Chapter VI: Part 6

There are several verbs in English, which, from the necessity of their union with other verbs, have obtained the name of _auxiliaries_. Originally they were principal verbs, with regular Saxon infinitives, and the usual inflections; as may be observed by any person, who has the smallest acquaintance with the modern German, which retains more of the ancient structure, than any other branch of the primitive language.

The verbs, called _auxiliaries_ or _helpers_, are _do_, _be_, _have_, _shall_, _will_, _may_, _can_, _must_. The three first are often employed alone, and are therefore acknowleged to be sometimes principal verbs. That the others were so, will be made obvious by a specimen from the German, with the corresponding English.

_German._ _English._

Inf. _Wollen_, to will.
Ind. Pref. Ich will, I will.
Wir wollen,[109] we will.
Imper. Ich wolte, I would.
Preterit. Ich habe gewolt, I have would, or willed.
Plup. Ich hatte gewolt, I had would.
Fut. Ich werde wollen, I shall will.
Imp. Wolle du, will thou.
Subj. _Ich wolle_, (if) I would, &c.
Inf. Wollen, to will.
Gewolte haben, to have would, or willed.
Part. Wollend, willing.
Gewollte, having would, or willed.

_Sollen_, to shall, is inflected in the same manner. _Koennen_, to can, or be able, is inflected much in the same manner. _Ich kann_, I can, &c. Imperfect, _Ich konnte_, I could. Preterit, _Ich habe gehonnt_, I have could (or been able.) Participle, _Kænnend_, _canning_, being able. Thus _mægen_, to may, makes, in the past tenses, _Ich mochte_, I might or mought, as the vulgar sometimes pronounce it; _Ich habe gemocht_, _I have might_. _Must_ also, which in English has lost all inflection, is varied in the German; _mussen_, to must, or be obliged; Imperfect, _Ich muste_, I must, or was obliged.

But whatever these verbs may have once been, yet from their loss of several inflections and the participles, with their singular use in combination with other verbs, they may very well be denominated _auxiliary verbs_. Their true force in English should be ascertained and explained in grammars for the benefit of learners, and particularly for the assistance of foreigners;[110] yet in resolving sentences, each should be considered as a verb or distinct part of speech.

For want of a clear and accurate knowlege of the English auxiliaries, foreigners are apt to fall into material errors in constructing sentences. The most numerous errors appear in the use of _will_ and _shall_, and their inflections. The Scots and Irish, even of the first rank, generally use _will_ for _shall_ in the first person; by which means, they substitute a _promise_ for an intended _prediction_. Several errors of this kind have escaped the notice of the most celebrated writers.

"Without having attended to this, we _will_ be at a loss in understanding several passages in the classics, which relate to the public speaking, and the theatrical entertainments of the ancients."----Blair's Lectures, p. 48. Philad. edit.

"In the Latin language, there are no two words, we _would_ more readily take to be synonimous, than _amare_ and _diligere_."----The same, p. 83.

In these and several other instances which occur in Blair's writings, the words _will_ and _would_ are used very improperly, for _shall_ and _should_. The author means only to _foretell_ certain events, and has employed words which carry, to an English ear, the full force of a _promise_.

English writers have rarely fallen into this error; yet a few instances may be found in authors of reputation.

"If I draw a catgut or any other cord to a great length between my fingers, I _will_ make it smaller than it was before," &c.---- Goldsmith's Survey of Experimental Philosophy, book 2. chap. 2.

In the middle and southern states of America, this error is frequent, both in writing and conversation.

"Let us suppose the charter repealed and the bank annihilated; _will_ we be better situated?"----Argument against repealing the charter of the Bank of North America.

This is very incorrect; there is hardly a possible case, in which _will_ can be properly employed to ask a question in the first person.

"As soon as the diploma is made out, I _will_ have the honor to transmit it to you."----Letter to Count Rochambeau.

Is not this _promising_ to have the honor of a communication, an engagement which delicacy forbids? It is impossible for a foreigner to have a just idea of the absurdity of using _will_ in this manner; but a correct English ear revolts at the practice.

Dr. Priestley observes very justly, that the form of the auxiliaries, _shall_, _will_, which is generally conditional, viz. _should_ and _would_, is elegantly used to express a slight assertion, with modest diffidence.

"The royal power, _it should seem_, might be intrusted in their hands."----Hume's History, vol. 3. p. 383.

We say also, "I _would_ not choose any." In these cases, the verbs are not conditional; they modestly declare a fact, and therefore properly belong to the indicative mode. But in the following passage, _should_ is improperly employed:

"In judging only from the nature of things, and without the surer aid of divine revelation, one _should_ be apt to embrace the opinion of Diodorus Siculus," &c.---- Warburton's Divine Legation, vol. 2. p. 81.

_Should_, in the second and third persons, expresses _duty_, and the idea of the author was, to express an event, under a condition, or a modest declaration; he _should_ have used _would_.

"There is not a girl in town, but let her have her will in going to a mask, and she _shall_ dress as a shepherdess."----Spect. No. 9.

_Shall_, in this example, expresses _command_, an idea very different from the author's meaning.

"Think what reflection _shall_ most probably arise."----Blair, Serm. 9.

"A person, highly entertained at a play, _shall_ remember perfectly the impression made on him by a very moving scene."----Nugent's Trans. of Condillac, p. 1. s. 1.

I would just remark here, that the errors in the use of the auxiliary verbs before mentioned, are not English; that they are little known among the inhabitants of South Britain, and still less among their descendants in New England. This is a new proof of the force of national customs. I do not remember to have heard once in the course of my life, an improper use of the verbs _will_ and _shall_, among the unmixed English descendants in the eastern states.

But of all the errors or inaccuracies in speaking or writing the English language, the most numerous class appear in the improper use of verbs in the subjunctive mode. Not only illiterate men, but authors of the first rank, often use the present tense for the future, the future for the present, and the past for both.

"If any member _absents_ himself, he shall forfeit a penny for the use of the club, unless in case of sickness and imprisonment."----Rules of the Two Penny Club, Spect. No. 9.

"If thou _neglectest_ or _dost_ unwillingly what I command, I'll rack thee with old cramps."----Temp. act 1. s. 4.

In both these examples, the events mentioned in the verbs are _future_; "if any member _shall_ absent himself;" "if thou _shalt_ neglect;" therefore the auxiliary verb _shall_ should have been employed, or the sentences should have been elliptical, "if any member _absent_ himself;" "if thou _neglect_;" where _shall_ is understood and easily supplied by the reader.

Numberless examples of the same kind of inaccuracy may be found in good authors. Thus in Haley's Happy Prescription, act 2.

"And if my scheme _prospers_, with joy I'll confess,
What a whimsical trifle produced our success."

The idea is, "if my scheme _shall_ prosper;" and this is obvious by the subsequent part of the sentence, where the future is employed, "with joy _I'll_ confess."

"If Punch _grows_ extravagant, I shall reprimand him very freely; if the stage _becomes_ a nursery of folly and impertinence, I shall not be afraid to animadvert upon it."----Spect. No. 35.

These should have been _grow_ or _should grow_; _become_ or _should become_.

"If any thing _offers_ (shall offer) from Dublin, that may serve either to satisfy or divert you, I will not fail," &c.---- Swift's Corresp. letter 2.

In the following passage, the same writer is much more correct.

"If any one matter in it _prove_ (that is, _shall prove_) false, what do you think will become of the paper?"----Letter 8.

But the use of the future for the present is much more frequent.

"If reverence, gratitude, obedience and confidence _be_ our duty."---- Priestley, let. 7 to a Phil. Unbeliever.

"If he _have_ any knowlege of actual existence, he must be satisfied."----Same, letter 8.

The author doubtless intended these sentences to be strictly grammatical, by placing the verbs in the present tense of the subjunctive. But in the first example, _be_ is wrong even on Lowth's principles. The rule of the Bishop, with respect to the use of the indicative and subjunctive modes, is this: That when something conditional, hypothetical, or doubtful, is expressed, the verb should be in the subjunctive mode; but when the fact is certain, or taken for granted, the verb should be in the indicative. He gives for examples of the former, several passages from scripture: "If thou _be_ the son of God." Matth. iv. 3. "Tho he _slay_ me, yet will I trust in him." Job xiii. 15. "Unless he _wash_ his flesh." Lev. xxii. 6. "No power except it _were_ given from above." John xix. 11. "Whether it _were_ I or they, so we preach." 1 Cor. xv. 11. "The subjunctive in these instances," says the Bishop, "implies something contingent or doubtful; the indicative would express a more absolute and determinate sense." To illustrate the latter part of his rule, he quotes a passage from Atterbury's Sermons. "Tho he _were_ divinely inspired, and spake therefore as the oracles of God, with supreme authority; tho he _were_ endued with supernatural powers," &c. That our Savior was divinely inspired, and endued with supernatural powers, are positions that are here taken for granted, as admitting not of the least doubt; they would therefore have been better expressed in the indicative mode; "tho he _was_ divinely inspired," &c. Even on these principles, the verb in the first example from Priestley, just quoted, should have been in the indicative; for there is no doubt that reverence, gratitude, &c. _are_ our duty to the Supreme Being.

But I apprehend, that however just Lowth's distinction between the modes, may have formerly been, it is not warranted by the present idiom of the language. Indeed I cannot think the rule just. In the _first_, _fourth_ and _fifth_ examples quoted by the Bishop, the indicative might be substituted for the subjunctive, and the passages rendered more correct, according to the present practice of speaking and writing. "If thou _art_ the son of God." "No power except it _was_ given from above." "Whether it _was_ I, or they, so we preach." Every English ear must acknowlege that these expressions are more agreeable to our present practice, than those employed by the translators of the Bible, and they convey an idea of condition or doubt, as fully as the other form. But why did the translators deviate from the original? In the Greek, the verbs, in the two first examples, are in the indicative mode; and in the last, the verb is not expressed. ~Ei huios ei tou Theou~, literally, If thou _art_ the son of God. ~Ouk echeis exousian oudemian kat' emou, ei mê ên soi dedomenon anôthen~; literally, Thou hast no power (or authority) against me, except it _was_ given thee from above. In the last instance the verb is omitted; ~Eite de egô, eite ekeinoi~; Whether I or they. In these instances therefore the translators of the Bible, and Bishop Lowth have evidently mistaken the true structure of the English verbs. The translators deviated from the original Greek, in changing the modes; and the Bishop has taken their error, as the foundation of a distinction which does not exist in the language. The indicative mode is employed to express conditional ideas, more frequently than the subjunctive, even by the best English writers. Take the following examples.

"And if the same accident _is_ able to restore them to us."---- Bolingbroke, Reflec. on Exile.

"If this being, the immediate maker of the universe, _has_ not existed from all eternity, he must have derived his being and power from one who has."----Priestley, let. 4 to Phil. Unb.

"If there _is_ one, I shall make two in the company."----Merry Wives of Windsor, act 3. sc. II.

"If thou _lovest_ me then
Steal forth thy father's house tomorrow night."

Midsum. Night's Dream, act 1. s. 2.

"If thou _beest_[111] Stephano, touch me and speak to me;
If thou _beest_ Trinculo, come forth."

Tempest, act 2. s. 3.

"If thou _art_ any thing besides a name."

Cowley's Request.

"For if he _lives_ that hath you doen despight."

Spenser's Fairy Queen, book 2. chap. 1.

"If any one _imagines_."----Moyle.

"Why did Caligula wish that the people had but one neck, that he might strike it off at a blow, if their welfare _was_ thus reciprocal."---- Sidney on Gov. sect. 5.

"If Governments _are_ constituted."----Sidney.

"Well, keep your own heart, if silence _is_ best,
Tho a woman, for once, I'll in ignorance rest."

Haley's Happy Prescription.

"If she _has_ stolen the color of her ribbons from another."----Spect. No. 4.

"If we _are_ rightly informed."----Same, No. 8.

"If she _is_ tall enough, she is wife enough."----No. 66.

"If you _are_ in such haste, how came you to forget the miscellanies?"----Swift's Letter to Mr. Tooke.

"If men's highest assurances _are_ to be believed."----Same.

Shall we say that the use of the indicative after _if_ in the foregoing examples is improper or ungrammatical? By no means. Yet the verbs express something conditional or doubtful; and therefore Lowth's rule cannot be well founded.

Let the foregoing passages be contrasted with the following.

"But if he _say_ true, there is but one government in the world that can have any thing of justice in it."----Sidney, sect. 1.

"If he _have_ any knowlege of actual existence, he must be satisfied."----Priestley, let. 8.

"But tho criticism _be_ thus his only declared aim, he will not disown," &c.---- Introd. to Elements of Criticism.

"But if a lively picture, even of a single emotion, _require_ an effort of genius, how much greater the effort to compose a passionate dialogue, with as many different tones of passion as there are speakers?"----Elements of Criticism, vol. 1. chap. 16.

"Here we must also observe, that tho THOU _be_ long in the first part of the verse, it becomes short when repeated in the second."---- Sheridan's Art of Reading.

The Scotch writers, who learn the English language grammatically, are the most particular in the use of this subjunctive form of the verb; in consequence of which their stile generally appears stiff and fettered. In all the foregoing examples, and in every instance where the affirmation respects present time, the indicative form is the most correct, and the only form that corresponds with the actual present state of the language. _If he says_, _if he has_, _if he requires_, are the true expressions universally used in speaking; and grammars should exhibit and enforce this practice, rather than amend it.

There are few or no English writers, who seem to have adhered uniformly to any rule in the use of the verbs after the conjunctions. In consequence, either of ignorance or inattention, the most correct writers have fallen into inconsistencies, even in the same sentence. This will appear by the following examples.

"If life and health enough _fall_ to my share, and I _am_ able to finish what I meditate."----Bolingbroke, let. 4, on History.

The author intended the verbs, _fall_ and _am_, to be in the present time; but this would make him write nonsense; for the events were future at the time of writing. The first part of the sentence, to make sense, must be considered as elliptical, "if life and health enough _shall_ or _should fall_ to my share;" in the last part therefore _be_ should be substituted for _am_, _if I shall be able_: This would make the whole sentence correct and consistent.

"Whether our conduct _be_ inspected, and we _are_ under a righteous government, or under no government at all."----Priestley's Pref. to Let. to a Phil. Unb.

What a confusion of modes! or rather of tenses!

"Tho THOU _be_ long, in the first part of the verse," says Sheridan, in the passage just quoted; yet soon after uses the indicative in a phrase precisely similar; "And tho it _is_ impossible to prolong the sound of this word." Can this great critic give a reason for this change of modes? Such examples serve to show at least the necessity of studying our language with more attention, than even many eminent scholars are willing to bestow.

It has been remarked by Lowth, and many other writers on this subject, that "the verb itself in the present, and the auxiliary both of the present and past imperfect times, often carry with them somewhat of a future sense."[112] Thus, _if he_ _come tomorrow_, _if he should or would come tomorrow_, carry _somewhat of a future sense_. The writer should have gone farther, and said that these expressions are in future time; for they form the English future, and belong to no other tense. This would have been the truth, and have prevented the numberless errors which have proceeded from his arranging them in the present tense of the subjunctive. Let us attend to the following passages.

"This can never happen till patriotism _flourish_ more in Britain."--Home's Sketches, book 2. s. 9.

"Pray heaven, he _prove_ so, when you come to him."----Two Gent. of Verona, act 2. s. 10.

"But if thou _linger_ in my territories."----Same, act 3. s. 2.

"Lest, growing ruinous, the building _fall_."----Same, act 5. s. 6.

"If the second _be_ pronounced thus, the verse will be degraded into hobbling prose."----Sheridan's Art of Reading.

It is needless to multiply similar passages; the same use of the verb, without the personal termination, occurs in almost every page of our best writings, and it is perfectly correct.

But will any person contend that the verbs in these passages are in the present tense? The sense is entirely future, and could not be translated into Latin or French, without employing the future tense. The expressions are elliptical, and cannot be clearly understood, without inserting _shall_ or _should_ before the verbs. This pretended present tense of the subjunctive is therefore the real future of the indicative. To confirm this remark, let us attend to some other passages.

"Tho he _slay_ me, yet will I trust in him."

"Unless he _wash_ his flesh, he shall not eat of the holy thing."

In the original Hebrew these verbs are in the future tense; and so are most similar expressions.[113]

Matth. vii. 10.--Or if he _ask_ a fish, will he give him a serpent? ~Kai ean ichthyn aitêsê mê ophin epidôsei autô?~

Rom. xiv. 15.--But if thy brother _be_ grieved with thy meat. ~Ei gar dia brôma ho adelphos sou lupeitai~.

Luke xvii. 3.--If thy brother _trespass_ against thee. ~Ean hamartêsê ho adelphos sou~. 4. And seven times in a day _turn_ again to thee. ~Kai heptakis tês hêmêras epistrepsê~.

Luke xvi. 28.--Lest they also _come_ into this place of torment. ~Mê kai autos elthôsin eis touton ton topon tês basanou~.[114]

Is not the sense of the foregoing verbs _future_? Are not the verbs in the original, either in the future tense, or in the indefinite tenses, which, in the subjunctive mode, _usually_ have the sense of the future, and perhaps _never_ the sense of the present? Why then should we consider the English verbs as in the present time? Either the translators made a mistake, and placed the verbs in a wrong tense; or Lowth and his followers have mistaken the tense, and called that present which is really future.

That the fault is, in some measure, to be ascribed to the translators, is evident from their using the same form of the verb, after a conjunction, when the original Greek is in the present of the indicative.

1 Cor. xvi. 22.--If any man _love_ not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be, &c. ~Ei tis ou philei ton Kyrion Iêsoun Christon, êtô~, &c.

1 Cor. xiv. 37.--If any man think himself a prophet. ~Ei de tis dokei prophêtês einai~. 38.--If any man _be_ ignorant, let him be ignorant still. ~Ei de tis agnoei, agnoeitô~.

In these instances, the verbs express conditional facts in the present time. In the original they are in the indicative present; and on what authority did the translators introduce a different mode in English? Can they be justified by the idioms of the language at the time when they lived? Was the subjunctive always used after a conjunction? By no means: Their own translation of other passages proves the contrary.

1 Cor. xv. 13.--And if there _is_ no resurrection of the dead. ~Ei de anastasis nekrôn ouk estin~.

Here is the present tense of the indicative used, where the fact mentioned is supposed, by the argument, to be at least doubtful. In other places the present time of the same mode is used, where the future would have been more accurate.

Prov. ii. 3, 4.--"Yea if thou _criest_ after knowlege, and _liftest_ up thy voice for understanding; if thou _seekest_ for her as for hid treasures, then shalt thou understand," &c.

What conclusion shall we draw from this state of facts? This at least may be said with safety, either that the English modes and tenses have not been ascertained and understood, or that the best of our writers have been extremely negligent.

After an attentive and accurate examination of this subject, I believe I may venture to assert, that nine times out of ten, when the pretended subjunctive form of the verb is used after a conjunction, either in the vulgar translation of the Bible, or in our best profane authors, the sense is actually future, and to render the sentences complete, it would be necessary to insert _shall_ or _should_.[115] This will be more obvious by attending to the Latin translation of the New Testament, where the future is almost always employed to express the Greek future and aorists. _Igitur si munus tuum attuleris ad altare_--If thou _bring_ thy gift to the altar; _et illic memineris_--and there _rememberest_; (what confusion of modes.) If his son _ask_ bread--_Si filius ejus_ petierit _panem_. And if the house _be_ worthy--_Et si quidem_ fuerit _domus digna_; and so throughout the whole New Testament.

Will any person pretend to say that the verbs _bring_, _ask_ and _be_, in the foregoing passages, are present time; or that _rememberest_ is not bad English? The elliptical future, _If thou be_, _if he ask_, &c. is correct English, but should by no means be confounded with the present tense, which, in English, has but one form.

I do not deny that good authors have used this form, after conjunctions, in the present time; but I deny that the genius of the language requires it, that it is agreeable to the ancient or modern elegant languages, and that it has been or is now the general practice.

With respect to the ancient practice, examples sufficient have been already produced, to show that authors have considered the present of the indicative, after conjunctions, denoting uncertainty or doubt, as at least correct; and the present practice in speaking is wholly on this side of the argument.

With respect to the Roman and Greek languages, I believe examples enough may be brought to prove, that the subjunctive mode after the conditional conjunctions or adverbs, was not generally used, except when the idea was such as we should express by _may_, _might_, _should_, _let_, or some other auxiliary before the verb. "Quid est autem, quod deos _veneremur_ propter admirationem ejus naturæ, in qua egregium nihil videmus?" "Ut, quos ratio non posset, eos ad officium religio _duceret_."--Cicero, De nat Deorum, l. I. 42. To render _veneremur_ and _duceret_ into English, _should_ may be prefixed to _adore_, and _might_ to _lead_.

At any rate, the conditional conjunctions do not all, nor generally require the subjunctive mode: "Quæ, _si_ mundus _est_ Deus, quoniam mundi partes sunt, Dei membra parim ardentia, partim refrigerata dicenda sunt."--Ibm. 1. I. 10. "_Si_ Di _possunt_ esse sine sensu," &c. The indicative after this conjunction occurs frequently in the best Roman authors.

In Greek the case is nearly the same. Several instances of the indicative after the conditional conjunction ~ei~ (if) have already been quoted from scripture; and similar instances without number may be produced from profane writers.

"~Ei oun houtôs echei, ephê, ô Kyre, ti an allo tis kreitton heuroi, ê pempein eis Persas, kai hama men didaskein autous hoti ei ti peisontai Mêdoi, eis Persas to deinon hêxei, hama de aitein pleion strateuma~;"---- Xenoph. de Cyri. Inst. l. 2. p. 80. Lond. Ed.

Here the verb ~echei~ is in the present tense of the indicative, after a conjunction denoting condition or doubt; "if the affair _is_ so--if such _is_ the true state of affairs, Cyrus, what better method _can be taken_ (~heuroi~) than to send to the Persians, and inform them that _if_ any accident _happen_ to the Medes (so we should render ~peisontai~, which is in the future) calamity will fall upon the Persians also, and let us ask for a greater force."

In French, the conditional conjunctions do not require the subjunctive mode. "Si ma prédiction _est_ fausse, vous serez libre de nous immoler dans trois jours."--Telemaque, liv. 1. "S'il _est_ vrai que vous aimiez la justice."--Liv. 4. If my prediction _is_ false--if it _is_ true--are correct modes of speaking in French. No argument therefore in favor of the use of the English subjunctive, can be drawn from the analogy of other languages.

But this subjunctive form is not agreeable to the structure of the language. It has been demonstrated that our conjunctions are mostly old Saxon verbs in the imperative mode. Let us resolve some sentences where the subjunctive form is used; for example, the passages before quoted.

"If he _have_ any knowlege of actual existence, he must be satisfied."----Priestley's Letters.

Resolved--"He have any knowlege of actual existence, (if) give that, he must be satisfied." Is this English?

"If thou be the son of God, command that these stones be made bread."----Matth. iv. 3.

Resolved--"Thou be the son God, give that, command," &c.

"Tho he slay me, yet will I trust in him."

Resolved--"He slay me, grant it, yet will I trust in him."

This is the literal construction of those sentences; the two first are present time, the last, which is future, is merely elliptical.

If therefore, _I be_, _he have_, are good English in the present tense of the indicative, the foregoing are correct expressions; if not, they are incorrect; for every such conditional sentence is resolvable into two or more declaratory phrases. Let us substitute the Latin derivative, which precisely answers to _if_, viz. _suppose_; thus, in place of "if thou be the son of God," write, "_suppose_ thou be the son of God," does not every ear acknowlege the impropriety? The only difference between the two expressions is this; _if_ is a _Saxon_ verb in the imperative mode, and _suppose_, a _Latin_ one in the same mode.

With respect to _be_, it may be said very justly, that it was anciently used after the conjunctions in almost all cases. But it must be observed also, it was used _without_ the conjunctions. Be, from the Saxon _beon_, is the true radical verb, still preserved in the German, _Ich bin_, I be, _du bist_, thou beest, in the indicative. The old English writers employed _be_ in the same mode and tense.

"O, there _be_ players that I have seen play."----Shakesp. Hamlet to the Players.

"They that _be_ drunken, are drunken in the night."----1 Thess. v. 7.

"As we _be_ slanderously reported."----Rom. iii. 8.

The common people in New England still employ _be_ in the present tense of the indicative, except in the third person. They almost universally say, _I be_, _we be_, _you be_, and _they be_. While _be_ remained the proper substantive verb in the indicative, it was very correctly employed after the conjunctions, _If he be_, _tho he be_, but when, _am_, _are_, _art_ and _is_ were substituted in the indicative, they should likewise have been employed in the subjunctive; for the latter is resolvable into the former.

From the facts produced, and the remarks made, we may draw the following conclusions; that the distinction made by grammarians between the present tense of the indicative and subjunctive mode in English, is not well founded; that it is not warranted by the construction of the language, nor by the analogy of other languages; that the expressions commonly supposed to be in the present tense of the subjunctive, are mostly in fact an elliptical form of the future in the indicative, and that the present translation of the Bible cannot be vindicated on any other supposition; that the present practice, both in speaking and writing, is generally in favor of the indicative after the conjunctions; and consequently, that the arrangement of the verbs by Lowth and his followers, is calculated to lead both foreigners and natives into error.

I have been more particular upon this article, because the Scotch writers, many of whom stand among the first authors of the British nation, follow the usual grammatical division of verbs, and thus write a stile not conformed to the present practice of speaking.

In the use of what is called the _imperfect_ tense, after the conjunctions, there is something peculiar, which has not yet been sufficiently explained. On examination it will probably be found that custom has established one singular distinction in the sense of verbs in different tenses, a knowlege of which is necessary to enable us to speak and write with precision. This distinction will readily be understood by a few examples.

A servant calls on me for a book, which his master would borrow. If I am uncertain whether I have that book or not, I reply in this manner; "If the book _is_ in my library, or if I _have_ the book, your master shall be welcome to the use of it."

But if I am certain I do not possess the book, the reply is different; "I have not the book you mention; if I _had_, it should be at your master's service."

Both these forms of speaking are correct; but the question is, what is the difference? It cannot be in _time_; for both refer to the same. The ideas both respect present time; "If I _have_ it _now_, it _shall_ be at your master's service"--"If I _had_ it _now_, it _should_ be." The distinction in the meaning is universally understood, and is simply this; the first expresses _uncertainty_; the last implies _certainty_, but in a peculiar manner; for an affirmative sentence implies a positive negation; and a negative sentence implies a positive affirmation. Thus, _if I had the book_, implies a positive denial of having it; _if I had not the book_, implies that I have it: And both speak of possessing or not possessing it at this _present_ time.

The same distinction runs thro all the verbs in the language. A man, shut up in an interior apartment, would say to his friend, "_if it rains_ you cannot go home." This would denote the speaker's uncertainty. But on coming to the door and ascertaining the fact, he would say, "_if it rain__ed_, you should not go;" or, "_if it did not rain_, you might go." Can these verbs be in _past_ time? By no means; _if it did not rain now, you could go_, is present, for the present existence of the fact prevents the man from going.

These forms of speech are established by unanimous consent in practice.

"It remaineth that they who have wives, be as tho they _had_ none, and they that weep, as tho they _wept_ not; and they that rejoice, as tho they _rejoiced_ not; and they that buy, as tho they _possessed_ not."----1 Cor. vii. 29, 30.[116]

"Nay, and the villains march wide betwixt the legs, as if they _had_ gyves on."----1 Henry IV.

"We have not these antiquities; and if _we had_ them, they would add to our uncertainty."----Bolingbroke on Hist. let. 3.

"Whereas, _had_ I (if I had) still the same woods to range in, which I once _had_, when I was a fox hunter, I should not resign my manhood for a maintenance."----Spect. No. 14.

"I confess I have not great taste for poetry; but if _I had_, I am apt to believe I should read none but Mr. Pope's."[117]---- Shenstone on Men and Manners.

Whatever these verbs may be in declaratory phrases, yet after the conditional conjunctions _if_ and _tho_, they often express present ideas, as in the foregoing examples. In such cases, this form of the verb may be denominated the _hypothetical_ present tense. This would distinguish it from the same form, when it expresses uncertainty in the past time; for this circumstance must not be passed without notice. Thus, "If he _had_ letters by the last mail," denotes the speaker's uncertainty as to a past fact or event. But, "if _he had_ a book, he would lend it," denotes a present certainty that he has it not. The times referred to are wholly distinct.

As the practice of all writers and good speakers, and even of the vulgar, is nearly uniform in the distinction here mentioned, it is needless to produce more examples for illustration. One verb however deserves a separate consideration; which is _be_. In the use of this verb in the hypothetical sense, there is a difference between good authors and common parlance; the first write _were_, but most people in conversation say, _was_. Thus,

"Every rich man has usually some sly way of jesting, which would make no great figure, _were_ he not rich."----Spect. No. 2.

"He will often argue, that if this part of our trade _were_ well cultivated, we should gain from one nation," &c.---- Same.

"_Were_ I (if I were) a father, I should take a particular care to preserve my children from these little horrors of imagination."---- Same, No. 12.

"Nor think, tho men _were_ none,
That heaven would want spectators, God want praise."

Milton, P. L.

"What then he _was_, oh, _were_ your Nestor now."

Pope, Iliad, b. 7. 189.

"Yes, if the nature of a clock _were_ to speak, not strike."----Ben Johnson.

"Where the poor knave erroneously believes,
If he _were_ rich, he would build churches, or
Do such mad things."----Same.

_Were_, in these examples, is the same hypothetical present tense just described, having not the least reference to the past.[118] But in conversation, we generally hear _was_; "if I _was_ in his place;" "if he _was_ here _now_," &c. and I observe that modern writers are copying the general practice.

"If I _was_ not afraid of being thought to refine too much."--Boling. Refl. on Exile.

Both these forms have such authorities to support them, that neither can be considered as wholly incorrect; they are both English. But custom will eventually establish the latter, _was_, as the hypothetical form of the substantive verb. It is now almost universally used, except in books; and the tide of general practice is irresistible.

The following examples will illustrate what has been advanced.

_Present time. Affirmative._

If he _has_ or _is_--denotes uncertainty. If he _had_ or _were_ or _was_--denote certainty that he has not, or is not.

_Negative._

If he _has_ not or _is_ not--uncertainty. If he _had_ not, _were_ not or _was_ not--certainty that he has or is.

_Past time. Affirm._

If he _had_ or _was_ yesterday--uncertainty. If he _had_ have,[119] or _had_ been yesterday--certainty that he _had_ not, or _was_ not.

_Negative._

If he _had_ or _was_ not--uncertainty. If he _had_ not have, or _had_ not been--certainty that he had or was.[120]

I cannot close my remarks on the tenses of the English verb, without noticing a common error, which must have sprung from inattention, and is perhaps too general now to admit of correction. It is the use of the past tense after another verb or _that_, when the sense requires a change of tenses. Thus,

"Suppose I were to say, that to every art there _was_ a system of such various and well approved principles."----Harris.

The first part of the sentence is hypothetical, _suppose I were to say_; but the last becomes declaratory under the supposition, and therefore the form of the verb should be changed to the present, indicative, _that to every art there is a system_: For it must be remarked that when the English speak of general existence, they use the present time; as, truth _is_ great above all things; the scriptures _are_ a rule of faith; the heavens _display_ the glory of the Lord. The past or the future, in such cases, would be highly improper. Hence the absurdity of the passage just quoted; the supposition is that every art _has_ (generally--at all times) a system of principles.

"If the taxes laid by government _were_ the only ones we _had_ to pay."

The author's meaning is, "the only taxes we _have_ to pay;" and he was probably led into the mistake by not understanding the preceding hypothetical verb, _were_, which actually speaks of the present time conditionally.

The error will be more striking in the following passages.

"If an atheist would well consider the arguments in this book, he would confess there _was_ a God."

There _was_ a God! And why not confess that there _is_ a God? The writer did not consider that the first part of the sentence is _conditional_, and that the last ought to be _declaratory_ of a fact always existing.

"Two young men have made a discovery that there _was_ a God."---- Swift's Arg. against Abolishing Christianity.

A curious discovery indeed! Were the Dean still alive, he might find there _is_ a great inaccuracy in that passage of his works.

"Yet were we to use the same word, where the figure _was_ manifest, we should use the preposition _from_."----Priestley, Gram. p. 158.

Here is the same error, and the author may live to correct it.

But of all this class of mistakes, the following is the most palpable.

"I am determined to live, as if there _was_ a _future_ life."---- Hammon, quoted by Price and Priestley.

Hammon is an atheist, and it would require the same abilities to reconcile the two words _was future_, as to reconcile his principles with the common sense of mankind.[121]

The following passage, from _Gregory's Comparative View of the State and Faculties of Man_, is remarkable for this error.

"Men have been taught that they _did_ (do) God acceptable service, by abstracting themselves from all the duties they _owed_ (owe) to society; and by inflicting on themselves the severest tortures which nature can support. They have been taught that it _was_ (is) their duty," &c.

"And yet one would think that this _was_ the principal use of the study of history."----Bolingbroke on Hist. letter 3.

A similar fault occurs in one of Mrs. Thale's letters to Dr. Johnson, Aug. 9, 1775.

"--Yet I have always found the best supplement for talk _was_ writing."

So in Blackstone's Commentaries, book 1. chap. 7.

"It was observed in a former chapter, that one of the principal bulwarks of civil liberty, or, in other words, of the British constitution, _was_ the limitation of the king's prerogative."

The observation had been made in time past, but respecting a fact that exists _now_, and at all times while the British constitution exists. The sentence therefore should run thus; "it _was_ observed that one principal bulwark of civil liberty, _is_ the limitation of the king's prerogative."

No fault is more common; we every day hear such expressions as these; "If I thought it _was_ so;" "suppose I should say she _was_ handsome;" "I did not think it _was_ so late," &c. _Was_, in the first and last examples, should be the infinitive, _to be_; and in the second, the present time, _is_. Had proper attention been paid to our language, so many palpable mistakes would not have crept into practice, and into the most correct and elegant writings. Dr. Reid is perhaps the only writer who has generally avoided this error.

The Greek and Roman writers were not guilty of such mistakes. Either the varieties of inflection in their languages, or superior care in the writers, made them attentive to the nice distinctions of time. In the following passage, the translators of the Bible, by adhering closely to the original, have avoided the common error before mentioned.

"I _knew_ thee that thou art an hard man."--Matth. xxv. 24. "~Egnôn hoti sklêros ei anthrôpos~;" literally, _having known_ that thou _art_ an hard man. So also ver. 26, "Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou _knewest_ that I _reap_, where I sowed not;" "~êdeis hoti therizô~." Had these passages been translated into the careless stile of modern conversation, and even of many excellent writings, they would have stood thus--"I knew thee that thou _wast_ an hard man"--"thou knewest that I _reaped_ where I sow not." But the general character and conduct of the person mentioned in this parable, are supposed to exist at all times while he is living; and this general nature of the fact requires the verb to be in the present time. To confirm this remark let the sentences be inverted; "thou art an hard man, I knew thee to be such, or I knew it." "I reap where I sowed not, thou knewest that." This is an indubitable evidence of the accuracy of the translation.[122]

An inversion of the order of the sentence in the passages first quoted, will show the common error in a most striking light.

"There _was_ a God, two young men have made that discovery." "Men _did_ God acceptable service, by abstracting themselves, &c. they have been taught this; it _was_ their duty, they have been taught this." "The taxes we _had_ to pay to government, if these were the only ones." This will not make sense to a man who _has_ taxes _still_ to pay; the writer's _had to pay_ will not discharge the public debt. But it is unnecessary to multiply examples and arguments; the reader must be already convinced that these errors exist, and that I ought not to have been the first to notice them.

Sometimes this hypothetical tense is used with an infinitive for the future. In the following passage it seems to be correct.

"I wish I _were_ to go to the Elysian fields, when I die, and then I should not care if I _were_ to leave the world tomorrow."----Pope.

But the following are hardly vindicable.

"Suppose they _marched_ up to our mines with a numerous army, how could they subsist for want of provision."----Moyle, Diss. on the Rev. of Athens.

"If they _foraged_ in small parties."----Same.

The sense is future, and therefore _should march_, _should forage_, would have been more correct.

"I should not act the part of an impartial spectator, if I _dedicated_ the following papers to one who is not of the most consummate and acknowleged merit."----Spect. Dedic.

_If I should dedicate_, would have been more accurate.

A similar fault occurs in the following passage.

"If nature _thunder'd_ in his opening ears,
And _stunn'd_ him with the music of the spheres."

Pope, Essay on Man.

If nature _should thunder_ and _stun_ him, is the meaning.

There is another article that deserves to be mentioned; which is, the use of a verb after _as_ or _than_, apparently without a nominative.

"This unlimited power is what the best legislators of all ages have endeavored to deposit in such hands, as _would preserve_ the people from rapine."----Swift, vol. 2. Contests, &c.

"_Would preserve_" seems to have no nominative, for _hands_ cannot be inserted without changing the form of the sentence; _in those hands which would preserve_.

"A hypocrite hath so many things to attend to, _as make_ his life a very perplexed and intricate thing."----Tillotson.

This mode of expression is however well established and occasions no obscurity. The truth is, _as_ is an article or relative equivalent to _that_ or _which_; and the criticisms of Lowth on the conjunctions, where he condemns the use of _as_ and _so_ in a number of instances, prove that he knew nothing about the true meaning of these words. See Diversions of Purley, page 283.

Another form of expression, peculiar to our language, is the _participial noun_, a word derived from a verb, and having the properties, both of a verb and a noun; as, "I heard of _his acquiring_ a large estate." _Acquiring_ here expresses the _act done_, the acquisition; yet governs the following objective case, _estate_. When a noun precedes the participle, it takes the sign of the possessive, "I heard of a _man's acquiring_ an estate." This is the genuin English idiom; and yet modern writers very improperly omit the sign of the possessive, as, I heard of a _man acquiring_ an estate. This omission often changes the sense of the phrase or leaves it ambiguous.

The omission of the sign of the possessive in the following example is a very great fault.

"Of a general or public act, the courts of law are bound to take notice judicially and _ex officio_, without the _statute being_ particularly pleaded."----Blackstone Comment. vol. 1. p. 86.

The preposition _without_ here governs the phrase following, which might otherwise be properly arranged thus, without _the particular pleading of the statute_, or without _pleading the statute particularly_. But as the sentence stands, there is nothing to show the true construction, or how the sentence may be resolved: _Being_ and _pleaded_ both stand as participles; whereas the construction requires that they should be considered as standing for a noun; for _without_ does not govern _statute_; _without the statute_, is not the meaning of the writer. But it governs _pleading_, or refers immediately to that idea or union of ideas, expressed by _being particularly pleaded_. As these last words represent a noun, which is immediately governed by the preposition, _without_, the word _statute_ should have the sign of the possessive, as much as any word in the genitive case, _without the statute's being particularly pleaded_; that is, without the particular pleading _of the statute_ by the parties; for in order to make grammar or sense, _statute_ must be in the possessive.

To confirm these remarks, I would just add, that when we substitute a pronoun in such cases, we always use the possessive case. Suppose the word _statute_ had been previously used, in the sentence; the writer then would have used the pronoun in the close of the sentence, thus; "without _its_ being particularly pleaded;" and I presume that no person will contend for the propriety of, "without _it_ being pleaded."

So we should say, "a judge will not proceed to try a criminal, without _his_ being present." But would it be correct to say, without _him_ being present? This mode of speaking will not, I am confident, be advocated: But unless I am mistaken, this last expression stands on a footing with the example cited, _without the statute being pleaded_. Numberless similar examples occur in those modern writers who aim at refinement of language. "If we can admit the doctrine of the _stomach having_ a general consent with the whole system."--"On account of the _system being_ too highly toned," &c. It is strange the writers of such language do not see that there are in fact two possessives in such phrases--"on account _of_ the too high toning _of_ the system," and that both should be expressed; thus, "on account _of_ the _system's_ being too high toned."

It may be questioned whether the verb _need_ may not with propriety be used in the third person singular of the indicative, present, without the usual termination of that person. Practice will at least warrant it.

"But tho the principle is to be applauded, the error cannot, and, in this enlightened age, happily _need_ not be defended."----Erskine, Orat. Temp. vol. 1. p. 95.

"Now a person _need_ but enter into himself and reflect on the operations of his own mind."----Nugent's Burlamaqui, 1. I. 9.

"Hence it was adjudged, that the use _need_ not always be executed the instant the conveyance is made."----Blackstone, Com. b. 2. chap. 20.

Numberless authorities of this kind may be produced; but we may spare the trouble, and only advert to the constant practice of speakers of every class; "he need not;" "it need not." Indeed, _he needs not_, altho grammatically correct, is so offensive to most ears, that we have little reason to expect people will be persuaded to use it.

The same may be said of _dare_; "he dare not."

_I am mistaken_, Lowth reprobates as bad English; asserting that the phrase is equivalent to _I am misunderstood_. In this criticism the Bishop _is mistaken_ most grossly. Whether the phrase is a corruption of _am mistaking_ or not, is wholly immaterial; in the sense the English have used it from time immemorial and universally, _mistaken_ is a mere adjective, signifying that one is in an error; and this sense the Bishop should have explained, and not rejected the phrase.

PARTICLES.

The same author disapproves of _to_ after _averse_; another example of his hasty decision. The practice of good writers and speakers is almost wholly in favor of _to_, and this is good authority; the propriety of the English particles depending almost solely on their use, without any reference to Latin rules. _Averse_ is an adjective, describing a certain state or quality of the mind, without regard to motion, and therefore _averse from_ is as improper as _contrary from_, _opposed from_, or _reluctant from_. Indeed in the original sense of _from_, explained by Mr. Horne Tooke, as denoting _beginning_, _averse from_ appears to be nonsense.

The following phrases are said to be faulty; _previous to_, _antecedent to_, with others of a similar nature. The criticism on these expressions must have been made on a very superficial view of the subject. In this sentence, "previous to the establishment of the new government, the resolutions of Congress could not be enforced by legal compulsory penalties;" _previous_ refers to the word _time_ or something equivalent implied, _at the time previous_, or _during the time or period, previous_ to the establishment of the new government. This is the strict grammatical resolution of the phrase; and the usual correction, _previously_, is glaringly absurd; _during the time previously to the establishment_; into such wild errors are men led by a slight view of things, or by applying the principles of one language to the construction of another.[124]

"_Agreeable to his promise_, he sent me the papers;" here _agreeable_ is correct; for it refers to the fact done; he sent me the papers, which sending was agreeable to his promise. In such cases, practice has often a better foundation than the criticisms which are designed to change it.

_According_ is usually numbered among the prepositions; but most absurdly; it is always a participle, and has always a reference to some noun or member of a sentence. "_According to his promise_, he called on me last evening." Here _according_ refers to the whole subsequent member of the sentence; "he called on me last evening, which (the whole of which facts) was _according_ to his promise." No person pretends that "_accordingly_ to his promise" is good English; yet the phrase is not more incorrect than "_agreeably_ to his promise," or "_previously_ to this event," which the modern critics and refiners of our language have recommended.

"_Who_ do you speak _to_?" "_Who_ did he marry?" are challenged as bad English; but _whom_ do you speak _to_? was never used in speaking, as I can find, and if so, is hardly English at all. There is no doubt, in my mind, that the English _who_ and the Latin _qui_, are the same word with mere variations of dialect. _Who_, in the Gothic or Teutonic, has always answered to the Latin nominative, _qui_; the dative _cui_, which was pronounced like _qui_, and the ablative _quo_; in the same manner as _whose_ has answered to _cujus_, in all genders; _whom_ to _quem_, _quam_, and _what_ to _quod_. So that _who_ did he speak _to_? _Who_ did you go _with_? were probably as good English, in ancient times, as _cui dixit?_ _Cum quo ivisti?_ in Latin. Nay, it is more than probable that _who_ was once wholly used in asking questions, even in the objective case; _who_ did he marry? until some Latin student began to suspect it bad English, because not agreeable to the Latin rules. At any rate, _whom_ do you speak _to_? is a corruption, and all the grammars that can be formed will not extend the use of the phrase beyond the walls of a college.

The foregoing criticisms will perhaps illustrate and confirm an assertion of Mr. Horne Tooke, that "Lowth has rejected much _good_ English." I should go farther and assert that he has criticized away more phrases of _good_ English, than he has corrected of _bad_. He has not only mistaken the true construction of many phrases, but he has rejected others that have been used generally by the English nation from the earliest times, and by arbitrary rules, substituted phrases that have been rarely, or never used at all. To detect such errors, and restrain the influence of such respectable names, in corrupting the true idiom of our tongue, I conceive to be the duty of every friend to American literature.