CHAPTER XVIII.

1.I believe it to be him.2.I believe that it is he.

1.I believe it to be him.

2.I believe that it is he.

In the first example,itis the object; andit-to-be-himforms one complex term.

In the second,heagrees withit; anditis the subject of a separate, though connected, proposition.

Of these two forms the Latin language adopts but one,viz., the former,—credo eum esse, notcredo quod illud est ille.

§ 565.The expressionob differentiam.—The classical languages, although having but one of the two previous forms, are enabled to effect a variation in the application of it, which, although perhaps illogical, is convenient. When the speaker means himself, the noun that follows,esse, orεἶναι, is nominative,—φημὶ εἶναι δεσπότης=I say that I am the master:ait fuisse celerrimus=he says that he himself was the swiftest—but,φημὶ εἶναι δεσπότην=I say that he(some one else)is the master; andait fuisse celerrimum=he says that he(some one else)is the swiftest. This, though not adopted in English, is capable of being adopted,—He believes it to be he(i.e., the speaker)who invented the machine; but,he believes it to be him(that is, another person)who invented it.

§ 566. When the substantive infinitive,to be, is preceded by a passive participle, combined with the verb substantive, the construction is nominative,—it is believed to be he who spoke, notit is believed to be him.—Here there are two propositions:

1. It is believed.—2. Who spoke.

1. It is believed.—

2. Who spoke.

Now, here,itis the subject, and, as such, nominative. But it is also the equivalent toto be he, which must be nominative as well.To be he is believed=esse-ille creditur,—or, changing the mode of proof,—

1.Itis the subject and nominative.

2.Believedis part of the predicate; and, consequently, nominative also.

3.To be heis a subordinate part of the predicate, in apposition withbelieved—est creditum, nempe entitas ejus. Or,to be he is believed=esse-ille est creditum.

As a general expression for the syntax of copulas and appositional constructions, the current rule, thatcopulas and appositional verbs must be followed by the same case by which they are preceded, stands good.

ON THE PARTICIPLES.

§ 567. The present participle, or the participle in-ing, must be considered in respect to its relations with the substantive in-ing.Dying-dayis, probably, no more a participle thanmorning-walk. In respect to the syntax of such expressions as the forthcoming, I consider that they areeitherparticiples or substantives.

1. When substantives, they are in regimen, and govern a genitive case—What is the meaning of the lady's holding up her train?Here the wordholding=the act of holding.—Quid est significatio elevationis pallæ de parte fœminæ.

2. When participles, they are in apposition or concord, and would, if inflected, appear in the same case with the substantive, or pronoun, preceding them—What is the meaning of the lady holding up her train?Here the wordholding=in the act of holding, and answers to the Latinfœminæ elevantis.—Quid est significatio fœminæ elevantis pallam?

For the extent to which the view differs from that of Priestley, and still more with that of Mr. Guest, seePhil. Trans., 25.

§ 568. The past participle corresponds not with the Greek formτυπτόμενος, but with the formτετυμμένος.I am beatenis essentially a combination, expressive not of present but of past time, just like the Latinsum verberatus. Its Greek equivalent is notεἰμὶ τυπτόμενος=I am a man in the act of being beaten, butεἰμὶ τετυμμένος=I am a man who has been beaten. It is past in respect to the action, though present in respect to the state brought about by the action. This essentially past element in the so-called present expression,I am beaten, will be again referred to.

ON THE MOODS.

§ 569. The infinitive mood is a noun. The current rule thatwhen two verbs come together the latter is placed in the infinitive moodmeans that one verb can govern another only by converting it into a noun—I begin to move=I begin the act of moving. Verbs,as verbs, can only come together in the way of apposition—I irritate,I beat,I talk at him,I call him names, &c.

§ 570. The construction, however, of English infinitives is twofold. (1.) Objective. (2.) Gerundial.

When one verb is followed by another without the prepositionto, the construction must be considered to have grown out of the objective case, or from the form in-an.

This is the case with the following words, and, probably, with others.

Thou shalt notseethy brother's ox or his assfalldown by the way.WeheardhimsayI will destroy the temple.Ifeelthe painabate.Hebidheralight.I would fainhaveany onenameto me that tongue that any one can speak as he should do by the rules of grammar.

Thou shalt notseethy brother's ox or his assfalldown by the way.

WeheardhimsayI will destroy the temple.

Ifeelthe painabate.

Hebidheralight.

I would fainhaveany onenameto me that tongue that any one can speak as he should do by the rules of grammar.

This, in the present English, is the rarer of the two constructions.

When a verb is followed by another, preceded by the prepositionto, the construction must be considered to have grown out of the so-called gerund,i.e., the form in-nne,i.e., the dative case—I begin to move. This is the case with the great majority of English verbs.

The following examples, from the Old English, of the gerundial construction where we have, at present, the objective, are Mr. Guest's.

1. Eilridmyght nought to standþam ageyn.R. Br.2. Whether feith schallmowe to savehim?Wiclif,Jamesii.3. My woful child what flightmaist thou to take?Higgins,Lady Sabrine, 4.4. Never to retourne no more,Except hewouldhis lifeto loosetherfore.Higgins,King Albanaet, 6.5. He said hecould not to forsakemy love.Higgins,Queen Elstride, 20.6. The maysterletteX men and moTo wende.Octavian, 381.7. And though we owe the fall of Troy requite,Yetletrevenge thereof from godstolighte.Higgins,King Albanaet, 16.8.I durst, my lord,to wagershe is honest.Othello, iv. 2.9. Whom, when on ground, she grovellingsaw to roll,She ran in haste, &c.F. Q.iv. 7, 32.

1. Eilridmyght nought to standþam ageyn.

R. Br.

2. Whether feith schallmowe to savehim?

Wiclif,Jamesii.

3. My woful child what flightmaist thou to take?

Higgins,Lady Sabrine, 4.

4. Never to retourne no more,Except hewouldhis lifeto loosetherfore.

4. Never to retourne no more,

Except hewouldhis lifeto loosetherfore.

Higgins,King Albanaet, 6.

5. He said hecould not to forsakemy love.

Higgins,Queen Elstride, 20.

6. The maysterletteX men and moTo wende.

6. The maysterletteX men and mo

To wende.

Octavian, 381.

7. And though we owe the fall of Troy requite,Yetletrevenge thereof from godstolighte.

7. And though we owe the fall of Troy requite,

Yetletrevenge thereof from godstolighte.

Higgins,King Albanaet, 16.

8.I durst, my lord,to wagershe is honest.

Othello, iv. 2.

9. Whom, when on ground, she grovellingsaw to roll,She ran in haste, &c.

9. Whom, when on ground, she grovellingsaw to roll,

She ran in haste, &c.

F. Q.iv. 7, 32.

§ 571. Imperatives have three peculiarities. (1.) They can only, in English, be used in the second person: (2.) They take pronouns after, instead of before, them: (3.) They often omit the pronoun altogether.

§ 572. For the syntax of subjunctives, see the Chapter on Conjunctions.

ON THE TENSES.

§ 573. Notwithstanding its name, the present tense in English, does not express a strictlypresentaction. It rather expresses an habitual one.He speaks well=he is a good speaker. If a man means to say that he is in the act of speaking, he saysI am speaking.

It has also, especially when combined with a subjunctive mood, a future power—I beat you(=I will beat you)if you don't leave off.

§ 574. The English præterite is the equivalent, not to the Greek perfect but the Greek aorist.I beat=ἔτυψαnotτέτυφα. The true perfect is expressed, in English, by the auxiliaryhave+ the past participle.

SYNTAX OF THE PERSONS OF VERBS.

§ 575. For the impersonal verbs see Part IV. Chapter 27.

§ 576.The concord of persons.—A difficulty that occurs frequently in the Latin language is rare in English. In expressions likeego et illefollowed by a verb, there arises a question as to the person in which that verb should be used. Is it to be in the first person in order to agree withego, or in thethirdin order to agree withille? For the sake of laying down a rule upon these and similar points, the classical grammarians arrange the persons (as they do the genders) according to theirdignity, making the verb (or adjective if it be a question of gender) agree with the mostworthy. In respect to persons, the first is more worthy than the second, and the second more worthy than the third. Hence, the Latins said—

EgoetBalbus sustulimusmanus.TuetBalbus sustulistismanus.

EgoetBalbus sustulimusmanus.

TuetBalbus sustulistismanus.

Now, in English, the plural form is the same for all three persons. Hence we sayI and you are friends,you and I are friends,I and he are friends, &c., so that, for the practice of language, the question as to the relative dignity of the three persons is a matter of indifference.

Nevertheless, itmayoccur even in English. Whenever two or more pronouns of different persons, and of thesingularnumber, follow each otherdisjunctively, the question of concord arises.I or you,—you or he,—he or I. I believe that, in these cases, the rule is as follows:—

1. Whenever the wordseitherorneitherprecede thepronouns, the verb is in the third person.Either you or I is in the wrong;neither you nor I is in the wrong.

2. Whenever the disjunctive is simple (i. e.unaccompanied with the wordeitherorneither) the verb agrees with thefirstof the two pronouns.

Iorhe amin the wrong.HeorI isin the wrong.Thouorhe artin the wrong.Heorthou isin the wrong.

Iorhe amin the wrong.

HeorI isin the wrong.

Thouorhe artin the wrong.

Heorthou isin the wrong.

The reasons for these rules will appear in the Chapter on Conjunctions.

Now, provided that they are correct, it is clear that the English language knows nothing about the relative degrees of dignity between these three pronouns; since its habit is to make the verb agree with the one which is placed first—whatever may be the person. I am strongly inclined to believe that the same is the case in Latin; in which case (in the sentenceego et Balbus sustulimus manus)sustulimusagrees, in person, withego, not because the first person is the worthiest, but because it comes first in the proposition. That the greater supposed worth of the first person may be a reason for putting it first in the proposition is likely enough.

ON THE VOICES OF VERBS.

§ 577. In English there is neither a passive nor a middle voice.

The following couplet from Dryden's "Mac Flecnoe" exhibits a construction which requires explanation:—

An ancient fabric, raised to'inform the sight,There stood of yore, and Barbicanit hight.

An ancient fabric, raised to'inform the sight,

There stood of yore, and Barbicanit hight.

Here the wordhight=was called, and seems to present an instance of the participle being used in a passive sense without the so-called verb substantive. Yet it does no such thing. The word is no participle at all; but a simple preterite. Certain verbs arenaturallyeither passive or active, as one of two allied meanings may predominate.To be calledis passive; so is,to be beaten. But,to bear as a nameis active; so is,to take a beating. The word,hight, is of the same class of verbs with the Latinvapulo; and it is the same as the Latin word,cluo.—Barbican cluit=Barbican audivit=Barbican it hight.

ON THE AUXILIARY VERBS.

§ 578. The auxiliary verbs, in English, play a most important part in the syntax of the language. They may be classified upon a variety of principles. The following, however, are all that need here be applied.

A.Classification of auxiliaries according to their inflectional or non-inflectional powers.—Inflectional auxiliaries are those that may either replace or be replaced by an inflection. Thus—I am struck=the Latinferior, and the Greekτύπτομαι. These auxiliaries are in the same relation to verbs that prepositions are to nouns. The inflectional auxiliaries are,—

1.Have; equivalent to an inflection in the way of tense—I have bitten=mo-mordi.

2.Shall; ditto.I shall call=voc-abo.

3.Will; ditto.I will call=voc-abo.

4.May; equivalent to an inflection in the way of mood.I am come that I may see=venio ut vid-eam.

5.Be; equivalent to an inflection in the way of voice.To be beaten=verberari,τύπτεσθαι.

6.Am, art, is, are; ditto. Also equivalent to an inflection in the way of tense.I am moving=move-o.

7.Was, were; ditto, ditto.I was beaten=ἐ-τύφθην.I was moving=move-bam.

Do,can,must, andlet, are non-inflectional auxiliaries.

B.Classification of auxiliaries according to their non-auxiliary significations.—The power of the wordhavein the combination ofI have a horseis clear enough. It means possession. The power of the same word in the combinationI have beenis not so clear; nevertheless it is a power which has grown out of the idea of possession. This shows thatthe power of a verb as an auxiliary may be a modification of its original power;i. e., of the power it has in non-auxiliary constructions. Sometimes the difference is very little: the wordlet, inlet us go, has its natural sense of permission unimpaired. Sometimes it is lost altogether.Canandmayexist only as auxiliaries.

1. Auxiliary derived from the idea of possession—have.

2. Auxiliaries derived from the idea of existence—be,is,was.

3. Auxiliary derived from the idea of future destination, dependent upon circumstances external to the agent—shall. There are etymological reasons for believing thatshallis no present tense, but a perfect.

4. Auxiliary derived from the idea of future destination, dependent upon the volition of the agent—will.Shallis simply predictive;willis predictive and promissive as well.

5. Auxiliary derived from the idea of power, dependent upon circumstances external to the agent—may.

6. Auxiliary derived from the idea of power, dependent upon circumstances internal to the agent—can.Mayis simply permissive;canis potential. In respect to the idea of power residing in the agent being the cause which determines a contingent action,canis in the same relation tomayaswillis toshall.

"Mayetcan, cum eorum præteritis imperfectis,mightetcould, potentiam innuunt: cum hoc tamen discrimine:mayetmightvel de jure vel saltem de rei possibilitate dicuntur, atcanetcouldde viribus agentis."—Wallis, p. 107.

7. Auxiliary derived from the idea of sufferance—let.

8. Auxiliary derived from the idea of necessity—must.

"Mustnecessitatem innuit. Debeo, oportet, necesse est urere,I must burn. Aliquando sed rarius in præterito diciturmust(quasi exmust'dseumust'tcontractum). Sic, si de præterito dicatur,he must(seumust't)be burnt, oportebat uri seu necesse habuit ut ureretur."—Wallis, 107.

9. Auxiliary derived from the idea of action—do.

C.Classification of auxiliary verbs in respect to their modeof construction.—Auxiliary verbs combine with others in three ways.

1.With participles.—a) With the present, or active, participle—I am speaking:b) With the past, or passive, participle—I am beaten,I have beaten.

2.With infinitives.—a) With the objective infinitive—I can speak:b) With the gerundial infinitive—I have to speak.

3.With both infinitives and participles.—I shall have done, I mean to have done.

D.Auxiliary verbs may be classified according to their effect.—Thus—havemakes the combination in which it appears equivalent to a tense;beto a passive form;mayto a sign of mood, &c.

This sketch of the different lights under which auxiliary verbs may be viewed, has been written for the sake of illustrating, rather than exhausting, the subject.

§ 579. The following is an exhibition of some of thetimesin which an action may take place, as found in either the English or other languages, expressed by the use of either an inflection or a combination.

Time considered in one point only—

1.Present.—An action taking place at the time of speaking, and incomplete.—I am beating,I am being beaten.Notexpressed, in English, by the simple present tense; sinceI beatmeansI am in the habit of beating.

2.Aorist.—An action that took place in past time, or previous to the time of speaking, and which has no connection with the time of speaking.—I struck,I was stricken. Expressed, in English, by the præterite, in Greek by the aorist. The term aorist, from the Greekἀ-όριστος=undefined, is a convenient name for this sort of time.

3.Future.—An action that has neither taken place, nor is taking place at the time of speaking, but which is stated as one whichwilltake place.—Expressed, in English, by the combination ofwillorshallwith an infinitive mood. In Latin and Greek by an inflection.I shall(orwill)speak,λέκ-σω,dica-m.

None of these expressions imply more than a single action; in other words, they have no relation to any second action occurring simultaneously with them, before them, or after them.—I am speaking now,I spoke yesterday,I shall speak to-morrow. Of course, the act of mentioning them is not considered as an action related to them in the sense here meant.

By considering past, present, or future actions not only by themselves, but as related to other past, present, or future actions, we get fresh varieties of expression. Thus, an act may have been going on, when some other act, itself an act of past time, interrupted it. Here the action agrees with a present action, in being incomplete; but it differs from it in having been rendered incomplete by an action that has past. This is exactly the case with the—

4.Imperfect.—I was reading when he entered.Here we have two acts; the act ofreadingand the act ofentering. Both are past as regards the time of speaking, but both are present as regards each other. This is expressed, in English, by the past tense of the verb substantive and the present participle,I was speaking; and in Latin and Greek by the imperfect tense,dicebam,ἔτυπτον.

5.Perfect.—Action past, but connected with the present by its effects or consequences.—Ihavewritten, and here is the letter.Expressed in English by the auxiliary verbhave, followed by theparticiple passive in the accusative case and neuter gender of the singular number. The Greek expresses this by the reduplicate perfect:τέ-τυφα=I have beaten.

6.Pluperfect.—Action past, but connected with a second action, subsequent to it,which is also past.—Ihadwritten when hecamein.

7.Future present.—Action future as regards the time of speaking, present as regards some future time.—I shallbe speakingabout this time to-morrow.

8.Future præterite.—Action future as regards the time of speaking, past as regards some future time.—I shallhave spokenby this time to-morrow.

These are the chief expressions which are simply determined by the relations of actions to each other, and to the time of speaking, either in the English or any other language. But over and above the simple idea oftime, there may be others superadded: thus, the phrase, I dospeakmeans, not only thatI am in the habit of speaking, but that I alsoinsistupon it being understood that I am so.

Again, an action that is mentioned as either taking place, or as having taken place at a given time, may take place again and again. Hence the idea ofhabitmay arise out of the idea of either present time or aorist time.

α. In English, the present form expresseshabit. See p.455.

β. In Greek the aorist expresses habit.

Again, one tense, or one combination, may be used for another.I was speaking when he enters.

The results of these facts may now be noticed:

1. Theemphatic present and præterite.—Expressed bydo(ordid), as stated above. A man saysI do(ordid)speak,read, &c., when, either directly or by implication, it is asserted or implied that he does not. As a question implies doubt,dois used in interrogations.

"Doetdidindicant emphatice tempus præsens, et præteritum imperfectum.Uro,urebam;I burn,I burned: vel (emphatice)I do burn,I did burn."—Wallis, p. 106.

2.The predictive future.—I shall be there to-morrow.This means simply that the speaker will be present. It gives no clue to the circumstances that will determine his being so.

3. Thepromissive future.—I will be there to-morrow.—This means not only that the speaker will be present, but that heintendsbeing so. For further observations onshallandwill, see pp.471-474.

4. That the power of the present tense is, in English, not present, but habitual, has already been twice stated.

§ 580.The representative expression of past and future time.—An action may be past; yet, for the sake of bringing it more vividly before the hearers, we may make it present.He walks (forwalked) up to him, and knocks (forknocked) him down.This denotes a single action; and is by no means the natural habitual power of the English present. So, in respect to a future,I beat you if you don't leave off, forI will beat you. This use of the present tense is sometimes called thehistoricuse of the present tense. I find it more convenient to call it the representative use; inasmuch as it is used more after the principles of painting than of history; the former of which, necessarily,representsthings as present, the latter, more naturally, describes them aspast.

The use of the representative present to express simple actions is unequivocally correct. To the expression, however, of complex actions it gives an illogical character,—As I was doing this he enters(forentered). Nevertheless, such a use of the present is a fact in language, and we must take it as it occurs.

§ 581. The present tense can be used instead of the future; and that on the principle of representation. Can a future be used for a present? No.

The present tense can be used instead of the aorist; and that on the principle of representation. Can a past tense, or combination, be used for a present?

In respect to the perfect tense there is no doubt. The answer is in the affirmative. For all purposes of syntax a perfect tense, or a combination equivalent to one, is a present tense. Contrast the expression,I come that I may see; with the expression,I came that I might see;i.e., the present construction with the aorist. Then, bring in the perfect construction,I have come. It differs with the aorist, and agrees with the present.I have come that I may see.The reason for this is clear. There is not only a present element in all perfects, but for the purposes of syntax, the present element predominates. Hence expressions likeI shall go, need give us no trouble; even thoughshallbe considered as a perfect tense. Suppose the root,sk-llto meanto be destined(orfated). Provided we consider the effects of the action to be continued up to the time of speaking, we may sayIhave beendestined to go, just as well as we can sayIamdestined to go.

The use of the aorist as a present (except so far as both the tenses agree in their power of expressinghabitualactions) is a more difficult investigation. It bears upon such expressions asI ought to go, &c., and will be taken up inp.475.

§ 582. Certain adverbs,i.e., those of time, require certain tenses.I am then,I was now,I was hereafter, &c., are contradictory expressions. They are not so much bad grammar as impossible nonsense. Nevertheless, we have in Latin such expressions as

"Utsumusin ponto ter frigore constitit Ister."

Here the connection of the present and perfect ideas explains the apparent contradiction. The present state may be the result of a previous one; so that a preterite element may be involved in a present expression.Ut sumus=since I have been where I am.

It is hardly necessary to remark that such expressions assince I am here(wheresince=inasmuch as) do not come under this class.

§ 583. Two fresh varieties in the use of tenses and auxiliary verbs may be arrived at by considering the following ideas, which may be superadded to that of simple time.

1.Continuance in the case of future actions.—A future action may not only take place, but continue: thus, a man may, on a given day, not only be called by a particular name, but maykeepthat name. When Hesiod says that, notwithstanding certain changes which shall have taken place, good shallcontinueto be mixed with bad, he does not say,ἐσθλὰ μιχθήσεται κακοῖσιν, but,

Ἀλλ' ἔμπης καὶ τοῖσι μεμίξεται ἐσθλὰ κακοῖσιν.Opera et Dies.

Ἀλλ' ἔμπης καὶ τοῖσι μεμίξεται ἐσθλὰ κακοῖσιν.

Opera et Dies.

Again,—

Ἔπειθ' ὁ πολίτης ἐντεθεὶς ἐν καταλόγῳΟὐδεὶς κατὰ σπουδὰς μετεγγραφήσεται,Ἀλλ' ὅσπερ ἦν τὸ πρῶτυν ἐγγεγράψεται.Aristoph.Equites, 1366.

Ἔπειθ' ὁ πολίτης ἐντεθεὶς ἐν καταλόγῳΟὐδεὶς κατὰ σπουδὰς μετεγγραφήσεται,Ἀλλ' ὅσπερ ἦν τὸ πρῶτυν ἐγγεγράψεται.

Ἔπειθ' ὁ πολίτης ἐντεθεὶς ἐν καταλόγῳ

Οὐδεὶς κατὰ σπουδὰς μετεγγραφήσεται,

Ἀλλ' ὅσπερ ἦν τὸ πρῶτυν ἐγγεγράψεται.

Aristoph.Equites, 1366.

Hereμετεγγραφήσεταιmeanschange from one class to another,ἠγγεγράψεταιcontinuance in the same.—See Mathiæ, ii. § 498.

Upon the lines,—

Ὅθεν πρὸς ἀνδρῶν ὑστέρων κεκλήσεταιΔούρειος ἵππος.Troades, 13, 14.

Ὅθεν πρὸς ἀνδρῶν ὑστέρων κεκλήσεταιΔούρειος ἵππος.

Ὅθεν πρὸς ἀνδρῶν ὑστέρων κεκλήσεται

Δούρειος ἵππος.

Troades, 13, 14.

Seidler remarks thatκληθήσεται, estnomen accipiet;κεκλήσεται,nomen geret.

Now it is quite true that this Greek tense, the so-calledpaulo-post-futurum, "bears the same relation to the other futures as, among the tenses of past time, the perfectum does to the aorist."—(Mathiæ.) And it is also true that it by no means answers to the Englishshall have been. Yet the logical elements of both are the same. In the English expression, thepastpower of the perfect predominates, in the Greek itspresentpower.

2.Habit in the case of past actions.—I had dined when I rode out.This may apply to a particular dinner, followed by a particular ride. But it may also mean that when the speakerhad dined, according to habit, he rode out, according to habit also. This gives us a variety of pluperfect; which is, in the French language, represented by separate combination—j'avais diné,j'eus diné.

§ 584. It is necessary to remember that the connection between the present and the past time, which is involved in the idea of a perfect tense (τέτυφα), or perfect combination (I have beaten), is of several sorts.

It may consist in thepresent proofof thepastfact,—I have written, and here is the evidence.

It may consist in thepresent effectsof thepastfact,—I have written, and here is the answer.

Without either enumerating or classifying these different kinds of connexion, it is necessary to indicate two sorts ofinferenceto which they may give origin.

1.The inference of continuance.—When a person says,I have learned my lesson, we presume that he can say it,i. e., that,he has a present knowledge of it. Upon this principleκέκτημαι=I have earned=I possess. The past action is assumed to be continued in its effects.

2.The inference of contrast.—When a person says,I have been young, we presume that he is so no longer. The action is past, but it is continued up to the time of speaking by the contrast which it supplies. Upon this principle,fuit IliummeansIlium is no more.

In speaking, this difference can be expressed by a difference of accent.Ihavelearned my lesson, implies thatI don't mean to learn it again.I havelearnedmy lesson, implies thatI can say it.

§ 585. The construction of the auxiliary,may, will be considered in the Chapter on Conjunctions; that ofcan,must, andlet, offer nothing remarkable. The combination of the auxiliary,have, with the past participle requires notice. It is, here, advisable to make the following classifications.

1. The combination with the participle of atransitive verb.—I have ridden the horse;thou hast broken the sword;he has smitten the enemy.

2. The combination with the participle of anintransitiveverb,—I have waited;thou hast hungered;he has slept.

3. The combination with the participle of the verb substantive,—I have been;thou hast been;he has been.

It is by examples of the first of these three divisions that the true construction is to be shown.

For an object of any sort to be in the possession of a person, it must previously have existed. If I possess a horse, that horse must have had a previous existence.

Hence, in all expressions likeI have ridden a horse, there are two ideas, a past idea in the participle, and a present idea in the word denoting possession.

For an object of any sort, affected in a particular manner, to be in the possession of a person, it must previously have been affected in the manner required. If I possess a horse that has been ridden, the riding must have taken place before I mention the fact of the ridden horse being in my possession; inasmuch as I speak of it as a thing already done,—the participle,ridden, being in the past tense.

I have ridden a horse=I have a horse ridden=I have a horse as a ridden horse, or (changing the gender and dealing with the wordhorseas a thing)=I have a horse as a ridden thing.

In this case the syntax is of the usual sort. (1)Have=own=habeo=teneo; (2)horseis the accusative case=equum; (3)riddenis a past participle agreeing either withhorse, orwith a word in apposition with it understood.

Mark the words in italics. The wordriddendoes not agree withhorse, since it is of the neuter gender. Neither if we saidI have ridden the horses, would it agree withhorses; since it is of the singular number.

The true construction is arrived at by supplying the wordthing.I have a horse as a ridden thing=habeo equum equitatum(neuter). Here the construction is the same astriste lupus stabulis.

I have horses as a ridden thing=habeo equos equitatam(singular, neuter). Here the construction is—

"Triste ... maturis frugibus imbres,Arboribus venti, nobis Amaryllides iræ."

"Triste ... maturis frugibus imbres,

Arboribus venti, nobis Amaryllides iræ."

or in Greek—

Δεινὸν γυναιξὶν αἱ δι' ὠδίνων γοναί.

The classical writers supply instances of this use ofhave.Compertum habeo, milites, verba viris virtutem non addere=I have discovered=I am in possession of the discovery. Quæ cum ita sint, satis de Cæsare hocdictum habeo.

2. The combination ofhavewith an intransitive verb is irreducible to the idea of possession: indeed, it is illogical. InI have waited, we cannot make the idea expressed by the wordwaitedthe object of theverbhave orpossess. The expression has become a part of language by means of the extension of a false analogy. It is an instance of an illegitimate imitation.

3. The combination ofhavewithbeenis more illogical still, and is a stronger instance of the influence of an illegitimate imitation. In German and Italian, where evenintransitiveverbs are combined with the equivalents to the Englishhave(habenandavere), the verb substantive is not so combined; on the contrary, the combinations are

Italian;io sono stato=I am been.German;ich bin gewesen=ditto.

Italian;io sono stato=I am been.

German;ich bin gewesen=ditto.

which is logical.

§ 586.I am to speak.—Three facts explain this idiom.

1. The idea ofdirection towards an objectconveyed by the dative case, and by combinations equivalent to it.

2. The extent to which the ideas of necessity, obligation, or intention are connected with the idea ofsomething that has to be done, orsomething towards which some action has a tendency.

3. The fact that expressions like the one in question historically represent an original dative case, or its equivalent; sinceto speakgrows out of the Anglo-Saxon formto sprecanne, which, although called a gerund, is really a dative case of the infinitive mood.

When Johnson (see Mr. Guest,Phil. Trans.No. 44) thought that, in the phrasehe is to blame, the wordblamewas a noun, if he meant a noun in the way thatculpais a noun, his view was wrong. But if he meant a noun in the way thatculpare,ad culpandum, are nouns, it was right.

§ 587.I am to blame.—This idiom is one degree more complex than the previous one; sinceI am to blame=I am to be blamed. As early, however, as the Anglo-Saxon period the gerunds were liable to be used in a passive sense:he is to lufigenne=nothe is to love, buthe is to be loved.

The principle of this confusion may be discovered by considering thatan object to be blamed, isan object for some one to blame,an object to be lovedisan object for some one to love.

§ 588.Shallandwill.—The simply predictive future verb isshall. Nevertheless, it is only used in the first person. The second and third persons are expressed by the promissive verbwill.

The promissive future verb iswill. Nevertheless, it is only used in the first person. The second and third persons are expressed by the predictive verbshall.

"Inprimispersonisshallsimpliciter prædicentis est;will, quasi promittentis aut minantis.

"In secundis et tertiis personis,shallpromittentis est aut minantis:willsimpliciter prædicentis.

nempe, hoc futurum prædico.

nempe, hoc futurum spondeo, vel faxo ut sit."

Again—"wouldetshouldillud indicant quod erat vel esset futurum: cum hoc tantum discrimine:wouldvoluntatem innuit, seu agentis propensionem:shouldsimpliciter futuritionem."—Wallis, p. 107.

§ 589. Archdeacon Hare explains this by ausus ethicus. "In fact, this was one of the artifices to which the genius of the Greek language had recourse, to avoid speaking presumptuously of the future: for there is an awful, irrepressible, and almost instinctive consciousness of the uncertainty of the future, and of our own powerlessness over it, which, in all cultivated languages, has silently and imperceptibly modified the modes of expression with regard to it: and from a double kind oflitotes, the one belonging to human nature generally, the other imposed by good-breeding on the individual, and urging him to veil the manifestations of his will, we are induced to frame all sorts of shifts for the sake of speaking with becoming modesty. Another method, as we know, frequently adopted by the Greeks was the use of the conditional moods: and as sentiments of this kind always imply some degree of intellectual refinement, and strengthen with its increase, this is called an Attic usage. The same name too has often been given to the above-mentioned middle forms of the future; not that in either case the practice was peculiar to the Attic dialect, but that it was more general where the feelings which produced it werestrong and more distinct. Here again our own language supplies us with an exact parallel: indeed this is the only way of accounting for the singular mixture of the two verbsshallandwill, by which, as we have no auxiliary answering to the Germanwerde, we express the future tense. Our future, or at least what answers to it, is,I shall,thou wilt,he will. When speaking in the first person, we speak submissively: when speaking to or of another, we speak courteously. In our older writers, for instance in our translation of the Bible,shallis applied to all three persons: we had not then reacht that stage of politeness which shrinks from the appearance even of speaking compulsorily of another. On the other hand the Scotch usewillin the first person: that is, as a nation they have not acquired that particular shade of good-breeding which shrinks from thrusting itself[61]forward."

§ 590.Notice of the use ofwillandshall, by Professor De Morgan.—"The matter to be explained is the synonymous character ofwillin the first person withshallin the second and third; and ofshallin the first person withwillin the second and third:shall(1) andwill(2, 3) are calledpredictive:shall(2, 3) andwill(1)promissive. The suggestion now proposed will require four distinctive names.

"Archdeacon Hare'susus ethicusis taken from the brighter side of human nature:—'When speaking in the first person we speak submissively; when speaking to or of another, we speak courteously.' This explainsI shall,thou wilt; but I cannot think it explainsI will,thou shalt. It often happensthatyou will, with a persuasive tone, is used courteously for something next to, if not quite,you shall. The present explanation is taken from the darker side; and it is to be feared that theà prioriprobabilities are in its favour.

"In introducing the common mode of stating the future tenses, grammar has proceeded as if she were more than a formal science. She has no more business to collect togetherI shall,thou wilt,he will, than to do the same withI rule,thou art ruled,he is ruled.

"It seems to be the natural disposition of man to think of his own volition in two of the following catagories, and of another man's in the other two:

Back to Index Next