The Grammar of English Grammars

Persons and Numbers.

The person and number of a verb are those modifications in which it agrees with its subject or nominative.

In each number, there are three persons; and in each person, two numbers: thus,

Singular. Plural. 1st per. I love, 1st per. We love, 2d per. Thou lovest, 2d per. You love, 3d per. He loves; 3d per. They love.

Definitions universally applicable have already been given of all these things; it is therefore unnecessary to define them again in this place.

Where the verb is varied, the second person singular is regularly formed by adding st or est to the first person; and the third person singular, in like manner, by adding s or es: as, I see, thou seest, he sees; I give, thou givest, he gives; I go, thou goest, he goes; I fly, thou fliest, he flies; I vex, thou vexest, he vexes; I lose, thou losest, he loses.

Where the verb is not varied to denote its person and number, these properties are inferred from its subject or nominative: as, If I love, if thou love, if he love; if we love, if you love, if they love.

Observations.

OBS. 1.—It is considered a principle of Universal Grammar, that a finite verb must agree with its subject or nominative in person and number. Upon this principle, we ascribe to every such verb the person and number of the nominative word, whether the verb itself be literally modified by the relation or not. The doctrine must be constantly taught and observed, in every language in which the verbs have any variations of this kind. But suppose an instance, of a language in which all the verbs were entirely destitute of such inflections; the principle, as regards that language, must drop. Finite verbs, in such a case, would still relate to their subjects, or nominatives, agreeably to the sense; but they would certainly be rendered incapable of adding to this relation any agreement or disagreement. So the concords which belong to adjectives and participles in Latin and Greek, are rejected in English, and there remains to these parts of speech nothing but a simple relation to their nouns according to the sense. And by the fashionable substitution of you for thou, the concord of English verbs with their nominatives, is made to depend, in common practice, on little more than one single terminational s, which is used to mark one person of one number of one tense of one mood of each verb. So near does this practice bring us to the dropping of what is yet called a universal principle of grammar.[235]

OBS. 2.—In most languages, there are in each tense, through all the moods of every verb, six different terminations to distinguish the different persons and numbers. This will be well understood by every one who has ever glanced at the verbs as exhibited in any Latin, Greek, French, Spanish, or Italian grammar. To explain it to others, a brief example shall be given: (with the remark, that the Latin pronouns, here inserted, are seldom expressed, except for emphasis:) "Ego amo, I love; Tu amas, Thou lovest; Ille amat, He loves; Nos amamus, We love; Vos amatis, You love; Illi amant, They love." Hence it may be perceived, that the paucity of variations in the English verb, is a very striking peculiarity of our language. Whether we are gainers or losers by this simplicity, is a question for learned idleness to discuss. The common people who speak English, have far less inclination to add new endings to our verbs, than to drop or avoid all the remains of the old. Lowth and Murray tell us, "This scanty provision of terminations is sufficient for all the purposes of discourse;" and that, "For this reason, the plural termination en, (they loven, they weren,) formerly in use, was laid aside as unnecessary, and has long been obsolete."—Lowth's Gram., p. 31; Murray's, 63.

OBS. 3.—Though modern usage, especially in common conversation, evidently inclines to drop or shun all unnecessary suffixes and inflections, still it is true, that the English verb in some of its parts, varies its termination, to distinguish, or agree with, the different persons and numbers. The change is, however, principally confined to the second and third persons singular of the present tense of the indicative mood, and to the auxiliaries hast and has of the perfect. In the ancient biblical style, now used only on solemn occasions, the second person singular is distinguished through all the tenses of the indicative and potential moods. And as the use of the pronoun thou is now mostly confined to the solemn style, the terminations of that style are retained in connexion with it, through all the following examples of the conjugation of verbs. In the plural number, there is no variation of ending, to denote the different persons; and the verb in the three persons plural, (with the two exceptions are and were, from am and was,) is the same as in the first person singular. Nor does the use of you for the singular, warrant its connexion with any other than the plural form of the verb. This strange and needless confusion of the numbers, is, in all languages that indulge it, a practical inconvenience. It would doubtless have been much better, had thou and you still kept their respective places—the one, nominative singular—the other, objective plural—as they appear in the Bible. But as the English verb is always attended by a noun or a pronoun, expressing the subject of the affirmation, no ambiguity arises from the want of particular terminations in the verb, to distinguish the different persons and numbers.

OBS. 4.—Although our language, in its ordinary use, exhibits the verbs in such forms only, as will make, when put together, but a very simple conjugation; there is probably no other language on earth, in which it would be so difficult for a learned grammarian to fix, settle, and exhibit, to the satisfaction of himself and others, the principles, paradigms, rules, and exceptions, which are necessary for a full and just exhibition of this part of speech. This difficulty is owing, partly to incompatibilities or unsettled boundaries between the solemn and the familiar style; partly to differences in the same style between ancient usage and modern; partly to interfering claims of new and old forms of the preterit and the perfect participle; partly to the conflicting notions of different grammarians respecting the subjunctive mood; and partly to the blind tenacity with which many writers adhere to rugged derivatives, and prefer unutterable contractions to smooth and easy abbreviations. For example: a clergyman says to a lucky gamester, (1.) "You dwell in a house which you neither planned nor built." A member of the Society of Friends would say, (2.) "Thou dwellst in a house which thou neither planned nor built." Or, if not a scholar, as likely as not, (3.) "Thee dwells in a house which thee neither planned nor built." The old or solemn style would b3, (4.) "Thou dwellest in a house which thou neither plannedst nor buildedst." Some untasteful and overgrammatical poet will have it, (5.) "Thou dwell'st in halls thou neither plann'dst nor build'dst." The doctrine of Murray's Grammar, and of most others, would require, (6.) "Thou dwellest in a house which thou neither plannedst nor builtest." Or, (according to this author's method of avoiding unpleasant sounds,) the more complex form, (7.) "Thou dost dwell in a house which thou neither didst plan nor didst build." Out of these an other poet will make the line, (8.) "Dost dwell in halls which thou nor plann'dst nor built'st." An other, more tastefully, would drop the st of the preterit, and contract the present, as in the second instance above: thus,

(9.) "Thou dwellst in halls thou neither planned nor built, And revelst there in riches won by guilt."

OBS. 5.—Now let all these nine different forms of saying the same thing, by the same verbs, in the same mood, and the same two tenses, be considered. Let it also be noticed, that for these same verbs within these limits, there are yet other forms, of a complex kind; as, "You do dwell," or, "You are dwelling;" used in lieu of, "Thou dost dwell," or, "Thou art dwelling:" so, "You did plan," or, "You were planning;" used in lieu of, "Thou didst plan," or, "Thou wast planning." Take into the account the opinion of Dr. Webster and others, that, "You was planning," or, "You was building," is a still better form for the singular number; and well "established by national usage, both here and in England."—Improved Gram., p. 25. Add the less inaccurate practice of some, who use was and did familiarly with thou; as, "Thou was planning, did thou build?" Multiply all this variety tenfold, with a view to the other moods and tenses of these three verbs, dwell, plan, and build; then extend the product, whatever it is, from these three common words, to all the verbs in the English language. You will thus begin to have some idea of the difficulty mentioned in the preceding observation. But this is only a part of it; for all these things relate only to the second person singular of the verb. The double question is, Which of these forms ought to be approved and taught for that person and number? and which of them ought to be censured and rejected as bad English? This question is perhaps as important, as any that can arise in English grammar. With a few candid observations by way of illustration, it will be left to the judgement of the reader.

OBS. 6.—The history of youyouing and thoutheeing appears to be this. Persons in high stations, being usually surrounded by attendants, it became, many centuries ago, a species of court flattery, to address individuals of this class, in the plural number, as if a great man were something more than one person. In this way, the notion of greatness was agreeably multiplied, and those who laid claim to such honour, soon began to think themselves insulted whenever they were addressed with any other than the plural pronoun.[236] Humbler people yielded through fear of offence; and the practice extended, in time, to all ranks of society: so that at present the customary mode of familiar as well as complimentary address, is altogether plural; both the verb and the pronoun being used in that form.[237] This practice, which confounds one of the most important distinctions of the language, affords a striking instance of the power of fashion. It has made propriety itself seem improper. But shall it be allowed, in the present state of things, to confound our conjugations and overturn our grammar? Is it right to introduce it into our paradigms, as the only form of the second person singular, that modern usage acknowledges? Or is it expedient to augment by it that multiplicity of other forms, which must either take this same place or be utterly rejected? With due deference to those grammarians who have adopted one or the other of these methods, the author of this work answers all these questions decidedly in the negative. It is not to be denied, that the use of the plural for the singular is now so common as to form the customary mode of address to individuals of every rank. The Society of Friends, or Quakers, however, continue to employ the singular number in familiar discourse; and custom, which has now destroyed the compliment of the plural, has removed also the supposed opprobrium of the singular, and placed it on an equality with the plural in point of respect. The singular is universally employed in reference to the Supreme Being; and is generally preferred in poetry. It is the language of Scripture, and of the Prayer-Book; and is consistently retained in nearly all our grammars; though not always, perhaps, consistently treated.

OBS. 7.—Whatever is fashionable in speech, the mere disciples of fashion will always approve; and, probably, they will think it justifiable to despise or neglect all that is otherwise. These may be contented with the sole use of such forms of address as, "You, you, sir;"—"You, you, madam." But the literati who so neglect all the services of religion, as to forget that these are yet conducted in English independently of all this fashionable youyouing, must needs be poor judges of what belongs to their own justification, either as grammarians or as moral agents. A fashion by virtue of which millions of youths are now growing up in ignorance of that form of address which, in their own tongue, is most appropriate to poetry, and alone adapted to prayer, is perhaps not quite so light a matter as some people imagine. It is at least so far from being a good reason for displacing that form from the paradigms of our verbs in a grammar, that indeed no better needs be offered for tenaciously retaining it. Many children may thus learn at school what all should know, and what there is little chance for them to learn elsewhere. Not all that presume to minister in religion, are well acquainted with what is called the solemn style. Not all that presume to explain it in grammars, do know what it is. A late work, which boasted the patronage of De Witt Clinton, and through the influence of false praise came nigh to be imposed by a law of New York on all the common schools of that State; and which, being subsequently sold in Philadelphia for a great price, was there republished under the name of the "National School Manual;" gives the following account of this part of grammar: "In the solemn and poetic styles, the second person singular, in both the above tenses, is thou; and the second person plural, is ye, or you. The verb, to agree with the second person singular, changes its termination. Thus: 2d person, sing. Pres. Tense, Thou walkest, or Thou walketh. Imperfect Tense, Thou walkedst. In the third person singular, in the above styles, the verb has sometimes a different termination; as, Present Tense, He, she, or it walks or walketh. The above form of inflection may be applied to all verbs used in the solemn or poetic styles; but for ordinary purposes, I have supposed it proper to employ the form of the verb, adopted in common conversation, as least perplexing to young minds."—Bartlett's Common School Manual, Part ii, p. 114. What can be hoped from an author who is ignorant enough to think "Thou walketh" is good English? or from one who tells us, that "It walks" is of the solemn style? or from one who does not know that you is never a nominative in the style of the Bible?

OBS. 8.—Nowhere on earth is fashion more completely mistress of all the tastes and usages of society, than in France. Though the common French Bible still retains the form of the second person singular, which in that language is shorter and perhaps smoother than the plural; yet even that sacred book, or at least the New Testament, and that by different persons, has been translated into more fashionable French, and printed at Paris, and also at New York, with the form of address everywhere plural; as, "Jesus anticipated him, saying, 'What do you think, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take taxes and tribute?'"—Matt., xvii, 24. "And, going to prayers, they said, '0 Lord, you who know the hearts of all men, show which of these two you have chosen.'"—Acts, i, 24. This is one step further in the progress of politeness, than has yet been taken in English. The French grammarians, however, as far as I can perceive, have never yet disturbed the ancient order of their conjugations and declensions, by inserting the plural verb and pronoun in place of the singular; and, in the familiarity of friendship, or of domestic life, the practice which is denominated tutoyant, or thoutheeing, is far more prevalent in France than in England. Also, in the prayers of the French, the second person singular appears to be yet generally preserved, as it is in those of the English and the Americans. The less frequent use of it in the familiar conversation of the latter, is very probably owing to the general impression, that it cannot be used with propriety, except in the solemn style. Of this matter, those who have laid it aside themselves, cannot with much modesty pretend to judge for those who have not; or, if they may, there is still a question how far it is right to lay it aside. The following lines are a sort of translation from Horace; and I submit it to the reader, whether it is comely for a Christian divine to be less reverent toward God, than a heathen poet; and whether the plural language here used, does not lack the reverence of the original, which is singular:—

"Preserve, Almighty Providence!
Just what you gave me, competence."—Swift.

OBS. 9.—The terms, solemn style, familiar style, modern style, ancient style, legal style, regal style, nautic style, common style, and the like, as used in grammar, imply no certain divisions of the language; but are designed merely to distinguish, in a general way, the occasions on which some particular forms of expression may be considered proper, or the times to which they belong. For what is grammatical sometimes, may not be so always. It would not be easy to tell, definitely, in what any one of these styles consists; because they all belong to one language, and the number or nature of the peculiarities of each is not precisely fixed. But whatever is acknowledged to be peculiar to any one, is consequently understood to be improper for any other: or, at least, the same phraseology cannot belong to styles of an opposite character; and words of general use belong to no particular style.[238] For example: "So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy."—Rom., ix, 16. If the termination eth is not obsolete, as some say it is, all verbs to which this ending is added, are of the solemn style; for the common or familiar expression would here be this; "So then it is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy." Ben Jonson, in his grammar, endeavoured to arrest this change of eth to s; and, according to Lindley Murray, (Octavo Gram., p. 90,) Addison also injudiciously disapproved it. In spite of all such objections, however, some future grammarian will probably have to say of the singular ending eth, as Lowth and Murray have already said of the plural en: "It was laid aside as unnecessary."

OBS. 10.—Of the origin of the personal terminations of English verbs, that eminent etymologist Dr. Alexander Murray, gives the following account: "The readers of our modern tongue may be reminded, that the terminations, est, eth, and s, in our verbs, as in layest, layeth, and laid'st, or laidest; are the faded remains of the pronouns which were formerly joined to the verb itself, and placed the language, in respect of concise expression, on a level with the Greek, Latin, and Sanscrit, its sister dialects."—History of European Languages, Vol. i, p. 52. According to this, since other signs of the persons and numbers are now employed with the verb, it is not strange that there should appear a tendency to lay aside such of these endings as are least agreeable and least necessary. Any change of this kind will of course occur first in the familiar style. For example: "Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them."—Acts, xi, 3. "These things write I unto thee, that thou mayst know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God."—1 Tim., iii, 15. These forms, by universal consent, are now of the solemn style; and, consequently, are really good English in no other. For nobody, I suppose, will yet pretend that the inflection of our preterits and auxiliaries by st or est, is entirely obsolete;[239] and surely no person of any literary taste ever uses the foregoing forms familiarly. The termination est, however, has in some instances become obsolete; or has faded into st or t, even in the solemn style. Thus, (if indeed, such forms ever were in good use,) diddest has become didst; havest, hast; haddest, hadst; shallest, shalt; willest, wilt; and cannest, canst. Mayest, mightest, couldest, wouldest, and shouldest, are occasionally found in books not ancient; but mayst, mightst, couldst, wouldst, and shouldst, are abundantly more common, and all are peculiar to the solemn style. Must, burst, durst, thrust, blest, curst, past, lost, list, crept, kept, girt, built, felt, dwelt, left, bereft, and many other verbs of similar endings, are seldom, if ever, found encumbered with an additional est. For the rule which requires this ending, has always had many exceptions that have not been noticed by grammarians.[240] Thus Shakspeare wrote even in the present tense, "Do as thou list," and not "Do as thou listest." Possibly, however, list may here be reckoned of the subjunctive mood; but the following example from Byron is certainly in the indicative:—

"And thou, who never yet of human wrong Lost the unbalanced scale, great Nemesis!"—Harold, C. iv, st. 132.

OBS. 11.—Any phraseology that is really obsolete, is no longer fit to be imitated even in the solemn style; and what was never good English, is no more to be respected in that style, than in any other. Thus: "Art not thou that Egyptian, which before these days madest an uproar, and leddest out into the wilderness four thousand men that were murderers?"—Acts, xxi, 38. Here, (I think,) the version ought to be, "Art not thou that Egyptian, who a while ago made an uproar, and led out into the wilderness four thousand men, that were murderers?" If so, there is in this no occasion to make a difference between the solemn and the familiar style. But what is the familiar form of expression for the texts cited before? The fashionable will say, it is this: "You went in to men uncircumcised, and did eat with them."—"I write these things to you, that you may know how you ought to behave yourself in the house of God." But this is not literally of the singular number: it is no more singular, than vos in Latin, or vous in French, or we used for I in English, is singular. And if there remains to us any other form, that is both singular and grammatical, it is unquestionably the following: "Thou went in to men uncircumcised, and did eat with them."—"I write these things to thee, that thou may know how thou ought to behave thyself in the house of God." The acknowledged doctrine of all the teachers of English grammar, that the inflection of our auxiliaries and preterits by st or est is peculiar to "the solemn style," leaves us no other alternative, than either to grant the propriety of here dropping the suffix for the familiar style, or to rob our language of any familiar use of the pronoun thou forever. Who, then, are here the neologists, the innovators, the impairers of the language? And which is the greater innovation, merely to drop, on familiar occasions, or when it suits our style, one obsolescent verbal termination,—a termination often dropped of old as well as now,—or to strike from the conjugations of all our verbs one sixth part of their entire scheme?[241]

"O mother myn, that cleaped were Argyue,
Wo worth that day that thou me bare on lyue."—Chaucer.

OBS. 12.—The grammatical propriety of distinguishing from the solemn style both of the forms presented above, must be evident to every one who considers with candour the reasons, analogies, and authorities, for this distinction. The support of the latter is very far from resting solely on the practice of a particular sect; though this, if they would forbear to corrupt the pronoun while they simplify the verb, would deserve much more consideration than has ever been allowed it. Which of these modes of address is the more grammatical, it is useless to dispute; since fashion rules the one, and a scruple of conscience is sometimes alleged for the other. A candid critic will consequently allow all to take their choice. It is enough for him, if he can demonstrate to the candid inquirer, what phraseology is in any view allowable, and what is for any good reason reprehensible. That the use of the plural for the singular is ungrammatical, it is neither discreet nor available to affirm; yet, surely, it did not originate in any regard to grammar rules. Murray the schoolmaster, whose English Grammar appeared some years before that of Lindley Murray, speaks of it as follows: "Thou, the second person singular, though strictly grammatical, is seldom used, except in addresses to God, in poetry, and by the people called Quakers. In all other cases, a fondness for foreign manners,[242] and the power of custom, have given a sanction to the use of you, for the second person singular, though contrary to grammar,[243] and attended with this particular inconveniency, that a plural verb must be used to agree with the pronoun in number, and both applied to a single person; as, you are, or you were,—not you wast, or you was."—Third Edition, Lond., 1793, p. 34. This author everywhere exhibits the auxiliaries, mayst, mightst, couldst, wouldst, and shouldst, as words of one syllable; and also observes, in a marginal note, "Some writers begin to say, 'Thou may, thou might,' &c."—Ib., p. 36. Examples of this are not very uncommon: "Thou shall want ere I want."—Old Motto; Scott's Lay, Note 1st to Canto 3. "Thyself the mournful tale shall tell."—Felton's Gram., p. 20.

"One sole condition would I dare suggest,
That thou would save me from my own request."—Jane Taylor.

OBS. 13.—In respect to the second person singular, the grammar of Lindley Murray makes no distinction between the solemn and the familiar style; recognizes in no way the fashionable substitution of you for thou; and, so far as I perceive, takes it for granted, that every one who pretends to speak or write grammatically, must always, in addressing an individual, employ the singular pronoun, and inflect the verb with st or est, except in the imperative mood and the subjunctive present. This is the more remarkable, because the author was a valued member of the Society of Friends; and doubtless his own daily practice contradicted his doctrine, as palpably as does that of every other member of the Society. And many a schoolmaster, taking that work for his text-book, or some other as faulty, is now doing precisely the same thing. But what a teacher is he, who dares not justify as a grammarian that which he constantly practices as a man! What a scholar is he, who can be led by a false criticism or a false custom, to condemn his own usage and that of every body else! What a casuist is he, who dares pretend conscience for practising that which he knows and acknowledges to be wrong! If to speak in the second person singular without inflecting our preterits and auxiliaries, is a censurable corruption of the language, the Friends have no alternative but to relinquish their scruple about the application of you to one person; for none but the adult and learned can ever speak after the manner of ancient books: children and common people can no more be brought to speak agreeably to any antiquated forms of the English language, than according to the imperishable models of Greek and Latin. He who traces the history of our vernacular tongue, will find it has either simplified or entirely dropped several of its ancient terminations; and that the st or est of the second person singular, never was adopted in any thing like the extent to which our modern grammarians have attempted to impose it. "Thus becoming unused to inflections, we lost the perception of their meaning and nature."—Philological Museum, i, 669. "You cannot make a whole people all at once talk in a different tongue from that which it has been used to talk in: you cannot force it to unlearn the words it has learnt from its fathers, in order to learn a set of newfangled words out of [a grammar or] a dictionary."—Ib., i, 650. Nor can you, in this instance, restrain our poets from transgressing the doctrine of Lowth and Murray:—

"Come, thou pure Light,—which first in Eden glowed.
And threw thy splendor round man's calm abode."—Alonzo Lewis.

OBS. 14.—That which has passed away from familiar practice, may still be right in the solemn style, and may there remain till it becomes obsolete. But no obsolescent termination has ever yet been recalled into the popular service. This is as true in other languages as in our own: "In almost every word of the Greek," says a learned author, "we meet with contractions and abbreviations; but, I believe, the flexions of no language allow of extension or amplification. In our own we may write sleeped or slept, as the metre of a line or the rhythm of a period may require; but by no license may we write sleepeed."—Knight, on the Greek Alphabet, 4to, p. 107. But, if after contracting sleeped into slept, we add an est and make sleptest, is there not here an extension of the word from one syllable to two? Is there not an amplification that is at once novel, disagreeable, unauthorized, and unnecessary? Nay, even in the regular and established change, as of loved to lovedst, is there not a syllabic increase, which is unpleasant to the ear, and unsuited to familiar speech? Now, to what extent do these questions apply to the verbs in our language? Lindley Murray, it is presumed, had no conception of that extent; or of the weight of the objection which is implied in the second. With respect to a vast number of our most common verbs, he himself never knew, nor does the greatest grammarian now living know, in what way he ought to form the simple past tense in the second person singular, otherwise than by the mere uninflected preterit with the pronoun thou. Is thou sleepedst or thou sleptest, thou leavedst or thou leftest, thou feeledst or thou feltest, thou dealedst or thou dealtest, thou tossedst or thou tostest, thou losedst or thou lostest, thou payedst or thou paidest, thou layedst or thou laidest, better English than thou slept, thou left, thou felt, thou dealt, thou tossed, thou lost, thou paid, thou laid? And, if so, of the two forms in each instance, which is the right one? and why? The Bible has "saidst" and "layedst;" Dr. Alexander Murray, "laid'st" and "laidest!" Since the inflection of our preterits has never been orderly, and is now decaying and waxing old, shall we labour to recall what is so nearly ready to vanish away?

"Tremendous Sea! what time thou lifted up
Thy waves on high, and with thy winds and storms
Strange pastime took, and shook thy mighty sides
Indignantly, the pride of navies fell."—Pollok, B. vii, l. 611.

OBS. 15.—Whatever difficulty there is in ascertaining the true form of the preterit itself, not only remains, but is augmented, when st or est is to be added for the second person of it. For, since we use sometimes one and sometimes the other of these endings; (as, said_st_, saw_est_, bid_st_, knew_est_, loved_st_, went_est_;) there is yet need of some rule to show which we ought to prefer. The variable formation or orthography of verbs in the simple past tense, has always been one of the greatest difficulties that the learners of our language have had to encounter. At present, there is a strong tendency to terminate as many as we can of them in ed, which is the only regular ending. The pronunciation of this ending, however, is at least threefold; as in remembered, repented, relinquished. Here the added sounds are, first d, then ed, then t; and the effect of adding st, whenever the ed is sounded like t, will certainly be a perversion of what is established as the true pronunciation of the language. For the solemn and the familiar pronunciation of ed unquestionably differ. The present tendency to a regular orthography, ought rather to be encouraged than thwarted; but the preferring of mixed to mixt, whipped to whipt, worked to wrought, kneeled to knelt, and so forth, does not make mixedst, whippedst, workedst, kneeledst, and the like, any more fit for modern English, than are mixtest, whiptest, wroughtest, kneltest, burntest, dweltest, heldest, giltest, and many more of the like stamp. And what can be more absurd than for a grammarian to insist upon forming a great parcel of these strange and crabbed words for which he can quote no good authority? Nothing; except it be for a poet or a rhetorician to huddle together great parcels of consonants which no mortal man can utter,[244] (as lov'dst, lurk'dst, shrugg'dst,) and call them "words." Example: "The clump of subtonick and atonick elements at the termination of such words as the following, is frequently, to the no small injury of articulation, particularly slighted: couldst, wouldst, hadst, prob'st, prob'dst, hurl'st, hurl'dst, arm'st, arm'dst, want'st, want'dst, burn'st, burn'dst, bark'st, bark'dst, bubbl'st, bubbl'dst, troubbl'st, troubbl'dst."—Kirkham's Elocution, p. 42. The word trouble may receive the additional sound of st, but this gentleman does not here spell so accurately as a great author should. Nor did they who penned the following lines, write here as poets should:—

"Of old thou build'st thy throne on righteousness."
—Pollok's C. of T., B. vi, l. 638.

"For though thou work'dst my mother's ill."
—Byron's Parasina.

"Thou thyself doat'dst on womankind, admiring."
—Milton's P. R., B. ii, l. 175.

"But he, the sev'nth from thee, whom thou beheldst."
—Id., P. L., B. xi, l. 700.

"Shall build a wondrous ark, as thou beheldst."
—Id., ib., B. xi, l. 819.

"Thou, who inform'd'st this clay with active fire!"
—Savage's Poems, p. 247.

"Thy valiantness was mine, thou suck'dst it from me."
—Shak., Coriol., Act iii.

"This cloth thou dipp'dst in blood of my sweet boy."
—Id., Henry VI, P. i.

"Great Queen of arms, whose favour Tydeus won;
As thou defend'st the sire, defend the son."
—Pope, Iliad, B. x, l. 337.

OBS. 16.—Dr. Lowth, whose popular little Grammar was written in or about 1758, made no scruple to hem up both the poets and the Friends at once, by a criticism which I must needs consider more dogmatical than true; and which, from the suppression of what is least objectionable in it, has become, her hands, the source of still greater errors: "Thou in the polite, and even in the familiar style, is disused, and the plural you is employed instead of it; we say, you have, not thou hast. Though in this case, we apply you to a single person, yet the verb too must agree with it in the plural number; it must necessarily be, you have, not you hast. You was is an enormous solecism,[245] and yet authors of the first rank have inadvertently fallen into it. * * * On the contrary, the solemn style admits not of you for a single person. This hath led Mr. Pope into a great impropriety in the beginning of his Messiah:—

'O thou my voice inspire,
Who touch'd Isaiah's hallow'd lips with fire!'

The solemnity of the style would not admit of you for thou, in the pronoun; nor the measure of the verse touchedst, or didst touch, in the verb, as it indispensably ought to be, in the one or the other of those two forms; you, who touched, or thou, who touchedst, or didst touch.

'Just of thy word, in every thought sincere;
Who knew no wish, but what the world might hear.'—Pope.

It ought to be your in the first line, or knewest in the second. In order to avoid this grammatical inconvenience, the two distinct forms of thou and you, are often used promiscuously by our modern poets, in the same paragraph, and even in the same sentence, very inelegantly and improperly:—

'Now, now, I seize, I clasp thy charms;
And now you burst, ah cruel! from my arms.'—Pope."
—Lowth's English Gram., p. 34.

OBS. 17.—The points of Dr. Lowth's doctrine which are not sufficiently true, are the following: First, it is not true, that thou, in the familiar style, is totally disused, and the plural you employed universally in its stead; though Churchill, and others, besides the good bishop, seem to represent it so. It is now nearly two hundred years since the rise of the Society of Friends: and, whatever may have been the practice of others before or since, it is certain, that from their rise to the present day, there have been, at every point of time, many thousands who made no use of you for thou; and, but for the clumsy forms which most grammarians hold to be indispensable to verbs of the second person singular, the beautiful, distinctive, and poetical words, thou, thyself, thy, thine, and thee, would certainly be in no danger yet of becoming obsolete. Nor can they, indeed, at any rate, become so, till the fairest branches of the Christian Church shall wither; or, what should seem no gracious omen, her bishops and clergy learn to pray in the plural number, for fashion's sake. Secondly, it is not true, that, "thou, who touch'd," ought indispensably to be, "thou, who touchedst, or didst touch." It is far better to dispense with the inflection, in such a case, than either to impose it, or to resort to the plural pronoun. The "grammatical inconvenience" of dropping the st or est of a preterit, even in the solemn style, cannot be great, and may be altogether imaginary; that of imposing it, except in solemn prose, is not only real, but is often insuperable. It is not very agreeable, however, to see it added to some verbs, and dropped from others, in the same sentence: as,

"Thou, who didst call the Furies from the abyss,
And round Orestes bade them howl and hiss."
—Byron's Childe Harold, Canto iv, st. 132.

"Thou satt'st from age to age insatiate,
And drank the blood of men, and gorged their flesh."
—Pollok's Course of Time, B. vii, l. 700.

OBS. 18.—We see then, that, according to Dr. Lowth and others, the only good English in which one can address an individual on any ordinary occasion, is you with a plural verb; and that, according to Lindley Murray and others, the only good English for the same purpose, is thou with a verb inflected with st or est. Both parties to this pointed contradiction, are more or less in the wrong. The respect of the Friends for those systems of grammar which deny them the familiar use of the pronoun thou, is certainly not more remarkable, than the respect of the world for those which condemn the substitution of the plural you. Let grammar be a true record of existing facts, and all such contradictions must vanish. And, certainly, these great masters here contradict each other, in what every one who reads English, ought to know. They agree, however, in requiring, as indispensable to grammar, what is not only inconvenient, but absolutely impossible. For what "the measure of verse will not admit," cannot be used in poetry; and what may possibly be crowded into it, will often be far from ornamental. Yet our youth have been taught to spoil the versification of Pope and others, after the following manner: "Who touch'd Isaiah's hallow'd lips with fire." Say, "Who touchedst or didst touch."—Murray's Key, 8vo, p. 180. "For thee that ever felt another's wo." Say, "Didst feel."—Ib. "Who knew no wish but what the world might hear." Say, "Who knewest or didst know."—Ib. "Who all my sense confin'd." Say, "Confinedst or didst confine."—Ib., p. 186. "Yet gave me in this dark estate." Say, "Gavedst or didst give."—Ib. "Left free the human will."—Pope. Murray's criticism extends not to this line, but by the analogy we must say, "Leavedst or leftest." Now it would be easier to fill a volume with such quotations, and such corrections, than to find sufficient authority to prove one such word as gavedst, leavedst, or leftest, to be really good English. If Lord Byron is authority for "work'dst," he is authority also for dropping the st, even where it might be added:—

——"Thou, who with thy frown
Annihilated senates."
—Childe Harold's Pilgrimage, Canto iv, st. 83.

OBS. 19.—According to Dr. Lowth, as well as Coar and some others, those preterits in which ed is sounded like t, "admit the change of ed into t; as, snacht, checkt, snapt, mixt, dropping also one of the double letters, dwelt, past."—Lowth's Gram., p. 46. If this principle were generally adopted, the number of our regular verbs would be greatly diminished, and irregularities would be indefinitely increased. What confusion the practice must make in the language, especially when we come to inflect this part of the verb with st or est, has already been suggested. Yet an ingenious and learned writer, an able contributor to the Philological Museum, published at Cambridge, England, in 1832; tracing the history of this class of derivatives, and finding that after the ed was contracted in pronunciation, several eminent writers, as Spenser, Milton, and others, adopted in most instances a contracted form of orthography; has seriously endeavoured to bring us back to their practice. From these authors, he cites an abundance of such contractions as the following: 1. "Stowd, hewd, subdewd, joyd, cald, expeld, compeld, spoild, kild, seemd, benumbd, armd, redeemd, staind, shund, paynd, stird, appeard, perceivd, resolvd, obeyd, equald, foyld, hurld, ruind, joynd, scatterd, witherd," and others ending in d. 2. "Clapt, whipt, worshipt, lopt, stopt, stampt, pickt, knockt, linkt, puft, stuft, hist, kist, abasht, brusht, astonisht, vanquisht, confest, talkt, twicht," and many others ending in t. This scheme divides our regular verbs into three classes; leaving but very few of them to be written as they now are. It proceeds upon the principle of accommodating our orthography to the familiar, rather than to the solemn pronunciation of the language. "This," as Dr. Johnson observes, "is to measure by a shadow." It is, whatever show of learning or authority may support it, a pernicious innovation. The critic says, "I have not ventured to follow the example of Spenser and Milton throughout, but have merely attempted to revive the old form of the preterit in t."—Phil. Museum, Vol. i, p. 663. "We ought not however to stop here," he thinks; and suggests that it would be no small improvement, "to write leveld for levelled, enameld for enamelled, reformd for reformed," &c.

OBS. 20.—If the multiplication of irregular preterits, as above described, is a grammatical error of great magnitude; the forcing of our old and well-known irregular verbs into regular forms that are seldom if ever used, is an opposite error nearly as great. And, in either case, there is the same embarrassment respecting the formation of the second person. Thus Cobbett, in his English Grammar in a Series of Letters, has dogmatically given us a list of seventy verbs, which, he says, are, "by some persons, erroneously deemed irregular;" and has included in it the words, blow, build, cast, cling, creep, freeze, draw, throw, and the like, to the number of sixty; so that he is really right in no more than one seventh part of his catalogue. And, what is more strange, for several of the irregularities which he censures, his own authority may be quoted from the early editions of this very book: as, "For you could have thrown about seeds."—Edition of 1818, p. 13. "For you could have throwed about seeds."—Edition of 1832, p. 13. "A tree is blown down."—Ed. of 1818, p. 27. "A tree is blowed down."—Ed. of 1832, p. 25. "It froze hard last night. Now, what was it that froze so hard?"—Ed. of 1818, p. 38. "It freezed hard last night. Now, what was it that freezed so hard?"—Ed. of 1832, p. 35. A whole page of such contradictions may be quoted from this one grammarian, showing that he did not know what form of the preterit he ought to prefer. From such an instructor, who can find out what is good English, and what is not? Respecting the inflections of the verb, this author says, "There are three persons; but, our verbs have no variation in their spelling, except for the third person singular."—Cobbett's E. Gram., ¶ 88. Again: "Observe, however, that, in our language, there is no very great use in this distinction of modes; because, for the most part, our little signs do the business, and they never vary in the letters of which they are composed."—Ib., ¶ 95. One would suppose, from these remarks, that Cobbett meant to dismiss the pronoun thou entirely from his conjugations. Not so at all. In direct contradiction to himself, he proceeds to inflect the verb as follows: "I work, Thou workest, He works; &c. I worked, Thou workedst, He worked; &c. I shall or will work, Thou shalt or wilt work, He shall or will work;" &c.—Ib., ¶ 98. All the compound tenses, except the future, he rejects, as things which "can only serve to fill up a book."

OBS. 21.—It is a common but erroneous opinion of our grammarians, that the unsyllabic suffix st, wherever found, is a modern contraction of the syllable est. No writer, however, thinks it always necessary to remind his readers of this, by inserting the sign of contraction; though English books are not a little disfigured by questionable apostrophes inserted for no other reason. Dr. Lowth says, "The nature of our language, the accent and pronunciation of it, inclines [incline] us to contract even all our regular verbs: thus loved, turned, are commonly pronounced in one syllable lov'd, turn'd: and the second person, which was originally in three syllables, lovedest, turnedest, is [say has] now become a dissyllable, lovedst, turnedst."—Lowth's Gram., p. 45; Hiley's, 45; Churchill's, 104. See also Priestley's Gram., p. 114; and Coar's, p. 102. This latter doctrine, with all its vouchers, still needs confirmation. What is it but an idle conjecture? If it were true, a few quotations might easily prove it; but when, and by whom, have any such words as lovedest, turnedest, ever been used? For aught I see, the simple st is as complete and as old a termination for the second person singular of an English verb, as est; indeed, it appears to be older: and, for the preterit, it is, and (I believe) always has been, the most regular, if not the only regular, addition. If sufferedest, woundedest, and killedest, are words more regular than sufferedst, woundedst, killedst, then are heardest, knewest, slewest, sawest, rannest, metest, swammest, and the like, more regular than heardst, knewst, slewst, sawst, ranst, metst, swamst, satst, saidst, ledst, fledst, toldst, and so forth; but not otherwise.[246] So, in the solemn style, we write seemest, deemest, swimmest, like seemeth, deemeth, swimmeth, and so forth; but, when we use the form which has no increase of syllables, why is an apostrophe more necessary in the second person, than in the third?—in seemst, deemst, swimst, than in seems, deems, swims? When final e is dropped from the verb, the case is different; as,

"Thou cutst my head off with a golden axe,
And smil'st upon the stroke that murders me."—Shakspeare.

OBS. 22.—Dr. Lowth supposes the verbal termination s or es to have come from a contraction of eth. He says, "Sometimes, by the rapidity of our pronunciation, the vowels are shortened or lost; and the consonants, which are thrown together, do not coalesce with one another, and are therefore changed into others of the same organ, or of a kindred species. This occasions a farther deviation from the regular form: thus, loveth, turneth, are contracted into lov'th, turn'th, and these, for easier pronunciation, immediately become loves, turns."—Lowth's Gram., p. 46; Hiley's, 45. This etymology may possibly be just, but certainly such contractions as are here spoken of, were not very common in Lowth's age, or even in that of Ben Jonson, who resisted the s. Nor is the sound of sharp th very obviously akin to flat s. The change would have been less violent, if lov'st and turnst had become loves and turns; as some people nowadays are apt to change them, though doubtless this is a grammatical error: as,

"And wheresoe'er thou casts thy view."
—Cowley.

"Nor thou that flings me floundering from thy back."
—Bat. of Frogs and Mice, 1,123.

"Thou sitt'st on high, and measures destinies."
—Pollok, Course of Time, B. vi, 1, 668.

OBS. 23.—Possibly, those personal terminations of the verb which do not form syllables, are mere contractions or relics of est and eth, which are syllables; but it is perhaps not quite so easy to prove them so, as some authors imagine. In the oldest specimens given by Dr. Johnson in his History of the English Language,—specimens bearing a much earlier date than the English language can claim,—even in what he calls "Saxon in its highest state of purity," both st and th are often added to verbs, without forming additional syllables, and without any sign of contraction. Nor were verbs of the second person singular always inflected of old, in those parts to which est was afterwards very commonly added. Examples: "Buton ic wat thæt thu hoefst thara wæpna."—King Alfred. "But I know that thou hast those weapons." "Thæt thu oncnawe thara worda sothfæstnesse. of tham the thu geloered eart."—Lucæ, i, 4. "That thou mightest know the certainty of those things wherein thou hast been instructed."—Luke, i, 4. "And thu nemst his naman Johannes."—Lucæ, i, 13. "And his name schal be clepid Jon."—Wickliffe's Version. "And thou shalt call his name John."—Luke, i, 13. "And he ne drincth win ne beor."—Lucæ, i, 15. "He schal not drinke wyn ne sydyr."—Wickliffe. "And shall drink neither wine nor strong drink."—Luke, i, 15. "And nu thu bist suwigende. and thu sprecan ne miht oth thone dæg the thas thing gewurthath. fortham thu minum wordum ne gelyfdest. tha beoth on hyra timan gefyllede."—Lucæ, i, 20. "And lo, thou schalt be doumbe, and thou schalt not mowe speke, til into the day in which these thingis schulen be don, for thou hast not beleved to my wordis, whiche schulen be fulfild in her tyme."—Wickliffe. "And, behold, thou shalt be dumb, and not able to speak, until the day that[247] these things shall be performed, because thou believest not my words, which shall be fulfilled in their season."—Luke, i, 20.

"In chaungyng of her course, the chaunge shewth this,
Vp startth a knaue, and downe there falth a knight."
—Sir Thomas More.

OBS. 24.—The corollary towards which the foregoing observations are directed, is this. As most of the peculiar terminations by which the second person singular is properly distinguished in the solemn style, are not only difficult of utterance, but are quaint and formal in conversation; the preterits and auxiliaries of our verbs are seldom varied in familiar discourse, and the present is generally simplified by contraction, or by the adding of st without increase of syllables. A distinction between the solemn and the familiar style has long been admitted, in the pronunciation of the termination ed, and in the ending of the verb in the third person singular; and it is evidently according to good taste and the best usage, to admit such a distinction in the second person singular. In the familiar use of the second person singular, the verb is usually varied only in the present tense of the indicative mood, and in the auxiliary hast of the perfect. This method of varying the verb renders the second person singular analogous to the third, and accords with the practice of the most intelligent of those who retain the common use of this distinctive and consistent mode of address. It disencumbers their familiar dialect of a multitude of harsh and useless terminations, which serve only, when uttered, to give an uncouth prominency to words not often emphatic; and, without impairing the strength or perspicuity of the language, increases its harmony, and reduces the form of the verb in the second person singular nearly to the same simplicity as in the other persons and numbers. It may serve also, in some instances, to justify the poets, in those abbreviations for which they have been so unreasonably censured by Lowth, Murray, and some other grammarians: as,

"And thou their natures knowst, and gave them names,
Needless to thee repeated."—Milton, P. L., Book vii, line 494.

OBS. 25.—The writings of the Friends, being mostly of a grave cast, afford but few examples of their customary manner of forming the verb in connexion with the pronoun thou, in familiar discourse. The following may serve to illustrate it: "Suitable to the office thou layst claim to."—R. BARCLAY'S Works, Vol. i, p. 27. "Notwithstanding thou may have sentiments opposite to mine."—THOMAS STORY. "To devote all thou had to his service;"—"If thou should come;"—"What thou said;"—"Thou kindly contributed;"—"The epistle which thou sent me;"—"Thou would perhaps allow;"—"If thou submitted;"—"Since thou left;"—"Should thou act;"—"Thou may be ready;"—"That thou had met;"—"That thou had intimated;"—"Before thou puts" [putst];—"What thou meets" [meetst];—"If thou had made;"—"I observed thou was;"—"That thou might put thy trust;"—"Thou had been at my house."—JOHN KENDALL. "Thou may be plundered;"—"That thou may feel;"—"Though thou waited long, and sought him;"—"I hope thou will bear my style;"—"Thou also knows" [knowst];—"Thou grew up;"—"I wish thou would yet take my counsel."—STEPHEN CRISP. "Thou manifested thy tender regard, stretched forth thy delivering hand, and fed and sustained us."—SAMUEL FOTHERGILL. The writer has met with thousands that used the second person singular in conversation, but never with any one that employed, on ordinary occasions, all the regular endings of the solemn style. The simplification of the second person singular, which, to a greater or less extent, is everywhere adopted by the Friends, and which is here defined and explained, removes from each verb eighteen of these peculiar terminations; and, (if the number of English verbs be, as stated by several grammarians, 8000,) disburdens their familiar dialect of 144,000 of these awkward and useless appendages.[248] This simplification is supported by usage as extensive as the familiar use of the pronoun thou; and is also in accordance with the canons of criticism: "The first canon on this subject is, All words and phrases which are remarkably harsh and unharmonious, and not absolutely necessary, should be rejected." See Campbell's Philosophy of Rhetoric, B. ii, Ch. ii, Sec. 2, Canon Sixth, p. 181. See also, in the same work, (B. hi, Ch. iv, Sec. 2d,) an express defence of "those elisions whereby the sound is improved;" especially of the suppression of the "feeble vowel in the last syllable of the preterits of our regular verbs;" and of "such abbreviations" as "the eagerness of conveying one's sentiments, the rapidity and ease of utterance, necessarily produce, in the dialect of conversation."—Pages 426 and 427. Lord Kames says, "That the English tongue, originally harsh, is at present much softened by dropping many redundant consonants, is undoubtedly true; that it is not capable of being further mellowed without suffering in its force and energy, will scarce be thought by any one who possesses an ear."—Elements of Criticism, Vol. ii, p. 12.

OBS. 26.—The following examples are from a letter of an African Prince, translated by Dr. Desaguillier of Cambridge, England, in 1743, and published in a London newspaper: "I lie there too upon the bed thou presented me;"—"After thou left me, in thy swimming house;"—"Those good things thou presented me;"—"When thou spake to the Great Spirit and his Son." If it is desirable that our language should retain this power of a simple literal version of what in others may be familiarly expressed by the second person singular, it is clear that our grammarians must not continue to dogmatize according to the letter of some authors hitherto popular. But not every popular grammar condemns such phraseology as the foregoing. "I improved, Thou improvedst, &c. This termination of the second person preterit, on account of its harshness, is seldom used, and especially in the irregular verbs."—Harrison's Gram., p. 26. "The termination est, annexed to the preter tenses of verbs, is, at best, a very harsh one, when it is contracted, according to our general custom of throwing out the e; as learnedst, for learnedest; and especially, if it be again contracted into one syllable, as it is commonly pronounced, and made learndst. * * * I believe a writer or speaker would have recourse to any periphrasis rather than say keptest, or keptst. * * * Indeed this harsh termination est is generally quite dropped in common conversation, and sometimes by the poets, in writing."—Priestley's Gram., p. 115. The fact is, it never was added with much uniformity. Examples: "But like the hell hounde thou waxed fall furious, expressing thy malice when thou to honour stied."—FABIAN'S CHRONICLE, V. ii, p. 522: in Tooke's Divers., T. ii, p. 232.

"Thou from the arctic regions came. Perhaps
Thou noticed on thy way a little orb,
Attended by one moon—her lamp by night."
—Pollok, B. ii, l. 5.

"'So I believ'd.'—No, Abel! to thy grief,
So thou relinquish'd all that was belief."
—Crabbe, Borough, p. 279.

OBS. 27.—L. Murray, and his numerous copyists, Ingersoll, Greenleaf, Kirkham, Fisk, Flint, Comly, Alger, and the rest; though they insist on it, that the st of the second person can never be dispensed with, except in the imperative mood and some parts of the subjunctive; are not altogether insensible of that monstrous harshness which their doctrine imposes upon the language. Some of them tell us to avoid this by preferring the auxiliaries dost and didst: as dost burst, for burstest; didst check, for checkedst. This recommendation proceeds on the supposition that dost and didst are smoother syllables than est and edst; which is not true: didst learn is harsher than either learnedst or learntest; and all three of them are intolerable in common discourse. Nor is the "energy, or positiveness," which grammarians ascribe to these auxiliaries, always appropriate. Except in a question, dost and didst, like do, does, and did, are usually signs of emphasis; and therefore unfit to be substituted for the st, est, or edst, of an unemphatic verb. Kirkham, who, as we have seen, graces his Elocution with such unutterable things, as "prob'dst, hurl'dst, arm'dst, want'dst, burn'dst, bark'dst, bubbl'dst, troubbl'dst," attributes the use of the plural for the singular, to a design of avoiding the raggedness of the latter. "In order to avoid the disagreeable harshness of sound, occasioned by the frequent recurrence of the termination est, edst, in the adaptation of our verbs to the nominative thou, a modern innovation which substitutes you for thou, in familiar style, has generally been adopted. This innovation contributes greatly to the harmony of our colloquial style. You was formerly restricted to the plural number; but now it is employed to represent either a singular or a plural noun."—Kirkham's Gram., p. 99. A modern innovation, forsooth! Does not every body know it was current four hundred years ago, or more? Certainly, both ye and you were applied in this manner, to the great, as early as the fourteenth century. Chaucer sometimes used them so, and he died in 1400. Sir T. More uses them so, in a piece dated 1503.

"O dere cosyn, Dan Johan, she sayde,
What eyleth you so rathe to aryse?"—Chaucer.

Shakspeare most commonly uses thou, but he sometimes has you in stead of it. Thus, he makes Portia say to Brutus:

"You suddenly arose, and walk'd about, Musing, and sighing, with your arms across; And when I ask'd you what the matter was, You star'd upon me with ungentle looks."—J. Cæsar, Act ii, Sc. 2.

OBS. 28.—"There is a natural tendency in all languages to throw out the rugged parts which improper consonants produce, and to preserve those which are melodious and agreeable to the ear."—Gardiner's Music of Nature, p. 29. "The English tongue, so remarkable for its grammatical simplicity, is loaded with a great variety of dull unmeaning terminations. Mr. Sheridan attributes this defect, to an utter inattention to what is easy to the organs of speech and agreeable to the ear; and further adds, that, 'the French having been adopted as the language of the court, no notice was taken, of the spelling or pronunciation of our words, until the reign of queen Anne.' So little was spelling attended to in the time of Elizabeth, that Dr. Johnson informs us, that on referring to Shakspeare's will, to determine how his name was spelt, he was found to have written it himself [in] no less [fewer] than three different ways."—Ib., p. 477. In old books, our participial or verbal termination ed, is found written in about a dozen different ways; as, ed, de, d, t, id, it, yd, yt, ede, od, ud. For est and eth, we find sometimes the consonants only; sometimes, ist or yst, ith or yth; sometimes, for the latter, oth or ath; and sometimes the ending was omitted altogether. In early times also the th was an ending for verbs of the third person plural, as well as for those of the third person singular;[249] and, in the imperative mood, it was applied to the second person, both singular and plural: as,

"Demith thyself, that demist other's dede; And trouthe the shall deliver, it's no drede."—Chaucer.

OBS. 29.—It must be obvious to every one who has much acquaintance with the history of our language, that this part of its grammar has always been quite as unsettled as it is now; and, however we may wish to establish its principles, it is idle to teach for absolute certainty that which every man's knowledge may confute. Let those who desire to see our forms of conjugation as sure as those of other tongues, study to exemplify in their own practice what tends to uniformity. The best that can be done by the author of a grammar, is, to exhibit usage, as it has been, and as it is; pointing out to the learner what is most fashionable, as well as what is most orderly and agreeable. If by these means the usage of writers and speakers cannot be fixed to what is fittest for their occasions, and therefore most grammatical, there is in grammar no remedy for their inaccuracies; as there is none for the blunders of dull opinionists, none for the absurdities of Ignorance stalled in the seats of Learning. Some grammarians say, that, whenever the preterit of an irregular verb is like the present, it should take edst for the second person singular. This rule, (which is adopted by Walker, in his Principles, No. 372,) gives us such words as cast-edst, cost-edst, bid-dedst, burst-edst, cut-tedst, hit-tedst, let-tedst, put-tedst, hurt-edst, rid-dedst, shed-dedst, &c. But the rule is groundless. The few examples which may be adduced from ancient writings, in support of this principle, are undoubtedly formed in the usual manner from regular preterits now obsolete; and if this were not the case, no person of taste could think of employing, on any occasion, derivatives so uncouth. Dr. Johnson has justly remarked, that "the chief defect of our language, is ruggedness and asperity." And this defect, as some of the foregoing remarks have shown, is peculiarly obvious, when even the regular termination of the second person singular is added to our preterits. Accordingly, we find numerous instances among the poets, both ancient and modern, in which that termination is omitted. See Percy's Reliques of Ancient Poetry, everywhere.

"Thou, who of old the prophet's eye unsealed."—Pollok.

"Thou saw the fields laid bare and waste."—Burns.[250]

OBS. 30.—With the familiar form of the second person singular, those who constantly put you for thou can have no concern; and many may think it unworthy of notice, because Murray has said nothing about it: others will hastily pronounce it bad English, because they have learned at school some scheme of the verb, which implies that this must needs be wrong. It is this partial learning which makes so much explanation here necessary. The formation of this part of speech, form it as you will, is central to grammar, and cannot but be very important. Our language can never entirely drop the pronoun thou, and its derivatives, thy, thine, thee, thyself, without great injury, especially to its poetry. Nor can the distinct syllabic utterance of the termination ed be now generally practised, except in solemn prose. It is therefore better, not to insist on those old verbal forms against which there are so many objections, than to exclude the pronoun of the second person singular from all such usage, whether familiar or poetical, as will not admit them. It is true that on most occasions you may be substituted for thou, without much inconvenience; and so may we be substituted for I, with just as much propriety; though Dr. Perley thinks the latter usage "is not to be encouraged."—Gram., p. 28. Our authors and editors, like kings and emperors, are making we for I their most common mode of expression. They renounce their individuality to avoid egotism. And when all men shall have adopted this enallage, the fault indeed will be banished, or metamorphosed, but with it will go an other sixth part of every English conjugation. The pronouns in the following couplet are put for the first person singular, the second person singular, and the second person plural; yet nobody will understand them so, but by their antecedents:

"Right trusty, and so forth—we let you to know We are very ill used by you mortals below."—Swift.

OBS. 31.—It is remarkable that some, who forbear to use the plural for the singular in the second person, adopt it without scruple, in the first. The figure is the same in both; and in both, sufficiently common. Neither practice is worthy to be made more general than it now is. If thou should not be totally sacrificed to what was once a vain compliment, neither should I, to what is now an occasional, and perhaps a vain assumption. Lindley Murray, who does not appear to have used you for thou, and who was sometimes singularly careful to periphrase [sic—KTH] and avoid the latter, nowhere in his grammar speaks of himself in the first person singular. He is often "the Compiler;" rarely, "the Author;" generally, "We:" as, "We have distributed these parts of grammar, in the mode which we think most correct and intelligible."—Octavo Gram., p. 58. "We shall not pursue this subject any further."—Ib., p. 62. "We shall close these remarks on the tenses."—Ib., p. 76. "We presume no solid objection can be made."—Ib., p. 78. "The observations which we have made."—Ib., p. 100. "We shall produce a remarkable example of this beauty from Milton."—Ib., p. 331. "We have now given sufficient openings into this subject."—Ib., p. 334. This usage has authority enough; for it was not uncommon even among the old Latin grammarians; but he must be a slender scholar, who thinks the pronoun we thereby becomes singular. What advantage or fitness there is in thus putting we for I, the reader may judge. Dr. Blair did not hesitate to use I, as often as ho had occasion; neither did Lowth, or Johnson, or Walker, or Webster: as, "I shall produce a remarkable example of this beauty from Milton."—Blair's Rhet., p. 129. "I have now given sufficient openings into this subject."—Ib., p. 131. So in Lowth's Preface: "I believe,"—"I am persuaded,"—"I am sure,"—"I think,"—"I am afraid,"—"I will not take upon me to say."

OBS. 32.—Intending to be critical without hostility, and explicit without partiality, I write not for or against any sect, or any man; but to teach all who desire to know the grammar of our tongue. The student must distinctly understand, that it is necessary to speak and write differently, according to the different circumstances or occasions of writing. Who is he that will pretend that the solemn style of the Bible may be used in familiar discourse, without a mouthing affectation? In preaching, or in praying, the ancient terminations of est for the second person singular and eth for the third, as well as ed pronounced as a separate syllable for the preterit, are admitted to be generally in better taste than the smoother forms of the familiar style: because the latter, though now frequently heard in religious assemblies, are not so well suited to the dignity and gravity of a sermon or a prayer. In grave poetry also, especially when it treats of scriptural subjects, to which you put for thou is obviously unsuitable, the personal terminations of the verb, though from the earliest times to the present day they have usually been contracted and often omitted by the poets, ought still perhaps to be considered grammatically necessary, whenever they can be uttered, agreeably to the notion of our tuneless critics. The critical objection to their elision, however, can have no very firm foundation while it is admitted by some of the objectors themselves, that, "Writers generally have recourse to this mode of expression, that they may avoid harsh terminations."— Irving's Elements of English Composition, p. 12. But if writers of good authority, such as Pope, Byron, and Pollok, have sometimes had recourse to this method of simplifying the verb, even in compositions of a grave cast, the elision may, with tenfold stronger reason, be admitted in familiar writing or discourse, on the authority of general custom among those who choose to employ the pronoun thou in conversation.

"But thou, false Arcite, never shall obtain," &c.
—Dryden, Fables.

"These goods thyself can on thyself bestow."
—Id., in Joh. Dict.

"What I show, thy self may freely on thyself bestow."
—Id., Lowth's Gram., p. 26.

"That thou might Fortune to thy side engage."
—Prior.

"Of all thou ever conquered, none was left."
—Pollok, B. vii, l. 760.

"And touch me trembling, as thou touched the man," &c.
—Id., B. x, l. 60.

OBS. 33.—Some of the Friends (perhaps from an idea that it is less formal) misemploy thee for thou; and often join it to the third person of the verb in stead of the second. Such expressions as, thee does, thee is, thee has, thee thinks, &c., are double solecisms; they set all grammar at defiance. Again, many persons who are not ignorant of grammar, and who employ the pronoun aright, sometimes improperly sacrifice concord to a slight improvement in sound, and give to the verb the ending of the third person, for that of the second. Three or four instances of this, occur in the examples which have been already quoted. See also the following, and many more, in the works of the poet Burns; who says of himself, "Though it cost the schoolmaster some thrashings, I made an excellent English scholar; and, by the time I was ten or eleven years of age, I was a critic in substantives, VERBS, and particles:"—"But when thou pours;"—"There thou shines chief;"—"Thou clears the head;"—"Thou strings the nerves;"—"Thou brightens black despair;"—"Thou comes;"—"Thou travels far;"—"Now thou's turned out;"—"Unseen thou lurks;"—"O thou pale orb that silent shines." This mode of simplifying the verb, confounds the persons; and, as it has little advantage in sound, over the regular contracted form of the second person, it ought to be avoided. With this author it may be, perhaps, a Scotticism: as,

"Thou paints auld nature to the nines,
In thy sweet Caledonian lines."—Burns to Ramsay.

"Thou paintst old nature," would be about as smooth poetry, and certainly much better English. This confounding of the persons of the verb, however, is no modern peculiarity. It appears to be about as old as the use of s for th or eth. Spenser, the great English poet of the sixteenth century, may be cited in proof: as,

"Siker, thou's but a lazy loord,
And rekes much of thy swinke."—Joh. Dict., w. Loord.

OBS. 34.—In the solemn style, (except in poetry, which usually contracts these forms,) the second person singular of the present indicative, and that of the irregular preterits, commonly end in est, pronounced as a separate syllable, and requiring the duplication of the final consonant, according to Rule 3d for Spelling: as, I run, thou runnest; I ran, thou rannest. But as the termination ed, in solemn discourse, constitutes a syllable, the regular preterits form the second person singular by assuming st, without further increase of syllables: as, I loved, thou lovedst; not, "lovedest," as Chandler made it in his English Grammar, p. 41, Edition of 1821; and as Wells's rule, above cited, if literally taken, would make it. Dost and hast, and the three irregular preterits, wast, didst, and hadst, are permanently contracted; though doest and diddest are sometimes seen in old books. Saidst is more common, and perhaps more regular, than saidest. Werest has long been contracted into wert: "I would thou werest either cold or hot."—W. Perkins, 1608.[251] The auxiliaries shall and will change the final l to t, and become shalt and wilt. To the auxiliaries, may, can, might, could, would, and should, the termination est was formerly added; but they are now generally written with st only, and pronounced as monosyllables, even in solemn discourse. Murray, in quoting the Scriptures, very often charges mayest to mayst, mightest to mightst, &c. Some other permanent contractions are occasionally met with, in what many grammarians call the solemn style; as bidst for biddest, fledst for fleddest, satst for sattest:

"Riding sublime, thou bidst the world adore,
And humblest nature with thy northern blast."
—Thomson.

"Fly thither whence thou fledst."
—Milton, P. L., B. iv, l. 963.

"Unspeakable, who sitst above these heavens."
—Id., ib., B. v, l. 156.

"Why satst thou like an enemy in wait?"
—Id., ib., B. iv, l. 825.

OBS. 35.—The formation of the third person singular of verbs, is now precisely the same as that of the plural number of nouns: as, love, loves; show, shows; boast, boasts; fly, flies; reach, reaches. This form began to be used about the beginning of the sixteenth century. The ending seems once to have been es, sounded as s or z: as,

"And thus I see among these pleasant thynges
Eche care decayes, and yet my sorrow sprynges."—Earl of Surry.

"With throte yrent, he roares, he lyeth along."—Sir T. Wyat.

"He dyeth, he is all dead, he pantes, he restes."—Id., 1540.

In all these instances, the e before the s has become improper. The es does not here form a syllable; neither does the eth, in "lyeth" and "dyeth." In very ancient times, the third person singular appears to have been formed by adding th or eth nearly as we now add s or es[252] Afterwards, as in our common Bible, it was formed by adding th to verbs ending in e, and eth to all others; as, "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself."—1 Cor., xi, 29. "He quickeneth man, who is dead in trespasses and sins; he keepeth alive the quickened soul, and leadeth it in the paths of life; he scattereth, subdueth, and conquereth the enemies of the soul."—I. Penington. This method of inflection, as now pronounced, always adds a syllable to the verb. It is entirely confined to the solemn style, and is little used. Doth, hath, and saith, appear to be permanent contractions of verbs thus formed. In the days of Shakspeare, both terminations were common, and he often mixed them, in a way which is not very proper now: as,

"The quality of mercy is not strained;
It droppeth, as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath: it is twice bless'd;
It blesseth him that gives, and him that takes."
—Merchant of Venice.

OBS. 36.—When the second person singular is employed in familiar discourse, with any regard to correctness, it is usually formed in a manner strictly analogous to that which is now adopted in the third person singular. When the verb ends with a sound which will unite with that of st or s, the second person singular is formed by adding s only, and the third, by adding s only; and the number of syllables is not increased: as, I read, thou readst, he reads; I know, thou knowst, he knows; I take, thou takest, he takes; I free, thou freest, he frees. For, when the verb ends in mute a, no termination renders this a vocal in the familiar style, if a synæresis can take place. To prevent their readers from ignorantly assuming the pronunciation of the solemn style, the poets have generally marked such words with an apostrophe: as,

"Look what thy soul holds dear, imagine it
To lie the way thou go'st, not whence thou com'st."—Shak.

OBS. 37.—But when the verb ends in a sound which will not unite with that of st or s, the second and third persons are formed by adding est and es; or, if the first person end in mute e, the st and s render that e vocal; so that the verb acquires an additional syllable: as, I trace, thou tracest, he traces; I pass, thou passest, he passes; I fix, thou fixest, he fixes; I preach, thou preachest, he preaches; I blush, thou blushest, he blushes; I judge, thou judgest, he judges. But verbs ending in o or y preceded by a consonant, do not exactly follow either of the foregoing rules. In these, y is changed into i; and, to both o and i, est and es are added without increase of syllables: as, I go, thou goest, he goes; I undo, thou undoest,[253] he undoes; I fly, thou fliest, he flies; I pity, thou pitiest, he pities. Thus, in the following lines, goest must be pronounced like ghost; otherwise, we spoil the measure of the verse:

"Thou goest not now with battle, and the voice
Of war, as once against the rebel hosts;
Thou goest a Judge, and findst the guilty bound;
Thou goest to prove, condemn, acquit, reward."—Pollok, B. x.

In solemn prose, however, the termination is here made a separate syllable: as, I go, thou goëst, he goëth; I undo, thou undoëst, he undoëth; I fly, thou fliëst, he fliëth; I pity, thou pitiëst, he pitiëth.

OBS. 38.—The auxiliaries do, dost, does,—(pronounced doo, dust, duz; and not as the words dough, dosed, doze,—) am, art, is,—have, hast, has,—being also in frequent use as principal verbs of the present tense, retain their peculiar forms, with distinction of person and number, when they help to form the compound tenses of other verbs. The other auxiliaries are not varied, or ought not to be varied, except in the solemn style. Example of the familiar use: "That thou may be found truly owning it."—Barclay's Works, Vol. i, p. 234.

OBS. 39.—The only regular terminations that are added to English verbs, are ing, d or e, st or est, s or es, th or eth[254] Ing, and th or eth, always add a syllable to the verb; except in doth, hath, saith.[255] The rest, whenever their sound will unite with that of the final syllable of the verb, are usually added without increasing the number of syllables; otherwise, they are separately pronounced. In solemn discourse, however, ed and est are by most speakers uttered distinctly in all cases; except sometimes when a vowel precedes: as in sanctified, glorified, which are pronounced as three syllables only. Yet, in spite of this analogy, many readers will have sanctifiest and glorifiest to be words of four syllables. If this pronunciation is proper, it is only so in solemn prose. The prosody of verse will show how many syllables the poets make: as,

"Thou diedst, a most rare boy, of melancholy!"
—Shak., Cymb., Act iv, sc. 2.

"Had not a voice thus warn'd me: What thou seest,
What there thou seest, fair creature, is thyself."
—Milton, B. iv, l. 467.

"By those thou wooedst from death to endless life."
—Pollok, B. ix, l. 7.

"Attend: that thou art happy, owe to God;
That thou continuest such, owe to thyself"
—Milton, B. v, l. 520.

OBS. 40.—If the grave and full form of the second person singular must needs be supposed to end rather with the syllable est than with st only, it is certain that this form may be contracted, whenever the verb ends in a sound which will unite with that of st. The poets generally employ the briefer or contracted forms; but they seem not to have adopted a uniform and consistent method of writing them. Some usually insert the apostrophe, and, after a single vowel, double the final consonant before st; as, hold'st, bidd'st, said'st, ledd'st, wedd'st, trimm'st, may'st, might'st, and so forth: others, in numerous instances, add st only, and form permanent contractions; as, holdst, bidst, saidst, ledst, wedst, trimst, mayst, mightst, and so forth. Some retain the vowel e, in the termination of certain words, and suppress a preceding one; as, quick'nest, happ'nest, scatt'rest, rend'rest, rend'redst, slumb'rest, slumb'redst: others contract the termination of such words, and insert the apostrophe; as, quicken'st, happen'st, scatter'st, render'st, render'dst, slumber'st, slumber'dst. The nature and idiom of our language, "the accent and pronunciation of it," incline us to abbreviate or "contract even all our regular verbs;" so as to avoid, if possible, an increase of syllables in the inflection of them. Accordingly, several terminations which formerly constituted distinct syllables, have been either wholly dropped, or blended with the final syllables of the verbs to which they are added. Thus the plural termination en has become entirely obsolete; th or eth is no longer in common use; ed is contracted in pronunciation; the ancient ys or is, of the third person singular, is changed to s or es, and is usually added without increase of syllables; and st or est has, in part, adopted the analogy. So that the proper mode of forming these contractions of the second person singular, seems to be, to add st only; and to insert no apostrophe, unless a vowel is suppressed from the verb to which this termination is added: as, thinkst, sayst, bidst, sitst, satst, lov'st, lov'dst, slumberst, slumber'dst.

"And know, for that thou slumberst on the guard,
Thou shalt be made to answer at the bar."—Cotton.

OBS. 41.—Ho man deserves more praise for his attention to English pronunciation, than John Walker. His Pronouncing Dictionary was, for a long period, the best standard of orthoëpy, that our schools possessed. But he seems to me to have missed a figure, in preferring such words as quick'nest, strength'nest, to the smoother and more regular forms, quickenst, strengthenst. It is true that these are rough words, in any form you can give them; but let us remember, that needless apostrophes are as rough to the eye, as needless st's to the ear. Our common grammarians are disposed to encumber the language with as many of both as they can find any excuse for, and vastly more than can be sustained by any good argument. In words that are well understood to be contracted in pronunciation, the apostrophe is now less frequently used than it was formerly. Walker says, "This contraction of the participial ed, and the verbal en, is so fixed an idiom of our pronunciation, that to alter it, would be to alter the sound of the whole language. It must, however, be regretted that it subjects our tongue to some of the most hissing, snapping, clashing, grinding sounds that ever grated the ears of a Vandal; thus, rasped, scratched, wrenched, bridled, fangled, birchen, hardened, strengthened, quickened, &c. almost frighten us when written as they are actually pronounced, as rapt, scratcht, wrencht, bridl'd, fangl'd, birch'n, strength'n'd, quick'n'd, &c.; they become still more formidable when used contractedly in the solemn style, which never ought to be the case; for here instead of thou strength'n'st or strength'n'd'st, thou quick'n'st or quick'n'd'st, we ought to pronounce thou strength'nest or strength'nedst, thou quick'nest or quick'nedst, which are sufficiently harsh of all conscience."—Principles, No. 359. Here are too many apostrophes; for it does not appear that such words as strengthenedest and quickenedest ever existed, except in the imagination of certain grammarians. In solemn prose one may write, thou quickenest, thou strengthenest, or thou quickenedst, thou strengthenedst; but, in the familiar style, or in poetry, it is better to write, thou quickenst, thou strengthenst, thou quickened, thou strengthened. This is language which it is possible to utter; and it is foolish to strangle ourselves with strings of rough consonants, merely because they are insisted on by some superficial grammarians. Is it not strange, is it not incredible, that the same hand should have written the two following lines, in the same sentence? Surely, the printer has been at fault.

"With noiseless foot, thou walkedst the vales of earth"—
"Most honourable thou appeared, and most
To be desired."—Pollok's Course of Time, B. ix, l. 18, and l. 24.

OBS. 42.—It was once a very common practice, to retain the final y, in contractions of the preterit or of the second person of most verbs that end in y, and to add the consonant terminations d, st, and dst, with an apostrophe before each; as, try'd for tried, reply'd for replied, try'st for triest, try'dst for triedst. Thus Milton:—

"Thou following cry'dst aloud, Return, fair Eve;
Whom fly'st thou? whom thou fly'st, of him thou art."
—P. L., B. iv, l. 481.

This usage, though it may have been of some advantage as an index to the pronunciation of the words, is a palpable departure from the common rule for spelling such derivatives. That rule is, "The final y of a primitive word, when preceded by a consonant, is changed into i before an additional termination." The works of the British poets, except those of the present century, abound with contractions like the foregoing; but late authors, or their printers, have returned to the rule; and the former practice is wearing out and becoming obsolete. Of regular verbs that end in ay, ey, or oy, we have more than half a hundred; all of which usually retain the y in their derivatives, agreeably to an other of the rules for spelling. The preterits of these we form by adding ed without increase of syllables; as, display, displayed; survey, surveyed; enjoy, enjoyed. These also, in both tenses, may take st without increase of syllables; as, display'st, display'dst; survey'st, survey'dst; enjoy'st, enjoy'dst. All these forms, and such as these, are still commonly considered contractions, and therefore written with the apostrophe; but if the termination st is sufficient of itself to mark the second person singular, as it certainly is considered to be as regards one half of them, and as it certainly was in the Saxon tongue still more generally, then for the other half there is no need of the apostrophe, because nothing is omitted. Est, like es, is generally a syllabic termination; but st, like s, is not. As signs of the third person, the s and the es are always considered equivalent; and, as signs of the second person, the st and the est are sometimes, and ought to be always, considered so too. To all verbs that admit the sound, we add the s without marking it as a contraction for es; and there seems to be no reason at all against adding the st in like manner, whenever we choose to form the second person without adding a syllable to the verb. The foregoing observations I commend to the particular attention of all those who hope to write such English as shall do them honour—to every one who, from a spark of literary ambition, may say of himself,

————-"I twine
My hopes of being remembered in my line
With my land's language."—Byron's Childe Harold, Canto iv, st. 9.

The Conjugation of Verbs.

The conjugation of a verb is a regular arrangement of its moods, tenses, persons, numbers, and participles.

There are four PRINCIPAL PARTS in the conjugation of every simple and complete verb; namely, the Present, the Preterit, the Imperfect Participle, and the Perfect Participle.[256] A verb which wants any of these parts, is called defective; such are most of the auxiliaries.

An auxiliary is a short verb prefixed to one of the principal parts of an other verb, to express some particular mode and time of the being, action, or passion. The auxiliaries are do, be, have, shall, will, may, can, and must, with their variations.

Observations.

OBS. 1.—The present, or the verb in the present tense, is radically the same in all the moods, and is the part from which all the rest are formed. The present infinitive is commonly considered the root, or simplest form, of the English verb. We usually place the preposition TO before it; but never when with an auxiliary it forms a compound tense that is not infinitive: there are also some other exceptions, which plainly show, that the word to is neither a part of the verb, as Cobbett, R. C. Smith, S. Kirkham, and Wells, say it is; nor a part of the infinitive mood, as Hart and many others will have it to be, but a distinct preposition. (See, in the Syntax of this work, Observations on Rule 18th.) The preterit and the perfect participle are regularly formed by adding d or ed, and the imperfect participle, by adding ing, to the present.

OBS. 2.—The moods and tenses, in English, are formed partly by inflections, or changes made in the verb itself, and partly by the combination of the verb or its participle, with a few short verbs, called auxiliaries, or helping verbs. This view of the subject, though disputed by some, is sustained by such a preponderance both of authority and of reason, that I shall not trouble the reader with any refutation of those who object to it. Murray the schoolmaster observes, "In the English language, the times and modes of verbs are expressed in a perfect, easy, and beautiful manner, by the aid of a few little words called auxiliaries, or helping verbs. The possibility of a thing is expressed by can or could; the liberty to do a thing, by may or might; the inclination of the will, by will or would; the necessity of a thing, by must or ought, shall or should. The preposition to is never expressed after the helping verbs, except after ought."—Alex. Murray's Gram., p. 112. See nearly the same words in Buchanan's English Syntax, p. 36; and in the British Gram., p. 125.

OBS. 3.—These authors are wrong in calling ought a helping verb, and so is Oliver B. Peirce, in calling "ought to," and "ought to have" auxiliaries; for no auxiliary ever admits the preposition to after it or into it: and Murray of Holdgate is no less in fault, for calling let an auxiliary; because no mere auxiliary ever governs the objective case. The sentences, "He ought to help you," and, "Let him help you," severally involve two different moods: they are equivalent to, "It is his duty to help you;"—"Permit him to help you." Hence ought and let are not auxiliaries, but principal verbs.

OBS. 4.—Though most of the auxiliaries are defective, when compared with other verbs; yet these three, do, be, and have, being also principal verbs, are complete: but the participles of do and have are not used as auxiliaries; unless having, which helps to form the third or "compound perfect" participle, (as having loved,) may be considered such. The other auxiliaries have no participles.

OBS. 5.—English verbs are principally conjugated by means of auxiliaries; the only tenses which can be formed by the simple verb, being the present and the imperfect; as, I love, I loved. And even here an auxiliary is usually preferred in questions and negations; as, "Do you love?"—"You do not love." "Did he love?"—"He did not love." "Do I not yet grieve?"—"Did she not die?" All the other tenses, even in their simplest form, are compounds.

OBS. 6.—Dr. Johnson says, "Do is sometimes used superfluously, as I do love, I did love; simply for I love, or I loved; but this is considered as a vitious mode of speech."—Gram., in 4to Dict., p. 8. He also somewhere tells us, that these auxiliaries "are not proper before be and have;" as, "I do be," for I am; "I did have," for I had. The latter remark is generally true, and it ought to be remembered;[257] but, in the imperative mood, be and have will perhaps admit the emphatic word do before them, in a colloquial style: as, "Now do be careful;"—"Do have a little discretion." Sanborn repeatedly puts do before be, in this mood: as, "Do you be. Do you be guarded. Do thou be. Do thou be guarded."—Analytical Gram., p. 150. "Do thou be watchful."—Ib., p. 155. In these instances, he must have forgotten that he had elsewhere said positively, that, "Do, as an auxiliary, is never used with the verb be or am."—Ib., p. 112. In the other moods, it is seldom, if ever, proper before be; but it is sometimes used before have, especially with a negative: as, "Those modes of charity which do not have in view the cultivation of moral excellence, are essentially defective."—Wayland's Moral Science, p. 428. "Surely, the law of God, whether natural or revealed, does not have respect merely to the external conduct of men."—Stuart's Commentary on Romans, p. 158. "And each day of our lives do we have occasion to see and lament it."—Dr. Bartlett's Lecture on Health, p. 5. "Verbs, in themselves considered, do not have person and number."—R. C. Smith's New Gram., p. 21. [This notion of Smith's is absurd. Kirkham taught the same as regards "person."] In the following example, does he is used for is,—the auxiliary is,—and perhaps allowably: "It is certain from scripture, that the same person does in the course of life many times offend and be forgiven."—West's Letters to a Young Lady, p. 182.

OBS. 7.—In the compound tenses, there is never any variation of ending for the different persons and numbers, except in the first auxiliary: as, "Thou wilt have finished it;" not, "Thou wilt hast finishedst it;" for this is nonsense. And even for the former, it is better to say, in the familiar style, "Thou will have finished it;" for it is characteristic of many of the auxiliaries, that, unlike other verbs, they are not varied by s or eth, in the third person singular, and never by st or est, in the second person singular, except in the solemn style. Thus all the auxiliaries of the potential mood, as well as shall and will of the indicative, are without inflection in the third person singular, though will, as a principal verb, makes wills or willeth, as well as willest, in the indicative present. Hence there appears a tendency in the language, to confine the inflection of its verbs to this tense only; and to the auxiliary have, hast, has, which is essentially present, though used with a participle to form the perfect. Do, dost, does, and am, art, is, whether used as auxiliaries or as principal verbs, are always of the indicative present.

OBS. 8.—The word need,—(though, as a principal verb and transitive, it is unquestionably both regular and complete,—having all the requisite parts, need, needed, needing, needed,—and being necessarily inflected in the indicative present, as, I need, thou needst or needest, he needs or needeth,—) is so frequently used without inflection, when placed before an other verb to express a necessity of the being, action, or passion, that one may well question whether it has not become, under these circumstances, an auxiliary of the potential mood; and therefore proper to be used, like all the other auxiliaries of this mood, without change of termination. I have not yet knowingly used it so myself, nor does it appear to have been classed with the auxiliaries, by any of our grammarians, except Webster.[258] I shall therefore not presume to say now, with positiveness, that it deserves this rank; (though I incline to think it does;) but rather quote such instances as have occurred to me in reading, and leave the student to take his choice, whether to condemn as bad English the uninflected examples, or to justify them in this manner. "He that can swim, need not despair to fly."—Johnson's Rasselas, p. 29. "One therefore needs not expect to do it."—Kirkham's Elocution, p. 155. "In so doing I should only record some vain opinions of this age, which a future one need not know."—Rush, on the Voice, p. 345. "That a boy needs not be kept at school."—LISDSEY: in Kirkham's Elocution, p. 164. "No man need promise, unless he please."—Wayland's Moral Science, p. 312. "What better reason needs be given?"—Campbell's Rhet., p. 51. "He need assign no other reason for his conduct."—Wayland, ib., p. 214. "Sow there is nothing that a man needs be ashamed of in all this."—Collier's Antoninus, p. 45. "No notice need be taken of the advantages."—Walker's Rhyming Dict., Vol. ii, p. 304. "Yet it needs not be repeated."—Bicknell's Gram., Part ii, p. 51. "He need not be anxious."—Greenleaf's Gram. Simplified, p. 38. "He needs not be afraid."—Fisk's Gram. Simplified, p. 124. "He who will not learn to spell, needs not learn to write."—Red Book, p. 22. "The heeder need be under no fear."—Greenleaf's Gram., p. 38.[259] "More need not be said about it."—Cobbett's E. Gram., ¶ 272. "The object needs not be expressed."—Booth's Introduct. to Dict., p. 37. "Indeed, there need be no such thing."—Fosdick's De Sacy, p. 71. "This needs to be illustrated."—Ib., p. 81. "And no part of the sentence need be omitted."—Parkhurst's Grammar for Beginners, p. 114. "The learner needs to know what sort of words are called verbs."—Ib., p. 6. "No one need be apprehensive of suffering by faults of this kind."—Sheridan's Elocution, p. 171. "The student who has bought any of the former copies needs not repent."—Dr. Johnson, Adv. to Dict. "He need not enumerate their names."—Edward's First Lessons in Grammar, p. 38. "A quotation consisting of a word or two only need not begin with a capital."—Churchill's Gram., p. 383. "Their sex is commonly known, and needs not to be marked."—Ib., p. 72; Murray's Octavo Gram., 51. "One need only open Lord Clarendon's history, to find examples every where."—Blair's Rhet., p. 108. "Their sex is commonly known, and needs not be marked."—Lowth's Gram., p. 21; Murray's Duodecimo Gram., p. 51. "Nobody need be afraid he shall not have scope enough."—LOCKE: in Sanborn's Gram., p. 168. "No part of the science of language, needs to be ever uninteresting to the pursuer."—Nutting's Gram., p. vii. "The exact amount of knowledge is not, and need not be, great."—Todd's Student's Manual, p. 44. "He needs to act under a motive which is all-pervading."—Ib., p. 375. "What need be said, will not occupy a long space."—Ib., p. 244. "The sign TO needs not always be used."—Bucke's Gram., p. 96. "Such as he need not be ashamed of."—Snelling's Gift for Scribblers, p. 23.

"Needst thou—need any one on earth—despair?"—Ib., p. 32.

"Take timely counsel; if your dire disease
Admits no cure, it needs not to displease."—Ib., p. 14.

OBS. 9.—If need is to be recognized as an auxiliary of the potential mood, it must be understood to belong to two tenses; the present and the perfect; like may, can, and must: as, "He need not go, he need not have gone; Thou need not go, Thou need not have gone;" or, in the solemn style, "Thou needst not go, Thou needst not have gone." If, on the contrary, we will have it to be always a principal verb, the distinction of time should belong to itself, and also the distinction of person and number, in the parts which require it: as, "He needs not go. He needed not go; Thou needst not go, Thou needed not go;" or, in the solemn style, "Thou needest not go, Thou neededst not go." Whether it can be right to say, "He needed not have gone," is at least questionable. From the observations of Murray, upon relative tenses, under his thirteenth rule of syntax, it seems fair to infer that he would have judged this phraseology erroneous. Again, "He needs not have gone," appears to be yet more objectionable, though for the same reason. And if, "He need not have gone," is a correct expression, need is clearly proved to be an auxiliary, and the three words taken together must form the potential perfect. And so of the plural; for the argument is from the connexion of the tenses, and not merely from the tendency of auxiliaries to reject inflection: as, "They need not have been under great concern about their public affairs."—Hutchinson's History, i, 194, From these examples, it may be seen that an auxiliary and a principal verb have some essential difference; though these who dislike the doctrine of compound tenses, pretend not to discern any. Take some further citations; a few of which are erroneous in respect to time. And observe also that the regular verb sometimes admits the preposition to after it: "' There is great dignity in being waited for,' said one who had the habit of tardiness, and who had not much else of which he need be vain."—Students Manual, p. 64. "But he needed not have gone so far for more instances."— Johnson's Gram. Com., p. 143. "He need not have said, 'perhaps the virtue.'"—Sedgwick's Economy, p. 196. "I needed not to ask how she felt."—Abbott's Young Christian, p. 84. "It need not have been so."—Ib., p. 111. "The most unaccommodating politician need not absolutely want friends."—Hunts Feast of the Poets, p. iii. "Which therefore needs not be introduced with much precaution."—Campbell's Rhet., p. 326. "When an obscurer term needs to be explained by one that is clearer."—Ib., p. 367. "Though, if she had died younger, she need not have known it."—West's Letters, p. 120. "Nothing need be said, but that they were the most perfect barbarisms."—Blair's Rhet., p. 470. "He need not go."—Goodenow's Gram., p. 36. "He needed but use the word body."—LOCKE: in Joh. Dict. "He need not be required to use them."—Parker's Eng. Composition, p. 50. "The last consonant of appear need not be doubled."—Dr. Webster. "It needs the less to be inforced."—Brown's Estimate, ii, 158. "Of these pieces of his, we shall not need to give any particular account."—Seneca's Morals, p. vi "And therefore I shall need say the less of them."—Scougal, p. 1101. "This compounding of words need occasion no surprise."—Cardell's Essay on Language, p. 87.

"Therefore stay, thou needst not to be gone."—Shakspeare.

"Thou need na start awa sae hasty."—Burns, Poems, p. 15.

"Thou need na jouk behint the hallan."—Id., ib., p. 67.

OBS. 10.—The auxiliaries, except must, which is invariable, have severally two forms in respect to tense, or time; and when inflected in the second and third persons singular, are usually varied in the following manner:—

To Do.

Present Tense; And Sign of the Indicative Present.

Sing. I do, thou dost, he does; Plur. We do, you do, they do.

IMPERFECT TENSE; AND SIGN of THE INDICATIVE IMPERFECT.

Sing. I did, thou didst, he did; Plur. We did, you did, they did.

To Be.

Present Tense; And Sign of the Indicative Present.

Sing. I am, thou art, he is; Plur. We are, you are, they are.

Imperfect Tense; And Sign of the Indicative Imperfect.

Sing. I was, thou wast, he was; Plur. We were, you were; they were.

To Have.

Present Tense; But Sign of the Indicative Perfect.

Sing. I have, thou hast, he has; Plur. We have, you have, they have.

Imperfect Tense; But Sign of the Indicative Pluperfect.

Sing. I had, thou hadst, he had; Plur. We had, you had, they had.

Shall and Will.

These auxiliaries have distinct meanings, and, as signs of the future, they are interchanged thus:

Present Tense; But Signs of the Indicative First-Future.

1. Simply to express a future action or event:—

Sing. I shall, thou wilt, he will; Plur. We shall, you will, they will.

2. To express a promise, command, or threat:—

Sing.: I will, thou shalt, he shall; Plur. We will, you shall, they shall.

Imperfect Tense; But, as Signs, Aorist, or Indefinite.

1. Used with reference to duty or expediency:—

Sing. I should, thou shouldst, he should; Plur. We should, you should, they should.

2. Used with reference to volition or desire:—

Sing. I would, thou wouldst, he would; Plur. We would, you would, they would.

May.

Present Tense; And Sign of the Potential Present.

Sing. I may, thou mayst, he may; Plur. We may, you may, they may.

Imperfect Tense; And Sign of the Potential Imperfect.

Sing. I might, thou mightst, he might; Plur. We might, you might, they might.

Can.

Present Tense; And Sign of the Potential Present.

Sing. I can, thou canst, he can; Plur. We can, you can, they can.

Imperfect Tense; And Sign of the Potential Imperfect.

Sing. I could, thou couldst, he could; Plur. We could, you could, they could.

Must.

Present Tense; And Sign of the Potential Present.

Sing. I must, thou must, he must; Plur. We must, you must, they must.

If must is ever used in the sense of the Imperfect tense, or Preterit, the form is the same as that of the Present: this word is entirely invariable.

OBS. 11.—Several of the auxiliaries are occasionally used as mere expletives, being quite unnecessary to the sense: as, 1. DO and DID: "And it is night, wherein all the beasts of the forest do creep forth."—Psalms, civ, 20. "And ye, that on the sands with printless foot do chase the ebbing Neptune, and do fly him when he comes back."—Shak. "And if a man did need a poison now."—Id. This needless use of do and did is now avoided by good writers. 2. SHALL, SHOULD, and COULD: "'Men shall deal unadvisedly sometimes, which after-hours give leisure to repent of.' I should advise you to proceed. I should think it would succeed. He, it should seem, thinks otherwise."—W. Allen's Gram., p. 65. "I could wish you to go."—Ib., p. 71. 3. WILL, &c. The following are nearly of the same character, but not exactly: "The isle is full of noises; sometimes a thousand twanging instruments will hum about mine ears."—Shak. "In their evening sports she would steal in amongst them."—Barbauld.

"His listless length at noontide would he stretch."—Gray.

OBS. 12.—As our old writers often formed the infinitive in en, so they sometimes dropped the termination of the perfect participle. Hence we find, in the infancy of the language, done used for do, and do for done; and that by the same hand, with like changes in other verbs: as, "Thou canst nothing done."—Chaucer. "As he was wont to done."—Id. "The treson that to women hath be do."—Id. "For to ben honourable and free."—Id. "I am sworn to holden it secre."—Id. "Our nature God hath to him unyte."—Douglas. "None otherwise negligent than I you saie haue I not bee."—Id. See W. Allen's E. Gram., p. 97.

"But netheless the thynge is do,
That fals god was soone go."—GOWER: H. Tooke, Vol. i, p. 376.

OBS. 13.—"May is from the Anglo-Saxon, mægan, to be able. In the parent language also, it is used as an auxiliary. It is exhibited by Fortescue, as a principal verb; 'They shall may do it:' i. e. they shall be able (to) do it."—W. Allen's Gram., p. 70. "May not, was formerly used for must not; as, 'Graces for which we may not cease to sue.' Hooker."—Ib., p. 91. "May frequently expresses doubt of the fact; as, 'I may have the book in my library, but I think I have not.' It is used also, to express doubt, or a consequence, with a future signification; as, 'I may recover the use of my limbs, but I see little probability of it.'—'That they may receive me into their houses.' Luke, xvi, 4."—Churchill's Gram., p. 247. In these latter instances, the potential present is akin to the subjunctive. Hence Lowth and others improperly call "I may love," &c. the subjunctive mood. Others, for the same reason, and with as little propriety, deny that we have any subjunctive mood; alleging an ellipsis in every thing that bears that name: as, "'If it (may) be possible, live peaceably with all men.' Scriptures."—W. Allen's Gram., p. 61. May is also a sign of wishing, and consequently occurs often in prayer: as, "May it be thy good pleasure;"—"O that it may please thee;"—"Mayst thou be pleased." Hence the potential is akin also to the imperative: the phrases, "Thy will be done,"—"May thy will be done,"—"Be thy will done,"—"Let thy will be done,"—are alike in meaning, but not in mood or construction.

OBS. 14.—Can, to be able, is etymologically the same as the regular verbs ken, to see, and con, to learn; all of them being derived from the Saxon connan or cunnan, to know: whence also the adjective cunning, which was formerly a participle. In the following example will and can are principal verbs: "In evil, the best condition is, not to will; the second, not to can."—Ld. Bacon. "That a verb which signifies knowledge, may also signify power, appears from these examples: Je ne saurois, I should not know how, (i. e. could not.) [Greek: Asphalisasthe hos oidate], Strengthen it as you know how, (i. e. as you can.) Nescio mentiri, I know not how to (i.e. I cannot) lie."—W. Allen's Gram., p. 71. Shall, Saxon sceal, originally signified to owe; for which reason should literally means ought. In the following example from Chaucer, shall is a principal verb, with its original meaning:

"For, by the faith I shall to God, I wene,
Was neuer straungir none in hir degre."—W. Allen's Gram., p. 64.

OBS. 15.—Do and did are auxiliary only to the present infinitive, or the radical verb; as, do throw, did throw: thus the mood of do throw or to throw is marked by do or to. Be, in all its parts, is auxiliary to either of the simple participles; as, to be throwing, to be thrown; I am throwing, I am thrown: and so, through the whole conjugation. Have and had, in their literal use, are auxiliary to the perfect participle only; as, have thrown, had thrown. Have is from the Saxon habban, to possess; and, from the nature of the perfect participle, the tenses thus formed, suggest in general a completion of the action. The French idiom is similar to this: as, J'ai vu, I have seen. Shall and should, will and would, may and might, can and could, must, and also need, (if we call the last a helping verb,) are severally auxiliary to both forms of the infinitive, and to these only: as, shall throw, shall have thrown; should throw, should have thrown; and so of all the rest.

OBS. 16.—The form of the indicative pluperfect is sometimes used in lieu of the potential pluperfect; as, "If all the world could have seen it, the wo had been universal."—Shakspeare. That is,—"would have been universal." "I had been drowned, but that the shore was shelvy and shallow."—Id. That is,—"I should have been drowned." This mode of expression may be referred to the figure enallage, in which one word or one modification is used for an other. Similar to this is the use of were for would be: "It were injustice to deny the execution of the law to any individual;" that is, "it would be injustice."—Murray's Grammar, p. 89. In some instances, were and had been seem to have the same import; as, "Good were it for that man if he had never been born."—Mark, xiv, 21. "It had been good for that man if he had not been born."—Matt., xxvi, 24. In prose, all these licenses are needless, if not absolutely improper. In poetry, their brevity may commend them to preference; but to this style, I think, they ought to be confined: as,

"That had been just, replied the reverend bard;
But done, fair youth, thou ne'er hadst met me here."—Pollok.

"The keystones of the arch!—though all were o'er,
For us repeopled were the solitary shore."—Byron.

OBS. 17.—With an adverb of comparison or preference, as better, rather, best, as lief, or as lieve, the auxiliary had seems sometimes to be used before the infinitive to form the potential imperfect or pluperfect: as, "He that loses by getting, had better lose than get."—Penn's Maxims. "Other prepositions had better have been substituted."— Priestley's Gram., p. 166. "I had as lief say."—LOWTH: ib., p. 110. "It compels me to think of that which I had rather forget."— Bickersteth, on Prayer, p. 25. "You had much better say nothing upon the subject."—Webster's Essays, p. 147. "I had much rather show thee what hopes thou hast before thee."—Baxter. "I had rather speak five words with my understanding, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue."—1 Cor., xiv, 19. "I knew a gentleman in America who told me how much rather he had be a woman than the man he is."—Martineau's Society in America, Vol. i, p. 153. "I had as lief go as not."— Webster's Dict., w. Lief. "I had as lieve the town crier spoke my lines."—SHAK.: Hamlet. "We had best leave nature to her own operations."—Kames, El. of Crit., Vol. i, p. 310. "What method had he best take?"—Harris's Hermes, p. ix. These are equivalent to the phrases, might better lose—might better have been substituted—would as lief say—would rather forget—might much better say—would much rather show—would rather speak—how much rather he would be—would as lief go—should best leave—might he best take; and, for the sake of regularity, these latter forms ought to be preferred, as they sometimes are: thus, "For my own part, I would rather look upon a tree in all its luxuriancy."—Addison, Spect., No. 414; Blair's Rhet., p. 223. The following construction is different: "Augustus had like to have been slain."—S. Butler. Here had is a principal verb of the indicative imperfect. The following examples appear to be positively erroneous: "Much that was said, had better remained unsaid."—N. Y. Observer. Say, "might better have remained." "A man that is lifting a weight, if he put not sufficient strength to it, had as good put none at all."—Baxter. Say, "might as well put." "You were better pour off the first infusion, and use the latter."—Bacon. Say, "might better pour;" or, if you prefer it, "had better pour." Shakspeare has an expression which is still worse:—

"Or, by the worth of mine eternal soul,
Thou hadst been better have been born a dog."—Beauties, p. 295.

OBS. 18.—The form of conjugating the active verb, is often called the Active Voice, and that of the passive verb, the Passive Voice. These terms are borrowed from the Latin and Greek grammars, and, except as serving to diversify expression, are of little or no use in English grammar. Some grammarians deny that there is any propriety in them, with respect to any language. De Sacy, after showing that the import of the verb does not always follow its form of voice, adds: "We must, therefore, carefully distinguish the Voice of a Verb from its signification. To facilitate the distinction, I denominate that an Active Verb which contains an Attribute in which the action is considered as performed by the Subject; and that a Passive Verb which contains an Attribute in which the action is considered as suffered by the Subject, and performed upon it by some agent. I call that voice a Subjective Voice which is generally appropriated to the Active Verb, and that an Objective Voice which is generally appropriated to the Passive Verb. As to the Neuter Verbs, if they possess a peculiar form, I call it a Neuter Voice."—Fosdick's Translation, p. 99.

OBS. 19.—A recognition of the difference between actives and passives, in our original classification of verbs with respect to their signification,— a principle of division very properly adopted in a great majority of our grammars and dictionaries, but opinionately rejected by Webster, Bolles, and sundry late grammarians,—renders it unnecessary, if not improper, to place Voices, the Active Voice and the Passive, among the modifications of our verbs, or to speak of them as such in the conjugations. So must it be in respect to "a Neuter Voice," or any other distinction which the classification involves. The significant characteristic is not overlooked; the distinction is not neglected as nonessential; but it is transferred to a different category. Hence I cannot exactly approve of the following remark, which "the Rev. W. Allen" appears to cite with approbation: "'The distinction of active or passive,' says the accurate Mr. Jones, 'is not essential to verbs. In the infancy of language, it was, in all probability, not known. In Hebrew, the difference but imperfectly exists, and, in the early periods of it, probably did not exist at all. In Arabic, the only distinction which obtains, arises from the vowel points, a late invention compared with the antiquity of that language. And in our own tongue, the names of active and passive would have remained unknown, if they had not been learnt in Latin.'"—Allen's Elements of English Gram., p. 96.

OBS. 20.—By the conjugation of a verb, some teachers choose to understand nothing more than the naming of its principal parts; giving to the arrangement of its numbers and persons, through all the moods and tenses, the name of declension. This is a misapplication of terms, and the distinction is as needless, as it is contrary to general usage. Dr. Bullions, long silent concerning principal parts, seems now to make a singular distinction between "conjugating" and "conjugation." His conjugations include the moods, tenses, and inflections of verbs; but he teaches also, with some inaccuracy, as follows: "The principal parts of the verb are the Present indicative, the Past indicative and the Past participle. The mentioning of these parts is called CONJUGATING THE VERB."—Analyt. and Pract. Gram., 1849, p. 80.

OBS. 21.—English verbs having but very few inflections to indicate to what part of the scheme of moods and tenses they pertain, it is found convenient to insert in our conjugations the preposition to, to mark the infinitive; personal pronouns, to distinguish the persons and numbers; the conjunction if, to denote the subjunctive mood; and the adverb not, to show the form of negation. With these additions, or indexes, a verb may be conjugated in four ways:—

1. Affirmatively; as, I write, I do write, or, I am writing; and so on.

2. Negatively; as, I write not, I do not write, or, I am not writing.

3. Interrogatively; as, Write I? Do I write? or, Am I writing?

4. Interrogatively and negatively; as, Write I not? Do I not write? or, Am I not writing?

1. Simple Form, Active or Neuter.

The simplest form of an English conjugation, is that which makes the present and imperfect tenses without auxiliaries; but, even in these, auxiliaries are required for the potential mood, and are often preferred for the indicative.

First Example.

The regular active verb LOVE, conjugated affirmatively.

Principal Parts.

Present. Preterit. Imperfect Participle. Perfect Participle. Love. Loved. Loving. Loved.

Infinitive Mood.[260]

The infinitive mood is that form of the verb, which expresses the being, action, or passion, in an unlimited manner, and without person or number. It is used only in the present and perfect tenses.

Present Tense.

This tense is the root, or radical verb; and is usually preceded by the preposition to, which shows its relation to some other word: thus,

To love.

Perfect Tense.

This tense prefixes the auxiliary have to the perfect participle; and, like the infinitive present, is usually preceded by the preposition to: thus,

To have loved.

Indicative Mood.

The indicative mood is that form of the verb, which simply indicates or declares a thing, or asks a question. It is used in all the tenses.

Present Tense.

The present indicative, in its simple form, is essentially the same as the present infinitive, or radical verb; except that the verb be has am in the indicative.

1. The simple form of the present tense is varied thus:—

Singular. Plural. 1st person, I love, 1st person. We love, 2d person, Thou lovest, 2d person, You love, 3d person, He loves; 3d person, They love.

2. This tense may also be formed by prefixing the auxiliary do to the verb: thus,

Singular. Plural. 1. I do love, 1. We do love, 2. Thou dost love, 2. You do love, 3. He does love; 3. They do love.

Imperfect Tense.

This tense, in its simple form is the preterit; which, in all regular verbs, adds d or ed to the present, but in others is formed variously.

1. The simple form of the imperfect tense is varied thus:—

Singular. Plural. 1. I loved, 1. We loved, 2. Thou lovedst, 2. You loved, 3. He loved; 3. They loved.

2. This tense may also be formed by prefixing the auxiliary did to the present: thus,

Singular. Plural. 1. I did love, 1. We did love, 2. Thou didst love, 2. You did love, 3. He did love; 3. They did love.

Perfect Tense.

This tense prefixes the auxiliary have to the perfect participle: thus,

Singular. Plural. 1. I have loved, 1. We have loved, 2. Thou hast loved, 2. You have loved, 3. He has loved; 3. They have loved.

Imperfect Tense.

This tense prefixes the auxiliary had to the perfect participle: thus,

Singular. Plural. 1. I had loved, 1. We had loved, 2. Thou hadst loved, 2. You had loved, 3. He had loved; 3. They had loved.

First-Future Tense.

This tense prefixes the auxiliary shall or will to the present: thus,

1. Simply to express a future action or event:—

Singular. Plural. 1. I shall love, 1. We shall love, 2. Thou wilt love, 2. You will love, 3. He will love; 3. They will love;

2. To express a promise, volition, command, or threat:—

Singular. Plural. 1. I will love, 1. We will love, 2. Thou shalt love, 2. You shall love, 3. He shall love; 3. They shall love.

Second-Future Tense.

This tense prefixes the auxiliaries shall have or will have to the perfect participle: thus,

Singular. Plural. 1. I shall have loved, 1. We shall have loved, 2. Thou wilt have loved, 2. You will have loved, 3. He will have loved; 3. They will have loved.

OBS.—The auxiliary shall may also be used in the second and third persons of this tense, when preceded by a conjunction expressing condition or contingency; as, "If he shall have completed the work by midsummer."—L. Murray's Gram., p. 80. So, with the conjunctive adverb when; as, "Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power."—1 Cor., xv, 24. And perhaps will may here be used in the first person to express a promise, though such usage, I think, seldom occurs. Professor Fowler has given to this tense, first, the "Predictive" form, as exhibited above, and then a form which he calls "Promissive," and in which the auxiliaries are varied thus: "Singular. 1. I will have taken. 2. Thou shalt have taken, you shall have taken. 3. He shall have taken. Plural. 1. We will have taken. 2. Ye or you shall have taken. 3. He [say They,] shall have taken."—Fowler's E. Gram., 8vo., N. Y., 1850, p. 281. But the other instances just cited show that such a form is not always promissory.

Potential Mood.

The potential mood is that form of the verb, which expresses the power, liberty, possibility, or necessity of the being, action, or passion. It is used in the first four tenses; but the potential imperfect is properly an aorist: its time is very indeterminate; as, "He would be devoid of sensibility were he not greatly satisfied."—Lord Kames, El. of Crit., Vol. i, p. 11.

Present Tense.

This tense prefixes the auxiliary may, can, or must, to the radical verb: thus,

Singular. Plural. 1. I may love, 1. We may love, 2. Thou mayst love, 2. You may love, 3. He may love; 3. They may love.

Imperfect Tense.

This tense prefixes the auxiliary might, could, would, or should, to the radical verb: thus,

Singular. Plural. 1. I might love, 1. We might love, 2. Thou mightst love, 2. You might love, 3. He might love; 3. They might love.

Perfect Tense.

This tense prefixes the auxiliaries, may have, can have, or must have, to the perfect participle: thus,

Singular. Plural. 1. I may have loved, 1. We may have loved, 2. Thou mayst have loved, 2. You may have loved, 3. He may have loved; 3. They may have loved.

Pluperfect Tense.

This tense prefixes the auxiliaries, might have, could have, would have, or should have, to the perfect participle: thus,

Singular. Plural. 1. I might have loved, 1. We might have loved, 2. Thou mightst have loved, 2. You might have loved, 3. He might have loved; 3. They might have loved.

Subjunctive Mood.

The subjunctive mood is that form of the verb, which represents the being, action, or passion, as conditional, doubtful, or contingent. This mood is generally preceded by a conjunction; as, if, that, though, lest, unless, except. But sometimes, especially in poetry, it is formed by a mere placing of the verb before the nominative; as, "Were I," for, "If I were;"—"Had he," for, "If he had;"—"Fall we" for, "If we fall;"—"Knew they," for, "If they knew." It does not vary its termination at all, in the different persons.[261] It is used in the present, and sometimes in the imperfect tense; rarely—and perhaps never properly—in any other. As this mood can be used only in a dependent clause, the time implied in its tenses is always relative, and generally indefinite; as,

"It shall be in eternal restless change,
Self-fed, and self-consum'd: if this fail,
The pillar'd firmament is rottenness."—Milton, Comus, l. 596.

Present Tense.

This tense is generally used to express some condition on which a future action or event is affirmed. It is therefore erroneously considered by some grammarians, as an elliptical form of the future.

Singular. Plural. 1. If I love, 1. If we love, 2. If Thou love, 2. If you love, 3. If He love; 3. If they love.

OBS.—In this tense, the auxiliary do is sometimes employed; as, "If thou do prosper my way."—Genesis, xxiv, 42. "If he do not utter it."—Leviticus, v, 1. "If he do but intimate his desire."—Murray's Key, p. 207. "If he do promise, he will certainly perform."—Ib., p. 208. "An event which, if it ever do occur, must occur in some future period."—Hiley's Gram., (3d Ed., Lond.,) p. 89. "If he do but promise, thou art safe."—Ib., 89.

"Till old experience do attain
To something like prophetic strain."—MILTON: Il Penseroso.

These examples, if they are right, prove the tense to be present, and not future, as Hiley and some others suppose it to be.

Imperfect Tense.

This tense, like the imperfect of the potential mood, with which it is frequently connected, is properly an aorist, or indefinite tense; for it may refer to time past, present, or future: as, "If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, what further need was there that an other priest should rise?"—Heb., vii, 11. "They must be viewed exactly in the same light, as if the intention to purchase now existed."—Murray's Parsing Exercises, p. 24. "If it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect."—Matt., xxiv, 24. "If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing?"—1 Corinthians, xii, 17. "If the thankful refrained, it would be pain and grief to them."—Atterbury.

Singular. Plural. 1. If I loved, 1. If we loved, 2. If thou loved, 2. If you loved, 3. If he loved; 3. If they loved.

OBS.—In this tense, the auxiliary did is sometimes employed. The subjunctive may here be distinguished from the indicative, by these circumstances; namely, that the time is indefinite, and that the supposition is always contrary to the fact: as, "Great is the number of those who might attain to true wisdom, if they did not already think themselves wise."—Dillwyn's Reflections, p. 36. This implies that they do think themselves wise; but an indicative supposition or concession—(as, "Though they did not think themselves wise, they were so—") accords with the fact, and with the literal time of the tense,—here time past. The subjunctive imperfect, suggesting the idea of what is not, and known by the sense, is sometimes introduced without any of the usual signs; as, "In a society of perfect men, where all understood what was morally right, and were determined to act accordingly, it is obvious, that human laws, or even human organization to enforce God's laws, would be altogether unnecessary, and could serve no valuable purpose."—PRES. SHANNON: Examiner, No. 78.

Imperative Mood.

The imperative mood is that form of the verb, which is used in commanding, exhorting, entreating, or permitting. It is commonly used only in the second person of the present tense.

Present Tense.

Singular. 2. Love [thou,] or Do thou love;

Plural. 2. Love [ye or you,] or Do you love.

OBS.—In the Greek language, which has three numbers, the imperative mood is used in the second and third persons of them all; and has also several different tenses, some of which cannot be clearly rendered in English. In Latin, this mood has a distinct form for the third person, both singular and plural. In Italian, Spanish, and French, the first person plural is also given it. Imitations of some of these forms are occasionally employed in English, particularly by the poets. Such imitations must be referred to this mood, unless by ellipsis and transposition we make them out to be something else; and against this there are strong objections. Again, as imprecation on one's self is not impossible, the first person singular may be added; so that this mood may possibly have all the persons and numbers. Examples: "Come we now to his translation of the Iliad."—Pope's Pref. to Dunciad. "Proceed we therefore in our subject."—Ib. "Blessed be he that blesseth thee."—Gen., xxvii, 29. "Thy kingdom come."—Matt., vi, 10. "But pass we that."—W. Scott. "Third person: Be he, Be they."—Churchill's Gram., p. 92.

"My soul, turn from them—turn we to survey," &c.—Goldsmith.

"Then turn we to her latest tribune's name."—Byron.

"Where'er the eye could light these words you read:
'Who comes this way—behold, and fear to sin!'"—Pollok.

"Fall he that must, beneath his rival's arms,
And live the rest, secure of future harms."—Pope.

"Cursed be I that did so!—All the charms
Of Sycorax, toads, beetles, bats, light on you!"—Shakspeare.

"Have done thy charms, thou hateful wither'd hag!"—Idem.

Participles.

1. The Imperfect. 2. The Perfect. 3. The Preperfect. Loving. Loved. Having loved.

Synopsis of the First Example.

First Person Singular.

IND. I love or do love, I loved or did love, I have loved. I had loved, I shall or will love, I shall or will have loved. POT. I may, can, or must love; I might, could, would, or should love; I may, can, or must have loved; I might, could, would, or should have loved. SUBJ. If I love, If I loved.

Second Person Singular.

IND. Thou lovest or dost love, Thou lovedst or didst love, Thou hast loved, Thou hadst loved, Thou shalt or wilt love, Thou shalt or wilt have loved. POT. Thou mayst, canst, or must love; Thou mightst, couldst, wouldst, or shouldst love; Thou mayst, canst, or must have loved; Thou mightst, couldst, wouldst or shouldst have loved. SUBJ. If thou love, If thou loved. IMP. Love [thou,] or Do thou love.

Third Person Singular.

IND. He loves or does love, He loved or did love, He has loved, He had loved, He shall or will love, He shall or will have loved. POT. He may, can, or must love; He might, could, would, or should love; He may, can, or must have loved; He might, could, would, or should have loved. SUBJ. If he love, If he loved.

First Person Plural.

IND. We love or do love, We loved or did loved, We have loved, We had loved, We shall or will love, We shall or will have loved. POT. We may, can, or must love, We might, could, would, or should love; We may, can, or must have loved; We might, could, would, or should have loved. SUBJ. If we love, If we loved.

Second Person Plural.

IND. You love or do love, You loved or did love, You have loved, You had loved, You shall or will love, You shall or will have loved. POT. You may, can, or must love; You might, could, would, or should love; You may, can, or must have loved; You might, could, would, or should have loved. SUBJ. If you love, If you loved. IMP. Love [ye or you,] or Do you love.

Third Person Plural.

IND. They love or do love, They loved or did love, They have loved, They had loved, They shall or will love, They shall or will have loved. POT. They may, can, or must love; They might, could, would, or should love; They may, can, or must have loved; They might, could, would, or should have loved. SUBJ. If they love, If they loved.

Familiar Form with 'Thou.'

NOTE.—In the familiar style, the second person singular of this verb, is usually and more properly formed thus:

IND. Thou lov'st or dost love, Thou loved or did love, Thou hast loved, Thou had loved, Thou shall or will love, Thou shall or will have loved. POT. Thou may, can, or must love; Thou might, could, would, or should love; Thou may, can, or must have loved; Thou might, could, would, or should have loved. SUBJ. If thou love, If thou loved. IMP. Love [thou,] or Do thou love.

Second Example.

The irregular active verb SEE, conjugated affirmatively.

Principal Parts.

Present. Preterit. Imp. Participle. Perf. Participle. See. Saw. Seeing. Seen.

Infinitive Mood.

PRESENT TENSE. To See.

PERFECT TENSE. To have seen.

Indicative Mood.

Present Tense.

Singular. 1. I see, 2. Thou seest, 3. He sees;

Plural. 1. We see, 2. You see, 3. They see.

Imperfect Tense.

Singular. 1. I saw, 2. Thou sawest, 3. He saw;

Plural. 1. We saw, 2. You saw, 3. They saw.

Perfect Tense.

Singular. 1. I have seen, 2. Thou hast seen, 3. He has seen;

Plural. 1. We have seen, 2. You have seen, 3. They have seen.

Pluperfect Tense.

Singular. 1. I had seen, 2. Thou hadst seen, He had seen;

Plural. 1. We had seen, 2. You had seen, 3. They had seen.

First-Future Tense.

Singular. 1. I shall see, 2. Thou wilt see, He will see;

Plural. 1. We shall see, 2. You will see, 3. They will see.

Second-Future Tense.

Singular. 1. I shall have seen, 2. Thou wilt have seen, 3. He will have seen;

Plural. 1. We shall have seen, 2. You will have seen, 3. They will have seen.

Potential Mood.

Present Tense.

Singular. 1. I may see, 2. Thou mayst see, 3. He may see;

Plural. 1. We may see, 2. You may see, 3. They may see.

Imperfect Tense.

Singular. 1. I might see, 2. Thou mightst see, 3. He might see;

Plural. 1. We might see, 2. You might see, 3. They might see.

Perfect Tense.

Singular. 1. I may have seen, 2. Thou mayst have seen, 3. He may have seen;

Plural. 1. We may have seen, 2. You may have seen, 3. They may have seen.

Pluperfect Tense.

Singular. 1. I might have seen, 2. Thou mightst have seen, 3. He might have seen;

Plural. 1. We might have seen, 2. You might have seen, 3. They might have seen.

Subjunctive Mood.

Present Tense.

Singular. 1. If I see, 2. If thou see, 3. If he see;

Plural. 1. If we see, 2. If you see, 3. If they see.

Imperfect Tense.

Singular. 1. If I saw, 2. If thou saw, 3. If he saw;

Plural. 1. If we saw, 2. If you saw, 3. If they saw.

Imperative Mood.

Present Tense.

Singular. 2. See [thou,] or Do thou see; Plural. 2. See [ye or you,] or Do you see.

Participles.

1. The Imperfect. 2. The Perfect. 3. The Preperfect.

Seeing. Seen. Having seen.

Notes.

NOTE I—The student ought to be able to rehearse the form of a verb, not only according to the order of the entire conjugation, but also according to the synopsis of the several persons and numbers. One sixth part of the paradigm, thus recited, gives in general a fair sample of the whole: and, in class recitations, this mode of rehearsal will save much time: as, IND. I see or do see, I saw or did see, I have seen, I had seen, I shall or will see, I shall or will have seen. POT. I may, can, or must see; I might, could, would, or should see; I may, can, or must have seen; I might, could, would, or should have seen. SUBJ. If I see, If I saw.

NOTE II.—In the familiar style, the second person singular of this verb is usually and more properly formed thus: IND. Thou seest or dost see, Thou saw or did see, Thou hast seen, Thou had seen, Thou shall or will see, Thou shall or will have seen. POT. Thou may, can, or must see; Thou might, could, would, or should see; Thou may, can, or must have seen; Thou might, could, would, or should have seen. SUBJ. If thou see, If thou saw. IMP. See [thou,] or Do thou see.

Third Example.

The irregular neuter verb BE, conjugated affirmatively.

Principal Parts.

Present. Preterit. Imp. Participle. Perf. Participle. Be. Was. Being. Been.

Infinitive Mood.

PRESENT TENSE.
To be.

PERFECT TENSE.
To have been.

Indicative Mood.

Present Tense.

Singular. Plural. 1. I am, 1. We are, 2. Thou art, 2. You are, 3. He is; 3. They are.

Imperfect Tense.

Singular. Plural. 1. I was, 1. We were, 2. Thou wast, (or wert,)[262] 2. You were, 3. He was; 3. They were.

Perfect Tense.

Singular. Plural. 1. I have been, 1. We have been, 2. Thou hast been, 2. You have been, 3. He has been; 3. They have been.

Pluperfect Tense.

Singular. Plural. 1. I had been, 1. We had been, 2. Thou hadst been, 2. You had been, 3. He had been; 3. They had been.

First-Future Tense.

Singular. Plural. 1. I shall be, 1. We shall be, 2. Thou wilt be, 2. You will be, 3. He will be; 3. They will be.

Second-Future Tense.

Singular. Plural. 1. I shall have been, 1. We shall have been, 2. Thou wilt have been, 2. You will have been, 3. He will have been; 3. They will have been.

Potential Mood.

Present Tense.

Singular. Plural. 1. I may be, 1. We may be, 2. Thou mayst be, 2. You may be, 3. He may be, 3. They may be.

Imperfect Tense.

Singular. Plural. 1. I might be, 1. We might be, 2. Thou mightst be, 2. You might be, 3. He might be; 3. They might be.

Perfect Tense.

Singular. Plural. 1. I may have been, 1. We may have been, 2. Thou mayst have been, 2. You may have been, 3. He may have been; 3. They may have been.

Pluperfect Tense.

Singular. Plural. 1. I might have been, 1. We might have been, 2. Thou mightst have been, 2. You might have been, 3. He might have been; 3. They might have been.

Subjunctive Mood.

Present Tense.

Singular. Plural. 1. If I be, 1. If we be, 2. If thou be, 2. If you be, 3. If he be; 3. If they be.

Imperfect Tense.

Singular. Plural. 1. If I were,[263] 1. If we were, 2. If thou were, or wert,[264] 2. If you were, 3. If he were; If they were.

Imperative Mood.

Present Tense.

Singular. 2. Be [thou,] or Do thou be; Plural. 2. Be [ye or you,] or Do you be.

Participles.

1. The Imperfect. 2. The Perfect. 3. The Preperfect. Being. Been. Having been.

Familiar Form with 'Thou.'

NOTE.—In the familiar style, the second person singular of this verb, is usually and more properly formed thus: IND. Thou art, Thou was, Thou hast been, Thou had been, Thou shall or will be, Thou shall or will have been. POT. Thou may, can, or must be; Thou might, could, would, or should be; Thou may, can, or must have been; Thou might, could, would, or should have been. SUBJ. If thou be, If thou were. IMP. Be [thou,] or Do thou be.

Observations.

OBS. 1.—It appears that be, as well as am, was formerly used for the indicative present: as, "I be, Thou beest, He be; We be, Ye be, They be." See Brightland's Gram., p. 114. Dr. Lowth, whose Grammar is still preferred at Harvard University, gives both forms, thus: "I am, Thou art, He is; We are, Ye are, They are. Or, I be, Thou beest, He is; We be, Ye be, They be." To the third person singular, he subjoins the following example and remark: "'I think it be thine indeed, for thou liest in it.' Shak. Hamlet. Be, in the singular number of this time and mode, especially in the third person, is obsolete; and is become somewhat antiquated in the plural."—Lowth's Gram., p. 36. Dr. Johnson gives this tense thus: "Sing. I am; thou art; he is; Plur. We are, or be; ye are, or be; they are, or be." And adds, "The plural be is now little in use."—Gram. in Johnson's Dict., p. 8. The Bible commonly has am, art, is, and are, but not always; the indicative be occurs in some places: as, "We be twelve brethren."—Gen., xlii, 32. "What be these two olive branches?"—Zech., iv, 12. Some traces of this usage still occur in poetry: as,

"There be more things to greet the heart and eyes
In Arno's dome of Art's most princely shrine,
Where Sculpture with her rainbow sister vies;
There be more marvels yet—but not for mine."
—Byron's Childe Harold, Canto iv, st. 61.

OBS. 2.—Respecting the verb wert, it is not easy to determine whether it is most properly of the indicative mood only, or of the subjunctive mood only, or of both, or of neither. The regular and analogical form for the indicative, is "Thou wast;" and for the subjunctive, "If thou were." Brightland exhibits, "I was or were, Thou wast or wert, He was or were," without distinction of mood, for the three persons singular; and, for the plural, were only. Dr. Johnson gives us, for the indicative, "Thou wast, or wert;" with the remark, "Wert is properly of the conjunctive mood, and ought not to be used in the indicative."—Johnson's Gram., p. 8. In his conjunctive (or subjunctive) mood, he has, "Thou beest," and "Thou wert." So Milton wrote, "If thou beest he."—P. Lost, B. i, l. 84. Likewise Shakspeare: "If thou beest Stephano."—Tempest. This inflection of be is obsolete: all now say, "If thou be." But wert is still in use, to some extent, for both moods; being generally placed by the grammarians in the subjunctive only, but much oftener written for the indicative: as, "Whate'er thou art or wert."—Byron's Harold, Canto iv, st. 115. "O thou that wert so happy!"—Ib., st. 109. "Vainly wert thou wed."—Ib., st. 169.

OBS. 3.—Dr. Lowth gave to this verb, BE, that form of the subjunctive mood, which it now has in most of our grammars; appending to it the following examples and questions: "'Before the sun, Before the Heavens, thou wert.'—Milton. 'Remember what thou wert.'—Dryden. 'I knew thou wert not slow to hear.'—Addison. 'Thou who of old wert sent to Israel's court.'—Prior. 'All this thou wert.'—Pope. 'Thou, Stella, wert no longer young.'—Swift. Shall we, in deference to these great authorities," asks the Doctor, "allow wert to be the same with wast, and common to the indicative and [the] subjunctive mood? or rather abide by the practice of our best ancient writers; the propriety of the language, which requires, as far as may be, distinct forms, for different moods; and the analogy of formation in each mood; I was, thou wast; I were, thou wert? all which conspire to make wert peculiar to the subjunctive mood."—Lowth's Gram., p. 37; Churchill's, p. 251. I have before shown, that several of the "best ancient writers" did not inflect the verb were, but wrote "thou were;" and, surely, "the analogy of formation," requires that the subjunctive be not inflected. Hence "the propriety which requires distinct forms," requires not wert, in either mood. Why then should we make this contraction of the old indicative form werest, a solitary exception, by fixing it in the subjunctive only, and that in opposition to the best authorities that ever used it? It is worthier to take rank with its kindred beest, and be called an archaism.

OBS. 4.—The chief characteristical difference between the indicative and the subjunctive mood, is, that in the latter the verb is not inflected at all, in the different persons: IND. "Thou magnifiest his work." SUBJ. "Remember that thou magnify his work."—Job, xxxvi, 24. IND. "He cuts off, shuts up, and gathers together." SUBJ. "If he cut off, and shut up, or gather together, then who can hinder him?"—Job, xl, 10. There is also a difference of meaning. The Indicative, "If he was," admits the fact; the Subjunctive, "If he were," supposes that he was not. These moods may therefore be distinguished by the sense, even when their forms are alike: as, "Though it thundered, it did not rain."—"Though it thundered, he would not hear it." The indicative assumption here is, "Though it did thunder," or, "Though there was thunder;" the subjunctive, "Though it should thunder," or, "Though there were thunder." These senses are clearly different. Writers however are continually confounding these moods; some in one way, some in an other. Thus S. R. Hall, the teacher of a Seminary for Teachers: "SUBJ. Present Tense. 1. If I be, or am, 2. If thou be, or art, 3. If he be, or is; 1. If we be, or are, 2. If ye or you be, or are, 3. If they be, or are. Imperfect Tense. 1. If I were, or was, 2. If thou wert, or wast, 3. If he were, or was; 1. If we were, 2. If ye or you were, 3. If they were."—Hall's Grammatical Assistant, p. 11. Again: "SUBJ. Present Tense. 1. If I love, 2. If thou lovest, 3. If he love," &c. "The remaining tenses of this mode, are, in general, similar to the correspondent tenses of the Indicative mode, only with the conjunction prefixed."—Ib., p. 20. Dr. Johnson observes, "The indicative and conjunctive moods are by modern writers frequently confounded; or rather the conjunctive is wholly neglected, when some convenience of versification does not invite its revival. It is used among the purer writers of former times; as, 'Doubtless thou art our father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not.'"—Gram. in Joh. Dict., p. 9. To neglect the subjunctive mood, or to confound it with the indicative, is to augment several of the worst faults of the language.

II. Compound or Progressive Form.

Active and neuter verbs may also be conjugated, by adding the Imperfect Participle to the auxiliary verb BE, through all its changes; as, "I am writing a letter."—"He is sitting idle."—"They are going." This form of the verb denotes a continuance of the action or state of being, and is, on many occasions, preferable to the simple form of the verb.

Fourth Example.

The irregular active verb READ, conjugated affirmatively, in the Compound Form.

Principal Parts of the Simple Verb.

Present. Preterit. Imp. Participle. Perf. Participle. R=ead. R~ead. R=eading. R~ead.

Infinitive Mood.

PRESENT TENSE.
To be reading.

PERFECT TENSE.
To have been reading.

Indicative Mood.

Present Tense.

Singular. Plural. 1. I am reading, 1. We are reading, 2. Thou art reading, 2. You are reading, 3. He is reading; 3. They are reading.

Imperfect Tense.

Singular. Plural. 1. I was reading, 1. We were reading, 2. Thou wast reading, 2. You were reading, 3. He was reading; 3. They were reading.

Perfect Tense.

Singular. Plural. 1. I have been reading, 1. We have been reading, 2. Thou hast been reading, 2. You have been reading, 3. He has been reading; 3. They have been reading.

Pluperfect Tense.

Singular. Plural. 1. I had been reading, 1. We had been reading, 2. Thou hadst been reading, 2. You had been reading, 3. He had been reading; 3. They had been reading.

First-Future Tense.

Singular. Plural. 1. I shall be reading, 1. We shall be reading, 2. Thou wilt be reading, 2. You will be reading, 3. He will be reading; 3. They will be reading.

Second-Future Tense.

Singular. Plural. 1. I shall have been reading, 1. We shall have been reading, 2. Thou wilt have been reading, 2. You will have been reading, 3. He will have been reading; 3. They will have been reading.

Potential Mood.

Present Tense.

Singular. Plural. 1. I may be reading, 1. We may be reading, 2. Thou mayst be reading, 2. You may be reading, 3. He may be reading; 3. They may be reading.

Imperfect Tense.

Singular. Plural. 1. I might be reading, 1. We might be reading, 2. Thou mightst be reading, 2. You might be reading, 3. He might be reading; 3. They might be reading.

Perfect Tense.

Singular. Plural. 1. I may have been reading, 1. We may have been reading, 2. Thou mayst have been reading, 2. You may have been reading, 3. He may have been reading; 3. They may have been reading.

Pluperfect Tense.

Singular. Plural. 1. I might have been reading, 1. We might have been reading, 2. Thou mightst have been reading, 2. You might have been reading, 3. He might have been reading; 3. They might have been reading.

Subjunctive Mood.

Present Tense.

Singular. Plural. 1. If I be reading, 1. If we be reading, 2. If thou be reading, 2. If you be reading, 3. If he be reading; 3. If they be reading.

Imperfect Tense.

Singular. Plural. 1. If I were reading, 1. If we were reading, 2. If thou were reading, 2. If you were reading, 3. If he were reading; 3. If they were reading.

Imperative Mood.

Sing. 2. Be [thou] reading, or Do thou be reading;
Plur. 2. Be [ye or you] reading, or Do you be reading.

Participles.

1. The Imperfect. 2. The Perfect. 3. The Preperfect. Being reading. ————- Having been reading.

Familiar Form with 'Thou.'

NOTE.—In the familiar style, the second person singular of this verb, is usually and more properly formed thus: IND. Thou art reading, Thou was reading, Thou hast been reading, Thou had been reading, Thou shall or will be reading, Thou shall or will have been reading. POT. Thou may, can, or must be reading; Thou might, could, would, or should be reading; Thou may, can, or must have been reading; Thou might, could, would, or should have been reading. SUBJ. If thou be reading, If thou were reading. IMP. Be [thou,] reading, or Do thou be reading.

Observations.

OBS. 1.—Those verbs which, in their simple form, imply continuance, do not admit the compound form: thus we say, "I respect him;" but not, "I am respecting him." This compound form seems to imply that kind of action, which is susceptible of intermissions and renewals. Affections of the mind or heart are supposed to last; or, rather, actions of this kind are complete as soon as they exist. Hence, to love, to hate, to desire, to fear, to forget, to remember, and many other such verbs, are incapable of this method of conjugation.[265] It is true, we often find in grammars such models, as, "I was loving, Thou wast loving, He was loving," &c. But this language, to express what the authors intend by it, is not English. "He was loving," can only mean, "He was affectionate:" in which sense, loving is an adjective, and susceptible of comparison. Who, in common parlance, has ever said, "He was loving me," or any thing like it? Yet some have improperly published various examples, or even whole conjugations, of this spurious sort. See such in Adam's Gram., p. 91; Gould's Adam, 83; Bullions's English Gram., 52; his Analyt. and Pract. Gram., 92; Chandler's New Gram., 85 and 86; Clark's, 80; Cooper's Plain and Practical, 70; Frazee's Improved, 66 and 69; S. S. Greene's, 234; Guy's, 25; Hallock's, 103; Hart's, 88; Hendrick's, 38; Lennie's, 31; Lowth's, 40; Harrison's, 34; Perley's, 36; Pinneo's Primary, 101.

OBS. 2.—Verbs of this form have sometimes a passive signification; as, "The books are now selling."—Allen's Gram., p. 82. "As the money was paying down."—Ainsworth's Dict., w. As. "It requires no motion in the organs whilst it is forming."—Murray's Gram., p. 8. "Those works are long forming which must always last."—Dr. Chetwood. "While the work of the temple was carrying on."—Dr. J. Owen. "The designs of Providence are carrying on."—Bp. Butler. "A scheme, which has been carrying on, and is still carrying on."—Id., Analogy, p. 188. "We are permitted to know nothing of what is transacting in the regions above us."—Dr. Blair. "While these things were transacting in Germany."—Russell's Modern Europe, Part First, Let. 59. "As he was carrying to execution, he demanded to be heard."—Goldsmith's Greece, Vol. i, p. 163. "To declare that the action was doing or done."—Booth's Introd., p. 28. "It is doing by thousands now."—Abbott's Young Christian, p. 121. "While the experiment was making, he was watching every movement."—Ib., p. 309. "A series of communications from heaven, which had been making for fifteen hundred years."—Ib., p. 166. "Plutarch's Lives are re-printing."—L. Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 64. "My Lives are reprinting."—DR. JOHNSON: Worcester's Univ. and Crit. Dict., p. xlvi. "All this has been transacting within 130 miles of London."—BYRON: Perley's Gram., p. 37. "When the heart is corroding by vexations."—Student's Manual, p. 336. "The padlocks for our lips are forging."—WHITTIER: Liberator, No. 993. "When his throat is cutting."—Collier's Antoninus. "While your story is telling."—Adams's Rhet., i, 425. "But the seeds of it were sowing some time before."—Bolingbroke, on History, p. 168. "As soon as it was formed, nay even whilst it was forming."—Ib., p. 163. "Strange schemes of private ambition were formed and forming there."—Ib., p. 291. "Even when it was making and made."—Ib., 299. "Which have been made and are making."—HENRY CLAY: Liberator, ix, p. 141. "And they are in measure sanctified, or sanctifying, by the power thereof."—Barclay's Works, i, 537. "Which is now accomplishing amongst the uncivilized countries of the earth."—Chalmers, Sermons, p. 281. "Who are ruining, or ruined, [in] this way."—Locke, on Ed., p. 155. "Whilst they were undoing."—Ibid. "Whether he was employing fire to consume [something,] or was himself consuming by fire."—Crombie, on Etym. and Syntax, p. 148. "At home, the greatest exertions are making to promote its progress."—Sheridan's Elocution, p. iv. "With those [sounds] which are uttering."—Ib., p. 125. "Orders are now concerting for the dismissal of all officers of the Revenue marine."—Providence Journal, Feb. 1, 1850. Expressions of this kind are condemned by some critics, under the notion that the participle in ing must never be passive; but the usage is unquestionably of far better authority, and, according to my apprehension, in far better taste, than the more complex phraseology which some late writers adopt in its stead; as, "The books are now being sold."—"In all the towns about Cork, the whiskey shops are being closed, and soup, coffee, and tea houses [are] establishing generally."—Dublin Evening Post, 1840.

OBS. 3.—The question here is, Which is the most correct expression, "While the bridge was building,"—"While the bridge was a building,"—or, "While the bridge was being built?" And again, Are they all wrong? If none of these is right, we must reject them all, and say, "While they were building the bridge;"—"While the bridge was in process of erection;"—or resort to some other equivalent phrase. Dr. Johnson, after noticing the compound form of active-intransitives, as, "I am going"—"She is dying,"—"The tempest is raging,"—"I have been walking," and so forth, adds: "There is another manner of using the active participle, which gives it a passive signification:[266] as, The grammar is now printing, Grammatica jam nunc chartis imprimitur. The brass is forging, Æra excuduntur. This is, in my opinion," says he, "a vitious expression, probably corrupted from a phrase more pure, but now somewhat obsolete: The book is a printing, The brass is a forging; a being properly at, and printing and forging verbal nouns signifying action, according to the analogy of this language."—Gram. in Joh. Dict., p. 9.

OBS. 4.—A is certainly sometimes a preposition; and, as such, it may govern a participle, and that without converting it into a "verbal noun." But that such phraseology ought to be preferred to what is exhibited with so many authorities, in a preceding paragraph, and with an example from Johnson among the rest, I am not prepared to concede. As to the notion of introducing a new and more complex passive form of conjugation, as, "The bridge is being built," "The bridge was being built," and so forth, it is one of the most absurd and monstrous innovations ever thought of. Yet some two or three men, who seem to delight in huge absurdities, declare that this "modern innovation is likely to supersede" the simpler mode of expression. Thus, in stead of, "The work is now publishing," they choose to say, "The work is now being published."—Kirkham's Gram., p. 82. This is certainly no better English than, "The work was being published, has been being published, had been being published, shall or will be being published, shall or will have been being published;" and so on, through all the moods and tenses. What a language shall we have when our verbs are thus conjugated!

OBS. 5.—A certain Irish critic, who even outdoes in rashness the above-cited American, having recently arrived in New York, has republished a grammar, in which he not only repudiates the passive use of the participle in ing, but denies the usual passive form of the present tense, "I am loved, I am smitten" &c., as taught by Murray and others, to be good English; and tells us that the true form is, "I am being loved, I am being smitten," &c. See the 98th and 103d pages of Joseph W. Wright's Philosophical Grammar, (Edition of 1838,) dedicated "TO COMMON SENSE!" [267] But both are offset, if not refuted, by the following observations from a source decidedly better: "It has lately become common to use the present participle passive [,] to express the suffering of an action as continuing, instead of the participle in -ing in the passive sense; thus, instead of, 'The house is building,' we now very frequently hear, 'The house is being built.' This mode of expression, besides being awkward, is incorrect, and does not express the idea intended. This will be obvious, I think, from the following considerations.

"1. The expression, 'is being,' is equivalent to 'is,' and expresses no more; just as, 'is loving,' is equivalent to, 'loves.' Hence, 'is being built,' is precisely equivalent to, 'is built.'

"2. 'Built,' is a perfect participle; and therefore cannot, in any connexion, express an action, or the suffering of an action, now in progress. The verb to be, signifies to exist; 'being,' therefore, is equivalent to 'existing.' If then we substitute the synonyme, the nature of the expression will be obvious; thus, 'the house is being built,' is, in other words, 'the house is existing built,' or more simply as before, 'the house is built;' plainly importing an action not progressing, but now existing in a finished state.

"3. If the expression, 'is being built,' be a correct form of the present indicative passive, then it must be equally correct to say in the perfect, 'has been being built;' in the past perfect, 'had been being built;' in the present infinitive,'to be being built;' in the perfect infinitive,'to have been being built;' and in the present participle, 'being being built;' which all will admit to be expressions as incorrect as they are inelegant, but precisely analogous to that which now begins to prevail."—Bullions's Principles of English Gram., p. 58.

OBS. 6.—It may be replied, that the verbs to be and to exist are not always synonymous; because the former is often a mere auxiliary, or a mere copula, whereas the latter always means something positive, as to be in being, to be extant. Thus we may speak of a thing as being destroyed, or may say, it is annihilated; but we can by no means speak of it as existing destroyed, or say, it exists annihilated. The first argument above is also nugatory. These drawbacks, however, do not wholly destroy the force of the foregoing criticism, or at all extenuate the obvious tautology and impropriety of such phrases as, is being, was being, &c. The gentlemen who affirm that this new form of conjugation "is being introduced into the language," (since they allow participles to follow possessive pronouns) may very fairly be asked, "What evidence have you of its being being introduced?" Nor can they, on their own principles, either object to the monstrous phraseology of this question, or tell how to better it![268]

OBS. 7.—D. H. Sanborn, an other recent writer, has very emphatically censured this innovation, as follows: "English and American writers have of late introduced a new kind of phraseology, which has become quite prevalent in the periodical and popular publications of the day. Their intention, doubtless, is, to supersede the use of the verb in the definite form, when it has a passive signification. They say, 'The ship is being built,'—'time is being wasted,"—'the work is being advanced,' instead of, 'the ship is building, time is wasting, the work is advancing.' Such a phraseology is a solecism too palpable to receive any favor; it is at war with the practice of the most distinguished writers in the English language, such as Dr. Johnson and Addison. "When an individual says, 'a house is being burned,' he declares that a house is existing, burned, which is impossible; for being means existing, and burned, consumed by fire. The house ceases to exist as such, after it is consumed by fire. But when he says, 'a house is burning,' we understand that it is consuming by fire; instead of inaccuracy, doubt, and ambiguity, we have a form of expression perfectly intelligible, beautiful, definite, and appropriate."—Sanborn's Analytical Gram., p. 102.

OBS. 8.—Dr. Perley speaks of this usage thus: "An attempt has been made of late to introduce a kind of passive participial voice; as, 'The temple is being built.' This ought not to be encouraged. For, besides being an innovation, it is less convenient than the use of the present participle in the passive sense. Being built signifies action finished; and how can, Is being built, signify an action unfinished?"—Perley's Gram., p. 37.

OBS. 9.—The question now before us has drawn forth, on either side, a deal of ill scholarship and false logic, of which it would be tedious to give even a synopsis. Concerning the import of some of our most common words and phrases, these ingenious masters,—Bullions, Sanborn, and Perley,—severally assert some things which seem not to be exactly true. It is remarkable that critics can err in expounding terms so central to the language, and so familiar to all ears, as "be, being, being built, burned, being burned, is, is burned, to be burned," and the like. That to be and to exist, or their like derivatives, such as being and existing, is and exists, cannot always explain each other, is sufficiently shown above; and thereby is refuted Sanborn's chief argument, that, "is being burned," involves the contradiction of "existing, burned," or "consumed by fire." According to his reasoning, as well as that of Bullions, is burned must mean exists consumed; was burned, existed consumed; and thus our whole passive conjugation would often be found made up of bald absurdities! That this new unco-passive form conflicts with the older and better usage of taking the progressive form sometimes passively, is doubtless a good argument against the innovation; but that "Johnson and Addison" are fit representatives of the older "practice" in this case, may be doubted. I know not that the latter has anywhere made use of such phraseology; and one or two examples from the former are scarcely an offset to his positive verdict against the usage. See OBS. 3rd, above.

OBS. 10.—As to what is called "the present or the imperfect participle passive,"—as, "being burned," or "being burnt,"—if it is rightly interpreted in any of the foregoing citations, it is, beyond question, very improperly thus named. In participles, ing denotes continuance: thus being usually means continuing to be; loving, continuing to love; building, continuing to build,—or (as taken passively) continuing to be built: i. e., (in words which express the sense more precisely and certainly,) continuing to be in process of construction. What then is "being built," but "continuing to be built," the same, or nearly the same, as "building" taken passively? True it is, that built, when alone, being a perfect participle, does not mean "in process of construction," but rather, "constructed" which intimates completion; yet, in the foregoing passive phrases, and others like them, as well as in all examples of this unco-passive voice, continuance of the passive state being first suggested, and cessation of the act being either regarded as future or disregarded, the imperfect participle passive is for the most part received as equivalent to the simple imperfect used in a passive sense. But Dr. Bullions, who, after making "is being built precisely equivalent to is built," classes the two participles differently, and both erroneously,—the one as a "present participle," and the other, of late, as a "past,"—has also said above, "'Built,' is a perfect participle: and THEREFORE cannot, in any connexion, express an action, or the suffering of an action, now in progress." And Dr. Perley, who also calls the compound of being a "present participle," argues thus: "Being built signifies an action, finished; and how can Is being built, signify an action unfinished?" To expound a passive term actively, or as "signifying action," is, at any rate, a near approach to absurdity; and I shall presently show that the fore-cited notion of "a perfect participle," now half abandoned by Bullions himself, has been the seed of the very worst form of that ridiculous neology which the good Doctor was opposing.

OBS. 11.—These criticisms being based upon the meaning of certain participles, either alone or in phrases, and the particular terms spoken of being chiefly meant to represent classes, what is said of them may be understood of their kinds. Hence the appropriate naming of the kinds, so as to convey no false idea of any participle's import, is justly brought into view; and I may be allowed to say here, that, for the first participle passive, which begins with "being," the epithet "Imperfect" is better than "Present," because this compound participle denotes, not always what is present, but always the state of something by which an action is, or was, or will be, undergone or undergoing—a state continuing, or so regarded, though perhaps the action causative may be ended—or sometimes perhaps imagined only, and not yet really begun. With a marvellous instability of doctrine, for the professed systematizer of different languages and grammars, Dr. Bullions has recently changed his names of the second and third participles, in both voices, from "Perfect" and "Compound Perfect," to "Past" and "Perfect." His notion now is, that, "The Perfect participle is always compound; as, Having finished, Having been finished."—Bullions's Analyt. and Pract. Grammar, 1849, p. 77. And what was the "Perfect" before, in his several books, is now called the "Past;" though, with this change, he has deliberately made an other which is repugnant to it: this participle, being the basis of three tenses always, and of all the tenses sometimes, is now allowed by the Doctor to lend the term "perfect" to the three,—"Present-perfect, Past-perfect, Future-perfect,"—even when itself is named otherwise!

OBS. 12.—From the erroneous conception, that a perfect participle must, in every connexion, express "action finished," action past,—or perhaps from only a moiety of this great error,—the notion that such a participle cannot, in connexion with an auxiliary, constitute a passive verb of the present tense,—J. W. Wright, above-mentioned, has not very unnaturally reasoned, that, "The expression, 'I am loved,' which Mr. Murray has employed to exhibit the passive conjugation of the present tense, may much more feasibly represent past than present time."—See Wright's Philosophical Gram., p. 99. Accordingly, in his own paradigm of the passive verb, he has formed this tense solely from what he calls the participle present, thus: "I am being smitten, Thou art being smitten," &c.—Ib., p. 98. His "Passed Tense," too, for some reason which I do not discover, he distinguishes above the rest by a double form, thus: "I was smitten, or being smitten; Thou wast smitten, or being smitten;" &c.—P. 99. In his opinion, "Few will object to the propriety of the more familiar phraseology, 'I am in the ACT,—or, suffering the ACTION of BEING SMITTEN;' and yet," says he, "in substance and effect, it is wholly the same as, 'I am being smitten,' which is THE TRUE FORM of the verb in the present tense of the passive voice!"—Ibid. Had we not met with some similar expressions of English or American blunderers, "the act or action of being smitten," would be accounted a downright Irish bull; and as to this ultra notion of neologizing all our passive verbs, by the addition of "being,"—with the author's cool talk of "the presentation of this theory, and [the] consequent suppression of that hitherto employed,"—there is a transcendency in it, worthy of the most sublime aspirant among grammatical newfanglers.

OBS. 13.—But, with all its boldness of innovation, Wright's Philosophical Grammar is not a little self-contradictory in its treatment of the passive verb. The entire "suppression" of the usual form of its present tense, did not always appear, even to this author, quite so easy and reasonable a matter, as the foregoing citations would seem to represent it. The passive use of the participle in ing, he has easily disposed of: despite innumerable authorities for it, one false assertion, of seven syllables, suffices to make it quite impossible.[269] But the usual passive form, which, with some show of truth, is accused of not having always precisely the same meaning as the progressive used passively,—that is, of not always denoting continuance in the state of receiving continued action,—and which is, for that remarkable reason, judged worthy of rejection, is nevertheless admitted to have, in very many instances, a conformity to this idea, and therefore to "belong [thus far] to the present tense."—P. 103. This contradicts to an indefinite extent, the proposition for its rejection. It is observable also, that the same examples, 'I am loved' and 'I am smitten,'—the same "tolerated, but erroneous forms," (so called on page 103,) that are given as specimens of what he would reject,—though at first pronounced "equivalent in grammatical construction," censured for the same pretended error, and proposed to be changed alike to "the true form" by the insertion of "being,"—are subsequently declared to "belong to" different classes and different tenses. "I am loved," is referred to that "numerous" class of verbs, which "detail ACTION of prior, but retained, endured, and continued existence; and therefore, in this sense, belong to the present tense." But "I am smitten," is idly reckoned of an opposite class, (said by Dr. Bullions to be "perhaps the greater number,") whose "ACTIONS described are neither continuous in their nature, nor progressive in their duration; but, on the contrary, completed and perfected; and [which] are consequently descriptive of passed time and ACTION."—Wright's Gram., p. 103. Again: "In what instance soever this latter form and signification can be introduced, their import should be, and, indeed, ought to be, supplied by the perfect tense construction:—for example, 'I am smitten,' [should] be, 'I have been smitten.'"—Ib. Here is self-contradiction indefinitely extended in an other way. Many a good phrase, if not every one, that the author's first suggestion would turn to the unco-passive form, his present "remedy" would about as absurdly convert into "the perfect tense."

OBS. 14.—But Wright's inconsistency, about this matter, ends not here: it runs through all he says of it; for, in this instance, error and inconsistency constitute his whole story. In one place, he anticipates and answers a question thus: "To what tense do the constructions, 'I am pleased;' 'He is expected;' 'I am smitten;' 'He is bound;' belong?" "We answer:—So far as these and like constructions are applicable to the delineation of continuous and retained ACTION, they express present time; and must be treated accordingly."—P. 103. This seems to intimate that even, "I am smitten," and its likes, as they stand, may have some good claim to be of the present tense; which suggestion is contrary to several others made by the author. To expound this, or any other passive term, passively, never enters his mind: with him, as with sundry others, "ACTION," "finished ACTION," or "progressive ACTION," is all any passive verb or participle ever means! No marvel, that awkward perversions of the forms of utterance and the principles of grammar should follow such interpretation. In Wright's syntax a very queer distinction is apparently made between a passive verb, and the participle chiefly constituting it; and here, too, through a fancied ellipsis of "being" before the latter, most, if not all, of his other positions concerning passives, are again disastrously overthrown by something worse—a word "imperceptibly understood." "'I am smitten;' 'I was smitten;' &c., are," he says, "the universally acknowledged forms of the VERBS in these tenses, in the passive voice:—not of the PARTICIPLE. In all verbal constructions of the character of which we have hitherto treated, (see page 103) and, where the ACTIONS described are continuous in their operations,—the participle BEING is imperceptibly omitted, by ellipsis."—P. 144.

OBS. 15.—Dr. Bullions has stated, that, "The present participle active, and the present participle passive, are not counterparts to each other in signification; [,] the one signifying the present doing, and the other the present suffering of an action, [;] for the latter always intimates the present being of an ACT, not in progress, but completed."—Prin. of Eng. Gram., p. 58. In this, he errs no less grossly than in his idea of the "action or the suffering" expressed by "a perfect participle," as cited in OBS. 5th above; namely, that it must have ceased. Worse interpretation, or balder absurdity, is scarcely to be met with; and yet the reverend Doctor, great linguist as he should be, was here only trying to think and tell the common import of a very common sort of English participles; such as, "being loved" and "being seen." In grammar, "an act," that has "present being," can be nothing else than an act now doing, or "in progress;" and if, "the present being of an ACT not in progress," were here a possible thought, it surely could not be intimated by any such participle. In Acts, i, 3 and 4, it is stated, that our Saviour showed himself to the apostles, "alive after his passion, by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God; and, being assembled together with them commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem." Now, of these misnamed "present participles," we have here one "active," one "passive," and two others—(one in each form—) that are neuter; but no present time, except what is in the indefinite date of "pertaining." The events are past, and were so in the days of St. Luke. Yet each of the participles denotes continuance: not, indeed, in or to the present time, but for a time. "Being seen" means continuing to be seen; and, in this instance, the period of the continuance was "forty days" of time past. But, according to the above-cited "principle of English Grammar," so long and so widely inculcated by "the Rev. Peter Bullions, D. D., Professor of Languages," &c.,—a central principle of interpretation, presumed by him to hold "always"—this participle must intimate "the present being of an act, not in progress, but completed;"—that is, "the present being of" the apostles' act in formerly seeing the risen Saviour!

OBS. 16.—This grammarian has lately taken a deal of needless pains to sustain, by a studied division of verbs into two classes, similar to those which are mentioned in OBS. 13th above, a part of the philosophy of J. W. Wright, concerning our usual form of passives in the present tense. But, as he now will have it, that the two voices sometimes tally as counterparts, it is plain that he adheres but partially to his former erroneous conception of a perfect or "past" participle, and the terms which hold it "in any connexion." The awkward substitutes proposed by the Irish critic, he does not indeed countenance; but argues against them still, and, in some respects, very justly. The doctrine now common to these authors, on this point, is the highly important one, that, in respect to half our verbs, what we commonly take for the passive present, is not such—that, in "the second class, (perhaps the greater number,) the present-passive implies that the act expressed by the active voice has ceased. Thus, 'The house is built.' * * * Strictly speaking, then," says the Doctor, "the PAST PARTICIPLE with the verb TO BE is not the present tense in the passive voice of verbs thus used; that is, this form does not express passively the doing of the act."—Bullions's Analyt. and Pract. Grammar, Ed. of 1849, p. 235. Thus far these two authors agree; except that Wright seems to have avoided the incongruity of calling that "the present-passive" which he denies to be such. But the Doctor, approving none of this practitioner's "remedies," and being less solicitous to provide other treatment than expulsion for the thousands of present passives which both deem spurious, adds, as from the chair, this verdict: "These verbs either have no present-passive, or it is made by annexing the participle in ing, in its passive sense, to the verb to be; as, 'The house is building.'"—Ib., p. 236.

OBS. 17.—It would seem, that Dr. Bullions thinks, and in reality Wright also, that nothing can be a present passive, but what "expresses passively the DOING of the act." This is about as wise, as to try to imagine every active verb to express actively the receiving of an act! It borders exceedingly hard upon absurdity; it very much resembles the nonsense of "expressing receptively the giving of something!" Besides, the word "DOING," being used substantively, does not determine well what is here meant; which is, I suppose, continuance, or an unfinished state of the act received—an idea which seems adapted to the participle in ing, but which it is certainly no fault of a participle ending in d, t, or n, not to suggest. To "express passively the doing of the act," if the language means any thing rational, may be, simply to say, that the act is or was done. For "doings" are, as often as any-wise, "things done," as buildings are fabrics built; and "is built," and "am smitten," the gentlemen's choice examples of false passives, and of "actions finished,"—though neither of them necessarily intimates either continuance or cessation of the act suffered, or, if it did, would be the less or the more passive or present,—may, in such a sense, "express the doing of the act," if any passives can:—nay, the "finished act" has such completion as may be stated with degrees of progress or of frequency; as, "The house is partly built."—"I am oftener smitten." There is, undoubtedly, some difference between the assertions, "The house is building,"—and, "The house is partly built;" though, for practical purposes, perhaps, we need not always be very nice in choosing between them. For the sake of variety, however, if for nothing else, it is to be hoped, the doctrine above-cited, which limits half our passive verbs of the present tense, to the progressive form only, will not soon be generally approved. It impairs the language more than unco-passives are likely ever to corrupt it.

OBS. 18.—"No startling novelties have been introduced," says the preface to the "Analytical and Practical Grammar of the English Language." To have shunned all shocking innovations, is only to have exercised common prudence. It is not pretended, that any of the Doctor's errors here remarked upon, or elsewhere in this treatise, will startle any body; but, if errors exist, even in plausible guise, it may not be amiss, if I tell of them. To suppose every verb or participle to be either "transitive" or "intransitive," setting all passives with the former sort, all neuters with the latter; (p. 59;)—to define the transitive verb or participle as expressing always "an act DONE by one person or thing to another;" (p. 60;)—to say, after making passive verbs transitive, "The object of a transitive verb is in the objective case," and, "A verb that does not make sense with an objective after it, is intransitive;" (p. 60;)—to insist upon a precise and almost universal identity of "meaning" in terms so obviously contrasted as are the two voices, "active" and "passive;" (pp. 95 and 235;)—to allege, as a general principle, "that whether we use the active, or the passive voice, the meaning is the same, except in some cases in the present tense;" (p. 67;)—to attribute to the forms naturally opposite in voice and sense, that sameness of meaning which is observable only in certain whole sentences formed from them; (pp. 67, 95, and 235;)—to assume that each "VOICE is a particular form of the verb," yet make it include two cases, and often a preposition before one of them; (pp. 66, 67, and 95;)—to pretend from the words, "The PASSIVE VOICE represents the subject of the verb as acted upon," (p. 67,) that, "According to the DEFINITION, the passive voice expresses, passively, the same thing that the active does actively;" (p. 235;)—to affirm that, "'Cæsar conquered Gaul,' and 'Gaul was conquered by Cæsar,' express precisely the same idea,"—and then say, "It will be felt at once that the expressions, 'Cæsar conquers Gaul,' and 'Gaul is conquered by Cæsar,' do not express the same thing;" (p. 235;)—to deny that passive verbs or neuter are worthy to constitute a distinct class, yet profess to find, in one single tense of the former, such a difference of meaning as warrants a general division of verbs in respect to it; (ib.;)—to announce, in bad English, that, "In regard to this matter [,] there are evidently Two CLASSES of verbs; namely, those whose present-passive expresses precisely the same thing, passively, as the active voice does actively, and those in which it does not:" (ib.;)—to do these several things, as they have been done, is, to set forth, not "novelties" only, but errors and inconsistencies.

OBS. 19.—Dr. Bullions still adheres to his old argument, that being after its own verb must be devoid of meaning; or, in his own words, "that is being built, if it mean anything, can mean nothing more than is built, which is not the idea intended to be expressed."—Analyt. and Pract. Gram., p. 237. He had said, (as cited in OBS. 5th above,) "The expression, 'is being,' is equivalent to is, and expresses no more; just as, 'is loving,' is equivalent to 'loves.' Hence, 'is being built,' is precisely equivalent to 'is built.'"—Principles of E. Gram., p. 58. He has now discovered "that there is no progressive form of the verb to be, and no need of it:" and that, "hence, there is no such expression in English as is being."—Analyt. and Pract. Gram., p. 236. He should have noticed also, that "is loving" is not an authorized "equivalent to loves;" and, further, that the error of saying "is being built," is only in the relation of the first two words to each other. If "is being," and "is loving," are left unused for the same reason, the truth may be, that is itself, like loves, commonly denotes "continuance;" and that being after it, in stead of being necessary or proper, can only be awkwardly tautologous. This is, in fact, THE GRAND OBJECTION to the new phraseology—"is being practised"—"am being smitten"—and the like. Were there no danger that petty writers would one day seize upon it with like avidity, an other innovation, exactly similar to this in every thing but tense—similar in awkwardness, in tautology, in unmistakeableness—might here be uttered for the sake of illustration. Some men conceive, that "The perfect participle is always compound; as, having seen, having written;"—and that the simple word, seen or written, had originally, and still ought to have, only a passive construction. For such views, they find authorities. Hence, in lieu of the common phrases, "had we seen," "we have written," they adopt such English as this; "Had we having seen you, we should have stopped."—"We have having written but just now, to our correspondent." Now, "We are being smitten," is no better grammar than this;—and no worse: "The idea intended" is in no great jeopardy in either case.

OBS. 20.—J. R. Chandler, of Philadelphia, in his Common School Grammar of 1847, has earnestly undertaken the defence of this new and much-mooted passive expression: which he calls "the Definite Passive Voice," or "the Passive Voice of the Definite Form." He admits it, however, to be a form that "does not sound well,"—a "novelty that strikes the ear unpleasantly;" but he will have the defect to be, not in the tautologous conceit of "is being," "was being," "has been being," and the like, but in everybody's organ of hearing,—supposing all ears corrupted, "from infancy," to a distaste for correct speech, by "the habit of hearing and using words ungrammatically!"—See p. 89. Claiming this new form as "the true passive," in just contrast with the progressive active, he not only rebukes all attempts "to evade" the use of it, "by some real or supposed equivalent," but also declares, that, "The attempt to deprive the transitive definite verb of [this] its passive voice, is to strike at the foundation of the language, and to strip it of one of its most important qualities; that of making both actor and sufferer, each in turn and at pleasure, the subject of conversation."—Ibid. Concerning equivalents, he evidently argues fallaciously; for he urges, that the using of them "does not dispense with the necessity of the definite passive voice."—P. 88. But it is plain, that, of the many fair substitutes which may in most cases be found, if any one is preferred, this form, and all the rest, are of course rejected for the time.

OBS. 21.—By Chandler, as well as others, this new passive form is justified only on the supposition, that the simple participle in ing can never with propriety be used passively. No plausible argument, indeed, can be framed for it, without the assumption, that the simpler form, when used in the same sense, is ungrammatical. But this is, in fact, a begging of the main question; and that, in opposition to abundant authority for the usage condemned. (See OBS. 3d, above.) This author pretends that, "The RULE of all grammarians declares the verb is, and a present participle (is building, or is writing), to be in the active voice" only.—P. 88. (I add the word "only," but this is what he means, else he merely quibbles.) Now in this idea he is wrong, and so are the several grammarians who support the principle of this imaginary "RULE." The opinion of critics in general would be better represented by the following suggestions of the Rev. W. Allen: "When the English verb does not signify mental affection, the distinction of voice is often disregarded: thus we say, actively, they were selling fruit; and, passively, the books are now selling. The same remark applies to the participle used as a noun: as, actively, drawing is an elegant amusement, building is expensive; and, passively, his drawings are good, this is a fine building."—Allen's Elements of E. Gram., p. 82.

OBS. 22.—Chandler admits, that, "When it is said, 'The house is building,' the meaning is easily obtained; though," he strangely insists, "it is exactly opposite to the assertion."—P. 89. He endeavours to show, moreover, by a fictitious example made for the purpose, that the progressive form, if used in both voices, will be liable to ambiguity. It may, perhaps, be so in some instances; but, were there weight enough in the objection to condemn the passive usage altogether, one would suppose there might be found, somewhere, an actual example or two of the abuse. Not concurring with Dr. Bullions in the notion that the active voice and the passive usually "express precisely the same thing," this critic concludes his argument with the following sentence: "There is an important difference between doing and suffering; and that difference is grammatically shown by the appropriate use of the active and passive voices of a verb."—Chandler's Common School Gram., p. 89.

OBS. 23.—The opinion given at the close of OBS. 2d above, was first published in 1833. An opposite doctrine, with the suggestion that it is "improper to say, 'the house is building,' instead of 'the house is being built,'"—is found on page 64th of the Rev. David Blair's Grammar, of 1815,—"Seventh Edition," with a preface dated, "October 20th, 1814." To any grammarian who wrote at a period much earlier than that, the question about unco-passives never occurred. Many critics have passed judgement upon them since, and so generally with reprobation, that the man must have more hardihood than sense, who will yet disgust his readers or hearers with them.[270] That "This new form has been used by some respectable writers," we need not deny; but let us look at the given "instances of it: 'For those who are being educated in our seminaries.' R. SOUTHEY.—'It was being uttered.' COLERIDGE.—'The foundation was being laid.' BRIT. CRITIC."—English Grammar with Worcester's Univ. and Crit. Dict., p. xlvi. Here, for the first example, it would be much better to say, "For those who are educated," [271]—or, "who are receiving their education;" for the others, "It was uttering,"—"was uttered,"—or, "was in uttering."—"The foundation was laying,"—"was laid,"—or, "was about being laid." Worcester's opinion of the "new form" is to be inferred from his manner of naming it in the following sentence: "Within a few years, a strange and awkward neologism has been introduced, by which the present passive participle is substituted, in such cases as the above, for the participle in ing."—Ibid. He has two instances more, in each of which the phrase is linked with an expression of disapprobation; "' It [[Greek: tetymmenos]] signifies properly, though in uncouth English, one who is being beaten.' ABP. WHATELY.—'The bridge is being built, and other phrases of the like kind, have pained the eye.' D. BOOTH."—Ibid.[272]

OBS. 24.—Richard Hiley, in the third edition of his Grammar, published in London, in 1840, after showing the passive use of the participle in ing, proceeds thus: "No ambiguity arises, we presume, from the use of the participle in this manner. To avoid, however, affixing a passive signification to the participle in ing, an attempt has lately been made to substitute the passive participle in its place. Thus instead of 'The house was building,' 'The work imprinting,' we sometimes hear, 'The house was being built,' 'The work is being printed.' But this mode is contrary to the English idiom, and has not yet obtained the sanction of reputable authority."—Hiley's Gram., p. 30.

OBS. 25.—Professor Hart, of Philadelphia, whose English Grammar was first published in 1845, justly prefers the usage which takes the progressive form occasionally in a passive sense; but, in arguing against the new substitute, he evidently remoulds the early reasoning of Dr. Bullions, errors and all; a part of which he introduces thus: "I know the correctness of this mode of expression has lately been very much assailed, and an attempt, to some extent successful, has been made [,] to introduce the form [,] 'is being built.' But, in the first place, the old mode of expression is a well established usage of the language, being found in our best and most correct writers. Secondly, is being built does not convey the idea intended, [;] namely [,] that of progressive action. Is being, taken together, means simply is, just as is writing means writes; therefore, is being built means is built, a perfect and not a progressive ACTION. Or, if being [and] built be taken together, they signify an ACTION COMPLETE, and the phrase means, as before, the house is (EXISTS) being built."—Hart's Gram., p. 76. The last three sentences here are liable to many objections, some of which are suggested above.

OBS. 26.—It is important, that the central phraseology of our language be so understood, as not to be misinterpreted with credit, or falsely expounded by popular critics and teachers. Hence errors of exposition are the more particularly noticed in these observations. In "being built," Prof. Hart, like sundry authors named above, finds nothing but "ACTION COMPLETE." Without doubt, Butler interprets better, when he says, "'The house is built,' denotes an existing state, rather than a completed action." But this author, too, in his next three sentences, utters as many errors; for he adds: "The name of the agent cannot be expressed in phrases of this kind. We cannot say, 'The house is built by John.' When we say, 'The house is built by mechanics,' we do not express an existing state."—Butler's Practical Gram., p. 80. Unquestionably, "is built by mechanics," expresses nothing else than the "existing state" of being "built by mechanics," together with an affirmation:—that is, the "existing state" of receiving the action of mechanics, is affirmed of "the house." And, in my judgement, one may very well say, "The house is built by John;" meaning, "John is building the house." St. Paul says, "Every house is builded by SOME MAN."—Heb., iii, 4. In this text, the common "name of the agent" is "expressed."

OBS. 27.—Wells and Weld, whose grammars date from 1846, being remarkably chary of finding anything wrong in "respectable writers," hazard no opinion of their own, concerning the correctness or incorrectness of either of the usages under discussion. They do not always see absurdity in the approbation of opposites; yet one should here, perhaps, count them with the majorities they allow. The latter says, "The participle in ing is sometimes used passively; as, forty and six years was this temple in building; not in being built."—Weld's English Gram., 2d Ed., p. 170. Here, if he means to suggest, that "in being built" would "not" be good English, he teaches very erroneously; if his thought is, that this phrase would "not" express the sense of the former one, "in building," he palpably contradicts his own position! But he proceeds, in a note, thus: "The form of expression, is being built, is being committed, &c., is almost universally condemned by grammarians; but it is sometimes met with in respectable writers. It occurs most frequently in newspaper paragraphs, and in hasty compositions."—Ibid. Wells comments thus: "Different opinions have long existed among critics respecting this passive use of the imperfect participle. Many respectable writers substitute the compound passive participle; as, 'The house is being built;' 'The book is being printed.' But the prevailing practice of the best authors is in favor of the simple form; as, 'The house is building.'"—Wells's School Gram., 1st Ed., p. 148; 113th Ed., p. 161.[273]

OBS. 28.—S. W. Clark, in the second edition of his Practical Grammar, stereotyped and published in New York in 1848, appears to favour the insertion of "being" into passive verbs; but his instructions are so obscure, so often inaccurate, and so incompatible one with an other, that it is hard to say, with certainty, what he approves. In one place, he has this position: "The Passive Voice of a verb is formed by adding the Passive Participle of that verb, to the verb be. EXAMPLES—To be loved. I am feared. They are worshipped."—Page 69. In an other, he has this: "When the Subject is to be represented as receiving the action, the Passive Participle should be used. EXAMPLE—Henry's lesson is BEING RECITED."—P. 132. Now these two positions utterly confound each other; for they are equally general, and "the Passive Participle" is first one thing, and then an other. Again, he has the following assertions, both false: "The Present (or First) Participle always ends in ing, and is limited to the Active Voice. The Past (or Second) Participle of Regular Verbs ends in d or ed, and is limited to the Passive Voice."—P. 131. Afterwards, in spite of the fancied limitation, he acknowledges the passive use of the participle in ing, and that there is "authority" for it; but, at the same time, most absurdly supposes the word to predicate "action," and also to be wrong: saying, "Action is sometimes predicated of a passive subject. EXAMPLE—'The house is building,.. for.. 'The house is being built,'.. which means.. The house is becoming built." On this, he remarks thus: "This is one of the instances in which Authority is against Philosophy. For an act cannot properly be predicated of a passive agent. Many good writers properly reject this idiom. 'Mansfield's prophecy is being realized.'—MICHELET'S LUTHER."—Clark's Practical Gram., p. 133. It may require some study to learn from this which idiom it is. that these "many good writers reject:" but the grammarian who can talk of "a passive agent," without perceiving that the phrase is self-contradictory and absurd, may well be expected to entertain a "Philosophy" which is against "Authority," and likewise to prefer a ridiculous innovation to good and established usage.

OBS. 29.—As most verbs are susceptible of both forms, the simple active and the compound or progressive, and likewise of a transitive and an intransitive sense in each; and as many, when taken intransitively, may have a meaning which is scarcely distinguishable from that of the passive form; it often happens that this substitution of the imperfect participle passive for the simple imperfect in ing, is quite needless, even when the latter is not considered passive. For example: "See by the following paragraph, how widely the bane is being circulated!"—Liberator, No. 999, p. 34. Here is circulating would be better; and so would is circulated. Nor would either of these much vary the sense, if at all; for "circulate" may mean, according to Webster, "to be diffused," or, as Johnson and Worcester have it, "to be dispersed." See the second marginal note on p. 378.

OBS. 30.—R. G. Parker appears to have formed a just opinion of the "modern innovation," the arguments for which are so largely examined in the foregoing observations; but the "principle" which he adduces as "conclusive" against it, if principle it can be called, has scarcely any bearing on the question; certainly no more than has the simple assertion of one reputable critic, that our participle in ing may occasionally be used passively. "Such expressions as the following," says he, "have recently become very common, not only in the periodical publications of the day, but are likewise finding favor with popular writers; as, 'The house is being built.' 'The street is being paved.' 'The actions that are now being performed,' &c. 'The patents are being prepared.' The usage of the best writers does not sanction these expressions; and Mr. Pickbourn lays down the following principle, which is conclusive upon the subject. 'Whenever the participle in ing is joined by an auxiliary verb to a nominative capable of the action, it is taken actively; but, when joined to one incapable of the action, it becomes passive. If we say, The man are building a house, the participle building is evidently used in an active sense; because the men are capable of the action. But when we say, The house is building, or, Patents are preparing, the participles building and preparing must necessarily be understood in a passive sense; because neither the house nor the patents are capable of action.'—See Pickbourn on the English Verb, pp. 78-80."—Parker's Aids to English Composition, p. 105. Pickbourn wrote his Dissertation before the question arose which he is here supposed to decide. Nor is he right in assuming that the common Progressive Form, of which he speaks, must be either active-transitive or passive: I have shown above that it may be active-intransitive, and perhaps, in a few instances, neuter. The class of the verb is determined by something else than the mere capableness of the "nominative."

III. Form of Passive Verbs.

Passive verbs, in English, are always of a compound form; being made from active-transitive verbs, by adding the Perfect Participle to the auxiliary verb BE, through all its changes: thus from the active-transitive verb love, is formed the passive verb be loved.

Fifth Example.

The regular passive verb BE LOVED, conjugated affirmatively.

PRINCIPAL PARTS or THE ACTIVE VERB.

Present. Preterit. Imp. Participle. Perf. Participle.

Love. Loved. Loving. Loved.

INFINITIVE MOOD.
PRESENT TENSE.
To be loved.

PERFECT TENSE.
To have been loved.

Indicative Mood.

PRESENT TENSE. Singular. Plural. 1. I am loved, 1. We are loved, 2. Thou art loved, 2. You are loved, 3. He is loved; 3. They are loved.

IMPERFECT TENSE. Singular. Plural. 1. I was loved, 1. We were loved, 2. Thou wast loved, 2. You were loved, 3. He was loved; 3. They were loved.

PERFECT TENSE. Singular. Plural. 1. I have been loved, 1. We have been loved, 2. Thou hast been loved, 2. You have been loved, 3. He has been loved; 3. They have been loved.

PLUPERFECT TENSE. Singular. Plural. 1. I had been loved, 1. We had been loved, 2. Thou hadst been loved, 2. You had been loved, 3. He had been loved; 3. They had been loved.

FIRST-FUTURE TENSE. Singular. Plural. 1. I shall be loved, 1. We shall be loved, 2. Thou wilt be loved, 2. You will be loved, 3. He will be loved; 3. They will be loved.

SECOND-FUTURE TENSE. Singular. Plural. 1. I shall have been loved, 1. We shall have been loved, 2. Thou wilt have been loved, 2. You will have been loved, 3. He will have been loved; 3. They will have been loved.

Potential Mood.

PRESENT TENSE. Singular. Plural. 1. I may be loved, 1. We may be loved, 2. Thou mayst be loved, 2. You may be loved, 3. He may be loved; 3. They may be loved.

IMPERFECT TENSE. Singular. Plural. 1. I might be loved, 1. We might be loved, 2. Thou mightst be loved, 2. You might be loved, 3. He might be loved; 3. They might be loved.

PERFECT TENSE. Singular. Plural. 1. I may have been loved, 1. We may have been loved, 2. Thou mayst have been loved, 2. You may have been loved, 3. He may have been loved; 3. They may have been loved.

Pluperfect Tense.

Singular. Plural. 1. I might have been loved, 1. We might have been loved, 2. Thou mightst have been loved, 2. You might have been loved, 3. He might have been loved; 3. They might have been loved.

Subjunctive Mood.

Present Tense.

Singular. Plural. 1. If I be loved, 1. If we be loved, 2. If thou be loved, 2. If you be loved, 3. If he be loved; 3. If they be loved.

Imperfect Tense.

Singular. Plural. 1. If I were loved, 1. If we were loved, 2. If thou were loved, 2. If you were loved, 3. If he were loved; 3. If they were loved.

Imperative Mood.

Present Tense.

Singular. 2. Be [thou] loved, or Do thou be loved; Plural. 2. Be [ye or you] loved, or Do you be loved.

Participles.

1. The Imperfect. 2. The Perfect. 3. The Preperfect. Being loved. Loved. Having been loved.

FAMILIAR FORM WITH 'THOU.' NOTE.—In the familiar style, the second person singular of this verb, is usually and more properly formed thus: IND. Thou art loved, Thou was loved, Thou hast been loved, Thou had been loved, Thou shall or will be loved, Thou shall or will have been loved. POT. Thou may, can, or must be loved; Thou might, could, would, or should be loved; Thou may, can, or must have been loved; Thou might, could, would, or should have been loved. SUBJ. If thou be loved, If thou were loved. IMP. Be [thou] loved, or Do thou be loved.

Observations.

OBS. 1.—A few active-intransitive verbs, that signify mere motion, change of place, or change of condition, may be put into this form, with a neuter signification; making not passive but neuter verbs, which express nothing more than the state which results from the change: as, "I am come."—"She is gone."—"He is risen."—"They are fallen." These are what Dr. Johnson and some others call "neuter passives;" a name which never was very proper, and for which we have no frequent use.

OBS. 2.—Most neuter verbs of the passive form, such as, "am grown, art become, is lain, are flown, are vanished, are departed, was sat, were arrived," may now be considered errors of conjugation, or perhaps of syntax. In the verb, to be mistaken, there is an irregularity which ought to be particularly noticed. When applied to persons, this verb is commonly taken in a neuter sense, and signifies, to be in error, to be wrong; as, "I am mistaken, thou art mistaken, he is mistake." But, when used of things, it is a proper passive verb, and signifies, to be misunderstood, or to be taken wrong; as, "The sense of the passage is mistaken; that is, not rightly understood." See Webster's Dict., w. Mistaken. "I have known a shadow across a brook to be mistaken for a footbridge."

OBS. 3.—Passive verbs may be easily distinguished from neuter verbs of the same form, by a reference to the agent or instrument, common to the former class, but not to the latter. This frequently is, and always may be, expressed after passive verbs; but never is, and never can be, expressed after neuter verbs: as, "The thief has been caught by the officer."— "Pens are made with a knife." Here the verbs are passive; but, "I am not yet ascended," (John, xx, 17,) is not passive, because it does not convey the idea of being ascended by some one's agency.

OBS. 4.—Our ancient writers, after the manner of the French, very frequently employed this mode of conjugation in a neuter sense; but, with a very few exceptions, present usage is clearly in favour of the auxiliary have in preference to be, whenever the verb formed with the perfect participle is not passive; as, "They have arrived,"—not, "They are arrived." Hence such examples as the following, are not now good English: "All these reasons are now ceased."—Butler's Analogy, p. 157. Say, "have now ceased." "Whether he were not got beyond the reach of his faculties."—Ib., p. 158. Say, "had not got." "Which is now grown wholly obsolete."—Churchill's Gram., p. 330. Say, "has now grown." "And when he was entered into a ship."—Bible. Say, "had entered."— "What is become of decency and virtue?"—Murray's Key, p. 196. Say, "has become."

OBS. 5.—Dr. Priestley says, "It seems not to have been determined by the English grammarians, whether the passive participles of verbs neuter require the auxiliary am or have before them. The French, in this case, confine themselves strictly to the former. 'What has become of national liberty?' Hume's History, Vol. 6. p. 254. The French would say, what is become; and, in this instance, perhaps, with more propriety."— Priestley's Gram., p. 128. It is no marvel that those writers who have not rightly made up their minds upon this point of English grammar, should consequently fall into many mistakes. The perfect participle of a neuter verb is not "passive," as the doctor seems to suppose it to be; and the mode of conjugation which he here inclines to prefer, is a mere Gallicism, which is fast wearing out from our language, and is even now but little countenanced by good writers.

OBS. 6.—There are a few verbs of the passive form which seem to imply that a person's own mind is the agent that actuates him; as, "The editor is rejoiced to think," &c.—Juvenile Keepsake. "I am resolved what to do."—Luke, xvi, 4. "He was resolved on going to the city to reside."—Comly's Gram., p. 114. "James was resolved not to indulge himself."—Murray's Key, ii, 220. "He is inclined to go."—"He is determined to go."—"He is bent on going." These are properly passive verbs, notwithstanding there are active forms which are nearly equivalent to most of them; as, "The editor rejoices to think."—"I know what to do."—"He had resolved on going."—"James resolved not to indulge himself." So in the phrase, "I am ashamed to beg," we seem to have a passive verb of this sort; but, the verb to ashame being now obsolete, ashamed is commonly reckoned an adjective. Yet we cannot put it before a noun, after the usual manner of adjectives. To be indebted, is an other expression of the same kind. In the following example, "am remember'd" is used for do remember, and, in my opinion, inaccurately:

"He said mine eyes were black, and my hair black;
And, now I am remember'd, scorn'd at me."—Shakspeare.

IV. Form of Negation.

A verb is conjugated negatively, by placing the adverb not after it, or after the first auxiliary; but the infinitive and participles take the negative first: as, Not to love, Not to have loved; Not loving, Not loved, Not having loved.

First Person Singular.

IND. I love not, or I do not love; I loved not, or I did not love; I have not loved; I had not loved; I shall not, or will not, love; I shall not, or will not, have loved. POT. I may, can, or must not love; I might, could, would, or should not love; I may, can, or must not have loved; I might, could, would, or should not have loved, SUBJ. If I love not, If I loved not.

Second Person Singular.

SOLEMN STYLE:—IND. Thou lovest not, or Thou dost not love; Thou lovedst not, or Thou didst not love; Thou hast not loved; Thou hadst not loved; Thou shalt not, or wilt not, love; Thou shalt not, or wilt not, have loved. POT. Thou mayst, canst, or must not love; Thou mightst, couldst, wouldst, or shouldst not love; Thou mayst, canst, or must not have loved; Thou mightst, couldst, wouldst, or shouldst not have loved. SUBJ. If thou love not, If thou loved not. IMP. Love [thou] not, or Do thou not love.

FAMILIAR STYLE:—IND. Thou lov'st not, or Thou dost not love; Thou loved not, or Thou did not love; Thou hast not loved; Thou had not loved; Thou shall not, or will not, love; Thou shall not, or will not, have loved. POT. Thou may, can, or must not love; Thou might, could, would, or should not love; Thou may, can, or must not have loved; Thou might, could, would, or should not have loved. SUBJ. If thou love not, If thou loved not. IMP. Love [thou] not, or Do [thou] not love.

Third Person Singular.

IND. He loves not, or He does not love; He loved not, or He did not love; He has not loved; He had not loved; He shall not, or will not, love; He shall not, or will not, have loved. POT. He may, can, or must not love; He might, could, would, or should not love; He may, can, or must not have loved; He might, could, would, or should not have loved. SUBJ. If he love not, If he loved not.

V. Form of Question.

A verb is conjugated interrogatively, in the indicative and potential moods, by placing the nominative after it, or after the first auxiliary: as,

First Person Singular.

IND. Love I? or Do I love? Loved I? or Did I love? Have I loved? Had I
loved? Shall I love? Shall I have loved? POT. May, can, or must I love?
Might, could, would, or should I love? May, can, or must I have loved?
Might, could, would, or should I have loved?

Second Person Singular.

SOLEMN STYLE:—IND. Lovest thou? or Dost thou love? Lovedst thou? or Didst thou love? Hast thou loved? Hadst thou loved? Wilt thou love? Wilt thou have loved? POT. Mayst, canst, or must thou love? Mightst, couldst, wouldst, or shouldst thou love? Mayst, canst, or must thou have loved? Mightst, couldst, wouldst, or shouldst thou have loved?

FAMILIAR STYLE:—IND. Lov'st thou? or Dost thou love? Loved thou? or Did thou love? Hast thou loved? Had thou loved? Will thou love? Will thou have loved? POT. May, can, or must thou love? Might, could, would, or should thou love? May, can, or must thou have loved? Might, could, would, or should thou have loved?

Third Person Singular.

IND. Loves he? or Does he love? Loved he? or Did he love? Has he loved? Had he loved? Shall or will he love? Will he have loved? POT. May, can, or must he love? Might, could, would, or should he love? May, can, or must he have loved? Might, could, would, or should he have loved?

VI. Form of Question with Negation.

A verb is conjugated interrogatively and negatively, in the indicative and potential moods, by placing the nominative and the adverb not after the verb, or after the first auxiliary: as,

First Person Plural.

IND. Love we not? or Do we not love? Loved we not? or Did we not love? Have we not loved? Had we not loved? Shall we not love? Shall we not have loved? POT. May, can, or must we not love? Might, could, would, or should we not love? May, can, or must we not have loved? Might, could, would, or should we not have loved?

Second Person Plural.

IND. See ye not? or Do you not see? Saw ye not? or Did you not see? Have you not seen? Had you not seen? Will you not see? Will you not have seen? POT. May, can, or must you not see? Might, could, would, or should you not see? May, can, or must you not have seen? Might, could, would, or should you not have seen?

Third Person Plural.

IND. Are they not loved? Were they not loved? Have they not been loved? Had they not been loved? Shall or will they not be loved? Will they not have been loved? May, can, or must they not be loved? Might, could, would, or should they not be loved? May, can, or must they not have been loved? Might, could, would, or should they not have been loved?

Observations.

OBS. 1.—In a familiar question or negation, the compound or auxiliary form of the verb is, in general, preferable to the simple: as, "No man lives to purpose, who does not live for posterity."—Dr. Wayland. It is indeed so much more common, as to seem the only proper mode of expression: as, "Do I say these things as a man?"—"Do you think that we excuse ourselves?"—"Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump?"—"Dost thou revile?" &c. But in the solemn or the poetic style, though either may be used, the simple form is more dignified, and perhaps more graceful: as, "Say I these things as a man?"—1 Cor., ix, 8. "Think ye that we excuse ourselves?"—2 Cor., xii, 19. "Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?"—1 Cor., v, 6. "Revilest thou God's high priest?"—Acts. "King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets?"—Ib. "Understandest thou what thou readest?"—Ib. "Of whom speaketh the prophet this?"—Id. "And the man of God said, Where fell it?"—2 Kings, vi, 6.

"What! heard ye not of lowland war?"—Sir W. Scott, L. L.

"Seems he not, Malise, like a ghost?"—Id., L. of Lake.

"Where thinkst thou he is now? Stands he, or sits he?
Or does he walk? or is he on his horse?"—Shak., Ant. and Cleop.

OBS. 2.—In interrogative sentences, the auxiliaries shall and will are not always capable of being applied to the different persons agreeably to their use in simple declarations: thus, "Will I go?" is a question which there never can be any occasion to ask in its literal sense; because none knows better than I, what my will or wish is. But "Shall I go?" may properly be asked; because shall here refers to duty, and asks to know what is agreeable to the will of an other. In questions, the first person generally requires shall; the second, will; the third admits of both: but, in the second-future, the third, used interrogatively, seems to require will only. Yet, in that figurative kind of interrogation which is sometimes used to declare a negative, there may be occasional exceptions to these principles; as, "Will I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats?"—Psalms, 1, 13. That is, I will not eat, &c.

OBS. 3.—Cannot is not properly one word, but two: in parsing, the adverb must be taken separately, and the auxiliary be explained with its principal. When power is denied, can and not are now generally united—perhaps in order to prevent ambiguity; as, "I cannot go." But when the power is affirmed, and something else is denied, the words are written separately; as, "The Christian apologist can not merely expose the utter baseness of the infidel assertion, but he has positive ground for erecting an opposite and confronting assertion in its place."—Dr. Chalmers. The junction of these terms, however, is not of much importance to the sense; and, as it is plainly contrary to analogy, some writers,—(as Dr. Webster, in his late or "improved" works; Dr. Bullions, in his; Prof. W. C. Fowler, in his new "English Grammar," 8vo; R. C. Trench, in his "Study of Words;" T. S. Pinneo, in his "revised" grammars; J. R. Chandler, W. S. Cardell, O. B. Peirce,—) always separate them. And, indeed, why should we write, "I cannot go, Thou canst not go, He cannot go?" Apart from the custom, we have just as good reason to join not to canst as to can; and sometimes its union with the latter is a gross error: as, "He cannot only make a way to escape, but with the injunction to duty can infuse the power to perform."—Maturin's Sermons, p. 287. The fear of ambiguity never prevents us from disjoining can and not whenever we wish to put a word between them: as, "Though the waves thereof toss themselves, yet can they not prevail; though they roar, yet can they not pass over it."—Jeremiah, v, 22. "Which then I can resist not."—Byron's Manfred, p. 1.

"Can I not mountain maiden spy, But she must bear the Douglas eye?"—Scott.

OBS. 4.—In negative questions, the adverb not is sometimes placed before the nominative, and sometimes after it: as, "Told not I thee?"—Numb., xxiii, 26. "Spake I not also to thy messengers?"—Ib., xxiv, 12. "Cannot I do with you as this potter?"—Jer., xviii, 6. "Art not thou a seer?"—2 Sam., xv, 27. "Did not Israel know?"—Rom., x, 19. "Have they not heard?"—Ib., 18. "Do not they blaspheme that worthy name?"—James, ii, 7. This adverb, like every other, should be placed where it will sound most agreeably, and best suit the sense. Dr. Priestley imagined that it could not properly come before the nominative. He says, "When the nominative case is put after the verb, on account of an interrogation, no other word should be interposed between them. [EXAMPLES:] 'May not we here say with Lucretius?'—Addison on Medals, p. 29. May we not say? 'Is not it he.' [?] Smollett's Voltaire, Vol 18, p. 152. Is it not he. [?]"—Priestley's Gram., p. 177.

OBS. 5.—In grave discourse, or in oratory, the adverb not is spoken as distinctly as other words; but, ordinarily, when placed before the nominative, it is rapidly slurred over in utterance and the o is not heard. In fact, it is generally (though inelegantly) contracted in familiar conversation, and joined to the auxiliary: as, IND. Don't they do it? Didn't they do it? Haven't they done it? Hadn't they done it? Shan't, or won't they do it? Won't they have done it? POT. Mayn't, can't, or mustn't they do it? Mightn't, couldn't, wouldn't, or shouldn't they do it? Mayn't, can't, or mustn't they have done it? Mightn't, couldn't, wouldn't, or shouldn't they have done it?

OBS. 6.—Well-educated people commonly utter their words with more distinctness and fullness than the vulgar, yet without adopting ordinarily the long-drawn syllables of poets and orators, or the solemn phraseology of preachers and prophets. Whatever may be thought of the grammatical propriety of such contractions as the foregoing, no one who has ever observed how the English language is usually spoken, will doubt their commonness, or their antiquity. And it may be observed, that, in the use of these forms, the distinction of persons and numbers in the verb, is almost, if not entirely, dropped. Thus don't is used for dost not or does not, as properly as for do not; and, "Thou can't do it, or shan't do it," is as good English as, "He can't do it, or shan't do it." Will, according to Webster, was anciently written woll: hence won't acquired the o, which is long in Walker's orthoëpy. Haven't, which cannot be used for has not or hast not, is still further contracted by the vulgar, and spoken ha'nt, which serves for all three. These forms are sometimes found in books; as, "WONT, a contraction of woll not, that is, will not."—Webster's Dict. "HA'NT, a contraction of have not or has not."—Id. "WONT, (w=ont or w~unt,) A contraction of would not:— used for will not."—Worcester's Dict. "HAN'T, (hänt or h=ant,) A vulgar contraction for has not, or have not."—Id. In the writing of such contractions, the apostrophe is not always used; though some think it necessary for distinction's sake: as, "Which is equivalent, because what can't be done won't be done."—Johnson's Gram. Com., p. 312.

Irregular Verbs.

An irregular verb is a verb that does not form the preterit and the perfect participle by assuming d or ed; as, see, saw, seeing, seen. Of this class of verbs there are about one hundred and ten, beside their several derivatives and compounds.

Observations.

OBS. 1.—Regular verbs form their preterits and perfect participles, by adding d to final e, and ed to all other terminations; the final consonant of the verb being sometimes doubled, (as in dropped,) and final y sometimes changed into i, (as in cried,) agreeably to the rules for spelling in such cases. The verb hear, heard, hearing, heard, adds d to r, and is therefore irregular. Heard is pronounced h~erd by all our lexicographers, except Webster: who formerly wrote it heerd, and still pronounces it so; alleging, in despite of universal usage against him, that it is written "more correctly heared."—Octavo Dict., 1829. Such pronunciation would doubtless require this last orthography, "heared;" but both are, in fact, about as fanciful as his former mode of spelling, which ran thus: "Az I had heerd suggested by frends or indifferent reeders."—Dr. Webster's Essays, Preface, p. 10.

OBS. 2.—When a verb ends in a sharp consonant, t is sometimes improperly substituted for ed, making the preterit and the perfect participle irregular in spelling, when they are not so in sound; as, distrest for distressed, tost for tossed, mixt for mixed, cract for cracked. These contractions are now generally treated as errors in writing; and the verbs are accordingly (with a few exceptions) accounted regular. Lord Kames commends Dean Swift for having done "all in his power to restore the syllable ed;" says, he "possessed, if any man ever did, the true genius of the English tongue;" and thinks that in rejecting these ugly contractions, "he well deserves to be imitated."—Elements of Criticism, Vol. ii, p. 12. The regular orthography is indeed to be preferred in all such cases; but the writing of ed restores no syllable, except in solemn discourse; and, after all, the poems of Swift have so very many of these irregular contractions in t, that one can hardly believe his lordship had ever read them. Since the days of these critics still more has been done towards the restoration of the ed, in orthography, though not in sound; but, even at this present time, our poets not unfrequently write, est for essed or ess'd, in forming the preterits or participles of verbs that end in the syllable ess. This is an ill practice, which needlessly multiplies our redundant verbs, and greatly embarrasses what it seems at first to simplify: as,

"O friend! I know not which way I must look
For comfort, being, as I am, opprest,
To think that now our life is only drest
For show."—Wordsworth's Poetical Works, 8vo, p. 119.

OBS. 3.—When the verb ends with a smooth consonant, the substitution of t for ed produces an irregularity in sound as well as in writing. In some such irregularities, the poets are indulged for the sake of rhyme; but the best speakers and writers of prose prefer the regular form, wherever good use has sanctioned it: thus learned is better than learnt; burned, than burnt; penned, than pent; absorbed, than absorbt; spelled, than spelt; smelled, than smelt. So many of this sort of words as are allowably contracted, belong to the class of redundant verbs, among which they may be seen in a subsequent table.

OBS. 4.—Several of the irregular verbs are variously used by the best authors; redundant forms are occasionally given to some verbs, without sufficient authority; and many preterits and participles which were formerly in good use, are now obsolete, or becoming so. The simple irregular verbs in English are about one hundred and ten, and they are nearly all monosyllables. They are derived from the Saxon, in which language they are also, for the most part, irregular.

OBS. 5.—The following alphabetical list exhibits the simple irregular verbs, as they are now generally used. In this list, those preterits and participles which are supposed to be preferable, and best supported by authorities, are placed first. Nearly all compounds that follow the form of their simple verbs, or derivatives that follow their primitives, are here purposely omitted. Welcome and behave are always regular, and therefore belong not here. Some words which are obsolete, have also been omitted, that the learner might not mistake them for words in present use. Some of those which are placed last, are now little used.

List of the Irregular Verbs.

Imperfect Perfect
Present. Preterit. Participle. Participle.
Arise, arose, arising, arisen.
Be, was, being, been.
Bear, bore or bare, bearing, borne or born.[274]
Beat, beat, beating, beaten or beat.
Begin, began or begun,[275] beginning, begun.
Behold, beheld, beholding, beheld.
Beset, beset, besetting, beset.
Bestead, bestead, besteading, bestead.[276]
Bid, bid or bade, bidding, bidden or bid.
Bind, bound, bing, bound.
Bite, bit, biting, bitten or bit.
Bleed, bled, bleeding, bled.
Break, broke,[277] breaking, broken.
Breed, bred, breeding, bred.
Bring, brought, bringing, brought.
Buy, bought, buying, bought.
Cast, cast, casting, cast.
Chide, chid, chiding, chidden or chid.
Choose, chose, choosing, chosen.
Cleave,[278] cleft or clove, cleaving, cleft or cloven.
Cling, clung, clinging, clung.
Come, came, coming, come.
Cost, cost, costing, cost.
Cut, cut, cutting, cut.
Do, did, doing, done.
Draw, drew, drawing, drawn.
Drink, drank, drinking, drunk, or drank.[279]
Drive, drove, driving, driven.
Eat, ate or ~eat, eating, eaten or eat.
Fall, fell, falling, fallen.
Feed, fed, feeding, fed.
Feel, felt, feeling, felt.
Fight, fought, fighting, fought.
Find, found, finding, found.
Flee, fled, fleeing, fled.
Fling, flung, flinging, flung.
Fly, flew, flying, flown.
Forbear, forbore, forbearing, forborne.
Forsake, forsook, forsaking, forsaken.
Get, got, getting, got or gotten.
Give, gave, giving, given.
Go, went, going, gone.
Grow, grew, growing, grown.
Have, had, having, had.
Hear, heard, hearing, heard.
Hide, hid, hiding, hidden or hid.
Hit, hit, hitting, hit.
Hold, held, holding, held or holden.[280]
Hurt, hurt, hurting, hurt.[281]
Keep, kept,[282] keeping, kept.
Know, knew, knowing, known.
Lead, led, leading, led.
Leave, left, leaving, left.
Lend, lent, lending, lent.
Let, let, letting, let
Lie,[283] lay, lying, lain.
Lose, lost, losing, lost.
Make, made, making, made.
Meet, met, meeting, met.
Outdo, outdid, outdoing, outdone.
Put, put, putting, put.
Read, r~ead, reading, r~ead.
Rend, rent, rending, rent.[284]
Rid, rid, ridding, rid.
Ride, rode, riding, ridden or rode.
Ring, rung or rang, ringing, rung.
Rise, rose, rising, risen.
Run, ran or run, running, run.
Say, said, saying, said.[285]
See, saw, seeing, seen.
Seek, sought, seeking, sought.
Sell, sold, selling, sold.
Send, sent, sending, sent.
Set, set, setting, set.
Shed, shed, shedding, shed.
Shoe, shod, shoeing, shod.[286]
Shoot, shot, shooting, shot.
Shut, shut, shutting, shut.
Shred, shred, shredding, shred.
Shrink, shrunk or shrank, shrinking, shrunk or shrunken.
Sing, sung or sang,[287] singing, sung.
Sink, sunk or sank, sinking, sunk.
Sit, sat, sitting, sat.[288]
Slay, slew, slaying, slain.
Sling, slung, slinging, slung.
Slink, slunk or slank, slinking, slunk.
Smite, smote, smiting, smitten or smit.
Speak, spoke, speaking, spoken.
Spend, spent, spending, spent.
Spin, spun, spinning, spun.
Spit, spit or spat, spitting, spit or spitten.
Spread, spread, spreading, spread.
Spring, sprung or sprang, springing, sprung.
Stand, stood, standing, stood.
Steal, stole, stealing, stolen.
Stick, stuck, sticking, stuck.
Sting, stung, stinging, stung.
Stink, stunk or stank, stinking, stunk.
Stride, strode or strid, striding, stridden
or strid.[289]
Strike, struck, striking, struck or stricken.
Swear, swore, swearing, sworn.
Swim, swum or swam, swimming, swum.
Swing, swung or swang, swinging, swung.
Take, took, taking, taken.
Teach, taught, teaching, taught.
Tear, tore, tearing, torn.
Tell, told, telling, told.
Think, thought, thinking, thought.
Thrust, thrust, thrusting, thrust.
Tread, trod, treading, trodden or trod.
Wear, wore, wearing, worn.
Win, won, winning, won.
Write, wrote, writing, written.[290]

Redundant Verbs.

A redundant verb is a verb that forms the preterit or the perfect participle in two or more ways, and so as to be both regular and irregular; as, thrive, thrived or throve, thriving, thrived or thriven. Of this class of verbs, there are about ninety-five, beside sundry derivatives and compounds.

Observations.

OBS. 1.—Those irregular verbs which have more than one form for the preterit or for the perfect participle, are in some sense redundant; but, as there is no occasion to make a distinct class of such as have double forms that are never regular, these redundancies are either included in the preceding list of the simple irregular verbs, or omitted as being improper to be now recognized for good English. Several examples of the latter kind, including both innovations and archaisms, will appear among the improprieties for correction, at the end of this chapter. A few old preterits or participles may perhaps be accounted good English in the solemn style, which are not so in the familiar: as, "And none spake a word unto him."—Job, ii, 13. "When I brake the five loaves."—Mark, viii, 19. "And he drave them from the judgement-seat."—Acts, xviii, 16. "Serve me till I have eaten and drunken."—Luke, xvii, 8. "It was not possible that he should be holden of it."—Acts, ii, 24. "Thou castedst them down into destruction."—Psal., lxxiii, 18. "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity."—Ib., li, 5. "A meat-offering baken in the oven."—Leviticus, ii, 4.

"With casted slough, and fresh celerity."—SHAK., Henry V.

"Thy dreadful vow, loaden with death."—ADDISON: in Joh. Dict.

OBS. 2.—The verb bet is given in Worcester's Dictionary, as being always regular: "BET, v. a. [i. BETTED; pp. BETTING, BETTED.] To wager; to lay a wager or bet. SHAK."—Octavo Dict. In Ainsworth's Grammar, it is given as being always irregular: "Present, Bet; Imperfect, Bet; Participle, Bet."—Page 36. On the authority of these, and of some others cited in OBS. 6th below, I have put it with the redundant verbs. The verb prove is redundant, if proven, which is noticed by Webster, Bolles, and Worcester, is an admissible word. "The participle proven is used in Scotland and in some parts of the United States, and sometimes, though rarely, in England.—'There is a mighty difference between not proven and disproven.' DR. TH. CHALMERS. 'Not proven.' QU. REV."—Worcester's Universal and Critical Dict. The verbs bless and dress are to be considered redundant, according to the authority of Worcester, Webster, Bolles, and others. Cobbett will have the verbs, cast, chide, cling, draw, grow, shred, sling, slink, spring, sting, stride, swim, swing, and thrust, to be always regular; but I find no sufficient authority for allowing to any of them a regular form; and therefore leave them, where they always have been, in the list of simple irregulars. These fourteen verbs are a part of the long list of seventy which this author says, "are, by some persons, erroneously deemed irregular." Of the following nine only, is his assertion true; namely, dip, help, load, overflow, slip, snow, stamp, strip, whip. These nine ought always to be formed regularly; for all their irregularities may well be reckoned obsolete. After these deductions from this most erroneous catalogue, there remain forty-five other very common verbs, to be disposed of contrary to this author's instructions. All but two of these I shall place in the list of redundant verbs; though for the use of throwed I find no written authority but his and William B. Fowle's. The two which I do not consider redundant are spit and strew, of which it may be proper to take more particular notice.

OBS. 3.—Spit, to stab, or to put upon a spit, is regular; as, "I spitted frogs, I crushed a heap of emmets."—Dryden. Spit, to throw out saliva, is irregular, and most properly formed thus: spit, spit, spitting, spit. "Spat is obsolete."—Webster's Dict. It is used in the Bible; as, "He spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle."—John, ix, 6. L. Murray gives this verb thus: "Pres. Spit; Imp. spit, spat; Perf. Part. spit, spitten." NOTE: "Spitten is nearly obsolete."—Octavo Gram., p. 106. Sanborn has it thus: "Pres. Spit; Imp. spit; Pres. Part. spitting; Perf. Part. spit, spat."—Analytical Gram., p. 48. Cobbett, at first, taking it in the form, "to spit, I spat, spitten," placed it among the seventy which he so erroneously thought should be made regular; afterwards he left it only in his list of irregulars, thus: "to spit, I spit, spitten."—Cobbett's E. Gram., of 1832, p. 54. Churchill, in 1823, preferring the older forms, gave it thus: "Spit, spat or spit, spitten or spit."—New Gram., p. 111. NOTE:—"Johnson gives spat as the preterimperfect, and spit or spitted as the participle of this verb, when it means to pierce through with a pointed instrument: but in this sense, I believe, it is always regular; while, on the other hand, the regular form is now never used, when it signifies to eject from the mouth; though we find in Luke, xviii, 32, 'He shall be spitted on.'"—Churchill's New Gram., p. 264. This text ought to have been, "He shall be spit upon."

OBS. 4.—To strew is in fact nothing else than an other mode of spelling the verb to strow; as shew is an obsolete form for show; but if we pronounce the two forms differently, we make them different words. Walker, and some others, pronounce them alike, stro; Sheridan, Jones, Jameson, and Webster, distinguish them in utterance, stroo and stro. This is convenient for the sake of rhyme, and perhaps therefore preferable. But strew, I incline to think, is properly a regular verb only, though Wells and Worcester give it otherwise: if strewn has ever been proper, it seems now to be obsolete. EXAMPLES: "Others cut down branches from the trees, and strewed them in the way."—Matt., xxi, 8. "Gathering where thou hast not strewed."—Matt., xxv, 24.

"Their name, their years, spelt by th' unletter'd muse,
The place of fame and elegy supply;
And many a holy text around she strews,
That teach the rustic moralist to die."—Gray.

OBS. 5.—The list which I give below, prepared with great care, exhibits the redundant verbs, as they are now generally used, or as they may be used without grammatical impropriety.[291] Those forms which are supposed to be preferable, and best supported by authorities, are placed first. No words are inserted here, but such as some modern authors countenance. L. Murray recognizes bereaved, catched, dealed, digged, dwelled, hanged, knitted, shined, spilled; and, in his early editions, he approved of bended, builded, creeped, weaved, worked, wringed. His two larger books now tell us, "The Compiler has not inserted such verbs as learnt, spelt, spilt, &c. which are improperly terminated by t, instead of ed."—Octavo Gram., p. 107; Duodecimo, p. 97. But if he did not, in all his grammars, insert, "Spill, spilt, R. spilt, R.," (pp. 106, 96,) preferring the irregular form to the regular, somebody else has done it for him. And, what is remarkable, many of his amenders, as if misled by some evil genius, have contradicted themselves in precisely the same way! Ingersoll, Fisk, Merchant, and Hart, republish exactly the foregoing words, and severally become "The Compiler" of the same erroneous catalogue! Kirkham prefers spilt to spilled, and then declares the word to be "improperly terminated by t instead of ed."—Gram., p. 151. Greenleaf, who condemns learnt and spelt, thinks dwelt and spilt are "the only established forms;" yet he will have dwell and spill to be "regular" verbs, as well as "irregular!"—Gram. Simp., p. 29. Webber prefers spilled to spilt; but Picket admits only the latter. Cobbett and Sanborn prefer bereaved, builded, dealed, digged, dreamed, hanged, and knitted, to bereft, built, dealt, dug, dreamt, hung, and knit. The former prefers creeped to crept, and freezed to froze; the latter, slitted to slit, wringed to wrung; and both consider, "I bended," "I bursted" and "I blowed," to be good modern English. W. Allen acknowledges freezed and slided; and, like Webster, prefers hove to hoven: but the latter justly prefers heaved to both. EXAMP.: "The supple kinsman slided to the helm."—New Timon. "The rogues slided me into the river."—Shak. "And the sand slided from beneath my feet."— DR. JOHNSON: in Murray's Sequel, p. 179. "Wherewith she freez'd her foes to congeal'd stone."—Milton's Comus, l. 449. "It freezed hard last night. Now, what was it that freezed so hard?"—Emmons's Gram., p. 25. "Far hence lies, ever freez'd, the northern main."—Savage's Wanderer, l. 57. "Has he not taught, beseeched, and shed abroad the Spirit unconfined?"—Pollok's Course of Time, B. x, l. 275.

OBS. 6.—D. Blair supposes catched to be an "erroneous" word and unauthorized: "I catch'd it," for "I caught it," he sets down for a "vulgarism."—E. Gram., p. 111. But catched is used by some of the most celebrated authors. Dearborn prefers the regular form of creep: "creep, creeped or crept, creeped or crept."—Columbian Gram., p. 38. I adopt no man's opinions implicitly; copy nothing without examination; but, to prove all my decisions to be right, would be an endless task. I shall do as much as ought to be expected, toward showing that they are so. It is to be remembered, that the poets, as well as the vulgar, use some forms which a gentleman would be likely to avoid, unless he meant to quote or imitate; as,

"So clomb the first grand thief into God's fold;
So since into his church lewd hirelings climb."
—Milton, P. L., B. iv, l. 192.

"He shore his sheep, and, having packed the wool,
Sent them unguarded to the hill of wolves."
—Pollok, C. of T., B. vi, l. 306.

———"The King of heav'n
Bar'd his red arm, and launching from the sky
His writhen bolt, not shaking empty smoke,
Down to the deep abyss the flaming felon strook."
—Dryden.

OBS. 7.—The following are examples in proof of some of the forms acknowledged below: "Where etiquette and precedence abided far away."—Paulding's Westward-Ho! p. 6. "But there were no secrets where Mrs. Judith Paddock abided."—Ib., p. 8. "They abided by the forms of government established by the charters."—John Quincy Adams, Oration, 1831. "I have abode consequences often enough in the course of my life."—Id., Speech, 1839. "Present, bide, or abide; Past, bode, or abode."—Coar's Gram., p. 104. "I awaked up last of all."—Ecclus., xxxiii, 16. "For this are my knees bended before the God of the spirits of all flesh."—Wm. Penn. "There was never a prince bereaved of his dependencies," &c.—Bacon. "Madam, you have bereft me of all words."—Shakspeare. "Reave, reaved or reft, reaving, reaved or reft. Bereave is similar."—Ward's Practical Gram., p. 65. "And let them tell their tales of woful ages, long ago betid."—Shak. "Of every nation blent, and every age."—Pollok, C. of T., B vii, p. 153. "Rider and horse,—friend, foe,—in one red burial blent!"—Byron, Harold, C. iii, st. 28. "I builded me houses."—Ecclesiastes, ii, 4. "For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God."—Heb. iii, 4. "What thy hands builded not, thy wisdom gained."—Milton's P. L., X, 373. "Present, bet; Past, bet; Participle, bet."— Mackintosh's Gram., p. 197; Alexander's, 38. "John of Gaunt loved him well, and betted much upon his head."—SHAKSPEARE: Joh. Dict, w. Bet. "He lost every earthly thing he betted."—PRIOR: ib. "A seraph kneeled."—Pollok, C. T., p. 95.

"At first, he declared he himself would be blowed,
Ere his conscience with such a foul crime he would load."
—J. R. Lowell.

"They are catched without art or industry."—Robertson's Amer.,-Vol. i, p. 302. "Apt to be catched and dazzled."—Blair's Rhet., p. 26. "The lion being catched in a net."—Art of Thinking, p. 232. "In their self-will they digged down a wall."—Gen., xlix, 6. "The royal mother instantly dove to the bottom and brought up her babe unharmed."— Trumbull's America, i, 144. "The learned have diven into the secrets of nature."—CARNOT: Columbian Orator, p. 82. "They have awoke from that ignorance in which they had slept."—London Encyclopedia. "And he slept and dreamed the second time."—Gen., xli, 5. "So I awoke."—Ib., 21. "But he hanged the chief baker."—Gen., xl, 22. "Make as if you hanged yourself."—ARBUTHNOT: in Joh. Dict. "Graven by art and man's device."—Acts, xvii, 29. "Grav'd on the stone beneath yon aged thorn."—Gray. "That the tooth of usury may be grinded."—Lord Bacon. "MILN-EE, The hole from which the grinded corn falls into the chest below."—Glossary of Craven, London, 1828. "UNGRUND, Not grinded."— Ibid. "And he built the inner court with three rows of hewed stone."—1 Kings, vi, 36. "A thing by which matter is hewed."—Dr. Murray's Hist. of Europ. Lang., Vol. i, p. 378. "SCAGD or SCAD meaned distinction, dividing."—Ib., i, 114. "He only meaned to acknowledge him to be an extraordinary person."—Lowth's Gram., p. 12. "The determines what particular thing is meaned."—Ib., p. 11. "If Hermia mean'd to say Lysander lied."—Shak. "As if I meaned not the first but the second creation."—Barclay's Works, iii, 289. "From some stones have rivers bursted forth."—Sale's Koran, Vol. i, p. 14.

"So move we on; I only meant
To show the reed on which you leant."—Scott, L. L., C. v, st. 11.

OBS. 8.—Layed, payed, and stayed, are now less common than laid, paid, and staid; but perhaps not less correct, since they are the same words in a more regular and not uncommon orthography: "Thou takest up that [which] thou layedst not down."—FRIENDS' BIBLE, SMITH'S, BRUCE'S: Luke, xix, 21. Scott's Bible, in this place, has "layest," which is wrong in tense. "Thou layedst affliction upon our loins."—FRIENDS' BIBLE: Psalms, lxvi, 11. "Thou laidest affliction upon our loins."—SCOTT'S BIBLE, and BRUCE'S. "Thou laidst affliction upon our loins."—SMITH'S BIBLE, Stereotyped by J. Howe. "Which gently lay'd my knighthood on my shoulder."—SINGER'S SHAKSPEARE: Richard II, Act i, Sc. 1. "But no regard was payed to his remonstrance."—Smollett's England, Vol. iii, p. 212. "Therefore the heaven over you is stayed from dew, and the earth is stayed from her fruit."—Haggai, i, 10. "STAY, i. STAYED or STAID; pp. STAYING, STAYED or STAID."—Worcester's Univ. and Crit. Dict. "Now Jonathan and Ahimaaz stayed by En-rogel."—2 Sam., xvii, 17. "This day have I payed my vows."—FRIENDS' BIBLE: Prov, vii, 14. Scott's Bible has "paid." "They not only stayed for their resort, but discharged divers."—HAYWARD: in Joh. Dict. "I stayed till the latest grapes were ripe."—Waller's Dedication. "To lay is regular, and has in the past time and participle layed or laid."—Lowth's Gram., p. 54. "To the flood, that stay'd her flight."—Milton's Comus, l. 832. "All rude, all waste, and desolate is lay'd."—Rowe's Lucan, B. ix, l. 1636. "And he smote thrice, and stayed."—2 Kings, xiii, 18.

"When Cobham, generous as the noble peer
That wears his honours, pay'd the fatal price
Of virtue blooming, ere the storms were laid."—Shenstone, p. 167.

OBS. 9.—By the foregoing citations, lay, pay, and stay, are clearly proved to be redundant. But, in nearly all our English grammars, lay and pay are represented as being always irregular; and stay is as often, and as improperly, supposed to be always regular. Other examples in proof of the list: "I lit my pipe with the paper."—Addison.

"While he whom learning, habits, all prevent,
Is largely mulct for each impediment."—Crabbe, Bor., p. 102.
"And then the chapel—night and morn to pray,
Or mulct and threaten'd if he kept away."—Ib., p. 162.

"A small space is formed, in which the breath is pent up."—Gardiner's Music of Nature, p. 493. "Pen, when it means to write, is always regular. Boyle has penned in the sense of confined."—Churchill's Gram., p. 261. "So far as it was now pled."—ANDERSON: Annals of the Bible, p. 25. "Rapped with admiration."—HOOKER: Joh. Dict. "And being rapt with the love of his beauty."—Id., ib. "And rapt in secret studies."—SHAK.: ib. "I'm rapt with joy."—ADDISON: ib. "Roast with fire."—FRIENDS' BIBLE: Exod., xii, 8 and 9. "Roasted with fire."—SCOTT'S BIBLE: Exod., xii, 8 and 9. "Upon them hath the light shined."—Isaiah, ix, 2. "The earth shined with his glory."—Ezekiel, xliii, 2. "After that he had showed wonders."—Acts, vii, 36. "Those things which God before had showed."—Acts, iii, 18. "As shall be shewed in Syntax."—Johnson's Gram. Com., p. 28. "I have shown you, that the two first may be dismissed."—Cobbett's E. Gram., ¶ 10. "And in this struggle were sowed the seeds of the revolution."—Everett's Address, p. 16. "Your favour showed to the performance, has given me boldness."—Jenks's Prayers, Ded. "Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel."—Rom., xv, 20. "Art thou, like the adder, waxen deaf?"—Shakspeare. "Hamstring'd behind, unhappy Gyges died."—Dryden. "In Syracusa was I born and wed."—Shakspeare. "And thou art wedded to calamity."—Id. "I saw thee first, and wedded thee."—Milton. "Sprung the rank weed, and thrived with large increase."—Pope. "Some errors never would have thriven, had it not been for learned refutation."—Book of Thoughts, p. 34. "Under your care they have thriven."—Junius, p. 5. "Fixed by being rolled closely, compacted, knitted."—Dr. Murray's Hist., Vol. i, p. 374. "With kind converse and skill has weaved."—Prior. "Though I shall be wetted to the skin."—Sandford and Merton, p. 64. "I speeded hither with the very extremest inch of possibility."—Shakspeare. "And pure grief shore his old thread in twain."—Id. "And must I ravel out my weaved-up follies?"—Id., Rich. II. "Tells how the drudging Goblin swet."—Milton's L'Allegro. "Weave, wove or weaved, weaving, wove, weaved, or woven."—Ward's Gram., p. 67.

"Thou who beneath the frown of fate hast stood,
And in thy dreadful agony sweat blood."—Young, p. 238.

OBS. 10.—The verb to shake is now seldom used in any other than the irregular form, shake, shook, shaking, shaken; and, in this form only, is it recognized by our principal grammarians and lexicographers, except that Johnson improperly acknowledges shook as well as shaken for the perfect participle: as, "I've shook it off."—DRYDEN: Joh. Dict. But the regular form, shake, shaked, shaking, shaked, appears to have been used by some writers of high reputation; and, if the verb is not now properly redundant, it formerly was so. Examples regular: "The frame and huge foundation of the earth shak'd like a coward."—SHAKSPEARE: Hen. IV. "I am he that is so love-shaked."—ID.: As You Like it. "A sly and constant knave, not to be shak'd."—ID.: Cymbeline: Joh. Dict. "I thought he would have shaked it off."—TATTLER: ib. "To the very point I shaked my head at."—Spectator, No. 4. "From the ruin'd roof of shak'd Olympus."—Milton's Poems. "None hath shak'd it off."—Walker's English Particles, p. 89. "They shaked their heads."—Psalms, cix, 25. Dr. Crombie says, "Story, in his Grammar, has, most unwarrantably, asserted, that the Participle of this Verb should be shaked."—ON ETYMOLOGY AND SYNTAX, p. 198. Fowle, on the contrary, pronounces shaked to be right. See True English Gram., p. 46.

OBS. 11.—All former lists of our irregular and redundant verbs are, in many respects, defective and erroneous; nor is it claimed for those which are here presented, that they are absolutely perfect. I trust, however, they are much nearer to perfection, than are any earlier ones. Among the many individuals who have published schemes of these verbs, none have been more respected and followed than Lowth, Murray, and Crombie; yet are these authors' lists severally faulty in respect to as many as sixty or seventy of the words in question, though the whole number but little exceeds two hundred, and is commonly reckoned less than one hundred and eighty. By Lowth, eight verbs are made redundant, which I think are now regular only: namely, bake, climb, fold, help, load, owe, wash. By Crombie, as many: to wit, bake, climb, freight, help, lift, load, shape, writhe. By Murray, two: load and shape. With Crombie, and in general with the others too, twenty-seven verbs are always irregular, which I think are sometimes regular, and therefore redundant: abide, beseech, blow, burst, creep, freeze, grind, lade, lay, pay, rive, seethe, shake, show, sleep, slide, speed, string, strive, strow, sweat, thrive, throw, weave, weep, wind, wring. Again, there are, I think, more than twenty redundant verbs which are treated by Crombie,—and, with one or two exceptions, by Lowth and Murray also,—as if they were always regular: namely, betide, blend, bless, burn, dive, dream, dress, geld, kneel, lean, leap, learn, mean, mulct, pass, pen, plead, prove, reave, smell, spell, stave, stay, sweep, wake, whet, wont. Crombie's list contains the auxiliaries, which properly belong to a different table. Erroneous as it is, in all these things, and more, it is introduced by the author with the following praise, in bad English: "Verbs, which depart from this rule, are called Irregular, of which I believe the subsequent enumeration to be nearly complete."—TREATISE ON ETYM. AND SYNT., p. 192.

OBS. 12.—Dr. Johnson, in his Grammar of the English Tongue, recognizes two forms which would make teach and reach redundant. But teached is now "obsolete," and rought is "old," according to his own Dictionary. Of loaded and loaden, which he gives as participles of load, the regular form only appears to be now in good use. For the redundant forms of many words in the foregoing list, as of abode or abided, awaked or awoke, besought or beseeched, caught or catched, hewed or hewn, mowed or mown, laded or laden, seethed or sod, sheared or shore, sowed or sown, waked or woke, wove or weaved, his authority may be added to that of others already cited. In Dearborn's Columbian Grammar, published in Boston in 1795, the year in which Lindley Murray's Grammar first appeared in York, no fewer than thirty verbs are made redundant, which are not so represented by Murray. Of these I have retained nineteen in the following list, and left the other eleven to be now considered always regular. The thirty are these: "bake, bend, build, burn, climb, creep, dream, fold, freight, geld, heat, heave, help, lay, leap, lift, light, melt, owe, quit, rent, rot, seethe, spell, split, strive, wash, weave, wet, work." See Dearborn's Gram., p. 37-45.

List of the Redundant Verbs.

Imperfect Present. Preterit. Participle. Perfect Participle.

Abide, abode or abided, abiding, abode or abided.
Awake, awaked or awoke, awaking, awaked or awoke.
Belay, belayed or belaid, belaying, belayed or belaid.
Bend, bent or bended, bending, bent or bended.
Bereave, bereft or bereaved, bereaving, bereft or bereaved.
Beseech, besought or beseeched, beseeching, besought or beseeched.
Bet, betted or bet, betting, betted or bet.
Betide, betided or betid, betiding, betided or betid.
Bide, bode or bided, biding, bode or bided.
Blend, blended or blent, blending, blended or blent.
Bless, blessed or blest, blessing, blessed or blest.
Blow, blew or blowed, blowing, blown or blowed.
Build, built or builded, building, built or builded.
Burn, burned or burnt, burning, burned or burnt.
Burst, burst or bursted, bursting, burst or bursted.
Catch, caught or catched, catching, caught or catched.
Clothe, clothed or clad, clothing, clothed or clad.
Creep, crept or creeped, creeping, crept or creeped.
Crow, crowed or crew, crowing, crowed.
Curse, cursed or curst, cursing, cursed or curst.
Dare, dared or durst, daring, dared.
Deal, dealt or dealed, dealing, dealt or dealed.
Dig, dug or digged, digging, dug or digged.
Dive, dived or dove, diving, dived or diven.
Dream, dreamed or dreamt, dreaming, dreamed or dreamt.
Dress, dressed or drest, dressing, dressed or drest.
Dwell, dwelt or dwelled, dwelling, dwelt or dwelled.
Freeze, froze or freezed, freezing, frozen or freezed.
Geld, gelded or gelt, gelding, gelded or gelt.
Gild, gilded or gilt, gilding, gilded or gilt.
Gird, girded or girt, girding, girded or girt.
Grave, graved, graving, graved or graven.
Grind, ground or grinded, grinding, ground or grinded.
Hang, hung or hanged, hanging, hung or hanged.
Heat, heated or het, heating, heated or het.
Heave, heaved or hove, heaving, heaved or hoven.
Hew, hewed, hewing, hewed or hewn.
Kneel, kneeled or knelt, kneeling, kneeled or knelt.
Knit, knit or knitted, knitting, knit or knitted.
Lade, laded, lading, laded or laden.
Lay, laid or layed, laying, laid or layed.
Lean, leaned or leant, leaning, leaned or leant.
Leap, leaped or leapt, leaping, leaped or leapt.[292]
Learn, learned or learnt, learning, learned or learnt.
Light, lighted or lit, lighting, lighted or lit.
Mean, meant or meaned, meaning, meant or meaned.
Mow, mowed, mowing, mowed or mown.
Mulct, mulcted or mulct, mulcting, mulcted or mulct.
Pass, passed or past, passing, passed or past.
Pay, paid or payed, paying, paid or payed.
Pen, penned or pent, penning, penned or pent.
(to coop,)
Plead, pleaded or pled, pleading, pleaded or pled.
Prove, proved, proving, proved or proven.
Quit, quitted or quit, quitting, quitted or quit.[293]
Rap, rapped or rapt, rapping, rapped or rapt.
Reave, reft or reaved, reaving, reft or reaved.
Rive, rived, riving, riven or rived.
Roast, roasted or roast, roasting, roasted or roast.
Saw, sawed, sawing, sawed or sawn.
Seethe, seethed or sod, seething, seethed or sodden.
Shake, shook or shaked, shaking, shaken or shaked.
Shape, shaped, shaping, shaped or shapen.
Shave, shaved, shaving, shaved or shaven.
Shear, sheared or shore, shearing, sheared or shorn.
Shine, shined or shone, shining, shined or shone.
Show, showed, showing, showed or shown.
Sleep, slept or sleeped, sleeping, slept or sleeped.
Slide, slid or slided, sliding, slidden, slid,
or slided.
Slit, slitted or slit, slitting, slitted or slit.
Smell, smelled or smelt, smelling, smelled or smelt.
Sow, sowed, sowing, sowed or sown.
Speed, sped or speeded, speeding, sped or speeded.
Spell, spelled or spelt, spelling, spelled or spelt.
Spill, spilled or spilt, spilling, spilled or spilt.
Split, split or splitted, splitting, split
or splitted.[294]
Spoil, spoiled or spoilt, spoiling, spoiled or spoilt.
Stave, stove or staved, staving, stove or staved.
Stay, staid or stayed, staying, staid or stayed.
String, strung or stringed, stringing, strung or stringed.
Strive, strived or strove, striving, strived or striven.
Strow, strowed, strowing, strowed or strown.
Sweat, sweated or sweat, sweating, sweated or sweat.
Sweep, swept or sweeped, sweeping, swept or sweeped.
Swell, swelled, swelling, swelled or swollen.
Thrive, thrived or throve, thriving, thrived or thriven.
Throw, threw or throwed, throwing, thrown or throwed.
Wake, waked or woke, waking, waked or woke.
Wax, waxed, waxing, waxed or waxen.
Weave, wove or weaved, weaving, woven or weaved.
Wed, wedded or wed, wedding, wedded or wed.
Weep, wept or weeped, weeping, wept or weeped.
Wet, wet or wetted, wetting, wet or wetted.
Whet, whetted or whet, whetting, whetted or whet.[295]
Wind, wound or winded, winding, wound or winded.
Wont, wont or wonted, wonting, wont or wonted.
Work, worked or wrought, working, worked or wrought.
Wring, wringed or wrung, wringing, wringed or wrung.[296]

Defective Verbs.

A defective verb is a verb that forms no participles, and is used in but few of the moods and tenses; as, beware, ought, quoth.

Observations.

OBS. 1. When any of the principal parts of a verb are wanting, the tenses usually derived from those parts are also, of course, wanting. All the auxiliaries, except do, be, and have, if we compare them with other verbs, are defective; but, as auxiliaries, they lack nothing; for no complete verb is used throughout as an auxiliary, except be. And since an auxiliary differs essentially from a principal verb, the propriety of referring may, can, must, and shall, to the class of defective verbs, is at least questionable. In parsing there is never any occasion to call them defective verbs, because they are always taken together with their principals. And though we may technically say, that their participles are "wanting," it is manifest that none are needed.

OBS. 2. Will is sometimes used as a principal verb, and as such it is regular and complete; will, willed, willing, willed: as, "His Majesty willed that they should attend."—Clarendon. "He wills for them a happiness of a far more exalted and enduring nature."—Gurney. "Whether thou willest it to be a minister to our pleasure."—Harris. "I will; be thou clean."—Luke, v, 13. "Nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou will."—Matt., xxvi, 39. "To will is present with me."—Rom., vii, 18. But would is sometimes also a principal verb; as, "What would this man?"—Pope. "Would God that all the Lord's people were prophets."—Numb., xi, 29. "And Israel would none of me."—Psalm, lxxxi, 11. If we refer this indefinite preterit to the same root, will becomes redundant; will, willed or would, willing, willed. In respect to time, would is less definite than willed, though both are called preterits. It is common, and perhaps best, to consider them distinct verbs. The latter only can be a participle: as,

"How rarely does it meet with this time's guise,
When man was will'd to love his enemies!"—Shakspeare.

OBS. 3. The remaining defective verbs are only five or six questionable terms, which our grammarians know not well how else to explain; some of them being now nearly obsolete, and others never having been very proper. Begone is a needless coalition of be and gone, better written separately, unless Dr. Johnson is right in calling the compound an interjection: as,

"Begone! the goddess cries with stern disdain,
Begone! nor dare the hallow'd stream to stain!"—Addison.

Beware also seems to be a needless compound of be and the old adjective ware, wary, aware, cautious. Both these are, of course, used only in those forms of expression in which be is proper; as, "Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision."—Philippians, iii, 2. "But we must beware[297] of carrying our attention to this beauty too far."—Blair's Rhet., p. 119. These words were formerly separated: as, "Of whom be thou ware also."—1 Tim., iv, 15. "They were ware of it."—FRIENDS' BIBLE, and ALGER'S: Acts, xiii, 6. "They were aware of it."—SCOTT'S BIBLE: ib. "And in an hour that he is not ware of him."—Johnson's Dict., w. Ware. "And in an hour that he is not aware of."—COMMON BIBLES: Matt., xxiv, 50. "Bid her well be ware and still erect."—MILTON: in Johnson's Dict. "That even Silence was took ere she was ware."—Id., Comus, line 558. The adjective ware is now said to be "obsolete;" but the propriety of this assertion depends upon that of forming such a defective verb. What is the use of doing so?

"This to disclose is all thy guardian can; Beware of all, but most beware of man."—Pope.

The words written separately will always have the same meaning, unless we omit the preposition of, and suppose the compound to be a transitive verb. In this case, the argument for compounding the terms appears to be valid; as,

"Beware the public laughter of the town; Thou springst a-leak already in thy crown."—Dryden.

OBS. 4. The words ought and own, without question, were originally parts of the redundant verb to owe; thus: owe, owed or ought, owing, owed or own. But both have long been disjoined from this connexion, and hence owe has become regular. Own, as now used, is either a pronominal adjective, as, "my own hand," or a regular verb thence derived, as, "to own a house." Ought, under the name of a defective verb, is now generally thought to be properly used, in this one form, in all the persons and numbers of the present and the imperfect tense of the indicative and subjunctive moods. Or, if it is really of one tense only, it is plainly an aorist; and hence the time must be specified by the infinitive that follows: as, "He ought to go; He ought to have gone." "If thou ought to go; If thou ought to have gone." Being originally a preterit, it never occurs in the infinitive mood, and is entirely invariable, except in the solemn style, where we find oughtest in both tenses; as, "How thou oughtest to behave thyself."—1 Tim., iii, 15. "Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers."—Matt., xxiv, 27. We never say, or have said, "He, she, or it, oughts or oughteth." Yet we manifestly use this verb in the present tense, and in the third person singular; as, "Discourse ought always to begin with a clear proposition."—Blair's Rhet., p. 217. I have already observed that some grammarians improperly call ought an auxiliary. The learned authors of Brightland's Grammar, (which is dedicated to Queen Anne,) did so; and also affirmed that must and ought "have only the present time," and are alike invariable. "It is now quite obsolete to say, thou oughtest; for ought now changes its ending no more than must."—Brightland's Gram., (approved by Isaac Bickerstaff, Esq.,) p. 112.

"Do, will, and shall, must, OUGHT, and may, Have, am, or be, this Doctrine will display."—Ib., p. 107.

OBS. 5.—Wis, preterit wist, to know, to think, to suppose, to imagine, appears to be now nearly or quite obsolete; but it may be proper to explain it, because it is found in the Bible: as, "I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest."—Acts, xxiii, 5. "He himself 'wist not that his face shone.'"—Life of Schiller, p. iv. Wit, to know, and wot, knew, are also obsolete, except in the phrase to wit; which, being taken abstractly, is equivalent to the adverb namely, or to the phrase, that is to say. The phrase, "we do you to wit," (in 2 Cor., viii, 1st,) means, "we inform you." Churchill gives the present tense of this verb three forms, weet, wit, and wot; and there seems to have been some authority for them all: as, "He was, to weet, a little roguish page."—Thomson. "But little wotteth he the might of the means his folly despiseth."—Tupper's Book of Thoughts, p. 35. To wit, used alone, to indicate a thing spoken of, (as the French use their infinitive, savoir, à savoir, or the phrase, c'est à savoir,) is undoubtedly an elliptical expression: probably for, "I give you to wit;" i. e., "I give you to know." Trow, to think, occurs in the Bible; as, "I trow not."—N. Test. And Coar gives it as a defective verb; and only in the first person singular of the present indicative, "I trow." Webster and Worcester mark the words as obsolete; but Sir W. Scott, in the Lady of the Lake, has this line:

"Thinkst thou he trow'd thine omen ought?"—Canto iv, stanza 10.

Quoth and quod, for say, saith, or said, are obsolete, or used only in ludicrous language. Webster supposes these words to be equivalent, and each confined to the first and third persons of the present and imperfect tenses of the indicative mood. Johnson says, that, "quoth you," as used by Sidney, is irregular; but Tooke assures us, that "The th in quoth, does not designate the third person."—Diversions of Purley, Vol. ii, p. 323. They are each invariable, and always placed before the nominative: as, quoth I, quoth he.

"Yea, so sayst thou, (quod Tröylus,) alas!"—Chaucer.

"I feare, quod he, it wyll not be."—Sir T. More.

"Stranger, go! Heaven be thy guide! Quod the beadsman of Nith-side."—Burns.

OBS. 6.—Methinks, (i. e., to me it thinks,) for I think, or, it seems to me, with its preterit methought, (i. e., to me it thought,) is called by Dr. Johnson an "ungrammatical word." He imagined it to be "a Norman corruption, the French being apt to confound me and I."—Joh. Dict. It is indeed a puzzling anomaly in our language, though not without some Anglo-Saxon or Latin parallels; and, like its kindred, "me seemeth," or "meseems," is little worthy to be countenanced, though often used by Dryden, Pope, Addison, and other good writers. Our lexicographers call it an impersonal verb, because, being compounded with an objective, it cannot have a nominative expressed. It is nearly equivalent to the adverb apparently; and if impersonal, it is also defective; for it has no participles, no "methinking," and no participial construction of "methought;" though Webster's American Dictionary, whether quarto or octavo, absurdly suggests that the latter word may be used as a participle. In the Bible, we find the following text: "Me thinketh the running of the foremost is like the running of Ahimaaz."—2 Sam., xviii, 27. And Milton improperly makes thought an impersonal verb, apparently governing the separate objective pronoun him; as,

"Him thought he by the brook of Cherith stood." —P. R., B. ii, l. 264.

OBS. 7.—Some verbs from the nature of the subjects to which they refer, are chiefly confined to the third person singular; as, "It rains; it snows; it freezes; it hails; it lightens; it thunders." These have been called impersonal verbs; because the neuter pronoun it, which is commonly used before them, does not seem to represent any noun, but, in connexion with the verb, merely to express a state of things. They are however, in fact, neither impersonal nor defective. Some, or all of them, may possibly take some other nominative, if not a different person; as, "The Lord rained upon Sodom, and upon Gomorrah, brimstone and fire."—Gen., xix, 24. "The God of glory thundereth."—Psalms, xxix, 3. "Canst thou thunder with a voice like him?"—Job, xl, 9. In short, as Harris observes, "The doctrine of Impersonal Verbs has been justly rejected by the best grammarians, both ancient and modern."—Hermes, p. 175.

OBS. 8.—By some writers, words of this kind are called Monopersonal Verbs; that is, verbs of one person. This name, though not very properly compounded, is perhaps more fit than the other; but we have little occasion to speak of these verbs as a distinct class in our language. Dr. Murray says, "What is called an impersonal verb, is not so; for lic-et, juv-at, and oport-et, have Tha, that thing, or it, in their composition."—History of European Languages, Vol. ii, p. 146. Ail, irk, and behoove, are regular verbs and transitive; but they are used only in the third person singular: as, "What ails you?"—"It irks me."—"It behooves you." The last two are obsolescent, or at least not in very common use. In Latin, passive verbs, or neuters of the passive form, are often used impersonally, or without an obvious nominative; and this elliptical construction is sometimes imitated in English, especially by the poets: as,

"Meanwhile, ere thus was sinn'd and judg'd on earth,
Within the gates of Hell sat Sin and Death."
—Milton, P. L., B. x, l. 230.

"Forthwith on all sides to his aid was run
By angels many and strong, who interpos'd."
—Id., B. vi, l. 335.

List of the Defective Verbs.

Present. Preterit.
Beware, ———
Can, could.
May, might.
Methinks, methought.
Must, must.[298]
Ought, ought.[298]
Shall, should,
Will[299] would.
Quoth, quoth.
Wis, wist.[300]
Wit, wot.

Examples for Parsing.

Praxis Vi—Etymological.

In the Sixth Praxis, it is required of the pupil—to distinguish and define the different parts of speech, and the classes and modifications of the ARTICLES, NOUNS, ADJECTIVES, PRONOUNS, and VERBS.

The definitions to be given in the Sixth Praxis, are two for an article, six for a noun, three for an adjective, six for a pronoun, seven for a verb finite, five for an infinitive, and one for a participle, an adverb, a conjunction, a preposition, or an interjection. Thus:—

Example Parsed.

"The freedom of choice seems essential to happiness; because, properly speaking, that is riot our own which is imposed upon us."—Dillwyn's Reflections, p. 109.

The is the definite article. 1. An article is the word the, an, or a, which we put before nouns to limit their signification. 2. The definite article is the, which denotes some particular thing or things.

Freedom is a common noun, of the third person, singular number, neuter gender, and nominative case. 1. A noun is the name of any person, place, or thing, that can be known or mentioned. 2. A common noun is the name of a sort, kind, or class, of beings or things. 3. The third person is that which denotes the person or thing merely spoken of. 4. The singular number is that which denotes but one. 5. The neuter gender is that which denotes things that are neither male nor female. 6. The nominative case is that form or state of a noun or pronoun, which usually denotes the subject of a finite verb.

Of is a preposition. 1. A preposition is a word used to express some relation of different things or thoughts to each other, and is generally placed before a noun or a pronoun.

Choice is a common noun, of the third person, singular number, neuter gender, and objective case. 1. A noun is; the name of any person, place, or thing, that can he known or mentioned. 2. A common noun is the name of a sort, kind, or class, of beings or things. 3. The third person is that which denotes the person or thing merely spoken of. 4. The singular number is that which denotes but one. 5. The neuter gender is that which denotes things that are neither male nor female. 6. The objective case is that form or state of a noun or pronoun, which usually denotes the object of a verb, participle, or preposition.

Seems is a regular neuter verb, from seem, seemed, seeming, seemed; found in the indicative mood, present tense, third person, and singular number. 1. A verb is a word that signifies to be, to act, or to be acted upon. 2. A regular verb is a verb that forms the preterit and the perfect participle by assuming d or ed. 3. A neuter verb is a verb that expresses neither action nor passion, but simply being, or a state of being. 4. The indicative mood is that form of the verb, which simply indicates or declares a thing, or asks a question. 5. The present tense is that which expresses what now exists, or is taking place. 6. The third person is that which denotes the person or thing merely spoken of. 7. The singular number is that which denotes but one. Essential is a common adjective, compared by means of the adverbs; essential, more essential, most essential; or, essential, less essential, least essential. 1. An adjective is a word added to a noun or pronoun, and generally expresses quality. 2. A common adjective is any ordinary epithet, or adjective denoting quality or situation. 3. Those adjectives which may be varied in sense, but not in form, are compared by means of adverbs.

To is a preposition. 1. A preposition is a word used to express some relation of different things or thoughts to each other, and is generally placed before a noun or a pronoun.

Happiness is a common noun, of the third person, singular number, neuter gender, and objective case. 1. A noun is the name of any person, place, or thing, that can be known or mentioned. 2. A common noun is the name of a sort, kind, or class, of beings or things. 3. The third person is that which denotes the person or thing merely spoken of. 4. The singular number is that which denotes but one. 5. The neuter gender is that which denotes things that are neither male nor female. 6. The objective case is that form or state of a noun or pronoun which usually denotes the object of a verb, participle, or preposition.

Because is a conjunction. 1. A conjunction is a word used to connect words or sentences in construction, and to show the dependence of the terms so connected.

Properly is an adverb. 1. An adverb is a word added to a verb, a participle, an adjective, or an other adverb; and generally expresses time, place, degree, or manner.

Speaking is a participle. 1. A participle is a word derived from a verb, participating the properties of a verb, and of an adjective or a noun; and is generally formed by adding ing, d, or ed, to the verb.

That is a pronominal adjective, not compared; standing for that thing, in the third person, singular number, neuter gender, and nominative case. [See OBS. 14th, p. 290.] 1. An adjective is a word added to a noun or pronoun, and generally expresses quality. 2. A pronominal adjective is a definitive word which may either accompany its noun, or represent it understood. 3. The third person is that which denotes the person or thing merely spoken of. 4. The singular number is that which denotes but one. 5. The neuter gender is that which denotes things that are neither male nor female. 6. The nominative case is that form or state of a noun or pronoun, which usually denotes the subject of a finite verb.

Is is an irregular neuter verb, from be, was, being, been; found in the indicative mood, present tense, third person, and singular number. 1. A verb is a word that signifies to be, to act, or to be acted upon. 2. An irregular verb is a verb that does not form the preterit and the perfect participle by assuming d or ed. 3. A neuter verb is a verb that expresses neither action nor passion, but simply being, or a state of being. 4. The indicative mood is that form of the verb, which simply indicates or declares a thing, or asks a question. 5. The present tense is that which expresses what now exists, or is taking place. 6. The third person is that which denotes the person or thing merely spoken of. 7. The singular number is that which denotes but one.

Not is an adverb. 1. An adverb is a word added to a verb, a participle, an adjective, or an other adverb; and generally expresses time, place, degree, or manner.

Our is a personal pronoun, of the first person, plural number, masculine gender, and possessive case. 1. A pronoun is a word used in stead of a noun. 2. A personal pronoun is a pronoun that shows, by its form, of what person it is. 3. The first person is that which denotes the speaker or writer. 4. The plural number is that which denotes more than one. 5. The masculine gender is that which denotes persons or animals of the male kind. 6. The possessive case is that form or state of a noun or pronoun, which usually denotes the relation of property.

Own is a pronominal adjective, not compared. 1. An adjective is a word added to a noun or pronoun, and generally expresses quality. 2. A pronominal adjective is a definitive word which may either accompany its noun, or represent it understood. 3. Those adjectives whose signification does not admit of different degrees cannot be compared.

Which is a relative pronoun, of the third person, singular number, neuter gender, and nominative case. 1. A pronoun is a word used in stead of a noun. 2. A relative pronoun is a pronoun that represents an antecedent word or phrase, and connects different clauses of a sentence. 3. The third person is that which denotes the person or thing merely spoken of. 4. The singular number is that which denotes but one. 5. The neuter gender is that which denotes things that are neither male nor female. 6. The nominative case is that form or state of a noun or pronoun which usually denotes the subject of a finite verb.

Is imposed is a regular passive verb, from the active verb, impose, imposed, imposing, imposed,—passive, to be imposed; found in the indicative mood, present tense, third person, and singular number. 1. A verb is a word that signifies to be, to act, or to be acted upon. 2. A regular verb is a verb that forms the preterit and the perfect participle by assuming d or ed. 3. A passive verb is a verb that represents the subject, or what the nominative expresses, as being acted upon. 4. The indicative mood is that form of the verb which simply indicates or declares a thing, or asks a question. 5. The present tense is that which expresses what now exists, or is taking place. 6. The third person is that which denotes the person or thing merely spoken of. 7. The singular number is that which denotes but one.

Upon is a preposition. 1. A preposition is a word used to express some relation of different things or thoughts to each other, and is generally placed before a noun or a pronoun.

Us is a personal pronoun, of the first person, plural number, masculine gender, and objective case. 1. A pronoun is a word used in stead of a noun. 2. A personal pronoun is a pronoun that shows, by its form, of what person it is. 3. The first person is that which denotes the speaker or writer. 4. The plural number is that which denotes more than one. 5. The masculine gender is that which denotes persons or animals of the male kind. 6. The objective case is that form or state of a noun or pronoun, which usually denotes the object of a verb, participle, or preposition.

Lesson I.—Parsing.

"He has desires after the kingdom, and mates no question but it shall be his; he wills, runs, strives, believes, hopes, prays, reads scriptures, observes duties, and regards ordinances."—Penington, ii, 124.

"Wo unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye enter not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered."—Luke, xi, 52.

"Above all other liberties, give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely, according to my conscience."—Milton.

"Eloquence is to be looked for only in free states. Longinus illustrates this observation with a great deal of beauty. 'Liberty,' he remarks, 'is the nurse of true genius; it animates the spirit, and invigorates the hopes, of men; it excites honourable emulation, and a desire of excelling in every art.'"—Blair's Rhet., p. 237.

"None of the faculties common to man and the lower animals, conceive the idea of civil liberty, any more than that of religion."—Spurzheim, on Education, p. 259. "Whoever is not able, or does not dare, to think, or does not feel contradictions and absurdities, is unfit for a refined religion and civil liberty."—Ib., p. 258.

"The too great number of journals, and the extreme partiality of their authors, have much discredited them. A man must have great talents to please all sorts of readers; and it is impossible to please all authors, who, generally speaking, cannot bear with the most judicious and most decent criticisms."—Formey's Belles-Lettres, p. 170.

"Son of man, I have broken the arm of Pharaoh king of Egypt; and, lo, it shall not be bound up to be healed, to put a roller to bind it, to make it strong to hold the sword."—Ezekiel, xxx, 21.

"Yet he was humble, kind, forgiving, meek,
Easy to be entreated, gracious, mild;
And, with all patience and affection, taught,
Rebuked, persuaded, solaced, counselled, warned."—Pollok, B. ix.

Lesson Ii.—Parsing.

"What is coming, will come; what is proceeding onward, verges towards completion."—Dr. Murray's Europ. Lang., i, 324. "Sir, if it had not been for the art of printing, we should now have had no learning at all; for books would have perished faster than they could have been transcribed."—Dr. Johnson's Life, iii, 400.

"Passionate reproofs are like medicines given scalding hot: the patient cannot take them. If we wish to do good to those whom we rebuke, we should labour for meekness of wisdom, and use soft words and hard arguments."—Dodd.

"My prayer for you is, that God may guide you by his counsel, and in the end bring you to glory: to this purpose, attend diligently to the dictates of his good spirit, which you may hear within you; for Christ saith, 'He that dwelleth with you, shall be in you.' And, as you hear and obey him, he will conduct you through this troublous world, in ways of truth and righteousness, and land you at last in the habitations of everlasting rest and peace with the Lord, to praise him for ever and ever."—T. Gwin.

"By matter, we mean, that which is tangible, extended, and divisible; by mind, that which perceives, reflects, wills, and reasons. These properties are wholly dissimilar and admit of no comparison. To pretend that mind is matter, is to propose a contradiction in terms; and is just as absurd, as to pretend that matter is mind."—Gurney's Portable Evidence, p. 78.

"If any one should think all this to be of little importance, I desire him to consider what he would think, if vice had, essentially, and in its nature, these advantageous tendencies, or if virtue had essentially the direct contrary ones."—Butler, p. 99.

"No man can write simpler and stronger English than the celebrated Boz, and this renders us the more annoyed at those manifold vulgarities and slipshod errors, which unhappily have of late years disfigured his productions."—LIVING AUTHORS OF ENGLAND: The Examiner, No. 119.

"Here Havard, all serene, in the same strains,
Loves, hates, and rages, triumphs, and complains."—Churchill, p. 3.

"Let Satire, then, her proper object know,
And ere she strike, be sure she strike a foe."—John Brown.

Lesson Iii.—Parsing.

"The Author of nature has as truly directed that vicious actions, considered as mischievous to society, should be punished, and has as clearly put mankind under a necessity of thus punishing them, as he has directed and necessitated us to preserve our lives by food."—Butler's Analogy, p. 88. "An author may injure his works by altering, and even amending, the successive editions: the first impression sinks the deepest, and with the credulous it can rarely be effaced; nay, he will be vainly employed who endeavours to eradicate it."—Werter, p. 82.

"It is well ordered, that even the most innocent blunder is not committed with impunity; because, were errors licensed where they do no hurt, inattention would grow into habit, and be the occasion of much hurt."—Kames, El. of Crit., i, 285.

"The force of language consists in raising complete images; which have the effect to transport the reader, as by magic, into the very place of the important action, and to convert him as it were into a spectator, beholding every thing that passes."—Id., ib., ii, 241.

"An orator should not put forth all his strength at the beginning, but should rise and grow upon us, as his discourse advances."—Blair's Rhet., p. 309.

"When a talent is given to any one, an account is open with the giver of it, who appoints a day in which he will arrive and 'redemand his own with usury.'"—West's Letters to a Young Lady, p. 74.

"Go, and reclaim the sinner, instruct the ignorant, soften the obdurate, and (as occasion shall demand) cheer, depress, repel, allure, disturb, assuage, console, or terrify."—Jerningham's Essay on Eloquence, p. 97.

"If all the year were playing holydays,
To sport would be as tedious as to work:
But when they seldom come, they wish'd-for come,
And nothing pleaseth but rare accidents."
—Shak., Hen. V.

"The man that once did sell the lion's skin
While the beast liv'd, was kill'd with hunting him."
—Id., Joh. Dict., w. Beast.

Improprieties for Correction.

Errors of Verbs.

Lesson I.—Preterits.

"In speaking on a matter which toucht their hearts."—Philological
Museum, Vol. i, p. 441.

[FORMULE.—Not proper, because the verb toucht is terminated in t. But, according to Observation 2nd, on the irregular verbs, touch is regular. Therefore, this t should be changed to ed; thus, "In speaking on a matter which touched their hearts."]

"Though Horace publisht it some time after."—Ib., i, 444. "The best subjects with which the Greek models furnisht him."—Ib., i, 444. "Since he attacht no thought to it."—Ib., i, 645. "By what slow steps the Greek alphabet reacht its perfection."—Ib., i, 651. "Because Goethe wisht to erect an affectionate memorial."—Ib., i, 469. "But the Saxon forms soon dropt away."—Ib., i, 668. "It speaks of all the towns that perisht in the age of Philip."—Ib., i, 252. "This enricht the written language with new words."—Ib., i, 668. "He merely furnisht his friend with matter for laughter."—Ib., i, 479. "A cloud arose and stopt the light."—Swift's Poems, p. 313. "She slipt zpadillo in her breast."—Ib., p. 371. "I guest the hand."—Ib., p. 372. "The tyrant stript me to the skin: My skin he flay'd, my hair he cropt; At head and foot my body lopt."—Ib., On a Pen, p. 338. "I see the greatest owls in you, That ever screecht or ever flew."—Ib., p. 403. "I sate with delight, from morning till night."—Ib., p. 367. "Dick nimbly skipt the gutter."—Ib., p. 375. "In at the pantry door this morn I slipt."—Ib., p. 369. "Nobody living ever toucht me but you."—Walker's Particles, p. 92. "Present, I ship; Past, I shipped or shipt; Participle, shipped or shipt."—Murray the schoolmaster. Gram., p. 31. "Then the king arose, and tare his garments."—2 Sam., xiii, 31. "When he lift up his foot, he knew not where he should set it next."—Bunyan. "He lift up his spear against eight hundred, whom he slew at one time."—2 SAM.: in Joh. Dict. "Upon this chaos rid the distressed ark."—BURNET: ib. "On whose foolish honesty, my practices rid easy."—SHAK.: ib. "That form of the first or primogenial Earth, which rise immediately out of chaos."—BURNET: ib. "Sir, how come it you have holp to make this rescue?"—SHAK.: in Joh. Dict. "He sware he had rather lose all his father's images than that table."—PEACHAM: ib. "When our language dropt its ancient terminations."—Dr. Murray's Hist., ii, 5. "When themselves they vilify'd."—Milton, P. L., xi, 515. "But I choosed rather to do thus."—Barclay's Works, i, 456. "When he plead against the parsons."— School History, p. 168. "And he that saw it, bear record."—Cutler's Gram., p. 72. "An irregular verb has one more variation, as drive, drivest, drives, drivedst, drove, driving, driven."—REV. MATT. HARRISON, on the English Language, p. 260. "Beside that village Hannibal pitcht his camp."—Walker's Particles, p. 79. "He fetcht it even from Tmolus."— Ib., p. 114. "He supt with his morning gown on."—Ib., p. 285. "There stampt her sacred name."—Barlow's Columbiad, B. i, l. 233.

"Fixt on the view the great discoverer stood,
And thus addrest the messenger of good."—Barlow, B, i, l. 658.

Lesson Ii.—Mixed.

"Three freemen were being tried at the date of our last information."—Newspaper.

[FORMULE.—Not proper, because the participle being is used after its own verb were. But, according to Observation 4th, on the compound form of the conjugation, this complex passive form is an absurd innovation. Therefore, the expression should be changed; thus, "Three freemen were on trial"—or, "were receiving their trial—at the date of our last information."]

"While the house was being built, many of the tribe arrived."—Ross Cox's Travels, p. 102. "But a foundation has been laid in Zion, and the church is being built upon it."—The Friend, ix, 377. "And one fourth of the people are being educated."—East India Magazine. "The present, or that which is now being done."—Beck's Gram., p. 13. "A new church, called the Pantheon, is just being completed in an expensive style."—G. A. Thompson's Guatemala, p. 467. "When I last saw him, he was grown considerably."—Murray's Key, p. 223; Merchants, 198. "I know what a rugged and dangerous path I am got into."—Duncan's Cicero, p. 83. "You were as good preach case to one on the rack."—Locke's Essay, p. 285. "Thou hast heard me, and art become my salvation."—Psal., cxviii, 21. "While the Elementary Spelling-Book was being prepared for the press."—L. Cobb's Review, p. vi. "Language is become, in modern times, more correct and accurate."—Jamieson's Rhet., p. 16. "If the plan have been executed in any measure answerable to the author's wishes."—Robbins's Hist., p. 3. "The vial of wrath is still being poured out on the seat of the beast."—Christian Experience, p. 409. "Christianity was become the generally adopted and established religion of the whole Roman Empire."—Gurney's Essays, p. 35. "Who wrote before the first century was elapsed."—Ib., p. 13. "The original and analogical form is grown quite obsolete."—Lowth's Gram., p. 56. "Their love, and their hatred, and their envy, are perished."—Murray's Gram., i, 149. "The poems were got abroad and in a great many hands."—Pref. to Waller. "It is more harmonious, as well as more correct, to say, 'the bubble is almost bursted.'"—Cobbett's E. Gram., ¶ 109. "I drave my suitor from his mad humour of love."—Shak. "Se viriliter expedivit. (Cicero.) He hath plaid the man."—Walker's Particles, p. 214. "Wilt thou kill me, as thou diddest the Egyptian yesterday."—FRIENDS' BIBLE: Acts, vii, 28. "And we, methoughts, look'd up t'him from our hill."—Cowley's Davideis, B. iii, l. 386. "I fear thou doest not think as much of best things as thou oughtest."—Memoir of M. C. Thomas, p. 34. "When this work was being commenced."—Wright's Gram., p. 10. "Exercises and Key to this work are being prepared."—Ib., p. 12. "James is loved, or being loved by John."—Ib., p. 64. "Or that which is being exhibited."—Ib., p. 77. "He was being smitten."—Ib., p. 78. "In the passive state we say, 'I am being loved.'"—Ib., p. 80. "Subjunctive Mood: If I am being smitten, If thou art being smitten, If he is being smitten."—Ib., p. 100. "I will not be able to convince you how superficial the reformation is."—Chalmers's Sermons, p. 88. "I said to myself, I will be obliged to expose the folly."—Chazotte's Essay, p. 3. "When Clodius, had he meant to return that day to Rome, must have been arrived."—Adams's Rhetoric, i, 418. "That the fact has been done, is being done, or shall or will be done."—O. B. Peirce's Gram., pp. 347 and 356. "Am I being instructed?"—Wright's Gram., p. 70. "I am choosing him."—Ib., p. 112. "John, who was respecting his father, was obedient to his commands."—Barrett's Revised Gram., p. 69. "The region echos to the clash of arms."—Beattie's Poems, p. 63.

"And sitt'st on high, and mak'st creation's top
Thy footstool; and behold'st below thee, all."
—Pollok, B. vi, l. 663.

"And see if thou can'st punish sin, and let
Mankind go free. Thou fail'st—be not surprised."
—Id., B. ii, l. 118.

Lesson Iii.—Mixed.

"What follows, had better been wanting altogether."—Blair's Rhet., p. 201.

[FORMULE.—Not proper, because the phrase had better been, is used in the sense of the potential pluperfect. But, according to Observation 17th, on the conjugations, this substitution of one form for another is of questionable propriety. Therefore, the regular form should here be preferred; thus, "What follows, might better have been wanting altogether."]

"This member of the sentence had much better have been omitted altogether."—Ib., p. 212. "One or [the] other of them, therefore, had better have been omitted."—Ib., p. 212. "The whole of this last member of the sentence had better have been dropped."—Ib., p. 112. "In this case, they had much better be omitted."—Ib., p. 173. "He had better have said, 'the productions'"—Ib., p. 220. "The Greeks have ascribed the origin of poetry to Orpheus, Linus, and Musæus."—Ib., p. 377. "It has been noticed long ago, that all these fictitious names have the same number of syllables."—Phil. Museum, i, 471. "When I found that he had committed nothing worthy of death, I have determined to send him."—Acts, xxv, 25. "I had rather be a door-keeper in the house of my God."—Ps., lxxxiv, 10. "As for such, I wish the Lord open their eyes."—Barclay's Works, iii. 263. "It would a made our passidge over the river very difficult."— Walley, in 1692. "We should not a been able to have carried our great guns."—Id. "Others would a questioned our prudence, if wee had."—Id. See Hutchinson's Hist. of Mass., i, 478. "Beware thou bee'st not BECÆSAR'D; i.e. Beware that thou dost not dwindle into a mere Cæsar."—Harris's Hermes, p. 183. "Thou raisedest thy voice to record the stratagems of needy heroes."—ARBUTHNOT: in Joh. Dict., w. Scalade. "Life hurrys off apace: thine is almost up already."—Collier's Antoninus, p. 19. "'How unfortunate has this accident made me!' crys such a one."—Ib., p. 60. "The muse that soft and sickly wooes the ear."—Pollok, i, 13. "A man were better relate himself to a statue."—Bacon. "I heard thee say but now, thou lik'dst not that."—Shak. "In my whole course of wooing, thou cried'st, Indeed!"—Id. "But our ears are grown familiar with I have wrote, I have drank, &c., which are altogether as ungrammatical."— Lowth's Gram., p. 63; Churchill's, 114. "The court was sat before Sir Roger came."—Addison, Spect., No. 122. "She need be no more with the jaundice possest."—Swift's Poems, p. 346. "Besides, you found fault with our victuals one day that you was here."—Ib., p. 333. "If spirit of other sort, So minded, have o'erleap'd these earthy bounds."—Milton, P. L., B. iv, l. 582. "It should have been more rational to have forborn this."—Barclay's Works, Vol. iii, p. 265. "A student is not master of it till he have seen all these."—Dr. Murray's Life, p. 55. "The said justice shall summons the party."—Brevard's Digest. "Now what is become of thy former wit and humour?"—Spect., No. 532. "Young stranger, whither wand'rest thou?"—Burns, p. 29. "SUBJ.: Pres. If I love, If thou lovest, If he love. Imp. If I loved, If thou lovedst, If he loved."—Merchant's Gram., p. 51. "SUBJ.: If I do not love, If thou dost not love, If he does not love;" &c.—Ib., p. 56. "If he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him."—James, v, 15. "Subjunctive Mood of the verb to call, second person singular: If Thou callest. If Thou calledst. If Thou hast called. If Thou hadst called. If Thou call. If Thou shalt or wilt have called."—Hiley's Gram., p. 41. "Subjunctive Mood of the verb to love, second person singular: If thou love. If thou do love. If thou lovedst. If thou didst love. If thou hast loved. If thou hadst loved. If thou shalt or wilt love. If thou shalt or wilt have loved."—Bullions's E. Gram., p. 46. "I was; thou wast, or you was; he, she, or it was: We, you or ye, they, were."—White, on the English Verb, p. 51. "I taught, thou taughtedst, he taught."—Coar's English Gram., p. 66. "We say, if it rains, suppose it rains, lest it should rain, unless it rains. This manner of speaking is called the SUBJUNCTIVE mode."—Weld's Gram., 2d Ed., p. 72; Abridged Ed., 59. "He is arrived at what is deemed the age of manhood."—Priestley's Gram., 163. "He had much better have let it alone."—Tooke's Diversions, i, 43. "He were better be without it."—Locke, on Education, p. 105. "Hadest not thou been by."—Beauties of Shak., p. 107. "I learned geography. Thou learnedest arithmetick. He learned grammar."—Fuller's Gram., p. 34. "Till the sound is ceased."—Sheridan's Elocution, p. 126. "Present, die; Preterit, died; Perf. Participle, dead."—British Gram., p. 158; Buchanan's, 58; Priestley's, 48; Ash's, 45; Fisher's, 71; Bicknell's, 73.

"Thou bowed'st thy glorious head to none, feared'st none."
—Pollok, B. viii, l. 603.

"Thou look'st upon thy boy as though thou guessedst it."
—N. A. Reader, p. 320.

"As once thou slept'st, while she to life was form'd"
—Milt., P. L., B. xi, l. 369.

"Who finds the partridge in the puttock's nest,
But may imagine how the bird was dead?"
—SHAK.: Joh. Dict.

"Which might have well becom'd the best of men."
—Id., Ant. and Cleop.