thought.
"To avoid multiplying of words, I would crave leave here, under the wordaction, to comprehend theforbearancetoo of any action proposed;sitting still, orholding one's peace, whenwalkingorspeakingare proposed, tho mere forbearances, requiring as much the determination of thewill, and being as often weighty in their consequences as thecontrary actions, may, on that consideration, well enough pass for actions too. For he that shall turn his thoughts inwards upon what passes in his mind when hewills, shall see that thewillor power of volition is conversant about nothing."—Locke's Essay, b. II. c. 21. § 30.
It is correctly applied by writers tomatteras well as mind, as may be seen by consulting their works.