Chapter VI: Part 6

It makes no difference whether the object of the action is expressed or not. It is the same in either case. But where it is not necessarily implied from the nature and fitness of things, it must be expressed, and but for such object or effect the action could not be understood. For example, _I run_; but if there is no effect produced, _nothing_ run, how can it be known whether I run or not. If I write, it is necessarily understood that I write _something_--a _letter_, a _book_, a _piece_ of poetry, a _communication_, or some other _writing_. When such object is not liable to be mistaken, it would be superfluous to express it--it would be a redundancy which should be avoided by all good writers and speakers. All languages are, in this respect, more or less eliptical, which constitutes no small share of their beauty, power, and elegance.

This elipsis may be observed not only in regard to the objects of verbs, but in the omission of many nouns after adjectives, which thus assume the character of nouns; as, the Almighty, the Eternal, the Allwise, applied to God, understood. So we say the wise, the learned, the good, the faithful, the wicked, the vile, the base, to which, if nouns, it would sound rather harsh to apply plurals. So we say, take your hat off ( ); put your gloves on ( ); lay your coat off ( ); and pull your boots on ( ); presuming the person so addressed knows enough to fill the elipsis, and not take his hat off his back, pull his gloves on his feet, or his boots on his head.

In pursuing this subject farther, let us examine the sample words which are called _intransitive_ verbs, because frequently used without the object expressed after them; such as run, walk, step, fly, rain, snow, burn, roll, shine, smiles, &c.

"_I run._"

That here is an action of the first kind, none will deny. But it is contended by the old systems that there is no object on which the action terminates. If that be true then there is _nothing_ run, no effect produced, and the first law of nature is outraged, in the very onset; for there is a _cause_, but no _effect_; an _action_, but no _object_. How is the fact? Have you run nothing? conveyed nothing, moved nothing from one place to another? no change, no effect, nothing moved? Look at it and decide. It is said that a neuter or intransitive verb may be known from the fact that it takes after it a preposition. Try it by this rule. "A man run _against_ a post in a dark night, and broke his neck;" that is, he run nothing against a post--no object to run--and yet he broke his neck. Unfortunate man!

The fact in relation to this verb is briefly this: It is used to express the action which more usually terminates on the actor, than on any other object. This circumstance being generally known, it would be superfluous to mention the object, except in cases where such is not the fact. But whenever we desire to be definite, or when there is the least liability to mistake the object, it is invariably expressed. Instances of this kind are numerous. "They _ran_ the _boat_ ashore." "The captain _ran_ his _men_ to rescue them from the enemy." "They _ran_ the _gauntlet_." "They _run_ a _stage_ to Boston." "He _ran himself_ into discredit." "One bank _runs_ another." "The man had a hard _run_ of it." "_Run_ the _account_ over, and see if it is right." "They _run forty looms_ and two thousand spindles." "He _runs_ his _mill_ evenings." Such expressions are common and correct, because they convey ideas, and are understood.

Two men were engaged in argument. The believer in intransitive verbs set out to _run his opponent_ into an evident absurdity, and, contrary to his expectation, he _ran himself_ into one. Leave out the objects of this verb, run, and the sense is totally changed. He set out to _run_ into an _evident absurdity_, and he ran into one; that is, he did the very absurd thing which he intended to do.[14]

"_I walk._"

The action expressed by this verb is very similar in character to the former, but rather _slower_ in performance. Writers on health tell us that _to walk_ is a very healthy exercise, and that it would be well for men of sedentary habits _to walk_ several miles every day. But if there is no action in walk, or if it has no _object_ necessarily _walked_, it would be difficult to understand what good could result from it.

"Did you have a pleasant _walk_ this morning?" says a teacher to his grammar class.

"We did have a very pleasant one. The flowers were _blooming_ on each side of the _walk_, and _sent_ forth their sweetest aroma, _perfuming_ the soft breezes of the morning. Birds were _flitting from_ spray to spray, _carolling_ their hymns of praise to Deity. The tranquil waters of the lake lay _slumbering_ in silence, and _reflected_ the bright _rays_ of the sun, _giving_ a sweet but solemn _aspect_ to the whole scene. _To go_ thro the grove, down by the lake, and up thro the meadow, is the most delightful _walk_ a person can take."

"How did you get your _walk_?"

"We walked it, to be sure; how did you think we got it?"

"Oh, I did not know. _Walk_, your books tell you, is an intransitive verb, terminating on no object; so I supposed, if you followed them, you obtained it some other way; by _riding_, _running_, _sailing_, or, may be, _bought_ it, as you could not have _walked it_! Were you tired on your return?"

"We were exceedingly fatigued, for you know it is a very long _walk_, and we _walked it_ in an hour."

"But _what_ tired you? If there are no effects produced by walking, I can not conceive why _you_ should be fatigued by such exercise."

Who does not perceive what flagrant violations of grammar rules are committed every day, and every hour, and in almost every sentence that is framed to express our knowledge of facts.

_To step._

This verb is the same in character with the two just noticed. It expresses the act of _raising_ each foot alternately, and usually implies that the body is, by that means, conveyed from one place to another. But as people _step_ their _feet_ and not their hands, or any thing else, it is entirely useless to mention the object; for generally, that can not be mistaken any more than in the case of the gloves, boots, and hat. But it would be bad philosophy to teach children that there is no objective word after it, because it is not written out and placed before their eyes. They will find such teaching contradicted at every _step_ they take. Let a believer in intransitive verbs _step_ on a red hot iron; he will soon find to his sorrow, that he was mistaken when he thought that he could _step_ without stepping any thing. It would be well for grammar, as well as many other things, to have more practice and less theory. The thief was detected by his steps. Step softly; put your feet down carefully.

_Birds fly._

We learned from our primers, that

"The eagle's _flight_
Is out of sight,"

How did the eagle succeed in producing a _flight_? I suppose he _flew_ it. And if birds ever fly, they must produce a flight. Such being the fact, it is needless to supply the object. But the action does not terminate solely on the flight produced, for that is only the name given to the action itself. The expression conveys to the mind the obvious fact, that, by strong muscular energy, by the aid of feathers, and the atmosphere, the bird carries itself thro the air, and changes its being from one place to another. As birds rarely fly a race, or any thing but _themselves_ and a _flight_, it is not necessary to suffix the object.

_It rains._

This verb is insisted on as the strongest proof of intransitive action; with what propriety, we will now inquire. It will serve as a clear elucidation of the whole theory of intransitive verbs.

What does the expression signify? It simply declares the fact, that _water is shed_ down from the clouds. But is there no object after _rains_? There is none expressed. Is there nothing rained? no effect produced? If not, there can be no water fallen, and our cisterns would be as empty, our streams as low, and fields as parched, after a rain as before it! But who that has common sense, and has never been blinded by the false rules of grammar, does not know that when _it rains_, it never fails to _rain rain_, _water_, or _rain-water_, unless you have one of the paddy's dry rains? When it hails, it hails _hail_, _hail-stones_, or frozen _rain_. When it snows, it _snows snow_, sometimes two feet of it, sometimes less. I should think teachers in our northern countries would find it exceeding difficult to convince their readers that snow is an intransitive verb--that it snows _nothing_. And yet so it is; people will remain wedded to their old systems, and refuse to open their eyes and behold the evidences every where around them. Teachers themselves, the guides of the young--and I blush to say it, for I was long among the number--have, with their scholars, labored all the morning, breaking roads, _shovelling snow_, and clearing paths, to get to the school-house, and then set down and taught them that _to snow_ is an _in_transitive verb. What nonsense; nay, worse, what falsehoods have been instilled into the youthful mind in the name of grammar! Can we be surprised that people have not understood grammar? that it is a dry, cold, and lifeless business?

I once lectured in Poughkeepsie, N. Y. In a conversation with Miss B., a distinguished scholar, who had taught a popular female school for twenty years; was remarking upon the subject of intransitive verbs, and the apparent inconsistency of the new system, that all verbs must have an object after them, expressed or understood; she said, "there was the verb _rain_, (it happened to be a rainy day,) the whole action is confined to the agent; it does not pass on to another object; it is purely intransitive." Her aged mother, who had never looked into a grammar book, heard the conversation, and very bluntly remarked, "Why, you fool you, I want to know if you have studied grammar these thirty years, and taught it more than twenty, and have never _larned_ that when it rains it _always_ rains _rain_? If it didn't, do you s'pose you'd need an umbrella to go out now into the storm? I should think you'd know better. I always told you these plaguy grammars were good for nothing, I didn't b'lieve." "Amen," said I, to the good sense of the old lady, "you are right, and have reason to be thankful that you have never been initiated into the intricate windings, nor been perplexed with the false and contradictory rules, which have blasted many bright geniuses in their earliest attempts to gain a true knowledge of the sublime principles of language, on which depends so much of the happiness of human life." The good matron's remark was a poser to the daughter, but it served as a means of her entire deliverance from the thraldom of neuter verbs, and the adoption of the new principles of the exposition of language.

The anecdote shows us how the unsophisticated mind will observe facts, and employ words as correctly, if not more so, than those schooled in the high pretensions of science, falsely taught. Who does not know from the commonest experience, that the direct object of _raining_ must follow as the necessary sequence? that it can never fail? And yet our philologists tell us that such is not always the case; and that the exception is to be marked on the singular ground, whether the word is written out or omitted! What a narrow view of the sublime laws of motion! What a limited knowledge of things! or else, what a _mistake_!

"Then the Lord said unto Moses, behold, I will _rain_ bread for you from heaven."

"Then the _Lord rained_ down, upon Sodom and Gomorrah, _brimstone_ and _fire_, from the Lord out of heaven."--_Bible._

_The fire burns._

The fire _burns_ the wood, the coal, or the peat. The great fire in New-York _burned_ the buildings which covered fifty-two acres of ground. Mr. Experiment _burns_ coal in preference to wood. His new grate _burns it_ very finely. Red ash coal _burns_ the best; it _makes_ the fewest _ashes_, and hence _is_ the most convenient. The cook _burns_ too much fuel. The house took fire and _burned_ up. _Burned what_ up? Burn is an intransitive verb. It would not trouble the unfortunate tenant to know that there must be an _object burned_, or what _it_ was. He would find it far more difficult to rebuild his _house_. Do you suppose fires never burn any thing belonging to neuter verb folks? Then they never need pay away insurance money. With the solitary exception I have mentioned--the burning bush--this verb can not be intransitive.

_The sun shines._

This is an intransitive verb if there ever was one, because the object is not often expressed after it. But if the sun _emits_ no _rays_ of light, how shall it be known whether it shines or not? "The _radiance_ of the sun's bright beaming" is produced by the _exhibition_ of _itself_, when it _brightens_ the objects exposed to its _rays_ or _radiance_. We talk of _sun shine_ and moon shine, but if these bodies never produce _effects_ how shall it be known whether such things are real? _Sun shine_ is the direct effect of the sun's _shining_. But clouds sometimes intervene and prevent the rays from extending to the earth; but _then_ we do not say "the sun _shines_." You see at once, that all we know or can know of the fact we state as truth, is derived from a knowledge of the very _effects_ which our grammars tell us do not exist. Strange logic indeed! It is a mark of a wiser man, and a better scholar, not to know the popular grammars, than it is to profess any degree of proficiency in them!

_To smile._

The _smiles_ of the morning, the _smiles_ of affection, a _smile_ of kindness, are only produced by the appearance of something that _smiles_ upon us. _Smiles_ are the direct consequence of _smiling_. If a person should _smile_ ever so _sweetly_ and yet present no _smiles_, they might, for aught we could know to the contrary, be _sour_ as vinegar.

But this verb frequently has another object after it; as, "to _smile_ the _wrinkles_ from the brow of age," or "_smile_ dull _cares_ away." "A sensible wife would soon _reason_ and _smile him_ into good nature."

But I need not multiply examples. When such men as Johnson, Walker, Webster, Murray, Lowthe, and a host of other wise and renowned men, gravely tell us that _eat_ and _drink_, which they define, "to _take food_; _to feed_; _to take a meal_; _to go to meals_; to be maintained in food; _to swallow liquors_; _to quench thirst_; to take any liquid;" are _intransitive_ or _neuter_ verbs, having no objects after them, we must think them insincere, egregiously mistaken, or else possessed of a means of subsistence different from people generally! Did they _eat_ and _drink_, "take food and swallow liquors," _in_transitively; that is, without _eating_ or _drinking_ any thing? Is it possible in the nature of things? Who does not see the absurdity? And yet they were _great_ men, and nobody has a right to question such _high_ authority. And the "_simplifiers_" who have come after, making books and teaching grammar to _earn_ their _bread_, have followed close in their footsteps, and, I suppose, _eaten_ nothing, and thrown their bread away! Was I a believer in neuter verbs and desired to get money, my first step would be to set up a boarding house for all believers in, and _practisers_ of, intransitive verbs. I would board cheap and give good fare. I could afford it, for no provisions would be consumed.

Some over cautious minds, who are always second, if not last, in a good cause, ask us why these principles, if so true and clear, were not found out before? Why have not the learned who have studied for many centuries, never seen and adopted them? It is a sufficient answer to such a question, to ask why the copernican system of astronomy was not sooner adopted, why the principles of chemistry, the circulation of the blood, the power and application of steam, nay, why all improvement was not known before. When grammar and dictionary makers, those wise expounders of the principles of speech, have so far forgotten facts as to teach that _eat_ and _drink_, "express neither action nor passion," or are "confined to the agents;" that when a man eats, he eats nothing, or when he drinks, he drinks nothing, we need not stop long to decide why these things were unknown before. The wisest may sometimes mistake; and the proud aspirant for success, frequently passes over, unobserved, the humble means on which all true success depends.

Allow me to quote some miscellaneous examples which will serve to show more clearly the importance of supplying the elipses, in order to comprehend the meaning of the writers, or profit by their remarks. You will supply the objects correctly from the attendant circumstances where they are not expressed.

"Ask ( ) and ye shall receive ( ); seek ( ) and ye shall find ( ); knock ( ) and _it_ shall be opened unto you."

Ask _what_? Seek _what_? Knock _what_? That _it_ may be opened? Our "Grammars Made Easy" would teach us to _ask_ and _seek_ nothing! no objectives after them. What then could we reasonably expect to _receive_ or _find_? The _thing_ we _asked_ for, of course, and that was nothing! Well might the language apply to such, "Ye ask ( ) and _receive not_ (naught) because ye ask ( ) amiss." False teaching is as pernicious to religion and morals as to science.

"Charge them that are rich in this world--that they _do good_, that they be rich in good works, ready to _distribute_ ( ), willing to _communicate_ ( )."--_Paul to Timothy._

The hearer is to observe that there is no object after these words--_nothing_ distributed, or communicated! There is too much such charity in the world.

"He spoke ( ), and _it_ was done; he commanded ( ), and _it_ stood fast."

"_Bless_ ( ), and _curse_ ( ) not."--_Bible._

"_Strike_ ( ) while the iron is hot."--_Proverb._

"I _came_ ( ), I _saw_ ( ), I _conquered_ ( )."--_Cæsar's Letter._

He lives ( ) contented and happy.

"The _life_ that I now _live_, in the flesh, I _live_ by the faith of the son of God."--_Paul._

"Let me _die_ the _death_ of the righteous, and let my last _end be_ like his."--_Numbers._

As bodily exercise particularly strengthens ( ), as it invites ( ) to sleep ( ), and secures ( ) against great disorders, it is to be generally encouraged. Gymnastic exercises may be established for all ages and for all classes. The Jews were ordered to _take a walk_ out of the city on the Sabbath day; and here rich and poor, young and old, master and slave, met ( ) and indulged ( ) in innocent mirth or in the pleasures of friendly intercourse.--_Spurzheim on Education._

"Men will wrangle ( ) for religion; write ( ) for it; fight ( ) for it; die ( ) for it; any thing but live ( ) for it."--_Lacon._

"I have addressed this volume to those that think ( ), and some may accuse me of an ostentatious independence, in presuming ( ) to inscribe a book to so small a minority. But a volume addressed to those that think ( ) is in fact addressed to all the world; for altho the proportion of those who _do_ ( ) think ( ) be extremely small, yet every individual _flatters himself_ that he is one of the number."--_Idem._

What is the difference whether a man _thinks_ or not, if he produces no _thoughts_?

"He that _thinks himself_ the happiest man, really is so; but he that _thinks himself_ the wisest, is generally the greatest fool."--_Idem._

"A man _has_ many _workmen employed_; some to plough ( ) and sow ( ), others to chop ( ) and split ( ); some to mow ( ) and reap ( ); one to score ( ) and hew ( ); two to frame ( ) and raise ( ). In his factory he has persons to card ( ), spin ( ), reel ( ), spool ( ), warp ( ), and weave ( ), and a clerk to deliver ( ) and charge ( ), to receive ( ) and pay ( ). They eat ( ), and drink ( ), heartily, three times a day; and as they work ( ) hard, and feel ( ) tired at night, they lay ( ) down, sleep ( ) soundly, and dream ( ) pleasantly; they rise ( ) up early to go ( ) to work ( ) again. In the morning the children wash ( ) and dress ( ) and prepare ( ) to go ( ) to school, to learn ( ) to read ( ), write ( ), and cipher ( )." All neuter or intransitive verbs!!

"The celebrated horse, Corydon, will perform ( ) on Tuesday evening in the circus. He will leap ( ) over four bars, separately, in imitation of the english hunter. He will lie ( ) down, and rise ( ) up instantly at the _word of command_. He will move ( ) backwards and sideways, rear ( ) and stand ( ) on his hind feet; he will sit ( ) down, like a Turk, on a cushion. To conclude ( ), he will leap ( ), in a surprising manner, over two horses."--_Cardell's Grammar._

The gymnastic is not a mountebank; he palms off no legerdemain upon the public. He will stretch a line across the room, several feet from the floor, over which he will leap ( ) with surprising dexterity. He will stand ( ) on his head, balance, ( ) on one foot, and swing ( ) from side to side of the room; lay ( ) crosswise, and sideways; spring ( ) upon his feet; bound ( ) upon the floor; dance ( ) and keel ( ) over with out touching his hands. He will sing ( ), play ( ), and mimic ( ); look ( ) like a king, and act ( ) like a fool. He will laugh ( ) and cry ( ), as if real; roar ( ) like a lion, and chirp ( ) like a bird. To conclude ( ): He will do all this to an audience of neuter grammarians, without either "_action_ or _passion_," all the while having a "_state of being_," motionless, in the center of the room!!

What a lie! say you. _A lie?_ I hope you do not accuse _me_ of lying. If there is any thing false in this matter it all _lies_ in the quotation, at the conclusion, from the standard grammar. If that is false, whose fault is it? Not mine, certainly. But what if I should _lie_ ( ), intransitively? I should tell no falsehoods.

But enough of this. If there is any thing irrational or inconsistent, any thing false or ridiculous, in this view of the subject, it should be remembered that it has been long taught, not only in common schools, but in our academies and colleges, as serious, practical truth; as the only means of acquiring a correct knowledge of language, or fitting ourselves for usefulness or respectability in society. You smile at such trash, and well you may; but you must bear in mind that grammar is not the only thing in which we may turn round and _laugh_ ( ) at past follies.

But I am disposed to consider this matter of more serious consequence than to deserve our _laughter_. When I see the rising generation spend months and years of the best and most important part of their lives, which should be devoted to the acquisition of that which is true and useful, studying the dark and false theory of language as usually taught, I am far from feeling any desire to laugh at the folly which imposes such a task upon them. I remember too distinctly the years that have just gone by. I have seen too many blighted hopes, too many wearisome hours, too many sad countenances, too many broken resolutions; to say nothing of corporeal chastisements; to think it a small matter that children are erroneously taught the rudiments of language, because sanctioned by age, or great names. A change, an important change, a radical change, in this department of education, is imperiously demanded, and teachers must obey the call, and effect the change. There is a spirit abroad in the land which will not bow tamely and without complaint, to the unwarranted dictation of arbitrary, false, and contradictory rules, merely from respect to age. It demands reason, consistency and plainness; and yields assent only where they are found. And teachers, if they will not lead in the reformation, must be satisfied to follow after; for a reformation is loudly called for, and will be had. None are satisfied with existing grammars, which, in principle, are nearly alike. The seventy-three attempts to improve and simplify Murray, have only acted _intransitively_, and accomplished very little, if any good, save the employment given to printers, paper makers, and booksellers.

But I will not enlarge. We have little occasion to wonder at the errors and mistakes of grammar makers, when our lexicographers tell us for sober truth, that =to act=, _to be in action_, _not to rest_, to be in _motion_, to _move_, is _v. n._ a verb neuter, signifying _no action_!! or _v. i._ verb intransitive, producing _no effects_; and that a "_neuter verb_ =expresses= (active transitive verb) _a state of being_!! There are few minds capable of adopting such premises, and drawing therefrom conclusions which are rational or consistent. Truth is rarely elicted from error, beauty from deformity, or order from confusion. While, therefore, we allow the neuter systems to sink into forgetfulness, as they usually do as soon as we leave school and shut our books, let us throw the mantle of charity over those who have thoughtlessly (without _thinking thoughts_) and innocently lead us many months in dark and doleful wanderings, in paths of error and contradiction, mistaken for the road to knowledge and usefulness. But let us resolve to save ourselves and future generations from following the same unpleasant and unprofitable course, and endeavor to _reflect_ the _light_ which may _shine_ upon our minds, to dispel the surrounding darkness, and secure the light and knowledge of truth to those who shall come after us.

Many philologists have undertaken to explain our language by the aid of foreign tongues. Because there are genitive cases, different kinds of verbs, six tenses, etc. in the Latin or Greek, the same distinctions should exist in our grammars. But this argument will not apply, admitting that other languages will not allow of the plan of exposition we have adopted, which we very seriously question, tho we have not time to go into that investigation. We believe that the principles we have adopted are capable of universal application; that what is action in England would be action in Greece, Rome, Turkey, and every where else; that "_like causes will produce like effects_" all the world over. It matters not by whom the action is seen, it is the same, and all who gather ideas therefrom will describe it as it appears to them, let them speak what language they may. But if they have no ideas to express, they need no language to speak. Monkeys, for aught I know to the contrary, can speak as well as we; but the reason they do not, is because they have nothing to say.

Let Maelzael's automaton chess-player be exhibited to a promiscuous multitude. They would all attempt a description of it, so far as they were able to gain a knowledge of its construction, each in his own language. Some might be unable to trace the _cause_, the moving _power_, thro all the curiously arranged _means_, to the _agent_ who acted as prime mover to the whole affair. Others, less cautious in their conclusions, might think it a perpetual motion. Such would find a _first cause_ short of the Creator, the great original of all things and actions; and thus violate the soundest principles of philosophy. Heaven has never left a vacuum where a new and _self_ sustaining power may be set in operation independent of his ever-present supervision; and hence the long talked of _perpetual motion_ is the vainest chimera which ever occupied the human brain. It may well appear as the opposite extreme of neuter verbs; for, while one would give no action to matter according to the physical laws which regulate the world, the other would make matter act of itself, independent of the Almighty. Be it ours to take a more rational and consistent stand; to view all things and beings as occupying a place duly prescribed by Infinite Wisdom, _acting_ according to their several abilities, and subject to the regulation of the all-pervading laws which guide, preserve, and harmonize the whole.

If there is a subject which teaches us beyond controversy the existence of a Supreme Power, a Universal Father, an all-wise and ever-present God, it is found in the order and harmony of all things, produced by the regulation of Divine laws; and man's superiority to the rest of the world is most clearly proved, from the possession of a power to adapt language to the communication of ideas in free and social converse, or in the transmission of thought, drawn from an observation and knowledge of things as presented to his understanding.

There is no science so directly important to the growth of intellect and the future happiness of the child, as the knowledge of language. Without it, what is life? Wherein would man be elevated above the brute? And what is language without ideas? A sound without harmony--a shadow without a substance.

Let language be taught on the principles of true philosophy, as a science, instead of an arbitrary, mechanical business, a mere art, and you will no longer hear the complaint of a "_dry_, _cold_, uninteresting study." Its rules will be simple, plain, and easy; and at every step the child will increase in the knowledge of more than _words_, in an acquaintance with principles of natural and moral science. And if there is any thing that will carry the mind of the child above the low and grovelling things of earth, and fill the soul with reverence and devotion to the Holy Being who fills immensity with his presence, it is when, from observing the laws which govern matter, he passes to observe the powers and capabilities of the mind, and thence ascends to the Intellectual Source of _light_, _life_, and _being_, and contemplates the perennial and ecstatic joys which flow from the presence of Deity; soul mingling with soul, love absorbed in love, and God all in all.

LECTURE XI.

ON VERBS.

The verb =to be=.--Compounded of different radical words.--=Am=.
--Defined.--The name of Deity.--_Ei_.--=Is=.--=Are=.--=Were=,
=was=.--=Be=.--A dialogue.--Examples.--Passive Verbs examined.--
Cannot be in the present tense.--The past participle is an
adjective.

We have gone through the examination of _neuter_ and _intransitive_ verbs, with the exception of the verb =to be=, which we propose to notice in this place. Much more might be said on the subjects I have discussed, and many more examples given to illustrate the nature and operation of actions as expressed by verbs, and also in reference to the _objects_ of action; but I trust the hints I have given will be satisfactory. I am confident, if you will allow your minds to _think_ correct _thoughts_, and not _suffer_ them _to be_ misled by erroneous teaching, you will arrive at the same conclusion that I have, viz. that all verbs depend on a _common principle_ for their explanation; that they are alike active, and necessarily take an object after them, either expressed or understood, in accordance with the immutable law of nature, which teaches that like causes will produce like effects.

* * * * *

The verb =to be=, as it is called, is conjugated by the aid of six different words, in its various modes and tenses; _am_, _is_, _are_, _was_, _were_, _be_. _Am_ is unchanged, always in the indicative mood, present tense, agreeing with the _first_ person singular. _Is_ is also unchanged, in the same mood and tense, agreeing with the _third_ person singular. _Art_, in the singular, is the same as _are_ in the plural. _Was_ and _wast_, are the same as _were_ and _wert_ in meaning, being derived from the same etymon. _Be_, _being_, and _been_, are changes of the same word. _Be_ was formerly extensively used in the indicative present, but in that condition it is nearly obsolete. _Were_ was also used in the singular as well as plural, especially when coming before the agent; as, "were I to go, I would do your business." But it is now more common to have _was_ correctly used in that case. But, as one extreme often follows another, people have laid _were_ quite too much aside, and often crowd _was_ into its place in common conversation; as "we _was_ (were) there yesterday." "There _was_ (were) five or six men engaged in the business." This error appears to be gaining ground, and should be checked before it goes farther.

The combination of these different words was produced by habit, to avoid the monotony which the frequent recurrence of one word, so necessary in the expression of thought, would occasion: the same as the past tense of _go_ is made by the substitution of another word radically different, _went_, the past tense of _wend_ or _wind_. "O'er hills and dales they _wend_ their way." "The lowing herd _wind_ slowly o'er the lea." _Go_ and _wend_ convey to our minds nearly the same ideas. The latter is a little more poetical, because less used. But originally their signification was quite different. So with the parts of the verb =to be=. They were consolidated as a matter of convenience, and now appear in their respective positions to express the idea of being, life, or existence.

I have said this verb expresses the highest degree of action. I will now attempt to prove it. I should like to go into a labored and critical examination of the words, and trace their changes thro various languages, was it in accordance with the design of these lectures. But as it is not, I shall content myself with general observations.

_I am._

This word is not defined in our dictionaries. It is only said to be "_the first person of to be_." We must look for its meaning some where else. It is a compound of two ancient words, _ah_, _breath_, to _breathe_, life, to _live_, _light_, to _light_; and _ma_, the _hand_, or to _hand_. It signifies to _vivify_, _sustain_, or _support_ one's self in being or existence. In process of time, like other things in this mutable world, its form was changed, but the meaning retained. But as one person could not _vivify_ or _live_ another, _inflate_ another's lungs, or breathe another's breath, it became restricted to the first person. It means, I _breathe breath_, _vivify myself_, _live life_, or _exercise_ the power of _being_ or _living_. It conveys this fact in every instance, for no person incapable of breathing can say _I am_. Let any person pronounce the word _ah-ma_, and they will at once perceive the appropriateness of the meaning here given. It is very similar to the letter _h_, and the pronoun, (originally _noun_,) _he_, or the "_rough breathing_" in the Greek language. _Ma_ is compounded with many words which express action done by the hand; as, _ma_nufacture, _ma_numit. It denoted any action or work done by the hand as the instrument; but, like other words, it gradually changed its import, so as to express any _effective_ operation. Hence the union of the words was natural and easy, and _ahma_ denoted _breathing_, _to live_ or sustain life. _H_ is a precarious letter in all languages that use it, as the pronunciation of it by many who speak the English language, will prove. It was long ago dropt, in this word, and after it the last _a_, so that we now have the plain word _am_.

It was formerly used as a noun in our language, and as such may be found in Exodus 3: 13, 14. "And Moses said unto God, Behold when I come unto the children of Israel and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his _name_? what shall I say unto them? And God said unto Moses, I =am= the I AM; and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you." Chap. 6: 3.--"I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty; but by my name =Jehovah= (I AM) was I not known unto them." The word _Jehovah_ is the same as _am_. It is the name of the _self-existent_, _self-sustaining_ =Being=, who has not only power to uphold all things, but to perform the still more sublime action of _upholding_ or _sustaining himself_. This is the highest possible degree of action. Let this fail, and all creation will be a wreck. He is the _ever-living_, _uncontrolled_, _unfailing_, _unassisted_, and _never-changing_ God, the Creator, Preserver, Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and End of all things. He is the _First Cause_ of all causes, the _Agent_, original moving Power, and guiding Wisdom, which set in motion the wheels of universal nature, and guides and governs them without "variableness or the shadow of turning."

"I AM the first, and I, the last,
Thro endless years the same;
I AM is my memorial still,
And my eternal name."
_Watts' Hymn._

Ask the Jews the meaning of this _neuter verb_ in their language. They hold it in the most profound and superstitious reverence. After the captivity of their nation they never dared pronounce the name except once a year when the high priest went into the Holy of Holies, and hence the true pronunciation of it was lost. Unto this day they dare not attempt to utter it. In all their writings it remains in characters untranslated. When their Messiah comes they expect he will restore the pronunciation, and by it they shall be able to accomplish all things.[15]

According to Plutarch the Greeks had the letters EI, =thou art=, engraven on the temple of Apollo at Delphi, which is the second person of =Eimi=, _I am_.[16]

This motto was doubtless borrowed from the Jews, to whom it was given as the name of the God of Jacob. The same name you may see engraven on monuments, on pictures of the bible, on masonic implements, and in various places, untranslated.

Who can suppose that this word "expresses no action," when the very person incapable of it can not utter it, and no one else can speak it for him? It denotes the highest conceivable action applied to Deity or to man, and it is questionable philosophy which dares contradict this fact. The action expressed by it, is not changed, because it does not terminate on a foreign object. It remains the same. It is self-action.

_He is._

This word is constructed from an old verb signifying _to stand forth_, _to appear_, _to show one's self_, and may be traced, I think, to the latin _eo_, _to go_, and _exist_, to _exeo_, _to go from_; that is, our _being_ or _existence_, _came_ or _stood forth_ from God. It is certainly a contraction from the old english _to exist_. _Ist_ is the spelling still retained in the german and some other languages. It denotes self-action. One man does not _exist_ another, but himself. He _keeps himself_ in existence.

_We are_, _thou are-est_, _arst_, or _art_.

Be not surprised when I tell you this is the same word as _air_, for such is the fact. It signifies to inhale air, to _air ourselves_, or _breathe air_. "God _breathed_ into man the _breath of life_, and man became a _living soul_." The new born infant _inhales air_, _inflates its lungs_ with _air_, and begins to live. We all know how essential _air_ is to the preservation of life. No animal can live an instant without it. Drop a squirrel into a receiver from which all _air_ has been extracted, and it can not live. Even vegetables will die where there is no air. _Light_ is also indispensable to _life_ and _health_. _Air_ is _inhaled_ and _exhaled_, and from it life receives support. The fact being common, it is not so distinctly observed by the careless, as tho it was more rare. But did you never see the man dying of a consumption, when the pulmonary or breathing organs were nearly decayed? How he labors for breath! He asks to have the windows thrown open. At length he _suffocates_ and dies. Most persons struggle hard for _breath_ in the hour of dissolving nature. The heaving bosom, the hollow gasp for _air_, tells us that the lamp of life is soon to be extinguished, that the hour of their departure has come.

When a person faints, we carry them into the _air_, or blow _air_ upon them, that nature may be restored to its regular course. In certain cases physicians find it necessary to force air into the lungs of infants; they can after that _air_, themselves, _imbibe_ or _drink in air_, or _inspirit_ themselves with air. But I need not enlarge. Whoever has been deprived of air and labored hard for breath in a stifled or unwholesome air, can appreciate what we mean.

_We were_; _he was_.

I have said before that these words are the same, and are used in certain cases irrespective of number. I have good authority for this opinion, altho some etymologists give them different derivations.

_Were_, _wert_; _worth_, _werth_; _word_ and _werde_, are derived from the same etymon and retain a similarity of meaning. They signify _spirit_, _life_, _energy_. "In the beginning was the _word_, and the _word_ was with God." "By the _word_ of his grace."

"_They were_," they _inspirited_ themselves, _possessed_ the life, vitality, or _spirit_, the Creator gave them, and having that spirit, life, or energy, under proper regulation, in due degree, they were _worthy_ of the esteem, regard, sympathy, and good _word_ of others.

_To be._

This is considered the root of all the words we have considered, and to it all others are referred for a definition. Dictionaries give no definition to _am_, _is_, _are_, _was_, and _were_, all of them as truly principal verbs as _be_, and possessed of as distinct a meaning. It can hardly be possible that they should form so important a part of our language, and yet be incapable of definition. But such is the fact, the most significant words in our language, and those most frequently used, are undefined in the books.

Mr. Webster says =to be= signifies, "to exist, to _have_ a real _state_ or _existence_," and so say Walker and Johnson. Now if it is possible to "=have= _a state of being_ without action or passion," then may this word express neutrality. But the very definition requires activity, and an object expressed. It denotes the _act of being_, or living; to _exercise_ the powers of life, to _maintain_ a position or rank in the scale of existent things.

The name of the action is _being_, and applies to the Almighty BEING who _exists_ unchanged as the source of all inferior _beings_ and things, whose name is _Jehovah_, I AM, the Being of beings, the Fountain of _light_, _life_, and _wisdom_.

_Be_ is used in the imperative and infinitive moods correctly, by every body who employs language. "_Be_ here in ten minutes." "_Be it_ far from thee." "I will _be_ in Boston before noon." If there is any action in going from Providence to Boston at rail-road speed, in two hours, or before noon, it is all expressed by the verb _be_, which we are told expresses _no action_.

The teacher says to his scholars when out at play, "I want you _to be_ in your seats in five minutes." What would they understand him to mean? that they should stand still? or that they should _change their state of being_ from play in the yard, to a state of being in their seats? There is no word to denote such change, except the word _to be_. _Be_ off, _be_ gone, _be_ here, _be_ there, are commands frequently given and correctly understood.

The master says to a bright little lad, who has well learned his grammar, "_Be_ here in a minute."

"Yes, sir, I will _be_ there;" but he does not move.

"_Be_ here immediately."

"Yes, yes, I will _be_ there."

"Don't you understand me? I say, _be_ here instantly."

"Oh, yes, I understand you and will obey."

The good man is enraged. "You scoundrel," says he, "do you mean to disobey my orders and insult me?"

"Insult you and disobey you; I have done neither," replies the honest boy.

"Yes you have, and I will chastise you severely for it."

"No, master, I have not; I declare, I have not. I have obeyed you as well as I know how, to the very letter and spirit of your command."

"Didn't I tell you _to be_ here in a minute, and have not you _remained_ where you were? and didn't you say you would _be_ here?"

"Yes, sir; and did not I do just what you told me to?"

"Why, no, you blockhead; I told you _to be_ here."

"Well, I told you I would _be_ there."

"You _was_ not here."

"Nor did you expect I would _be_, if you have taught me to _speak_, _write_, and understand correctly."

"What do you mean, you saucy boy?"

"I mean to mind my master, and do what he tells me to."

"Why didn't you do so then?"

"I did."

"You didn't."

"I did."

"You lie, you insult me, you contradict me, you saucy fellow. You are not fit to be in school. I will punish you severely." And in a passion he starts for his ferrule, takes the boys hand, and bruises him badly; the honest little fellow all the while pleading innocence of any intended wrong.

In a short time they commence _parsing_ this sentence: "It is necessary _to be_ very particular in ascertaining the meaning of words before we use them." The master puts _to be_ to the same boy. He says it is an _active verb_, infinitive mood.

"How is that? an _active_ verb?"

"Yes, sir."

"No, it is not. It is a _neuter_ verb."

"Begging your pardon, master, it is not. It is active."

"Have I got to punish you again so soon, you impudent fellow. You are not fit to be in school. I will inform your parents of your conduct."

"What have I done that is wrong?"

"You say _to be_ is an _active_ verb, when _I_ tell you, and the _grammar_ and _dictionary_ tell you, it is _neuter_!"

"What is a _neuter_ verb, master?"

"It expresses 'neither action nor passion, but being or a state of being.' Have you forgotten it?"

"No, sir, I _thought_ that was the case."

"What did you ask me for then?"

"Because I supposed you had found another meaning for it."

"To what do you allude, you troublesome fellow, you? I'll not bear your insults much longer."

"For what did you punish me so severely just now?"

"For disobeying my orders."

"What did you order me to do?"

"_To be_ here in a minute."

"Well, did not I do what you told me?"

"No; you kept your seat, and did not come near me."

"Well, I thought and did just what you now tell me; that _to be_ is a _neuter_ verb, expressing no _action_, but _being_. I had a _state_ of _being_, and promised to keep it, and did keep it, and you punished me for doing the very thing you told me to do!!"

The master looked down, shut up his book, and began to say that grammar is a "_dry_, _cold_, and _useless_" study, hardly worth the trouble of learning it.

* * * * *

"_I am_ Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, who _is_, and who _was_, and who _is_ to come, the Almighty."--_Rev. 1: 8._

If there is any action in maintaining eternal existence, by which all things were created and are upheld, it is expressed in the verbs _am_, _is_, and _was_.

God said, "Let there _be_ light, and there _was_ light;" or more properly rendered, "Light =be=, and light =was=."

Was there no action in setting the sun, moon and stars in the firmament, and in causing them to _send_ forth the rays of light to _dispel_ the surrounding darkness? If there was, _be_ and _was_ denote that action.

"You are commanded =to be= and _appear_ before the court of common pleas," etc. A heavy penalty is imposed upon those who fail to comply with this citation--for neglecting to do what is expressed by the _neuter verb_ to _be_.

Such cases might be multiplied without number, where this verb is correctly used by all who employ language, and correctly understood by all who are capable of knowing the meaning of words. But I think you must all be convinced of the truth of our proposition, that all verbs express action, either _real_ or _relative_; and in all cases have an object, expressed or necessarily implied, which stands as the _effect_, and an agent, as the cause of action: and hence that language, as a means for the communication of thought, does not deviate from the soundest principles of philosophy, but in all cases, rightly explained, serves to illustrate them, in the plainest manner.

* * * * *

A few remarks on the "Passive Verb," and I will conclude this part of our subject, which has already occupied much more of our attention than I expected at the outset.

"_A verb passive_ expresses a passion or a suffering, or the receiving of an action; and necessarily implies an object acted upon, and an agent by which it is acted upon; as, to be loved; Penelope is loved by me."

In the explanation of this verb, grammarians further tell us that a passive verb is formed by adding the verb _to be_, which is thus made auxiliary, to a past participle; as, Portia _was loved_. Pompey _was conquered_.

It is singular how forgetful our great men sometimes are about observing their own rules. Take an instance in Mr. Walker's octavo dictionary. Look for the word _simeter_, a small sword. You will find it spelled _scimitar_. Then turn over, and you will find it _s_im_i_t_a_r, with the same definition, and the remark, "more properly _c_im_e_t_a_r." Then turn back, and find the correct word as he spells it, and there you will find it cimet_e_r.

Unsettled as to the true spelling, go to our own honored Webster. Look for "scimiter." He says, see cimit_a_r. Then look for "cimitar;" see cim_e_t_e_r. Then hunt up the true word, be it _ar_ or _er_, and you will find it still another way, cim_i_t_e_r. Here the scholar has seven different ways to spell this word, and neither of his authorities have followed their own examples. I cite this as one of a thousand instances, where our savans have laid down rules for others, and disregarded them themselves.

Portia _is loved_ and _happy_. She is _respectable_, _virtuous_, _talented_, and _respected_ by all who know her. She _is seated by the door_. Does the _door_ seat her? What agent, then, causes her _passion_ or _suffering_?

The book is printed. Will you parse _is printed_? It is a passive verb, indicative mood, _present tense_. Who _is_ printing it? causing it, in the present tense, to _suffer_ or _receive_ the action? The act of printing _was performed_ a hundred years ago. How can it be present time?