Chapter X (1)

X begins no English word: it has the sound of ks, as axle, extraneous.

Y.

Y, when it follows a consonant, is a vowel; when it precedes either a vowel or a diphthong, is a consonant, as ye, young. It is thought by some to be in all cases a vowel. But it may be observed of y as of w, that it follows a vowel without any hiatus, as rosy youth.

The chief argument by which w and y appear to be always vowels is, that
the sounds which they are supposed to have as consonants, cannot be
uttered after a vowel, like that of all other consonants; thus we say
tu, ut; do, odd; but in wed, dew; the two sounds of w have no
resemblance to each other.

Z.

Z begins no word originally English; it has the sound, as its name izzard or s hard expresses, of an s uttered with a closer compression of the palate by the tongue, as freeze, froze.

In orthography I have supposed orthoepy, or just utterance of words, to
be included; orthography being only the art of expressing certain
sounds by proper characters. I have therefore observed in what words
any of the letters are mute.

Most of the writers of English grammar have given long tables of words
pronounced otherwise than they are written, and seem not sufficiently
to have considered, that of English, as of all living tongues, there is
a double pronunciation, one cursory and colloquial, the other regular
and solemn. The cursory pronunciation is always vague and uncertain,
being made different in different mouths by negligence, unskilfulness,
or affectation. The solemn pronunciation, though by no means immutable
and permanent, is yet always less remote from the orthography, and less
liable to capricious innovation. They have however generally formed
their tables according to the cursory speech of those with whom they
happened to converse; and concluding that the whole nation combines to
vitiate language in one manner, have often established the jargon of
the lowest of the people as the model of speech.

For pronunciation the best general rule is, to consider those as the
most elegant speakers who deviate least from the written words.

There have been many schemes offered for the emendation and settlement
of our orthography, which, like that of other nations, being formed by
chance, or according to the fancy of the earliest writers in rude ages,
was at first very various and uncertain, and is yet sufficiently
irregular. Of these reformers some have endeavoured to accommodate
orthography better to the pronunciation, without considering that this
is to measure by a shadow, to take that for a model or standard which
is changing while they apply it. Others, less absurdly indeed, but with
equal unlikelihood of success, have endeavoured to proportion the
number of letters to that of sounds, that every sound may have its own
character, and every character a single sound. Such would be the
orthography of a new language, to be formed by a synod of grammarians
upon principles of science. But who can hope to prevail on nations to
change their practice, and make all their old books useless? or what
advantage would a new orthography procure equivalent to the confusion
and perplexity of such an alteration?

Some ingenious men, indeed, have endeavoured to deserve well of their
country, by writing honor and labor for honour and labour, red for read
in the preter-tense, sais for says, repete tor repeat, explane for
explain, or declame for declaim. Of these it may be said, that as they
have done no good they have done little harm; both because they have
innovated little, and because few have followed them.

The English language has properly no dialects; the style of writers has
no professed diversity in the use of words, or of their flexions and
terminations, nor differs but by different degrees of skill or care.
The oral diction is uniform in no spacious country, but has less
variation in England than in most other nations of equal extent. The
language of the northern counties retains many words now out of use,
but which are commonly of the genuine Teutonick race, and is uttered
with a pronunciation which now seems harsh and rough, but was probably
used by our ancestors. The northern speech is therefore not barbarous,
but obsolete. The speech in the western provinces seems to differ from
the general diction rather by a depraved pronunciation, than by any
real difference which letters would express.

* * * * *

ETYMOLOGY.

Etymology teaches the deduction of one word from another, and the various modifications by which the sense of the same word is diversified; as horse, horses; I love, I loved.

Of the ARTICLE.

The English have two articles, an or a, and the.

AN, A.

A has an indefinite signification, and means one, with some reference to more; as This is a good book; that is, one among the books that are good; He was killed by a sword; that is, some sword; This is a better book for a man than a boy; that is, for one of those that are men than one of those that are boys; An army might enter without resistance; that is, any army.

In the senses in which we use a or an in the singular, we speak in the plural without an article; as these are good books.

I have made an the original article, because it is only the Saxon an,
or æn, one, applied to a new use, as the German ein, and the French un;
the n being cut off before a consonant in the speed of utterance.

Grammarians of the last age direct, that an should be used before h; whence it appears that the English anciently asperated less. An is still used before the silent h; as an herb, an honest man; but otherwise a; as

A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse. Shakespeare.

An or a can only be joined with a singular: the correspondent plural is the noun without an article, as, I want a pen, I want pens; or with the pronominal adjective some, as, I want some pens.

THE.

The has a particular and definite signification.

The fruit
Of that forbidden tree, whose mortal taste
Brought death into the world. Milton.

That is, that particular fruit, and this world in which we live. So, He giveth fodder for the cattle, and green herbs for the use of man; that is, for those beings that are cattle, and his use that is man.

The is used in both numbers.

I am as free as Nature first made man,
Ere the base laws of servitude began,
When wild in woods the noble savage ran. Dryden.

Many words are used without articles; as

1. Proper names, as John, Alexander, Longinus, Aristarchus, Jerusalem, Athens, Rome, London. GOD is used as a proper name.

2. Abstract names, as blackness, witch-craft, virtue, vice, beauty, ugliness, love, hatred, anger, good-nature, kindness.

3. Words in which nothing but the mere being of any thing is implied: This is not beer, but water; this is not brass, but steel.

* * * * *

Of NOUNS SUBSTANTIVE.

The relations of English nouns to words going before or following are not expressed by cases, or changes of termination, but, as in most of the other European languages, by prepositions, unless we may be said to have a genitive case.

Singular.

Nom. Magister, a Master, the Master.

Gen. Magistri, of a Master, of the Master,
or Master's, the Master's.

Dat. Magistro, to a Master, to the Master.

Acc. Magistrum, a Master, the Master.

Voc. Magister, Master, O Master.

Abl. Magistro, from a Master, from the Master.

Plural.

Nom. Magistri, Masters, the Masters.

Gen. Magistrorum, of Masters, of the Masters.

Dat. Magistris, to Masters, to the Masters.

Acc. Magistros, Masters, the Masters.

Voc. Magistri, Masters, O Masters.

Abl. Magistris, from Masters, from the Masters.

Our nouns are therefore only declined thus:

Master, Gen. Master's. Plur. Masters.

Scholar, Gen. Scholar's. Plur. Scholars.

These genitives are always written with a mark of elision, master's,
scholar's, according to an opinion long received, that the 's is a
contraction of his, as the soldier's valour, for the soldier his
valour: but this cannot be the true original, because 's is put to
female nouns, Woman's beauty; the Virgin's delicacy; Haughty Juno's
unrelenting hate; and collective nouns, as Women's passions; the
rabble's insolence; the multitude's folly: in all these cases it is
apparent that his cannot be understood. We say likewise the
foundation's strength; the diamond's lustre; the winter's severity: but
in these cases his may be understood, he and his having formerly been
applied to neuters in the place now supplied by it and its.

The learned and sagacious Wallis, to whom every English grammarian owes
a tribute of reverence, calls this modification of the noun an
adjective possessive; I think with no more propriety than he might have
applied the same to the genitive in equitum decus, Trojæ oris, or any
other Latin genitive. Dr. Lowth, on the other part, supposes the
possessive pronouns mine and thine to be genitive cases.

This termination of the noun seems to constitute a real genitive
indicating possession. It is derived to us from the Saxon's who
declined smith, a smith; Gen. smither, of a smith; Plur. smither or
smithar, smiths; and so in two other of their seven declensions.

It is a further confirmation of this opinion, that in the old poets
both the genitive and plural were longer by a syllable than the
original word: knitis for knight's, in Chaucer; leavis for leaves, in
Spenser.

When a word ends in s, the genitive may be the same with the
nominative, as Venus temple.

The plural is formed by adding s, as table, tables; fly, flies; sister, sisters; wood, woods; or es where s could not otherwise be sounded, as after ch, s, sh, x, z; after c sounded like s, and g like j; the mute e is vocal before s, as lance, lances; outrage, outrages.

The formation of the plural and genitive singular is the same.

A few words still make the plural in n, as men, women, oxen, swine, and
more anciently eyen, shoon. This formation is that which generally
prevails in the Teutonick dialects.

Words that end in f commonly form their plural by ves, as loaf, loaves; calf, calves.

Except a few, muff, muffs; chief, chiefs. So hoof, roof, proof, relief,
mischief, puff, cuff, dwarf, handkerchief, grief.

Irregular plurals are teeth from tooth, lice from louse, mice from
mouse, geese from goose, feet from foot, dice from die, pence from
penny, brethren from brother, children from child.

Plurals ending in s have no genitives; but we say, Womens excellencies, and Weigh the mens wits against the ladies hairs.

Dr. Willis thinks the Lords' house may he said for the house of Lords;
but such phrases are not now in use; and surely an English ear rebels
against them. They would commonly produce a troublesome ambiguity, as
the Lord's house may be the house of Lords, or the house of a Lord.
Besides that the mark of elision is improper, for in the Lords' house
nothing is cut off.

Some English substantives, like those of many other languages, change
their termination as they express different sexes; as prince, princess;
actor, actress; lion, lioness; hero, heroine. To these mentioned by Dr.
Lowth may be added arbitress, poetess, chauntress, duchess, tigress,
governess, tutress, peeress, authoress, traytress, and perhaps othets.
Of these variable terminations we have only a sufficient number to make
us feel our want; for when we say of a woman that she is a philosopher,
an astronomer, a builder, a weaver, a dancer, we perceive an
impropriety in the termination which we cannot avoid; but we can say
that she is an architect, a botanist, a student. because these
terminations have not annexed to them the notion of sex. In words which
the necessities of life are often requiring, the sex is distinguished
not by different terminations but by different names, as a bull, a cow;
a horse, a mare; equus, equa; a cock, a hen; and sometimes by pronouns
prefixed, as a he-goat, a, she-goat.

* * * * *

Of ADJECTIVES.

Adjectives in the English language are wholly indeclinable; having neither case, gender, nor number, and being added to substantives in all relations without any change; as, a good woman, good women, of a good woman; a good man, good men, of good men.

The Comparison of Adjectives.

The comparative degree of adjectives is formed by adding er, the superlative by adding est, to the positive; as, fair, fairer, fairest; lovely, lovelier, loveliest; sweet, sweeter, sweetest; low, lower, lowest; high, higher, highest.

Some words are irregularly compared; as, good, better, best; bad, worse, worst; little, less, least; near, nearer, next; much, more, most; many (for moe), more (for moer) most (for moest); late, later, latest or last.

Some comparatives form a superlative by adding, most, as nether, nethermost; outer, outermost; under, undermost; up, upper, uppermost; fore, former, foremost.

Most is sometimes added to a substantive, as, topmost, southmost.

Many adjectives do not admit of comparison by terminations, and are only compared by more and most, as, benevolent, more benevolent, most benevolent.

All adjectives may be compared by more and most, even when they have comparatives and superlatives regularly formed; as, fair, fairer, or more fair; fairest, or most fair.

In adjectives that admit a regular comparison, the comparative more is
oftener used than the superlative most, as more fair is oftener written
for fairer, than most fair for fairest.

The comparison of adjectives is very uncertain; and being much regulated by commodiousness of utterance, or agreeableness of sound, is not easily reduced to rules.

Monosyllables are commonly compared.

Polysyllables, or words of more than two syllables, are seldom compared otherwise than by more and most, as, deplorable, more deplorable, most deplorable.

Dissyllables are seldom compared if they terminate in some, as fulsome, toilsome; in ful, as, careful, spleenful, dreadful; in ing, as trifling, charming; in ous, as porous; in less, as, careless, harmless; in ed, as wretched; in id, as candid; in al, as mortal; in ent, as recent, fervent; in ain, as certain; in ive, as missive; in dy, as woody; in fy, as puffy; in ky, as rocky, except lucky; in my, as roomy; in ny, as skinny; in py, as ropy, except happy; in ry, as hoary.

Some comparatives and superlatives are yet found in good writers formed
without regard to the foregoing rules; but in a language subjected so
little and so lately to grammar, such anomalies must frequently occur.

So shady is compared by Milton.

She in shadiest covert hid,
Tun'd her nocturnal note. Par. Lost.

And virtuous.

What she wills to say or do,
Seems wisest, virtuousest, discreetest, best. Par. Lost.

So trifling by Ray, who is indeed of no great authority.

It is not so decorous, in respect of God, that he should immediately do
all the meanest and triflingest things himself, without making use of
any inferior or subordinate minister. Ray on the Creation.

Famous, by Milton.

I shall be nam'd among the famousest
Of women, sung at solemn festivals. Milton's Agonistes.

Inventive, by Ascham.

Those have the inventivest heads for all purposes, and roundest tongues
in all matters. Ascham's Schoolmaster.

Mortal, by Bacon.

The mortalest poisons practised by the West Indians, have some mixture
of the blood, fat, or flesh of man. Bacon.

Natural, by Wotton.

I will now deliver a few of the properest and naturalest considerations
that belong to this piece. Wotton's Architecture.

Wretched, by Jonson.

The wretcheder are the contemners of all helps; such as presuming on
their own naturals, deride diligence, and mock at terms when they
understand not things. Ben Jonson.

Powerful, by Milton.

We have sustain'd one day in doubtful fight,
What heav'n's great king hath pow'rfullest to send
Against us from about his throne. Par. Lost.

The termination in ish may be accounted in some sort a degree of
comparison, by which the signification is diminished below the
positive, as black, blackish, or tending to blackness; salt, saltish,
or having a little taste of salt; they therefore admit no comparison.
This termination is seldom added but to words expressing sensible
qualities, nor often to words of above one syllable, and is scarcely
used in the solemn or sublime style.

* * * * *

Of PRONOUNS.

Pronouns, in the English language, are, I, thou, he, with their plurals, we, ye, they; it, who, which, what, whether, whosoever, whatsoever, my, mine, our, ours, thy, thine, your, yours, his, her, hers, theirs, this, that, other, another, the same, some.

The pronouns personal are irregularly inflected.

Singular. Plural.

Nom. I, We.

Accus. and Me, Us. other oblique cases.

Nom. Thou, Ye.

Oblique. Thee, You.

You is commonly used in modern writers for ye, particularly in the language of ceremony, where the second person plural is used for the second person singular, You are my friend.

Singular. Plural.

Nom. He, They, Applied to masculines.

Oblique. Him, Them.

Nom. She, They, Applied to feminines.

Oblique. Her, Them.

Nom. It, They, Applied to neuters or things.

Oblique. Its, Them.

For it the practice of ancient writers was to use he, and for its, his.

The possessive pronouns, like other adjectives, are without cases or change of termination.

The possessive of the first person is my, mine, our, ours; of the second, thy, thine, your, yours; of the third, from he, his; from she, her, and hers; and in the plural, their, theirs, for both sexes.

Ours, yours, hers, theirs, are used when the substantive preceding is
separated by a verb, as These are our books. These books are ours. Your
children excel ours in stature, but ours surpass yours in learning.

Ours, yours, hers, theirs, notwithstanding their seeming plural
termination, are applied equally to singular and plural substantives,
as, This book is ours. These books are ours.

Mine and thine were formerly used before a vowel, as mine amiable lady:
which though now disused in prose, might be still properly continued in
poetry: they are used as ours and yours, when they are referred to a
substantive preceding, as thy house is larger than mine, but my garden
is more spacious than thine.

Their and theirs are the possessives likewise of they, when they is the plural of it, and are therefore applied to things.

Pronouns relative are, who, which, what, whether, whosoever, whatsoever.

Nom. Who.

Gen. Whose.

Other oblique cases. Whom.

Nom. Which.

Gen. Of which, or whose.

Other oblique cases. Which.

Who is now used in relation to persons, and which in relation to
things; but they were anciently confounded. At least it was common to
say, the man which, though I remember no example of the thing who.

Whose is rather the poetical than regular genitive of which.

The fruit
Of that forbidden tree, whose mortal taste
Brought death into the world. Milton.

Whether is only used in the nominative and accusative cases; and has no plural, being applied only to one of a number, commonly to one of two, as Whether of these is left I know not. Whether shall I choose? It is now almost obsolete.

What, whether relative or interrogative, is without variation.

Whosoever, whatsoever, being compounded of who or what, and soever, follow the rule of their primitives.

Singular. Plural.

This These

In all cases. That Those.

Other, Others.

Whether.

The plural others is not used but when it is referred to a substantive
preceding, as I have sent other horses. I have not sent the same
horses, but others.

Another, being only an other, has no plural.

Here, there, and where, joined with certain particles, have a relative and pronominal use. Hereof, herein, hereby, hereafter, herewith, thereof, therein, thereby, thereupon, therewith, whereof, wherein, whereby, whereupon, wherewith, which signify, of this, in this, &c. of that, in that, &c. of which, in which, &c.

Therefore and wherefore, which are properly there for and where for, for that, for which, are now reckoned conjunctions, and continued in use. The rest seem to be passing by degrees into neglect, though proper, useful, and analogous. They are referred both to singular and plural antecedents.

There are two more words used only in conjunction with pronouns, own and self.

Own is added to possessives, both singular and plural, as my own hand, our own house. It is emphatical, and implies a silent contrariety, or opposition; as, I live in my own house, that is, not in a hired house. This I did with my own hand, that is, without help or not by proxy.

Self is added to possessives, as myself, yourselves; and sometimes to personal pronouns, as himself, itself, themselves. It then, like own, expresses emphasis and opposition, as I did this myself, that is, not another; or it forms a reciprocal pronoun, as We hurt ourselves by vain rage.

Himself, itself, themselves, are supposed by Wallis to be put by
corruption, for his self, it self, their selves; so that self is always
a substantive. This seems justly observed, for we say, He came himself;
Himself shall do this; where himself cannot be an accusative.

* * * * *

Of the VERB.

English verbs are active, as I love; or neuter, as I languish. The neuters are formed like the actives.

Most verbs signifying action may likewise signify condition or habit,
and become neuters; as I love, I am in love; I strike, I am now
striking.

Verbs have only two tenses inflected in their terminations, the present, and simple preterit; the other tenses are compounded of the auxiliary verbs, have, shall, will, let, may, can, and the infinitive of the active or neuter verb.

The passive voice is formed by joining the participle preterit to the substantive verb, as I am loved.

To have. Indicative Mood.

Present Tense.

Sing. I have, thou hast, he hath or has,
Plur. We have, ye have, they have.

Has is a termination connoted from hath, but now more frequently used
both in verse and prose.

Simple Preterit.

Sing. I had, thou hadst, he had
Plur. We had, ye had, they had.

Compound Preterit.

Sing. I have had, thou hast had, he has or hath had;
Plur. We have had, ye have had, they have had.

Preterpluperfect.

Sing. I had had, thou hadst had, he had had.
Plur. We had had, ye had had, they had had.

Future.

Sing. I shall have, thou shalt have, he shall have;
Plur. We shall have, ye shall have, they shall have.

Second Future.

Sing. I will have, thou wilt have, he will have;
Plur. We will have, ye wilt have, they will have.

By reading these future tenses may be observed the variations of shall
and will.

Imperative Mood.

Sing. Have, or have thou, let him have;
Plur. Let us have, have or have ye, let them have.

Conjunctive Mood.

Present.

Sing. I have, thou have, he have;
Plur. We have, ye have, they have.

Preterit simple as in the Indicative.

Preterit compound.

Sing. I have had, thou have had, he have had;
Plur. We have had, ye have had, they have had.

Future.

Sing. I shall have, as in the Indicative.

Second Future.

Sing. I shall have had, thou shalt have had, he shall have had;
Plur. We shall have had, ye shall have had, they shall have had.

Potential.

The potential form of speaking is expressed by may, can, in the present; and might, could, or should, in the preterit, joined with the infinitive mood of the verb.

Present.

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

Preterit.

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

Present.

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

Preterit.

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

In like manner should is united to the verb.

There is likewise a double Preterit.

Sing. I should have had, thou shouldst have had, he should have had;
Plur. We should have had, ye should have had, they should have had.

In like manner we use, I might have had; I could have had, &c.

Infinitive Mood.

Present. To have.
Preterit. To have had.
Participle present. Having.
Participle preterit. Had.

Verb Active. To love.

Indicative. Present.

Sing. I love, thou lovest, he loveth or loves;
Plur. We love, ye love, they love.

Preterit simple.

Sing. I loved, thou lovedst, he loved;
Plur. We loved, ye loved, they loved.
Preterperfect compound. I have loved, &c.
Preterpluperfect. I had loved, &c.
Future. I shall love, &c. I will love, &c.

Imperative.

Sing. Love or love thou, let him love;
Plur. Let us love, love or love ye, let them love.

Conjunctive. Present.

Sing. I love, thou love, he love;
Plur. We love, ye love, they love.
Preterit simple, as in the indicative.
Preterit compound. I have loved, &c.
Future. I shall love, &c.
Second Future. I shall have loved, &c.

Potential.

Present. I may or can love, &c.
Preterit. I might, could, or should love, &c.
Double Preterit. I might, could, or should have
loved, &c.

Infinitive.

Present. To love.
Preterit. To have loved.
Participle present. Loving.
Participle past. Loved.

The passive is formed by the addition of the participle preterit to the different tenses of the verb to be, which must therefore be here exhibited.

Indicative. Present.

Sing. I am, thou art, he is;
Plur. We are or be, ye are or be, they are or be.
The plural be is now little in use.

Preterit.

Sing. I was, thou wast or wert, he was;
Plur. We were, ye were, they were.

Wert is properly of the conjunctive mood, and ought not to be used in the indicative.

Preterit compound. I have been, &c.
Preterpluperfect. I had been, &c.
Future. I shall or will be, &c.

Imperative.

Sing. Be thou; let him be;
Plur. Let us be; be ye; let them be.

Conjunctive. Present.

Sing. I be, thou beest, he be;
Plur. We be, ye be, they be.

Preterit.

Sing. I were, thou wert, he were;
Plur. We were, ye were, they were.
Preterit compound. I have been, &c.
Future. I shall have been, &c.

Potential.

I may or can; would, could, or should be; could,
would, or should have been, &c.

Infinitive.

Present. To be.
Preterit. To have been.
Participle present. Being.
Participle preterit. Having been.

Passive Voice. Indicative Mood.

I am loved, &c. I was loved, &c. I have been
loved, &c.

Conjunctive Mood.

If I be loved, &c. If I were loved, &c. If I shall
have been loved, &c.

Potential Mood.

I may or can be loved, &c. I might, could, or
should be loved, &c. I might, could, or should
have been loved, &c.

Infinitive.

Present. To be loved.
Preterit. To have been loved.
Participle. Loved.

There is another form of English verbs, in which the infinitive mood is joined to the verb do in its various inflections, which are therefore to be learned in this place.

To do.

Indicative. Present.

Sing. I do, thou dost, he doth;
Plur. We do, ye do, they do.

Preterit.

Sing. I did, thou didst, he did;
Plur. We did, ye did, they did.
Preterit., &c. I have done, &c. I had done, &c.
Future. I shall or will do, &c.

Imperative.

Sing. Do thou, let him do;
Plur. Let us do, do ye, let them do.

Conjunctive. Present.

Sing. I do, thou do, he do;
Plur. We do, ye do, they do.

The rest are as in the Indicative.

Infinite. To do, to have done.
Participle present. Doing.
Participle preterit. Done.

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.

It is sometimes used emphatically; as,

I do love thee, and when I love thee not,
Chaos is come again. Shakespeare.

It is frequently joined with a negative; as, I like her, but I do not love her; I wished him success, but did not help him. This, by custom at least, appears more easy than the other form of expressing the same sense by a negative adverb after the verb, I like her, but love her not.

The imperative prohibitory is seldom applied in the second person, at least in prose, without the word do; as, Stop him, but do not hurt him; Praise beauty, but do not dote on it.

Its chief use is in interrogative forms of speech, in which it is used through all the persons; as, Do I live? Dost thou strike me? Do they rebel? Did I complain? Didst thou love her? Did she die? So likewise in negative interrogations; Do I not yet grieve? Did she not die?

Do and did are thus used only for the present and simple preterit.

There is another manner of conjugating neuter verbs, which, when it is used, may not improperly denominate them neuter passives, as they are inflected according to the passive form by the help of the verb substantive to be. They answer nearly to the reciprocal verbs in French; as, I am risen, surrexi, Latin; Je me suis levé, French. I was walked out, exieram: Je m'étois promené.

In like manner we commonly express the present tense; as, I am going, eo. I am grieving, doleo, She is dying, illa moritur. The tempest is raging, furit procella. I am pursuing an enemy, hostem insequor. So the other tenses, as, We were walking, [Greek: etynchanomen peripatountes], I have been walking, I had been walking, I shall or will be walking.

There is another manner of using the active participle, which gives it a passive signification: as, The grammar is now printing, grammatica jam nunc chartis imprimitur. The brass is forging, ara excuduntur. This is, in my opinion, 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.

The indicative and conjunctive moods are by modern writers frequently confounded, or rather the conjunctive is wholly neglected, when some convenience of versification docs not invite its revival. It is used among the purer writers of former times after if, though, ere, before, till or until, whether, except, unless, whatsoever, whomsoever, and words of wishing; as, Doubtless thou art our father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not.

* * * * *

Of IRREGULAR VERBS.

The English verbs were divided by Ben Jonson into four conjugations, without any reason arising from the nature of the language, which has properly but one conjugation, such as has been exemplified: from which all deviations are to be considered as anomalies, which are indeed, in our monosyllable Saxon verbs, and the verbs derived from them, very frequent; but almost all the verbs which have been adopted from other languages, follow the regular form.

Our verbs are observed by Dr. Wallis to be irregular only in the
formation of the preterit, and its participle. Indeed, in the
scantiness of our conjugations, there is scarcely any other place for
irregularity.

The first irregularity is a slight deviation from the regular form, by rapid utterance or poetical contraction: the last syllable ed is often joined with the former by suppression of e; as lov'd for loved; after c, ch, sh, f, k, x, and after the consonants s, th, when more strongly pronounced, and sometimes after m, n, r, if preceded by a short vowel, t is used in pronunciation, but very seldom in writing rather than d; as plac't, snatch't, fish't, wak't, dwel't, smel't for plac'd, snatch'd, fish'd, wak'd, dwel'd, smel'd; or placed, snatched, fished, waked, dwelled, smelled.

Those words which terminate in l or ll, or p, make their preterit in t, even in solemn language; as crept, felt, dwelt; Sometimes after x, ed is changed into t; as vext: this is not constant.

A long vowel is often changed into a short one; thus kept, slept, wept, crept, swept; from the verbs to keep, to sleep, to weep, to creep, to sweep.

Where d or t go before, the additional letter d or t, in this contracted form, coalesce into one letter with the radical d or t: if t were the radical, they coalesce into t; but if d were the radical, then into d or t, as the one or the other letter may be more easily pronounced; as read, led, spread, shed, shred, bid, hid, chid, fed, bled, bred, sped, strid, slid, rid; from the verbs to read, to lead, to spread, to shed, to shread, to bid, to hide, to chide, to feed, to bleed, to breed, to speed, to stride, to slide, to ride. And thus cast, hurt, cost, burst, eat, beat, sweat, sit, quit, smit, writ, bit, hit, met, shot; from the verbs to cast, to hurt, to cost, to burst, to eat, to beat, to sweat, to sit, to quit, to smite, to write, to bite, to hit, to meet, to shoot. And in like manner, lent, sent, rent, girt; from the verbs to lend, to send, to rend, to gird.

The participle preterit or passive is often formed in en instead of ed; as, been, taken, given, slain, known, from the verbs to be, to take, to give, to slay, to know.

Many words have two or more participles, as not only written, bitten, eaten, beaten, hidden, chidden, shotten, chosen, broken; but likewise writ, bit, eat, beat, hid, chid, shot, chose, broke, are promiscuously used in the participle, from the verbs to write, to bite, to eat, to beat, to hide, to chide, to shoot, to choose, to break, and many such like.

In the same manner, sown, shewn, hewn, mown, loaden, laden, as well as sow'd, show'd, hew'd, mow'd, loaded, laded, from the verbs to sow, to show, to hew, to mow, to load, to lade.

Concerning these double participles it is difficult to give any rule; but he shall seldom err who remembers, that when a verb has a participle distinct from its preterit, as write, wrote, written, that distinct participle is more proper and elegant, as The book is written, is better than The book is wrote. Wrote however may be used in poetry; at least, if we allow any authority to poets, who, in the exultation of genius, think themselves perhaps entitled to trample on grammarians.

There are other anomalies in the preterit.

1. Win, spin, begin, swim, strike, stick, sing, sting, fling, ring, wring, spring, swing, drink, sink, shrink, stink, come, run, find, bind, grind, wind, both in the preterit imperfect and participle passive, give won, spun, begun, swum, struck, stuck, sung, stung, flung, rung, wrung, sprung, swung, drunk, sunk, shrunk, stunk, come, run, found, bound, ground, wound. And most of them are also formed in the preterit by a, as began, sang, rang, sprang, drank, came, ran, and some others; but most of these are now obsolete. Some in the participle passive likewise take en, as stricken, strucken, drunken, bounden.

2. Fight, teach, reach, seek, beseech, catch, buy, bring, think, work, make fought, taught, raught, sought, besought, caught, bought, brought, thought, wrought.

But a great many of these retain likewise the regular form, as teached, reached, beseeched, catched, worked.

3. Take, shake, forsake, wake, awake, stand, break, speak, bear, shear, swear, tear, wear, weave, cleave, strive, thrive, drive, shine, rise, arise, smite, write, bide, abide, ride, choose, chuse, tread, get, beget, forget, seethe, make in both preterit and participle took, shook, forsook, woke, awoke, stood, broke, spoke, bore, shore, swore, tore, wore, wove, clove, strove, throve, drove, shone, rose, arose, smote, wrote, bode, abode, rode, chose, trode, got, begot, forgot, sod. But we say likewise, thrive, rise, smit, writ, abid, rid. In the preterit some are likewise formed by a, as brake, spake, bare, share, sware, tare, ware, clave, gat, begat, forgat, and perhaps some others, but more rarely. In the participle passive many of them are formed by en, as taken, shaken, forsaken, broken, spoken, born, shorn, sworn, torn, worn, woven, cloven, thriven, driven, risen, smitten, ridden, chosen, trodden, gotten, begotten, forgotten, sodden. And many do likewise retain the analogy in both, as waked, awaked, sheared, weaved, cleaved, abided, seethed.

4. Give, bid, sit, make in the preterit gave, bade, sate; in the participle passive given, bidden, sitten; but in both bid.

5. Draw, know, grow, throw, blow, crow like a cock, fly, slay, see, ly, make their preterit drew, knew, grew, threw, blew, crew, flew, slew, saw, lay; their participles passive by n, drawn, known, grown, thrown, blown, flown, slain, seen, lien, lain. Yet from flee is made fled; from go, went, (from the old wend) the participle is gone.

* * * * *

Of DERIVATION.

That the English language may be more easily understood, it is
necessary to inquire how its derivative words are deduced from their
primitives, and how the primitives are borrowed from other languages.
In this inquiry I shall sometimes copy Dr. Wallis, and sometimes
endeavour to supply his detects, and rectify his errours.

Nouns are derived from verbs.

The thing implied in the verb, as done or produced, is commonly either the present of the verb; as to love, love; to fright, a fright; to fight, a fight; or the preterit of the verb, as to strike, I strick or strook, a stroke.

The action is the same with the participle present, as loving, frighting, fighting, striking.

The agent, or person acting, is denoted by the syllable er added to the verb, as lover, frighter, striker.

Substantives, adjectives, and sometimes other parts of speech, are changed into verbs: in which case the vowel is often lengthened, or the consonant softened; as, a house, to house; brass, to braze; glass, to glaze; grass, to graze; price, to prize; breath, to breathe; a fish, to fish; oil, to oil; further, to further; forward, to forward; hinder, to hinder.

Sometimes the termination en is added, especially to adjectives; as, haste, to hasten; length, to lengthen; strength, to strengthen; short, to shorten; fast, to fasten; white, to whiten; black, to blacken; hard, to harden; soft, to soften.

From substantives are formed adjectives of plenty, by adding the termination y: as a louse, lousy; wealth, wealthy; health, healthy; might, mighty; worth, worthy; wit, witty; lust, lusty; water, watery, earth, earthy; wood, (a wood) woody; air, airy; a heart, hearty; a hand, handy.

From substantives are formed adjectives of plenty, by adding the termination ful, denoting abundance; as, joy, joyful; fruit, fruitful; youth, youthful; care, careful; use, useful; delight, delightful; plenty, plentiful; help, helpful.

Sometimes in almost the same sense, but with some kind of diminution thereof, the termination some is added, denoting something, or in some degree; as delight, delightsome; game, gamesome; irk, irksome; burden, burdensome; trouble, troublesome; light, lightsome; hand, handsome; alone, lonesome; toil, toilsome.

On the contrary, the termination less added to substantives, makes adjectives signifying want; as, worthless, witless, heartless, joyless, careless, helpless. Thus comfort, comfortless; sap, sapless.

Privation or contrariety is very often denoted by the participle un prefixed to many adjectives, or in before words derived from the Latin; as pleasant, unpleasant; wise, unwise; profitable, unprofitable, patient, impatient. Thus unworthy, unhealthy, unfruitful, unuseful, and many more.

The original English privative is un; but as we often borrow trom the
Latin, or its descendants, words already signifying privation, as
inefficacious, impious, indiscreet, the inseparable particles un and in
have fallen into confusion, from which it is not easy to disentangle
them.

Un is prefixed to all words originally English, as untrue, untruth,
untaught, unhandsome.

Un is prefixed to all participles made privative adjectives, as
unfeeling, unassisting, unaided, undelighted, unendeared.

Un ought never to be prefixed to a participle present to mark a
forbearance of action, as unsighing, but a privation of habit, as
unpitying.

Un is prefixed to most substantives which have an English termination,
as unfertileness, unperfectness, which, if they have borrowed
terminations, take in or im, as infertility, imperfection; uncivil,
incivility; unactive, inactivity.

In borrowing adjectives, if we receive them already compounded, it is
usual to retain the particle prefixed, as indecent, inelegant,
improper; but if we borrow the adjective, and add the privative
particle, we commonly prefix un, as unpolite, ungallant.

The prepositive particles dis and mis, derived from the des and mes of the French, signify almost the same as un; yet dis rather imports contrariety than privation, since it answers to the Latin preposition de. Mis insinuates some errour, and for the most part may be rendered by the Latin words male or perperam. To like, to dislike; honour, dishonour; to honour, to grace, to dishonour, to disgrace; to deign, to disdeign; chance, hap, mischance, mishap; to take, to mistake; deed, misdeed; to use, to misuse; to employ, to misemploy, to apply, to misapply.

Words derived from Latin written with de or dis retain the same signification; as distinguish, distinguo; detract, detraho; defame, defamo; detain, detineo.

The termination ly added to substantives, and sometimes to adjectives, forms adjectives that import some kind of similitude or agreement, being formed by contraction of lick or like. A giant, giantly, giantlike; earth, earthly; heaven, heavenly; world, worldly; God, godly; good, goodly.

The same termination ly, added to adjectives, forms adverbs of like signification; as, beautiful, beautifully; sweet, sweetly; that is, in a beautiful manner; with some degree of sweetness.

The termination ish added to adjectives, imports diminution; and added to substantives, imports similitude or tendency to a character; as green, greenish; white, whitish; soft, softish; a thief, thievish; a wolf, wolfish; a child, childish.

We have forms of diminutives in substantives, though not frequent; as a hill, a hillock; a cock, a cockrel; a pike, a pickrel; this is a French termination: a goose, a gosling; this is a German termination: a lamb, a lambkin; a chick, a chicken; a man, a manikin; a pipe, a pipkin; and thus Halkin, whence the patronymick, Hawkins; Wilkin, Thomkin, and others.

Yet still there is another form of diminution among the English, by
lessening the sound itself, especially of vowels, as there is a form of
augmenting them by enlarging or even lengthening it; and that sometimes
not so much by change of the letters, as of their pronunciation; as,
sup, sip, soop, sop, sippet, where, besides the extenuation of the
vowel, there is added the French termination et; top, tip; spit, spout;
babe, baby; booby, [Greek: Boupais]; great pronounced long, especially
if with a stronger sound, grea-t; little, pronounced long lee-tle;
ting, tang, tong, imports a succession of smaller and then greater
sounds; and so in jingle, jangle, tingle, tangle, and many other made
words.

Much however of this is arbitrary and fanciful, depending wholly on
oral utterance, and therefore scarcely worthy the notice of Wallis.

Of concrete adjectives are made abstract substantives, by adding the termination ness; and a few in hood or head, noting character or qualities: as white, whiteness; hard, hardness; great, greatness; skilful, skilfulness, unskilfulness; godhead, manhood, maidenhead, widowhood, knighthood, priesthood, likelihood, falsehood.

There are other abstracts, partly derived from adjectives, and partly from verbs, which are formed by the addition of the termination th, a small change being sometimes made; as long, length; strong, strength; broad, breadth; wide, width, deep, depth; true, truth; warm, warmth; dear, dearth; slow, slowth; merry, mirth; heal, health; well, weal, wealth; dry, drought; young, youth; and so moon, month.

Like these are some words derived from verbs; die, death; till, tilth; grow, growth; mow, later mowth, after mowth; commonly spoken and written later math, after math; steal, stealth; bear, birth, rue, ruth; and probably earth, from to ear or plow; fly, flight; weigh, weight; fray, fright; draw, draught.

These should rather be written flighth, frighth, only that custom will
not suffer h to be twice repeated.

The same form retain faith, spight, wreathe, wrath, broth, froth,
breath, sooth, worth, light, wight, and the like, whose primitives are
either entirely obsolete, or seldom occur. Perhaps they are derived
from fey or foy, spry, wry, wreak, brew, mow, fry, bray, say, work.

Some ending in ship, imply an office, employment, or condition; as, kingship, wardship, guardianship, partnership, stewardship, headship, lordship.

Thus worship, that is, worthship; whence worshipful, and to worship.

Some few ending in dom, rick, wick, do especially denote dominion, at least state or condition; as, kingdom, dukedom, earldom, princedom, popedom, Christendom, freedom, wisdom, whoredom, bishoprick, bailiwick.

Ment and age are plainly French terminations and are of the same import with us as among them, scarcely ever occurring, except in words derived from the French, as commandment, usage.

There are in English often long trains of words allied by their meaning
and derivation; as, to beat, a bat, batoon, a battle, a beetle, a
battledore, to batter, batter, a kind of glutinous composition for
food, made by beating different bodies into one mass. All these are of
similar signification, and perhaps derived from the Latin batuo. Thus
take, touch, tickle, tack, tackle; all imply a local conjunction from
the Latin tango, tetigi, tactum.

From two are formed twain, twice, twenty, twelve, twins, twine, twist,
twirl, twig, twitch, twinge, between, betwixt, twilight, twibil.

The following remarks, extracted from Wallis, are ingenious but of more
subtlety than solidity, and such as perhaps might in every language be
enlarged without end.

Sn usually imply the nose, and what relates to it. From the Latin nasus
are derived the French nez and the English nose; and nesse, a
promontory, as projecting like a nose. But as if from the consonants ns
taken from nasus, and transposed that they may the better correspond,
sn denote nasus; and thence are derived many words that relate to the
nose, as snout, sneeze, snore, snort,snear, snicker, snot, snivel,
snite, snuff, snuffle, snaffle, snarl, snudge.

There is another sn which may perhaps be derived from the Latin sinuo,
as snake, sneak, snail, snare; so likewise snap and snatch, snib, snub.
Bl imply a blast; as blow, blast, to blast, to blight, and,
metaphorically, to blast one's reputation; bleat, bleak, a bleak place,
to look bleak, or weather-beaten, black, blay, bleach, bluster, blurt,
blister, blab, bladder, blew, blabber lip't, blubber-cheek't, bloted,
blote-herrings, blast, blaze, to blow, that is, blossom, bloom; and
perhaps blood and blush.

In the native words of our tongue is to be found a great agreement
between the letters and the thing signified; and therefore the sounds
of the letters smaller, sharper, louder, closer, softer, stronger,
clearer, more obscure, and more stridulous, do very often intimate the
like effects in the things signified.

Thus words that begin with str intimate the force and effect of the
thing signified, as if probably derived from [Greek: strônnymi], or
strenuous; as strong, strength, strew, strike, streak, stroke, stripe,
strive, strife, struggle, strout, strut, stretch, strait, strict,
streight, that is, narrow, distrain, stress, distress, string, strap,
stream, streamer, strand, strip, stray, struggle, strange, stride,
stradale.

St in like manner imply strength, but in a less degree, so much only as
is sufficient to preserve what has been already communicated, rather
than acquire any new degree; as if it were derived from the Latin sto;
for example, stand, stay, that is, to remain, or to prop; staff, stay,
that is, to oppose; stop, to stuff, stifle, to stay, that is, to stop;
a stay, that is, an obstacle; stick, stut, stutter, stammer, stagger,
stickle, stick, stake, a sharp, pale, and any thing deposited at play;
stock, stem, sting, to sting, stink, stitch, stud, stuncheon, stub,
stubble, to stub up, stump, whence stumble, stalk, to stalk, step, to
stamp with the feet, whence to stamp, that is, to make an impression
and a stamp; stow, to stow, to bestow, steward, or stoward; stead,
steady, stedfast, stable, a stable, a stall, to stall, stool, stall,
still, stall, stallage, stage, still, adjective, and still, adverb:
stale, stout, sturdy, stead, stoat, stallion, stiff, stark-dead, to
starve with hunger or cold; stone, steel, stern, stanch, to stanch
blood, to stare, steep, steeple, stair, standard, a stated measure,
stately. In all these, and perhaps some others, st denote something
firm and fixed.

Thr imply a more violent degree of motion, as throw, thrust, throng,
throb, through, threat, threaten, thrall, throws.

Wr imply some sort of obliquity or distortion, as wry, to wreathe,
wrest, wrestle, wring, wrong, wrinch, wrench, wrangle, wrinkle, wrath,
wreak, wrack, wretch, wrist, wrap.

Sw imply a silent agitation, or a softer kind of lateral motion; as
sway, swag, to sway, swagger, swerve, sweat, sweep, swill, swim, swing,
swift, sweet, switch, swinge.

Nor is there much difference of sm in smooth, smug, smile, smirk,
smite; which signifies the same as to strike, but is a softer word;
small, smell, smack, smother, smart, a smart blow properly signifies
such a kind of stroke as with an originally silent motion, implied in
sm, proceeds to a quick violence, denoted by ar suddenly ended, as is
shown by t.

Cl denote a kind of adhesion or tenacity, as in cleave, clay, cling,
climb, clamber, clammy, clasp, to clasp, to clip, to clinch, cloak,
clog, close, to close, a clod, a clot, as a clot of blood, clouted
cream, a clutter, a cluster.

Sp imply a kind of dissipation or expansion, especially a quick one,
particularly if there be an r, as if it were from spargo or separo: for
example, spread, spring, sprig, sprout, sprinkle, split, splinter,
spill, spit, sputter, spatter.

Sl denote a kind of silent fall, or a less observable motion; as in
slime, slide, slip, slipper, sly, sleight, slit, slow, slack, slight,
sling, slap.

And so likewise ash, in crash, rash, gash, flash, clash, lash, slash,
plash, trash, indicate something acting more nimbly and sharply. But
ush, in crush, rush, gush, flush, blush, brush, hush, push, imply
something as acting more obtusely and dully. Yet in both there is
indicated a swift and sudden motion not instantaneous, but gradual, by
the continued sound, sh.

Thus in fling, sling, ding, swing, cling, sing, wring, sting, the
tingling of the termination ng, and the sharpness of the vowel i, imply
the continuation of a very slender motion or tremor, at length indeed
vanishing, but not suddenly interrupted. But in tink, wink, sink,
clink, chink, think, that end in a mute consonant, there is also
indicated a sudden ending.

If there be an l, as in jingle, tingle, tinkle, mingle, sprinkle,
twinkle, there is implied a frequency, or iteration of small acts. And
the same frequency of acts, but less subtile by reason of the clearer
vowel a, is indicated in jangle, tangle, spangle, mangle, wrangle,
brangle, dangle; as also in mumble, grumble, jumble. But at the same
time the close u implies something obscure or obtunded; and a congeries
of consonants mbl, denotes a confused kind of rolling or tumbling, as
in ramble, scamble, scramble, wamble, amble; but in these there is
something acute.

In nimble, the acuteness of the vowel denotes celerity. In sparkle, sp
denotes dissipation, ar an acute crackling, k a sudden interruption, l
a frequent iteration; and in like manner in sprinkle, unless in may
imply the subtilty of the dissipated guttules. Thick and thin differ in
that the former ends with an obtuse consonant, and the latter with an
acute.

In like manner, in squeek, squeak, squeal, squall, brawl, wraul, yaul,
spaul, screek, shriek, shrill, sharp, shrivel, wrinkle, crack, crash,
clash, gnash, plash, crush, hush, hisse, fisse, whist, soft, jar, hurl,
curl, whirl, buz, bustle, spindle, dwindle, twine, twist, and in many
more, we may observe the agreement of such sort of sounds with the
things signified; and this so frequently happens, that scarce any
language which I know can be compared with ours. So that one
monosyllable word, of which kind are almost all ours, emphatically
expresses what in other languages can scarce be explained but by
compounds, or decompounds, or sometimes a tedious circumlocution.

We have many words borrowed from the Latin; but the greatest part of them were communicated by the intervention of the French; as, grace, face, elegant, elegance, resemble.

Some verbs which seem borrowed from the Latin, are formed from the present tense, and some from the supines.

From the present are formed spend, expend, expendo; conduce, conduco; despise, despicio; approve, approbo; conceive, concipio.

From the supines, supplicate, supplico; demonstrate, demonstro; dispose, dispono; expatiate, expatior; suppress, supprimo; exempt, eximo.

Nothing is more apparent than that Wallis goes too far in quest of
originals. Many of these which seem selected as immediate descendants
from the Latin, are apparently French, as, conceive, approve, expose,
exempt.

Some words purely French, not derived from the Latin, we have transferred into our language; as, garden, garter, buckler, to advance, to cry, to plead, from the French jardin, jartier, bouclier, avancer, crier, plaider; though, indeed, even of these part is of Latin original.