Chapter 32

[45]Mr. Gilchrist, in his “Philosophic Etymology,” represents the terminationsath,eth,ad,ed,et,en,an, as conjunctives, equivalent to the sign +, denotingadd, orjoin(seep. 162). In another part of the same work, he considersdidto bedodoubled, asdedifrom the Latindo, which he believes to be the very same word with ourdo. Repetition, he observes, is a mode of expressing complete action. Hence we havedo,do-ed,dede,did, in English. This explanation is ingenious, and furnishes a probable account of the origin of the worddid, which he remarks was formerly spelleddede.[46]I beThou beestHe, she, or it beWe beYe or you beThey be,from the SaxonIc beoThu beestHe beeth,are obsolete, unless followed by a concessive term. Thus, instead of saying, “Many therebethat go in thereat,” we should now say, “Many thereare.” For “to whom all heartsbeopen,” we should now write, “to whom all heartsareopen.” We find them, however, used with the conjunctionsifandthough; thus, “If this be my notion of a great part of that high science, divinity, you will be so civil as to imagine, I lay no mighty stress upon the rest.”—Pope.That this was his notion the author had previously declared; the introductory clause, therefore, is clearly affirmative, and is the same as if he had said, “As this is my notion.” “Although shebeabundantly grateful to all her protectors, yet I observe your name most often in her mouth.”—Swift.“The paper, although itbewritten with spirit, yet would have scarce cleared a shilling.”—Swift.In the two last sentences the meaning is affirmative; nothing conditional or contingent being implied.In the following examples, it expresses doubt or contingency. “If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down:”i.e.“shouldst be.” “If I be in difficulty, I will ask your aid;”i.e.“If I should be.”[47]Though the authority of Milton, Dryden, Pope, and Swift, can be pleaded in favour ofwert, as the second person singular of this tense, I am inclined to agree with Lowth, that in conformity to analogy, as well as the practice of the best ancient writers, it would be better to confinewertto the imperfect conditional.[48]If the expression of time with an attribute “be sufficient to make a verb, the participle must be a verb too, because it signifies time also. But the essence of a verb consisting in predication, which is peculiar to it, and incommunicable to all other parts of speech, and these infinitives never predicating, they cannot be verbs. Again, the essence of a noun consisting in its so subsisting in the understanding, as that it may be the subject of predication, and these infinitives being all capable of so subsisting, they must of necessity be nouns.”—R. Johnson’s Gram. Comment.[49]The variety of form which this verb assumes, clearly shows that it has proceeded from different sources.Amis from the Anglo-Saxoneom, andisfrom the Anglo-Saxonysoris; and these have been supposed to have come from the Greekεἰμὶ, εἶς.The derivation ofareis doubtful. It may, perhaps, have proceeded directly fromerorerumof the Icelandic verb, denoting “to be.” By Mr. Gilchrist it is considered as “the same with the infinitive terminationare, ere, ire.” Mr. Webb conjectured, that it might have some relation to the Greekἔαρ,spring. Both these explanations appear to us somewhat fanciful.Artis from the Anglo-Saxoneart. “Thou eart,”thou art.Wasis evidently the Anglo-Saxonwæs; andwast,wert, probably from the Franco-Theatisc,warst; andwerefrom the Anglo-Saxonwære,wæron.Beis from the Anglo-SaxonIc beo,I am, which, with the Gaelic verbbi,to be, Mr. Webb considered to be derived fromβίος,life, as the Latinfui, fromφύω,to grow. This conjecture he supports by several pertinent quotations. See Mr. Bosworth’s “Elements of Anglo-Saxon Grammar,” p. 164.[50]The wordsdid,hast,hath,has,had,shall,wilt, are evidently, as Wallis observes, contracted fordoed,haveth,haves,haved,shall’st,will’st.[51]This verb is derived from the Saxonmagan,posse, the present of which isIc mæg, and the preteriteIc miht. Hence alsoIc mot.“For as the fisshe, if it be drie,Mote in defaute of water die.”—Gower.[52]This verb is derived from cunnan,scire,posse,sapere. Hence is derived the verb “to ken,” or “to know;” or more probably, indeed, they were one and the same word: hence also the wordcunning. “To ken” is still used in Scotland; and in the expression of Shakspeare, “I ken them from afar,” is erroneously considered by some critics to mean, “I see them.”[53]This verb is, unquestionably, a derivative from the Saxonꞅceal,I oweorI ought, and was originally of the same import.I shalldenoted “it is my duty,” and was precisely synonymous withdebeoin Latin. Chaucer says, “The faith I shall to God;” that is, “the faith I owe to God.” “Thou shalt not kill,” or “thou oughtest not to kill.” In this senseshallis a present tense, and denoted present duty or obligation. But, as all duties and all commands, though present in respect to their obligation and authority, must be future in regard to their execution; so by a natural transition, observable in most languages, this word, significant of present duty, came to be a note of future time. I have considered it, however, as a present tense; 1st, because it originally denoted present time; 2dly, because it still retains the form of a present, preserving thus the same analogy toshouldthatcandoes tocould,maytomight,willtowould; and 3dly, because it is no singular thing to have a verb in the present tense, expressive of future time, commencing from the present moment; for such precisely is the Greek verbμέλλω,futurus sum. Nay, the verbwilldenotes present inclination, yet in some of its persons, likeshall, expresses futurition. I have considered, therefore, the verbshallas a present tense, of whichshouldis the preterperfect.Johnson’s explanation of the meaning of this verb is so perspicuous, that, as foreigners are apt to mistake its use, I shall here transcribe his words.I shall love: “it will be so that I must love,” “I am resolved to love.”Shall I love?“will it be permitted me to love?” “will it be that I must love?”Thou shalt love: “I command thee to love;” “it is permitted thee to love;” “it will be, that thou must love.”Shalt thou love?“will it be, that thou must love?” “will it be permitted thee to love?”He shall love: “it will be, that he must love;” “it is commanded that he love.”Shall he love?“is it permitted him to love?” The plural persons follow the signification of the singular.I transcribe also the same author’s explanation of the verbI will.I will come: “I am willing to come,” “I am determined to come.”Thou wilt come: “it must be, that thou must come,” importing necessity; or “it shall be, that thou shalt come,” importing choice.Wilt thou come?“hast thou determined to come?” importing choice.He will come: “he is resolved to come;” or “it must be, that he must come,” importing choice or necessity.Brightland’s short rule may be of some service in assisting foreigners to distinguish the use of these two verbs. It is this:“In the first person simplyshallforetels:Inwilla threat, or else a promise, dwells;Shallin the second and the third does threat;Willsimply then foretels the future feat.”In addition to these directions for the use ofshallandwill, it is to be observed, that, when the second and third persons are represented as the subjects of their own expressions, or their own thoughts,shallforetels, as in the first person, thus, “he says he shall be a loser by this bargain:” “do you suppose you shall go?” “He hoped he should recover,” and “he hoped he would recover,” are expressions of different import. In the former, the two pronouns necessarily refer to the same person; in the latter, they do not.[54]This verb is derived from the Saxon verbwillan,velle, the preterite of which isIc wold.[55]The preteritewouldis frequently employed, like the Latin preterimperfect tense, to denote what is usual or customary. Thus,Quintilio si quid recitares, corrige, sodes,Hoc, aiebat, et hoc; melius te posse negares,Bis terque expertum frustra; delere jubebat,Et malè tornatos incudi reddere versus:Si defendere delictum quàm vertere, malles,Nullum ultra verbum, aut operam insumebat inanem.Horace.where the verbs aiebat, jubebat, insumebat, may be translated, “he would say,” “he would desire,” “he would spend.” Thus also in English,Pleas’d with my admiration, and the fireHis speech struck from me, the old manwouldshakeHis years away, and act his young encounters:Then having show’d his wounds,he’dsit him down.[56]In Latin the imperfect potential is frequently employed in the same manner to denote present time; thus,irem si vellem, expresses present liberty and inclination. And the same analogy obtains in Latin; for we say, either,tu, si hic sis, aliter sentias, ortu, si hic esses, aliter sentires. In such examples, it is intended to signify either the coexistence of two circumstances, or the one as the immediate consequence of the other. An identity of tense, therefore, best expresses contemporary events.[57]If it should be said, that the participle may properly be considered as a verb, since it implies an attribute with time, I would ask, whetheraffirmation, the most important of all circumstances, and without which no communication could take place, should be overlooked in our classification of words agreeably to their import, or the offices which they perform. If the verb and participle be referred to one class, the principal part of speech which has been pre-eminently distinguished by the name of verb, orthe word, is degraded from its rank, and confounded with a species of words which are not even necessary to the communication of thought. Surely, if any circumstance can entitle any sort of words to a distinct reference, it is that ofaffirmation.If it should be objected that the participle, like the verb, governs a case, I would ask, becauselectio,tactio, and many other substantives, are found sometimes joined with an accusative case, were they ever on this account considered as verbs? Besides, if the government of a case be urged as an argument, what becomes of those participles which govern no case? Nay, if the government of a case be deemed the criterion of a verb, what name shall we assign to those verbs which have no regimen at all? If any species of words is to be distinguished from another, the characteristic difference must surely belong, not to part only, but to the whole.[58]The terminationingis from the Anglo-Saxonande,ænde,ende,ind,onde,unde,ynde, and corresponds to the termination of the Latin gerunds inandumandendum, expressing continuation,Amandum,Lufiande,Loving.[59]Here I would be understood to reason on their own principles; for the truth is, that each of these tenses admits a definitive.[60]See theTransactions of the Royal Irish Academy, vol. iii.[61]Dr. Beattie observes, “that the fundamental error of those philosophers who deny the existence of present time is, that they suppose the present instant to have, like a geometrical point, neither parts nor magnitude. But as nothing is, in respect of our senses, a geometrical point, (for whatever we see or touch must of necessity have magnitude,) so neither is the present, or any other instant, wholly unextended.” His argument amounts to this, that as a mathematical point is not an object of sense, nor has any real existence, so neither has a metaphysical instant. It is granted. They are each ideal. But does this prove the author’s position, that philosophers have erred in asserting their similarity? or does it evince that no analogy subsists between them? Quite the reverse. The truth is, a geometrical point is purely ideal; it is necessary to the truth of mathematical demonstration, that it be conceived to have no parts. Finding it convenient to represent it to sense, we therefore give it magnitude. A metaphysical instant, or present time, is in like manner ideal; but we find it convenient to assume as present an extended space. The doctor observes, that sense perceives nothing but what is present. It is true; but it should be remembered that not time, but objects which exist in time, are perceived by the senses. It may enable a person to form a correct idea of this matter, if he will ask himself, what he means by present time. If it be the present hour, is it not obvious that part of it is past, and part of it future? If it be the present minute, it is equally clear, that the whole of it cannot be present at once. Nay, if it be the present vibration of the pendulum, is it not obvious that part of it is performed, and part of it remains to be performed? Nor is it possible to stop in this investigation, till present time, strictly speaking, be proved to have no existence. Did it exist, it must be extended; and if extended, it cannot be present, for past and future must necessarily be included in it. If it should be answered, that this proves time, like matter, infinitely divisible, and that the most tedious process will still leave something capable of division, I reply, that as whatever may be left in the one case must be figure, and not a point, so the remainder, in the other, must be a portion of extended time, how minute soever, and not an instant. The process, therefore, must be continued, till we arrive in idea at a point and an instant, incapable of division, being not made up of parts.[62]When we say,God is good, I would ask Dr. Browne whether the verb be definite or indefinite, whether it denote perfection or imperfection, or have no reference to either. It appears to me that neither of the terms is in his sense applicable; for that the verb denotes simple affirmation with time; or, if applicable, that the tense is, contrary to his opinion, indefinite, the idea of completion or imperfection being entirely excluded.[63]These phraseologies, as the author last quoted justly observes, are harsh to the ear, and appear exceedingly awkward; but a little attention will suffice to show that they correctly exhibit the ideas implied by the tense which we have at present under consideration.[64]See Encyc. Brit., Art. Grammar.[65]I consider that no language, grammatically examined, has more cases, tenses, or moods, than are formed by inflexion. But if any person be inclined to call these forms of expression by the name of imperative mood, I have no objection. Only let him be consistent, and call “Dost thou love?” an interrogative mood, adopting also the precative, the requisitive, the optative, the hortative, &c., together with the various cases in nouns, and tenses in verbs, which are formed by prepositions and auxiliary verbs: I should only apprehend, that language would fail him to assign them names.If it should be asked, “Agreeably to your doctrine of the verb, as implying affirmation, what part of speech would you make the verbs in the following sentences,Depart instantly,improve your time,forgive us our sins? Will it be said that the verbs in these phrases are assertions?” I should answer that all moods, metaphysically considered, are, in my apprehension, equally indicative. Every possible form of speech can do nothing but express the sentiment of the speaker, his desire, his wish, his sensation, his perception, his belief, &c. Whatever form, therefore, the expression may assume, it must be resolvable into assertion; and must be considered as expressing, in the person of the speaker, what he desires, wishes, feels, thinks, and so forth. No one surely will deny, that “thou oughtest not to kill,” “thou shalt not kill,” “thou art forbidden to kill,” are affirmations. And are not these expressions so nearly equivalent to “do not kill,” that in Greek and Latin they are rendered indifferently either byοὐ φονεύσεις, or,μὴ φόνευε;non occides, orne occidito? If then we say, “kill thou,” will it be contended that, though the prohibition implies an affirmation of the speaker, the command does not? The expression I conceive to be strictly equivalent to “thou shalt kill,” “thou art ordered to kill.” Henceaveandjubeo te avere, are deemed expressions of the same import. If the question be examined grammatically, or as a subject of pure grammar, I am inclined to think that where there is no variety of termination, there cannot be established a diversity of mood.[66]This verb is derived from the Saxon verbIc most,ego debeo.[67]It belongs not to my province to inquire, howamaremcame to signifyI mightorcould love, or whether it be strictly in the potential or the subjunctive mood. I here take it for granted thatamaremdoes, without an ellipsis, signify,I might, could, would, orshould love, implyinglicet,possum,volo,debeo.—SeeJohnson’s Comment.[68]Why this verb forms an exception, it would be easy to explain.[69]See Webster’s Dissertations, p. 263.[70]A similar phraseology in the use of the pluperfect indicative for the same tense subjunctive, obtains in Latin, as“Impulerat ferro Argolicas fœdare latebras.”—Virgil.[71]The Latins usedsiin both cases: and though their poets did not attend to this distinction, their prose writers generally observed it, by joiningsiforquoniamwith the indicative mood.[72]WhereRis added, the verb follows also the general rule.[73]Some have excludedboreas the preterite of this verb. We have sufficient authority, however, for admitting it; thus,“By marrying her who bore me.”—Dryden.[74]Beholdenis obsolescent in this sense.[75]“So kept the diamond, and the rogue was bit.”—Pope.“There was lately a young gentleman bit to the bone.”—Tatler.[76]Brakeseems now obsolescent.[77]Though Johnson has not admitted the regular form of the participle in this verb, I think there is sufficient authority for concurring with Lowth in receivingbuildedas the participle as well asbuilt, though it be not in such general use.[78]Chode, which occurs twice in the Bible, is now obsolete.[79]Lowth has givenclombas the preterite of climb. I can find, however, no authority later than Spenser, and am inclined to think it is now obsolete.[80]The irregular preteritecladis obsolescent.[81]I know no example in which the preterite, which analogically would beforwent, is to be found. It may be here remarked that this verb, in violation of analogy, is generally spelledforego, as if it meant “to go before.” This is equally improper as it would be to writeforebid, foresake, foreswear, forforbid, forsake, forswear.[82]Fraughtis more properly an adjective than participle.[83]This verb, Lowth says, when employed as an active verb, “may perhaps, most properly be used in the regular form.” Here the learned author appears to me, if he be not chargeable with error, to have expressed his meaning incorrectly; for it cannot be disputed that the irregular form of this verb is frequently, and with unquestionable propriety, used in an active sense. Thus we say, “the servant hung the scales in the cellar;” and passively, “the scales were hung by the servant.” I should, therefore, rather say that, when this verb denotes suspension, for the purpose of destroying life, the regular form is far preferable. Thus, “the man was hanged,” not “hung.”[84]The irregular preterite and participle of this verb are employed in sea language; but the latter rarely.[85]Lowth has givenholpenas the participle; it is now obsolescent, if not obsolete. It belonged to the verbto holp, which has been long out of use.[86]Several grammarians have rejectedhidas a participle. It rests, however, on unquestionable authority; buthiddenis preferable.[87]Holden, which was some years ago obsolescent, is now returning into more general use.[88]Laden, likefraught, may be deemed an adjective.[89]Priestley, I apprehend, has erred in givinglainas the participle of this verb.[90]Lien, though not so generally used aslain, is not destitute of unexceptionable authority. I have, therefore, with Johnson and Lowth, given it as the participle. Murray has omitted it.[91]Some grammarians have rejectedlit. It can plead, however, colloquial usage in its favour, and even other authority. “I lit my pipe with the paper.”—Addison.[92]With Priestley and Lowth, I have given this verb a regular participle; for which, I believe, there is sufficient authority, without adducing the example of Shakspeare. Most other grammarians have rejected it.[93]Quittedis far more generally used as the preterite thanquit.[94]Priestley has rejectedrid, and Murrayridden, as the participle, while Johnson makesridthe preterite ofride. Asridis the present and preterite of another verb, it would, perhaps, be better to dismiss it entirely from the verbto ride, and conjugate, with Priestley,ride, rode, ridden.[95]Our translators of the Bible have usedroastas the perfect participle. In this sense it is almost obsolete.Roast beefretains its ground.[96]Story, in his Grammar, has most unwarrantably asserted, that the participle of this verb should beshaked. This word is certainly obsolete, and, I apprehend, was never in general use. I have been able to find only one example ofshakedas the participle, “A sly and constant knave, not to beshaked.”—Shakspeare.And two as the preterite, “They shaked their heads.”—Psal.cxi. 55. “I shaked my head.”—Steele,Spectator, No. iv.[97]Of these preterites, the latter is now more generally used. Our translators of the Bible used the former.[98]A. Murray has rejectedsungas the preterite, and L. Murray has rejectedsang. Each preterite, however, rests on good authority.The same observation may be made respectingsankandsunk.[99]Sitten, though formerly in use, is now obsolescent. Laudable attempts, however, have been made to restore it. “To havesittenon the heads of the apostles.”—Middleton.“Soon after the termination of this business, the parliament, which had nowsittenthree years,” &c.—Belsham’s Hist.“And he would gladly, for the sake of dispatch, have called together the same parliament, which hadsittenunder his father.”—Hume, vol. vi. p. 199.Respecting the preterites which haveaoru, asslang, orslung,sank, orsunk, it would be better were the former only to be used, as the preterite and participle would thus be discriminated.[100]Pope has used the regular form of the preterite:“In the fat age of pleasure, wealth, and ease,Sprung the rank weed, and thrived with large increase.”Essay on Crit.Horsley, with one or two other writers, have employed the regular participle.[101]Washenseems obsolescent, if not obsolete. The compoundunwashenoccurs in our translation of the Bible.[102]Pope, and our translators of the Bible, have usedwindedas the preterite. The other form, however, is in far more general use.[103]Wrote, as the participle, is generally disused, and likewisewrit. The latter was used as a preterite by Pope, Swift, and other writers of the same period.[104]Witis now confined to the phraseto wit, ornamely. It is an abbreviation from the Anglo-Saxon verbþiꞇan, to know.[105]This verb, as an auxiliary, is inflexible; thus we say, “he will go,” and “he wills to go.”[106]This verb, which signifies “to think,” or “to imagine,” is now obsolete.[107]This verb is now used as significant of present duty. It was originally the preterite, and the perfect participle of the verbto owe; and is corruptedly used in Scotland still to express a past debt. “Apprehending the occasion, I will add a continuance to that happy motion, and besides give you some tribute of the love and duty I long have ought you.”—Spelman.“This blood, which men by treason sought,That followed, sir, which to myself I ought.”—Dryden.It is now used in the present tense only; and, when past duty or obligation is to be signified, we note, as I formerly mentioned, the past time by the preterite sense of the subsequent verb; thus, “I ought to read,” “I ought to have read.” The classical scholar knows that the reverse takes place in Latin.Debeo legere, debui legere. Cicero, however, though very rarely indeed, uses the preterite of the infinitive after the preterite tense of this verb.Murray has told us, thatmustandoughthave both a present and past signification, and, in proof of this, he adduces the following examples:—“I must own, that I am to blame.” “He must have been mistaken.” “Speaking things which they ought not.” “These ought ye to have done.” This is truly a strange, and, I verily believe, a singular opinion. Its inaccuracy is so manifest, that every reader of discernment must intuitively perceive it. The opinion itself, indeed, is not more surprising, than the ground on which it is maintained by the author. It surely requires but a moderate portion of sagacity to perceive, that the past time, in the second and fourth examples, is not denoted bymustandought, but by the expressions “have been” and “have done.” In Latin, as I have just observed,necessityanddutyare expressed as either present, past, or future, the verbs denoting these having the three correspondent tenses; and the object of the necessity or duty is expressed as contemporary, or relatively present. In English, on the contrary, the two verbsmustandoughthaving only the present tense, we are obliged to note the past time by employing the preterite tense of the subsequent verb. Thus,Me ire oportet, “I ought to go,” “I must go.”Me ire oportuit, “I ought to have gone,” “I must have gone.” As well may it be affirmed, that the past time is denoted byireand notoportuit, as that it is signified bymustand not by “have gone.”In the time of Wallis, the termmust, as a preterite tense, was almost obsolete. “Aliquando,” he remarks, “sed rarius in præterito dicitur.” And when it was employed as a preterite, it was followed by the present tense. This verb in German has, I understand, a preterite tense.[108]Firstly, is used by some writers.[109]Denominativa terminantur inlicvellice, ut þeꞃlic virilis, ælic legitimus, ꞃælic marinus, þiꝼlic muliebris, &c. Hanc terminationem hodie mutavimus inlikevelly, ut ingodlikevelgodly. Hickesii Thes.The correctness of this explanation has been controverted by Mr. Gilchrist, who contends that, though it may answer in some cases, it will fail “in nine times out of ten.” In the expressions “weekly wages,” “daily labour,” “yearly income,” he observes, that the meaning cannot be, “wages like a week,” “labour like a day,” “income like a year.” He rejects, therefore, this explanation, and considers the terminationlicto be the same withligin the Latin verbligo, “to tie,” or “join,” and to have the same effect as other conjunctive particles, as “a friendly part,” “a friend’s part,” “yearly produce,” “year’s produce.” Though a copious induction of examples justifies us in refusing our assent to Mr. Gilchrist’s exaggerated statement, that the derivation proposed by Hickes will fail in nine cases out of ten; we candidly acknowledge, that in many instances it is inadmissible; and that Mr. Gilchrist’s suggestion is ingenious, though it will be found, we apprehend, opposed by the same objection as he urges against Hickes’s explanation. Nor does it appear to us, that Mr. Gilchrist’s argument subverts the doctrine generally received. The termination may have been originally what Hickes supposed, and the principle of analogy may, in time, have introduced similar compositions, when this meaning of the termination ceased to be regarded. Thus the termcandidly, which we have just now used, was probably introduced, in conformity toanalogy, with no reference whatever to the meaning of the termination. It may be here also observed, that the import of this term seems inexplicable on the hypothesis thatlyis a mere term of conjunction.[110]These three adverbs, denoting motion or rest in a place, are frequently employed by us, in imitation of the French, to denote motion to a place in the same sense with the three following adverbs. It would be better, however, were the distinction observed. The French useiciforhereandhither,làforthereandthither,oùforwhereandwhither.[111]“For blithesome Sir John BarleycornHad sae allur’d them i’ the morn,That, what wi’ drams, and mony a horn,And reaming bicker,The ferly is,withoutenscorn,They wauk’d sae sicker.”Mayne’s Siller Gun.This animated little poem will be read with no common pleasure by every admirer of the Scottish muse. In felicity of description the author is not inferior to Burns, while in delicacy of humour he may claim the superiority.This preposition is supposed by Mr. Gilchrist to be derived fromforth, or rather to be a different form of that word. See his “Philosophic Etymology,” a work exhibiting considerable ingenuity and philological knowledge, combined with many fanciful and unphilosophical opinions.[112]It is possible that the Greekἀπό, and the Latinabderived from it, had their origin inאבpater principium, “author,” or “principle of existence.”[113]The verb, “to twin,” is still used in Scotland for “to part,” or “separate.”[114]That the Saxon wordægthersignifiedeach, is sufficiently evident from a variety of examples; and the adjectiveeitherhas continued to be used in that sense by reputable writers. Lowth, who, I apprehend, did not advert to its primitive signification, condemns the use of it as equivalent toeach; and notwithstanding its original import, I agree with him in thinking, that it is much better to confine its meaning to “one of two.” The reason will be assigned hereafter.

[46]I beThou beestHe, she, or it beWe beYe or you beThey be,from the SaxonIc beoThu beestHe beeth,are obsolete, unless followed by a concessive term. Thus, instead of saying, “Many therebethat go in thereat,” we should now say, “Many thereare.” For “to whom all heartsbeopen,” we should now write, “to whom all heartsareopen.” We find them, however, used with the conjunctionsifandthough; thus, “If this be my notion of a great part of that high science, divinity, you will be so civil as to imagine, I lay no mighty stress upon the rest.”—Pope.That this was his notion the author had previously declared; the introductory clause, therefore, is clearly affirmative, and is the same as if he had said, “As this is my notion.” “Although shebeabundantly grateful to all her protectors, yet I observe your name most often in her mouth.”—Swift.“The paper, although itbewritten with spirit, yet would have scarce cleared a shilling.”—Swift.In the two last sentences the meaning is affirmative; nothing conditional or contingent being implied.In the following examples, it expresses doubt or contingency. “If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down:”i.e.“shouldst be.” “If I be in difficulty, I will ask your aid;”i.e.“If I should be.”

[46]

are obsolete, unless followed by a concessive term. Thus, instead of saying, “Many therebethat go in thereat,” we should now say, “Many thereare.” For “to whom all heartsbeopen,” we should now write, “to whom all heartsareopen.” We find them, however, used with the conjunctionsifandthough; thus, “If this be my notion of a great part of that high science, divinity, you will be so civil as to imagine, I lay no mighty stress upon the rest.”—Pope.That this was his notion the author had previously declared; the introductory clause, therefore, is clearly affirmative, and is the same as if he had said, “As this is my notion.” “Although shebeabundantly grateful to all her protectors, yet I observe your name most often in her mouth.”—Swift.“The paper, although itbewritten with spirit, yet would have scarce cleared a shilling.”—Swift.In the two last sentences the meaning is affirmative; nothing conditional or contingent being implied.

In the following examples, it expresses doubt or contingency. “If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down:”i.e.“shouldst be.” “If I be in difficulty, I will ask your aid;”i.e.“If I should be.”

[47]Though the authority of Milton, Dryden, Pope, and Swift, can be pleaded in favour ofwert, as the second person singular of this tense, I am inclined to agree with Lowth, that in conformity to analogy, as well as the practice of the best ancient writers, it would be better to confinewertto the imperfect conditional.

[48]If the expression of time with an attribute “be sufficient to make a verb, the participle must be a verb too, because it signifies time also. But the essence of a verb consisting in predication, which is peculiar to it, and incommunicable to all other parts of speech, and these infinitives never predicating, they cannot be verbs. Again, the essence of a noun consisting in its so subsisting in the understanding, as that it may be the subject of predication, and these infinitives being all capable of so subsisting, they must of necessity be nouns.”—R. Johnson’s Gram. Comment.

[49]The variety of form which this verb assumes, clearly shows that it has proceeded from different sources.Amis from the Anglo-Saxoneom, andisfrom the Anglo-Saxonysoris; and these have been supposed to have come from the Greekεἰμὶ, εἶς.The derivation ofareis doubtful. It may, perhaps, have proceeded directly fromerorerumof the Icelandic verb, denoting “to be.” By Mr. Gilchrist it is considered as “the same with the infinitive terminationare, ere, ire.” Mr. Webb conjectured, that it might have some relation to the Greekἔαρ,spring. Both these explanations appear to us somewhat fanciful.Artis from the Anglo-Saxoneart. “Thou eart,”thou art.Wasis evidently the Anglo-Saxonwæs; andwast,wert, probably from the Franco-Theatisc,warst; andwerefrom the Anglo-Saxonwære,wæron.Beis from the Anglo-SaxonIc beo,I am, which, with the Gaelic verbbi,to be, Mr. Webb considered to be derived fromβίος,life, as the Latinfui, fromφύω,to grow. This conjecture he supports by several pertinent quotations. See Mr. Bosworth’s “Elements of Anglo-Saxon Grammar,” p. 164.

[49]The variety of form which this verb assumes, clearly shows that it has proceeded from different sources.

Amis from the Anglo-Saxoneom, andisfrom the Anglo-Saxonysoris; and these have been supposed to have come from the Greekεἰμὶ, εἶς.

The derivation ofareis doubtful. It may, perhaps, have proceeded directly fromerorerumof the Icelandic verb, denoting “to be.” By Mr. Gilchrist it is considered as “the same with the infinitive terminationare, ere, ire.” Mr. Webb conjectured, that it might have some relation to the Greekἔαρ,spring. Both these explanations appear to us somewhat fanciful.

Artis from the Anglo-Saxoneart. “Thou eart,”thou art.

Wasis evidently the Anglo-Saxonwæs; andwast,wert, probably from the Franco-Theatisc,warst; andwerefrom the Anglo-Saxonwære,wæron.

Beis from the Anglo-SaxonIc beo,I am, which, with the Gaelic verbbi,to be, Mr. Webb considered to be derived fromβίος,life, as the Latinfui, fromφύω,to grow. This conjecture he supports by several pertinent quotations. See Mr. Bosworth’s “Elements of Anglo-Saxon Grammar,” p. 164.

[50]The wordsdid,hast,hath,has,had,shall,wilt, are evidently, as Wallis observes, contracted fordoed,haveth,haves,haved,shall’st,will’st.

[51]This verb is derived from the Saxonmagan,posse, the present of which isIc mæg, and the preteriteIc miht. Hence alsoIc mot.“For as the fisshe, if it be drie,Mote in defaute of water die.”—Gower.

[51]This verb is derived from the Saxonmagan,posse, the present of which isIc mæg, and the preteriteIc miht. Hence alsoIc mot.

“For as the fisshe, if it be drie,Mote in defaute of water die.”—Gower.

“For as the fisshe, if it be drie,

Mote in defaute of water die.”—Gower.

[52]This verb is derived from cunnan,scire,posse,sapere. Hence is derived the verb “to ken,” or “to know;” or more probably, indeed, they were one and the same word: hence also the wordcunning. “To ken” is still used in Scotland; and in the expression of Shakspeare, “I ken them from afar,” is erroneously considered by some critics to mean, “I see them.”

[53]This verb is, unquestionably, a derivative from the Saxonꞅceal,I oweorI ought, and was originally of the same import.I shalldenoted “it is my duty,” and was precisely synonymous withdebeoin Latin. Chaucer says, “The faith I shall to God;” that is, “the faith I owe to God.” “Thou shalt not kill,” or “thou oughtest not to kill.” In this senseshallis a present tense, and denoted present duty or obligation. But, as all duties and all commands, though present in respect to their obligation and authority, must be future in regard to their execution; so by a natural transition, observable in most languages, this word, significant of present duty, came to be a note of future time. I have considered it, however, as a present tense; 1st, because it originally denoted present time; 2dly, because it still retains the form of a present, preserving thus the same analogy toshouldthatcandoes tocould,maytomight,willtowould; and 3dly, because it is no singular thing to have a verb in the present tense, expressive of future time, commencing from the present moment; for such precisely is the Greek verbμέλλω,futurus sum. Nay, the verbwilldenotes present inclination, yet in some of its persons, likeshall, expresses futurition. I have considered, therefore, the verbshallas a present tense, of whichshouldis the preterperfect.Johnson’s explanation of the meaning of this verb is so perspicuous, that, as foreigners are apt to mistake its use, I shall here transcribe his words.I shall love: “it will be so that I must love,” “I am resolved to love.”Shall I love?“will it be permitted me to love?” “will it be that I must love?”Thou shalt love: “I command thee to love;” “it is permitted thee to love;” “it will be, that thou must love.”Shalt thou love?“will it be, that thou must love?” “will it be permitted thee to love?”He shall love: “it will be, that he must love;” “it is commanded that he love.”Shall he love?“is it permitted him to love?” The plural persons follow the signification of the singular.I transcribe also the same author’s explanation of the verbI will.I will come: “I am willing to come,” “I am determined to come.”Thou wilt come: “it must be, that thou must come,” importing necessity; or “it shall be, that thou shalt come,” importing choice.Wilt thou come?“hast thou determined to come?” importing choice.He will come: “he is resolved to come;” or “it must be, that he must come,” importing choice or necessity.Brightland’s short rule may be of some service in assisting foreigners to distinguish the use of these two verbs. It is this:“In the first person simplyshallforetels:Inwilla threat, or else a promise, dwells;Shallin the second and the third does threat;Willsimply then foretels the future feat.”In addition to these directions for the use ofshallandwill, it is to be observed, that, when the second and third persons are represented as the subjects of their own expressions, or their own thoughts,shallforetels, as in the first person, thus, “he says he shall be a loser by this bargain:” “do you suppose you shall go?” “He hoped he should recover,” and “he hoped he would recover,” are expressions of different import. In the former, the two pronouns necessarily refer to the same person; in the latter, they do not.

Johnson’s explanation of the meaning of this verb is so perspicuous, that, as foreigners are apt to mistake its use, I shall here transcribe his words.I shall love: “it will be so that I must love,” “I am resolved to love.”Shall I love?“will it be permitted me to love?” “will it be that I must love?”Thou shalt love: “I command thee to love;” “it is permitted thee to love;” “it will be, that thou must love.”Shalt thou love?“will it be, that thou must love?” “will it be permitted thee to love?”He shall love: “it will be, that he must love;” “it is commanded that he love.”Shall he love?“is it permitted him to love?” The plural persons follow the signification of the singular.

I transcribe also the same author’s explanation of the verbI will.I will come: “I am willing to come,” “I am determined to come.”Thou wilt come: “it must be, that thou must come,” importing necessity; or “it shall be, that thou shalt come,” importing choice.Wilt thou come?“hast thou determined to come?” importing choice.He will come: “he is resolved to come;” or “it must be, that he must come,” importing choice or necessity.

Brightland’s short rule may be of some service in assisting foreigners to distinguish the use of these two verbs. It is this:

“In the first person simplyshallforetels:Inwilla threat, or else a promise, dwells;Shallin the second and the third does threat;Willsimply then foretels the future feat.”

“In the first person simplyshallforetels:

Inwilla threat, or else a promise, dwells;

Shallin the second and the third does threat;

Willsimply then foretels the future feat.”

In addition to these directions for the use ofshallandwill, it is to be observed, that, when the second and third persons are represented as the subjects of their own expressions, or their own thoughts,shallforetels, as in the first person, thus, “he says he shall be a loser by this bargain:” “do you suppose you shall go?” “He hoped he should recover,” and “he hoped he would recover,” are expressions of different import. In the former, the two pronouns necessarily refer to the same person; in the latter, they do not.

[54]This verb is derived from the Saxon verbwillan,velle, the preterite of which isIc wold.

[55]The preteritewouldis frequently employed, like the Latin preterimperfect tense, to denote what is usual or customary. Thus,Quintilio si quid recitares, corrige, sodes,Hoc, aiebat, et hoc; melius te posse negares,Bis terque expertum frustra; delere jubebat,Et malè tornatos incudi reddere versus:Si defendere delictum quàm vertere, malles,Nullum ultra verbum, aut operam insumebat inanem.Horace.where the verbs aiebat, jubebat, insumebat, may be translated, “he would say,” “he would desire,” “he would spend.” Thus also in English,Pleas’d with my admiration, and the fireHis speech struck from me, the old manwouldshakeHis years away, and act his young encounters:Then having show’d his wounds,he’dsit him down.

[55]The preteritewouldis frequently employed, like the Latin preterimperfect tense, to denote what is usual or customary. Thus,

Quintilio si quid recitares, corrige, sodes,Hoc, aiebat, et hoc; melius te posse negares,Bis terque expertum frustra; delere jubebat,Et malè tornatos incudi reddere versus:Si defendere delictum quàm vertere, malles,Nullum ultra verbum, aut operam insumebat inanem.Horace.

Quintilio si quid recitares, corrige, sodes,

Hoc, aiebat, et hoc; melius te posse negares,

Bis terque expertum frustra; delere jubebat,

Et malè tornatos incudi reddere versus:

Si defendere delictum quàm vertere, malles,

Nullum ultra verbum, aut operam insumebat inanem.

Horace.

where the verbs aiebat, jubebat, insumebat, may be translated, “he would say,” “he would desire,” “he would spend.” Thus also in English,

Pleas’d with my admiration, and the fireHis speech struck from me, the old manwouldshakeHis years away, and act his young encounters:Then having show’d his wounds,he’dsit him down.

Pleas’d with my admiration, and the fire

His speech struck from me, the old manwouldshake

His years away, and act his young encounters:

Then having show’d his wounds,he’dsit him down.

[56]In Latin the imperfect potential is frequently employed in the same manner to denote present time; thus,irem si vellem, expresses present liberty and inclination. And the same analogy obtains in Latin; for we say, either,tu, si hic sis, aliter sentias, ortu, si hic esses, aliter sentires. In such examples, it is intended to signify either the coexistence of two circumstances, or the one as the immediate consequence of the other. An identity of tense, therefore, best expresses contemporary events.

[57]If it should be said, that the participle may properly be considered as a verb, since it implies an attribute with time, I would ask, whetheraffirmation, the most important of all circumstances, and without which no communication could take place, should be overlooked in our classification of words agreeably to their import, or the offices which they perform. If the verb and participle be referred to one class, the principal part of speech which has been pre-eminently distinguished by the name of verb, orthe word, is degraded from its rank, and confounded with a species of words which are not even necessary to the communication of thought. Surely, if any circumstance can entitle any sort of words to a distinct reference, it is that ofaffirmation.If it should be objected that the participle, like the verb, governs a case, I would ask, becauselectio,tactio, and many other substantives, are found sometimes joined with an accusative case, were they ever on this account considered as verbs? Besides, if the government of a case be urged as an argument, what becomes of those participles which govern no case? Nay, if the government of a case be deemed the criterion of a verb, what name shall we assign to those verbs which have no regimen at all? If any species of words is to be distinguished from another, the characteristic difference must surely belong, not to part only, but to the whole.

If it should be objected that the participle, like the verb, governs a case, I would ask, becauselectio,tactio, and many other substantives, are found sometimes joined with an accusative case, were they ever on this account considered as verbs? Besides, if the government of a case be urged as an argument, what becomes of those participles which govern no case? Nay, if the government of a case be deemed the criterion of a verb, what name shall we assign to those verbs which have no regimen at all? If any species of words is to be distinguished from another, the characteristic difference must surely belong, not to part only, but to the whole.

[58]The terminationingis from the Anglo-Saxonande,ænde,ende,ind,onde,unde,ynde, and corresponds to the termination of the Latin gerunds inandumandendum, expressing continuation,Amandum,Lufiande,Loving.

[59]Here I would be understood to reason on their own principles; for the truth is, that each of these tenses admits a definitive.

[60]See theTransactions of the Royal Irish Academy, vol. iii.

[61]Dr. Beattie observes, “that the fundamental error of those philosophers who deny the existence of present time is, that they suppose the present instant to have, like a geometrical point, neither parts nor magnitude. But as nothing is, in respect of our senses, a geometrical point, (for whatever we see or touch must of necessity have magnitude,) so neither is the present, or any other instant, wholly unextended.” His argument amounts to this, that as a mathematical point is not an object of sense, nor has any real existence, so neither has a metaphysical instant. It is granted. They are each ideal. But does this prove the author’s position, that philosophers have erred in asserting their similarity? or does it evince that no analogy subsists between them? Quite the reverse. The truth is, a geometrical point is purely ideal; it is necessary to the truth of mathematical demonstration, that it be conceived to have no parts. Finding it convenient to represent it to sense, we therefore give it magnitude. A metaphysical instant, or present time, is in like manner ideal; but we find it convenient to assume as present an extended space. The doctor observes, that sense perceives nothing but what is present. It is true; but it should be remembered that not time, but objects which exist in time, are perceived by the senses. It may enable a person to form a correct idea of this matter, if he will ask himself, what he means by present time. If it be the present hour, is it not obvious that part of it is past, and part of it future? If it be the present minute, it is equally clear, that the whole of it cannot be present at once. Nay, if it be the present vibration of the pendulum, is it not obvious that part of it is performed, and part of it remains to be performed? Nor is it possible to stop in this investigation, till present time, strictly speaking, be proved to have no existence. Did it exist, it must be extended; and if extended, it cannot be present, for past and future must necessarily be included in it. If it should be answered, that this proves time, like matter, infinitely divisible, and that the most tedious process will still leave something capable of division, I reply, that as whatever may be left in the one case must be figure, and not a point, so the remainder, in the other, must be a portion of extended time, how minute soever, and not an instant. The process, therefore, must be continued, till we arrive in idea at a point and an instant, incapable of division, being not made up of parts.

[62]When we say,God is good, I would ask Dr. Browne whether the verb be definite or indefinite, whether it denote perfection or imperfection, or have no reference to either. It appears to me that neither of the terms is in his sense applicable; for that the verb denotes simple affirmation with time; or, if applicable, that the tense is, contrary to his opinion, indefinite, the idea of completion or imperfection being entirely excluded.

[63]These phraseologies, as the author last quoted justly observes, are harsh to the ear, and appear exceedingly awkward; but a little attention will suffice to show that they correctly exhibit the ideas implied by the tense which we have at present under consideration.

[64]See Encyc. Brit., Art. Grammar.

[65]I consider that no language, grammatically examined, has more cases, tenses, or moods, than are formed by inflexion. But if any person be inclined to call these forms of expression by the name of imperative mood, I have no objection. Only let him be consistent, and call “Dost thou love?” an interrogative mood, adopting also the precative, the requisitive, the optative, the hortative, &c., together with the various cases in nouns, and tenses in verbs, which are formed by prepositions and auxiliary verbs: I should only apprehend, that language would fail him to assign them names.If it should be asked, “Agreeably to your doctrine of the verb, as implying affirmation, what part of speech would you make the verbs in the following sentences,Depart instantly,improve your time,forgive us our sins? Will it be said that the verbs in these phrases are assertions?” I should answer that all moods, metaphysically considered, are, in my apprehension, equally indicative. Every possible form of speech can do nothing but express the sentiment of the speaker, his desire, his wish, his sensation, his perception, his belief, &c. Whatever form, therefore, the expression may assume, it must be resolvable into assertion; and must be considered as expressing, in the person of the speaker, what he desires, wishes, feels, thinks, and so forth. No one surely will deny, that “thou oughtest not to kill,” “thou shalt not kill,” “thou art forbidden to kill,” are affirmations. And are not these expressions so nearly equivalent to “do not kill,” that in Greek and Latin they are rendered indifferently either byοὐ φονεύσεις, or,μὴ φόνευε;non occides, orne occidito? If then we say, “kill thou,” will it be contended that, though the prohibition implies an affirmation of the speaker, the command does not? The expression I conceive to be strictly equivalent to “thou shalt kill,” “thou art ordered to kill.” Henceaveandjubeo te avere, are deemed expressions of the same import. If the question be examined grammatically, or as a subject of pure grammar, I am inclined to think that where there is no variety of termination, there cannot be established a diversity of mood.

If it should be asked, “Agreeably to your doctrine of the verb, as implying affirmation, what part of speech would you make the verbs in the following sentences,Depart instantly,improve your time,forgive us our sins? Will it be said that the verbs in these phrases are assertions?” I should answer that all moods, metaphysically considered, are, in my apprehension, equally indicative. Every possible form of speech can do nothing but express the sentiment of the speaker, his desire, his wish, his sensation, his perception, his belief, &c. Whatever form, therefore, the expression may assume, it must be resolvable into assertion; and must be considered as expressing, in the person of the speaker, what he desires, wishes, feels, thinks, and so forth. No one surely will deny, that “thou oughtest not to kill,” “thou shalt not kill,” “thou art forbidden to kill,” are affirmations. And are not these expressions so nearly equivalent to “do not kill,” that in Greek and Latin they are rendered indifferently either byοὐ φονεύσεις, or,μὴ φόνευε;non occides, orne occidito? If then we say, “kill thou,” will it be contended that, though the prohibition implies an affirmation of the speaker, the command does not? The expression I conceive to be strictly equivalent to “thou shalt kill,” “thou art ordered to kill.” Henceaveandjubeo te avere, are deemed expressions of the same import. If the question be examined grammatically, or as a subject of pure grammar, I am inclined to think that where there is no variety of termination, there cannot be established a diversity of mood.

[66]This verb is derived from the Saxon verbIc most,ego debeo.

[67]It belongs not to my province to inquire, howamaremcame to signifyI mightorcould love, or whether it be strictly in the potential or the subjunctive mood. I here take it for granted thatamaremdoes, without an ellipsis, signify,I might, could, would, orshould love, implyinglicet,possum,volo,debeo.—SeeJohnson’s Comment.

[68]Why this verb forms an exception, it would be easy to explain.

[69]See Webster’s Dissertations, p. 263.

[70]A similar phraseology in the use of the pluperfect indicative for the same tense subjunctive, obtains in Latin, as“Impulerat ferro Argolicas fœdare latebras.”—Virgil.

[70]A similar phraseology in the use of the pluperfect indicative for the same tense subjunctive, obtains in Latin, as

“Impulerat ferro Argolicas fœdare latebras.”—Virgil.

[71]The Latins usedsiin both cases: and though their poets did not attend to this distinction, their prose writers generally observed it, by joiningsiforquoniamwith the indicative mood.

[72]WhereRis added, the verb follows also the general rule.

[73]Some have excludedboreas the preterite of this verb. We have sufficient authority, however, for admitting it; thus,“By marrying her who bore me.”—Dryden.

[73]Some have excludedboreas the preterite of this verb. We have sufficient authority, however, for admitting it; thus,

“By marrying her who bore me.”—Dryden.

[74]Beholdenis obsolescent in this sense.

[75]“So kept the diamond, and the rogue was bit.”—Pope.“There was lately a young gentleman bit to the bone.”—Tatler.

[75]“So kept the diamond, and the rogue was bit.”—Pope.

“There was lately a young gentleman bit to the bone.”—Tatler.

[76]Brakeseems now obsolescent.

[77]Though Johnson has not admitted the regular form of the participle in this verb, I think there is sufficient authority for concurring with Lowth in receivingbuildedas the participle as well asbuilt, though it be not in such general use.

[78]Chode, which occurs twice in the Bible, is now obsolete.

[79]Lowth has givenclombas the preterite of climb. I can find, however, no authority later than Spenser, and am inclined to think it is now obsolete.

[80]The irregular preteritecladis obsolescent.

[81]I know no example in which the preterite, which analogically would beforwent, is to be found. It may be here remarked that this verb, in violation of analogy, is generally spelledforego, as if it meant “to go before.” This is equally improper as it would be to writeforebid, foresake, foreswear, forforbid, forsake, forswear.

[82]Fraughtis more properly an adjective than participle.

[83]This verb, Lowth says, when employed as an active verb, “may perhaps, most properly be used in the regular form.” Here the learned author appears to me, if he be not chargeable with error, to have expressed his meaning incorrectly; for it cannot be disputed that the irregular form of this verb is frequently, and with unquestionable propriety, used in an active sense. Thus we say, “the servant hung the scales in the cellar;” and passively, “the scales were hung by the servant.” I should, therefore, rather say that, when this verb denotes suspension, for the purpose of destroying life, the regular form is far preferable. Thus, “the man was hanged,” not “hung.”

[84]The irregular preterite and participle of this verb are employed in sea language; but the latter rarely.

[85]Lowth has givenholpenas the participle; it is now obsolescent, if not obsolete. It belonged to the verbto holp, which has been long out of use.

[86]Several grammarians have rejectedhidas a participle. It rests, however, on unquestionable authority; buthiddenis preferable.

[87]Holden, which was some years ago obsolescent, is now returning into more general use.

[88]Laden, likefraught, may be deemed an adjective.

[89]Priestley, I apprehend, has erred in givinglainas the participle of this verb.

[90]Lien, though not so generally used aslain, is not destitute of unexceptionable authority. I have, therefore, with Johnson and Lowth, given it as the participle. Murray has omitted it.

[91]Some grammarians have rejectedlit. It can plead, however, colloquial usage in its favour, and even other authority. “I lit my pipe with the paper.”—Addison.

[92]With Priestley and Lowth, I have given this verb a regular participle; for which, I believe, there is sufficient authority, without adducing the example of Shakspeare. Most other grammarians have rejected it.

[93]Quittedis far more generally used as the preterite thanquit.

[94]Priestley has rejectedrid, and Murrayridden, as the participle, while Johnson makesridthe preterite ofride. Asridis the present and preterite of another verb, it would, perhaps, be better to dismiss it entirely from the verbto ride, and conjugate, with Priestley,ride, rode, ridden.

[95]Our translators of the Bible have usedroastas the perfect participle. In this sense it is almost obsolete.Roast beefretains its ground.

[96]Story, in his Grammar, has most unwarrantably asserted, that the participle of this verb should beshaked. This word is certainly obsolete, and, I apprehend, was never in general use. I have been able to find only one example ofshakedas the participle, “A sly and constant knave, not to beshaked.”—Shakspeare.And two as the preterite, “They shaked their heads.”—Psal.cxi. 55. “I shaked my head.”—Steele,Spectator, No. iv.

[97]Of these preterites, the latter is now more generally used. Our translators of the Bible used the former.

[98]A. Murray has rejectedsungas the preterite, and L. Murray has rejectedsang. Each preterite, however, rests on good authority.The same observation may be made respectingsankandsunk.

[98]A. Murray has rejectedsungas the preterite, and L. Murray has rejectedsang. Each preterite, however, rests on good authority.

The same observation may be made respectingsankandsunk.

[99]Sitten, though formerly in use, is now obsolescent. Laudable attempts, however, have been made to restore it. “To havesittenon the heads of the apostles.”—Middleton.“Soon after the termination of this business, the parliament, which had nowsittenthree years,” &c.—Belsham’s Hist.“And he would gladly, for the sake of dispatch, have called together the same parliament, which hadsittenunder his father.”—Hume, vol. vi. p. 199.Respecting the preterites which haveaoru, asslang, orslung,sank, orsunk, it would be better were the former only to be used, as the preterite and participle would thus be discriminated.

[99]Sitten, though formerly in use, is now obsolescent. Laudable attempts, however, have been made to restore it. “To havesittenon the heads of the apostles.”—Middleton.

“Soon after the termination of this business, the parliament, which had nowsittenthree years,” &c.—Belsham’s Hist.

“And he would gladly, for the sake of dispatch, have called together the same parliament, which hadsittenunder his father.”—Hume, vol. vi. p. 199.

Respecting the preterites which haveaoru, asslang, orslung,sank, orsunk, it would be better were the former only to be used, as the preterite and participle would thus be discriminated.

[100]Pope has used the regular form of the preterite:“In the fat age of pleasure, wealth, and ease,Sprung the rank weed, and thrived with large increase.”Essay on Crit.Horsley, with one or two other writers, have employed the regular participle.

[100]Pope has used the regular form of the preterite:

“In the fat age of pleasure, wealth, and ease,Sprung the rank weed, and thrived with large increase.”Essay on Crit.

“In the fat age of pleasure, wealth, and ease,

Sprung the rank weed, and thrived with large increase.”

Essay on Crit.

Horsley, with one or two other writers, have employed the regular participle.

[101]Washenseems obsolescent, if not obsolete. The compoundunwashenoccurs in our translation of the Bible.

[102]Pope, and our translators of the Bible, have usedwindedas the preterite. The other form, however, is in far more general use.

[103]Wrote, as the participle, is generally disused, and likewisewrit. The latter was used as a preterite by Pope, Swift, and other writers of the same period.

[104]Witis now confined to the phraseto wit, ornamely. It is an abbreviation from the Anglo-Saxon verbþiꞇan, to know.

[105]This verb, as an auxiliary, is inflexible; thus we say, “he will go,” and “he wills to go.”

[106]This verb, which signifies “to think,” or “to imagine,” is now obsolete.

[107]This verb is now used as significant of present duty. It was originally the preterite, and the perfect participle of the verbto owe; and is corruptedly used in Scotland still to express a past debt. “Apprehending the occasion, I will add a continuance to that happy motion, and besides give you some tribute of the love and duty I long have ought you.”—Spelman.“This blood, which men by treason sought,That followed, sir, which to myself I ought.”—Dryden.It is now used in the present tense only; and, when past duty or obligation is to be signified, we note, as I formerly mentioned, the past time by the preterite sense of the subsequent verb; thus, “I ought to read,” “I ought to have read.” The classical scholar knows that the reverse takes place in Latin.Debeo legere, debui legere. Cicero, however, though very rarely indeed, uses the preterite of the infinitive after the preterite tense of this verb.Murray has told us, thatmustandoughthave both a present and past signification, and, in proof of this, he adduces the following examples:—“I must own, that I am to blame.” “He must have been mistaken.” “Speaking things which they ought not.” “These ought ye to have done.” This is truly a strange, and, I verily believe, a singular opinion. Its inaccuracy is so manifest, that every reader of discernment must intuitively perceive it. The opinion itself, indeed, is not more surprising, than the ground on which it is maintained by the author. It surely requires but a moderate portion of sagacity to perceive, that the past time, in the second and fourth examples, is not denoted bymustandought, but by the expressions “have been” and “have done.” In Latin, as I have just observed,necessityanddutyare expressed as either present, past, or future, the verbs denoting these having the three correspondent tenses; and the object of the necessity or duty is expressed as contemporary, or relatively present. In English, on the contrary, the two verbsmustandoughthaving only the present tense, we are obliged to note the past time by employing the preterite tense of the subsequent verb. Thus,Me ire oportet, “I ought to go,” “I must go.”Me ire oportuit, “I ought to have gone,” “I must have gone.” As well may it be affirmed, that the past time is denoted byireand notoportuit, as that it is signified bymustand not by “have gone.”In the time of Wallis, the termmust, as a preterite tense, was almost obsolete. “Aliquando,” he remarks, “sed rarius in præterito dicitur.” And when it was employed as a preterite, it was followed by the present tense. This verb in German has, I understand, a preterite tense.

“This blood, which men by treason sought,That followed, sir, which to myself I ought.”—Dryden.

“This blood, which men by treason sought,

That followed, sir, which to myself I ought.”—Dryden.

It is now used in the present tense only; and, when past duty or obligation is to be signified, we note, as I formerly mentioned, the past time by the preterite sense of the subsequent verb; thus, “I ought to read,” “I ought to have read.” The classical scholar knows that the reverse takes place in Latin.Debeo legere, debui legere. Cicero, however, though very rarely indeed, uses the preterite of the infinitive after the preterite tense of this verb.

Murray has told us, thatmustandoughthave both a present and past signification, and, in proof of this, he adduces the following examples:—“I must own, that I am to blame.” “He must have been mistaken.” “Speaking things which they ought not.” “These ought ye to have done.” This is truly a strange, and, I verily believe, a singular opinion. Its inaccuracy is so manifest, that every reader of discernment must intuitively perceive it. The opinion itself, indeed, is not more surprising, than the ground on which it is maintained by the author. It surely requires but a moderate portion of sagacity to perceive, that the past time, in the second and fourth examples, is not denoted bymustandought, but by the expressions “have been” and “have done.” In Latin, as I have just observed,necessityanddutyare expressed as either present, past, or future, the verbs denoting these having the three correspondent tenses; and the object of the necessity or duty is expressed as contemporary, or relatively present. In English, on the contrary, the two verbsmustandoughthaving only the present tense, we are obliged to note the past time by employing the preterite tense of the subsequent verb. Thus,Me ire oportet, “I ought to go,” “I must go.”Me ire oportuit, “I ought to have gone,” “I must have gone.” As well may it be affirmed, that the past time is denoted byireand notoportuit, as that it is signified bymustand not by “have gone.”

In the time of Wallis, the termmust, as a preterite tense, was almost obsolete. “Aliquando,” he remarks, “sed rarius in præterito dicitur.” And when it was employed as a preterite, it was followed by the present tense. This verb in German has, I understand, a preterite tense.

[108]Firstly, is used by some writers.

[109]Denominativa terminantur inlicvellice, ut þeꞃlic virilis, ælic legitimus, ꞃælic marinus, þiꝼlic muliebris, &c. Hanc terminationem hodie mutavimus inlikevelly, ut ingodlikevelgodly. Hickesii Thes.The correctness of this explanation has been controverted by Mr. Gilchrist, who contends that, though it may answer in some cases, it will fail “in nine times out of ten.” In the expressions “weekly wages,” “daily labour,” “yearly income,” he observes, that the meaning cannot be, “wages like a week,” “labour like a day,” “income like a year.” He rejects, therefore, this explanation, and considers the terminationlicto be the same withligin the Latin verbligo, “to tie,” or “join,” and to have the same effect as other conjunctive particles, as “a friendly part,” “a friend’s part,” “yearly produce,” “year’s produce.” Though a copious induction of examples justifies us in refusing our assent to Mr. Gilchrist’s exaggerated statement, that the derivation proposed by Hickes will fail in nine cases out of ten; we candidly acknowledge, that in many instances it is inadmissible; and that Mr. Gilchrist’s suggestion is ingenious, though it will be found, we apprehend, opposed by the same objection as he urges against Hickes’s explanation. Nor does it appear to us, that Mr. Gilchrist’s argument subverts the doctrine generally received. The termination may have been originally what Hickes supposed, and the principle of analogy may, in time, have introduced similar compositions, when this meaning of the termination ceased to be regarded. Thus the termcandidly, which we have just now used, was probably introduced, in conformity toanalogy, with no reference whatever to the meaning of the termination. It may be here also observed, that the import of this term seems inexplicable on the hypothesis thatlyis a mere term of conjunction.

The correctness of this explanation has been controverted by Mr. Gilchrist, who contends that, though it may answer in some cases, it will fail “in nine times out of ten.” In the expressions “weekly wages,” “daily labour,” “yearly income,” he observes, that the meaning cannot be, “wages like a week,” “labour like a day,” “income like a year.” He rejects, therefore, this explanation, and considers the terminationlicto be the same withligin the Latin verbligo, “to tie,” or “join,” and to have the same effect as other conjunctive particles, as “a friendly part,” “a friend’s part,” “yearly produce,” “year’s produce.” Though a copious induction of examples justifies us in refusing our assent to Mr. Gilchrist’s exaggerated statement, that the derivation proposed by Hickes will fail in nine cases out of ten; we candidly acknowledge, that in many instances it is inadmissible; and that Mr. Gilchrist’s suggestion is ingenious, though it will be found, we apprehend, opposed by the same objection as he urges against Hickes’s explanation. Nor does it appear to us, that Mr. Gilchrist’s argument subverts the doctrine generally received. The termination may have been originally what Hickes supposed, and the principle of analogy may, in time, have introduced similar compositions, when this meaning of the termination ceased to be regarded. Thus the termcandidly, which we have just now used, was probably introduced, in conformity toanalogy, with no reference whatever to the meaning of the termination. It may be here also observed, that the import of this term seems inexplicable on the hypothesis thatlyis a mere term of conjunction.

[110]These three adverbs, denoting motion or rest in a place, are frequently employed by us, in imitation of the French, to denote motion to a place in the same sense with the three following adverbs. It would be better, however, were the distinction observed. The French useiciforhereandhither,làforthereandthither,oùforwhereandwhither.

[111]“For blithesome Sir John BarleycornHad sae allur’d them i’ the morn,That, what wi’ drams, and mony a horn,And reaming bicker,The ferly is,withoutenscorn,They wauk’d sae sicker.”Mayne’s Siller Gun.This animated little poem will be read with no common pleasure by every admirer of the Scottish muse. In felicity of description the author is not inferior to Burns, while in delicacy of humour he may claim the superiority.This preposition is supposed by Mr. Gilchrist to be derived fromforth, or rather to be a different form of that word. See his “Philosophic Etymology,” a work exhibiting considerable ingenuity and philological knowledge, combined with many fanciful and unphilosophical opinions.

[111]

“For blithesome Sir John BarleycornHad sae allur’d them i’ the morn,That, what wi’ drams, and mony a horn,And reaming bicker,The ferly is,withoutenscorn,They wauk’d sae sicker.”Mayne’s Siller Gun.

“For blithesome Sir John Barleycorn

Had sae allur’d them i’ the morn,

That, what wi’ drams, and mony a horn,

And reaming bicker,

The ferly is,withoutenscorn,

They wauk’d sae sicker.”

Mayne’s Siller Gun.

This animated little poem will be read with no common pleasure by every admirer of the Scottish muse. In felicity of description the author is not inferior to Burns, while in delicacy of humour he may claim the superiority.

This preposition is supposed by Mr. Gilchrist to be derived fromforth, or rather to be a different form of that word. See his “Philosophic Etymology,” a work exhibiting considerable ingenuity and philological knowledge, combined with many fanciful and unphilosophical opinions.

[112]It is possible that the Greekἀπό, and the Latinabderived from it, had their origin inאבpater principium, “author,” or “principle of existence.”

[113]The verb, “to twin,” is still used in Scotland for “to part,” or “separate.”

[114]That the Saxon wordægthersignifiedeach, is sufficiently evident from a variety of examples; and the adjectiveeitherhas continued to be used in that sense by reputable writers. Lowth, who, I apprehend, did not advert to its primitive signification, condemns the use of it as equivalent toeach; and notwithstanding its original import, I agree with him in thinking, that it is much better to confine its meaning to “one of two.” The reason will be assigned hereafter.

Back to Index Next