Chapter VII: Part 7

Penelope _is loved_ by me. The blow _is received_ by me. It _is given_ by me. Penelope _is seated_ by me. The earthquake _is felt_ by her. The evils _are suffered_ by her. The thunder _is heard_ by her. Does this mean that she is the agent, and the earthquake, evils, and thunder, are the objects which receive the _effects_ which she produces? That would be singular philosophy, indeed. But _to feel_, _to suffer_, and _to hear_, are active, and are constructed into passive verbs. Why is it not as correct to say she _is suffering_ by another's wrongs, _is raging_ by the operation of passion, or _is travelling_ by rail-road, are passive verbs? The fact is, our language can not _be explained_ by set rules or forms of speech. We must regard the sense. The past participle, as it is called, becomes an adjective by use, and describes her as some way affected by a previous action. She is _learned_, _handsome_, _modest_, and, of course, _beloved_ by all who know her.

To say "she _is placed_ by the water's edge," is a passive verb, and that the water's edge, as the agent, causes her "passion, suffering, or receiving of the action," is false and ridiculous, for she _placed_ herself there.

"We _are seated_ on our seats by the stove." What power is _now_ operating on us to make us suffer or receive the action of being seated on our seats? Does the stove perform this action? This is a passive verb, _present tense_, which requires an "object acted upon, and an _agent_ by which it is acted upon." But we came in and _seated ourselves_ here an hour ago.

The man _is acquitted_. He _stands acquitted_ before the public. He _is learned_, wise, and happy, very much _improved_ within a few years. He _is_ always active, studious, and _engaged_ in his own affairs. He _is renowned_, and _valorous_. She _is respected_. She _lives respected_.

If there is such a thing as a passive verb, it can never be used in the present tense, for the action expressed by the principal verb which is produced by the agent operating upon the object, is always _past_ tense, and the auxiliary, or helping verb _to be_, is always present. Let this verb be analyzed, and the true meaning of each word understood, little difficulty will be found in giving it an explanation.

I will not spend more time in exposing the futility of this attempted distinction. It depends solely on a verbal form, but can never _be explained_ so as _to be understood_ by any scholar. Most grammarians have seen the fallacy of attempting to give the meaning of this verb. They can show its _form_, but _are_ frequently _compelled_, as in the cases above, to sort out the "_passed_ participles" from a host of adjectives, and it will _be found_ exceeding troublesome to make scholars perceive any difference in the use of the words, or in the construction of a sentence. But it may be they have never thought that duty belonged to them; that they have nothing to do but to show them what the book says. Suppose they should teach arithmetic on the same principles, and learn the scholars to set down 144 as the product of 12 times 12. Let them look at the form of the figures, observe just how they appear, and make some more like them, and thus go thro the book. What would the child know of arithmetic? Just as much as they do of grammar, and no more. They would understand nothing of the science of numbers, of proportion, or addition. They would exercise the power of imitation, and make one figure look like another. Beyond that, all would be a _terra incognita_, a land unknown. So in the science of language; children may learn that the verb _to be_, joined with the past participle of an active verb, makes _a passive verb_; but what that passive verb is when made, or how to apply it, especially in the present tense, they have no means of knowing. Their knowledge is all taken on trust, and when thrown upon their own resources, they have none on which to rely.

LECTURE XII.

ON VERBS.

=Mood=.--Indicative.--Imperative.--Infinitive.--Former distinctions.
--Subjunctive mood.--=Time=.--Past.--Present.--Future.--The future
explained.--How formed.--Mr. Murray's distinction of time.--
Imperfect.--Pluperfect.--Second future.--How many tenses.--
=Auxiliary Verbs=.--Will.--Shall.--May.--Must.--Can.--Do.--Have.

We are now come to consider the different relations of action in reference to _manner_ and _time_. We shall endeavor to be as brief as possible upon this subject, keeping in view meanwhile that candor and perspicuity which are indispensable in all our attempts to explain new views.

_Mood_ signifies _manner_. Applied to verbs it explains _how_, in _what manner_, by what means, under what circumstances, actions are performed.

There are _three_ moods, the _indicative_ or declarative, the _imperative_ or commanding, and the _infinitive_ or unlimited.

The indicative mood declares an action to be _done_ or _doing_, _not done_, or _not doing_. It is always in the past or present tense; as, David _killed_ Goliath; scholars _learn_ knowledge; I _spoke not_ a word; they _sing not_.

The imperative mood denotes a command given from the first _person_ to the _second_, _to do_ or _not do_ an action. It expresses the wish or desire of the first person to have a certain action performed which depends on the agency of the second. The command is _present_, but the action signified by the word is _future_ to the giving of the command. The second person cannot comply with the will of the first till such will is made known; as, bring me a book; go to the door.

The _infinitive_ mood has no direct personal agent, but is produced as a necessary consequence, growing out of a certain condition of things. It is always _future_ to such condition; that is, some prior arrangement must be had before such consequences will follow. It is always _future_; as, they are collecting a force _to besiege_ the city. We study grammar _to acquire_ a knowledge of language. Windows are made _to admit_ light. The act of besieging the city depends on the previous circumstance, the collection of a force _to do_ it. Were there no windows, the light would not be admitted to the room.

These distinctions in regard to action must be obvious to every hearer. You all are aware of the fact that action necessarily implies an actor, as every effect must have an efficient cause; and such action clearly or distinctly _indicated_, must have such an agent to produce it. 2d. You are acquainted with the fact that one person can express his will to the second, directing him to do or avoid some thing. 3d. From an established condition of things, it is easy to deduce a consequence which will follow, in the nature of things, as an unavoidable result of such a combination of power, cause, and means.

With these principles you are all familiar, whether you have studied grammar or not. They are clearly marked, abundantly simple, and must be obvious to all. They form the only necessary, because the only real, distinction, in the formation and use of the verb to express action. Any minor distinctions are only calculated to perplex and embarrass the learner.

But some grammarians have passed these natural barriers, and built to themselves schemes to accord with their own vain fancies. The remarks of Mr. Murray upon this point are very appropos. He says:

"Some writers have given our moods a much greater extent than we have assigned to them. They assert that the english language may be said, without any great impropriety, to have as many moods as it has auxiliary verbs; and they allege, in support of their opinion, that the compound expression which they help to form, point out those various dispositions and actions, which, in other languages, are expressed by moods. This would be to multiply the moods without advantage. It is, however, certain, that the conjugation or variation of verbs, in the english language, is effected, almost entirely, by the means of auxiliaries. We must, therefore, accommodate ourselves to this circumstance; and do that by their assistance, which has been done in the learned languages (a few instances to the contrary excepted) in another manner, namely, by varying the form of the verb itself. At the same time, it is necessary to set proper bounds to this business, so as not to occasion obscurity and perplexity, when we mean to be simple and perspicuous. Instead, therefore, of making a separate mood for every auxiliary verb, and introducing moods _interrogative_, _optative_, _promissive_, _hortative_, _precative_, &c., we have exhibited such only as are obviously distinct; and which, whilst they are calculated to unfold and display the subject intelligibly to the learner, seem to be sufficient, and not more than sufficient, to answer all the purposes for which moods were introduced.

"From grammarians who form their ideas, and make their decisions, respecting this part of english grammar, on the principles and constructions of languages which, in these points, do not suit the peculiar nature of our own, but differ considerably from it, we may naturally expect grammatical schemes that are not very perspicuous nor perfectly consistent, and which will tend more to perplex than to inform the learner."

Had he followed this rule, he would have saved weeks and months to every student in grammar in the community. But his remarks were aimed at Mr. Harris, who was by far the most popular writer on language in England at that time. He has adopted the very rules of Mr. Murray, and carried them out. By a careful observance of the different forms and changes of the verb and its auxiliaries, he makes out quite evidently to his own mind, _fourteen_ moods, which I forbear to name.

Most grammarians contend for _five_ moods, two of which, the _potential_ or powerful, and the _subjunctive_, are predicated on the same principles as Mr. Harris' optative, interrogative, etc., which they condemn. It is impossible to explain the character of these moods so as to be understood. _If_, it is said, is the sign of the subjunctive, and _may_ and _can_ of the potential; and yet they are often found together; as, "I will go _if I can_." No scholar can determine in what mood to put this last verb. It of right belongs to both the potential and subjunctive. _If_ I _may_ be allowed to speak my mind, I _should_ say that such distinctions were false.

I will not go into an exposure of these useless and false distinctions, which are adopted to help carry out erroneous principles. The only pretence for a subjunctive mood is founded on the fact that _be_ and _were_ were formerly used in a character different from what they are at present. _Be_ was used in the indicative mood, present tense, when doubt or supposition was implied; as, If I _be_ there; if they _be_ wise. _Be_ I a man, and _receive_ such treatment? _Were_ was also used instead of _was_ in the past tense; as, "_Were_ I an American I would fight for liberty. If I _were_ to admit the fact." In this character these words are rapidly becoming obsolete. We now say, "If I _am_ there; am I a man, and _receive_ such abuses? _was_ I an American; if I was to admit," etc.

All the round about, perplexing, and tedious affair of conjugating verbs thro the different modes and tenses will appear in its true character, when we come to give you a few brief examples, according to truth and plain sense. But before doing that it will be necessary to make some remarks on time.

_Tense_ means _time_. We distinguish time according to certain events which are generally observed. In the use of the verb we express action in reference to periods of time when it is performed.

There are three tenses, or divisions of time; _past_, _present_, and _future_.

_Past tense_ applies to actions which are accomplished; as, I _wrote_ a book; he _recited_ his lesson.

_Present tense_ denotes actions commenced, but not finished, and now in operation; as, he _reads_ his book; we _sit_ on our seats and _hear_ the lecture.

_Future tense_ refers to actions, which are _to take_ place hereafter; as, I am _to go_ from the Institute; we desire _to learn_ grammar correctly.

Every body can mark three plain distinctions of time, past, present, and future. With the past we have been acquainted. It has ceased to be. Its works are ended. The present is a mere line--, nothing as it were--which is constantly passing unchecked from the past to the future. It is a mere division of the past and future. The Hebrew, which is strictly a philosophic language, admits no present; only a _past_ and _future_. We speak of the present as denoting an action begun and not finished. In the summer, we say the trees grow, and bear fruit. But when the fruit is fallen, and the leaves seared by the frost, we change the expression, and say, it _grew_ and _bore_ fruit.

Of the _future_ we can know nothing definitely. Heaven has hung before all human eyes an impenetrable veil which obscures all future events. No man without prophetic vision bestowed by Him who "sees the end from the beginning," can know what is _to be_, and no expression can be made, no words employed which will positively declare a future action. We may see a present condition of things, and from it argue what is _to be_, or take place hereafter; but all that knowledge is drawn from the past and deduced from a review of the present relation and tendencies of things.

I hold the paper near the fire and you say it _will_ burn, and you say truly, for it has a _will_, or what is the same, an inherent tendency _to burn_. It is made of combustible matter, like paper which we have seen burn, and hence we argue this has the same tendency to be consumed. But how does your mind arrive at that fact? If you had never seen a substance like it burn, why should you conclude this _will_? Does the child know it _will_ burn? No; for it has not yet learned the quality of the paper. It is not till the child has been burned that it dreads the fire. Suppose I take some asbestus, of the kind called amianthus, which is a mineral, and is formed of slender flexible fibres like flax; and in eastern countries, especially in Savoy and Corsica, is manufactured into cloth, paper, and lamp wicks. It was used in making winding sheets for the dead, in which the bodies were burned, and the ashes, retained in the incombustible sheet, were gathered into an urn, and revered as the manes of the dead. Suppose I take some of this incombustible paper or cloth, and present to you. You say it _will_ burn. Why do you say thus? Because you have seen other materials which appear like this, consume to ashes. Let us put it into the fire. It _will not_ burn. It has no _tendency_ to burn; no quality which will consume. But this is a new idea to you and hence your mistake. You did not know it _would_ burn, nor could you _indicate_ such a fact. You only told your opinion derived from the present appearance of things, and hence you made an assertion in the _indicative_ mood, present tense, and added to it an _infinitive_ mood, in order to deduce the consequence of this future action--it _wills_, or has a _tendency_ to burn. But you were mistaken, because ignorant of the _nature_ of things. This amianthus looks like flax, and to a person unacquainted with it, appears to be as truly combustible; but the mineralogist, and all who know its properties, know very well that it _will_ not--wills nothing, has no inclination, or tendency, to burn.

Take another example. Here is a steel needle. I hold it before you. You say, "if I let go of it, it _will_ fall," and you say correctly, for it has such a tendency. But suppose a magnet, as great as that which is said to have drawn the iron coffin of Mohammed to the roof of the temple at Mecca, should be placed in the room above us. The needle, instead of falling to the floor, would be drawn in the nearest direction to that magnet. The _will_ or _tendency_ of the needle, as generally understood, would be overcome, the natural law of gravitation would lose its influence, by the counteracting power of the loadstone.

I say, "I will go home in an hour." But does that expression _indicate_ the act of _going_? It is placed in the indicative mood in our grammars; and _go_ is the principal, and _will_ the auxiliary verb. May be I shall fall and die before I reach my home. But the expression is correct; _will_ is _present_, go _future_. I _will_, I now _resolve_, am now inclined _to go_ home.

You see the correctness of our position, that we can not positively assert a future active in the indicative mood. Try and form to yourselves a phrase by which it can be done. Should you succeed, you would violate a law of nature. You would penetrate the dark curtain of the future, and claim to yourself what you do not possess, a power to declare future actions. Prophets, by the help of the Almighty, had this power conferred upon them. But in the revelation of the sublime truths they were instructed to make known, they were compelled to adopt human language, and make it agree with our manner of speech.

The only method by which we express a future event, is to make an assertion in the indicative mood, present tense, and to that append the natural consequence in the infinitive or unlimited; as, I _am to go_ to Boston. He is preparing _to visit_ New-York. The infinitive mood is always future to the circumstance on which it depends.

Mr. Murray says, that "tense, being the distinction of time, might seem to admit of only the present, past, and future; but to mark it more _accurately_, it is made to consist of six variations, viz.: the present, imperfect, perfect, pluperfect, first and second future tenses." This _more accurate mark_, only serves to expose the author's folly, and distract the learner's mind. Before, all was plain. The past, present, and future are distinct, natural divisions, easily understood by all. But what idea can a person form of an _imperfect_ tense in action. If there was ever such an action in the world, it was when _grammarians_ =made= their grammars, which is, if I mistake not, according to their own authority, in the _im-perfect_ tense! I _wrote_ a letter. He _read_ his piece well. The scholar learn_ed_ and recit_ed_ his lesson _perfectly_; and yet _learned_, tho made _perfect_ by the qualification of an _adverb_, is an _imperfect_ action!

But this explains the whole mystery in the business of grammar. We can here discover the cause of all the troubles and difficulties we have encountered in the whole affair. When authors _made_ their books, they _did_ it _imperfectly_; when teachers _taught_ them, it was _imperfectly_; and when scholars _learned_ them, it was _imperfectly_!! So at last, we have found the origin of this whole difficulty, in the grammars themselves; it was all imperfectly done.

But here, again, _mirabile dictu!_ wonderful to tell, we are presented with a _plu-perfect_ tense; that is,--_plus_ means _more_,--a _more_ than perfect tense! What must that be? If a thing is perfect, we can not easily conceive any thing beyond. That is a _ne plus ultra_ to all advancement--there can be no more beyond. If any change is introduced, it must be by falling from _perfect_ back to _imperfect_.

I _have said_, "many of the distinctions in the grammar books _have proved_ mischievous; that they are as false as frivolous;" and this is said _perfectly_, in the perfect tense. If I should say, "they _had been_ of some benefit," that would be _more_ than _perfect_--plu-perfect. But when I say, "they _exhibited_ great depth of research, and _conveyed_ some light on the subject of which they _treated_," it would all be _im_-perfect.

Next, we are presented with a _second future_ tense, which attempts a division of time unbounded and unknown. In the greek, they have what is called a "_paulo post future_," which in plain english, means a "_little after the future_;" that is, I suppose, when futurity has come to an end, this tense will commence! At that time we may expect to meet a "_præter plus quam perfectum_"--a more than perfect tense! But till that period shall arrive, we see little need of making such false and unphilosophic distinctions.

A teacher once told me that he explained the distinctions of time to his scholars from the clock dial which stood in the school room. Suppose _twelve_ o'clock represents the _present_ tense; _nine_ would signify the _perfect_; any thing between nine and twelve would be _imperfect_; any thing beyond, _pluperfect_. On the other hand, any act, forward of twelve, would be _future_; and at _three_ the _second future_ would commence. I remarked that I thought this a wonderful improvement, especially to those who were able to have clocks by which to teach grammar, but that I could not discover why he did not have _three future_, as well as _three past_ tenses. Why, he said, there were no such tenses marked in the books, and hence there was no occasion to explain them. I asked him why he did not have a tense for every hour, and so he could distinguish with Mr. Webster, _twelve_ tenses, without any trouble whatever; and, by going three times round the dial, he could easily prove the correctness of Dr. Beattie's division; for he says, in his grammar, there are _thirty-six_ tenses, and thinks there can not be less without "introducing confusion in the grammatical _art_." But he thought such a course would serve rather to perplex than enlighten; and so thought I. But he was the teacher of a popular school in the city of ----, and had published a duodecimo grammar of over 300 pages, entitled "Murray's Grammar, _improved_, by ----." I will not give his name; it would be libellous!

Mr. Murray thinks because certain things which he asserts, but does not prove, are found in greek and latin, "we may doubtless apply them to the english verb; and extend the principle _as far as convenience_, and the idiom of our language require." He found it to his "convenience" to note _six_ principal, and as many _indefinite_ tenses. Mr. Webster does the same. Dr. Beattie found it "convenient" to have _thirty-six_. In the greek they have _nine_. Mr. Bauzee distinguishes in the french _twenty_ tenses; and the royal academy of Spain present a very learned and elaborate treatise on _seven future tenses_ in that language. The clock dial of my friend would be found quite "_convenient_" in aiding the "convenience" of such distinctions.

The fact is, there are only three real divisions of time in any language, because there are only three in nature, and the ideas of all nations must agree in this respect. In framing language it was found impossible to mark any other distinctions, without introducing other words than those which express simple action. These words became compounded in process of time, till they are now used as changes of the same verb. I would here enter into an examination of the formation of the tenses of greek, latin, french, spanish, and german verbs, did I conceive it necessary, and show you how, by compounding two words, they form the various tenses found in the grammars. But it will be more edifying to you to confine my remarks to our own language. Here it will be found impossible to distinguish more than three tenses, or find the verb in any different form, except by the aid of other words, wholly foreign from those that express the action under consideration.

It is by the aid of auxiliary verbs that the perfect, pluperfect, or future tenses are formed. But when it is shown you that these are principal verbs, and like many other words, are used before the infinitive mood without the word _to_ prefixed to them, you will perceive the consistency of the plan we propose. That such is the fact we have abundant evidence to show, and with your consent we will introduce it in this place. I repeat, all the words long considered auxiliaries, are _principal_ verbs, declarative of positive action, and as such are in extensive use in our language. We can hardly agree that the words _will_, _shall_, _may_, _must_, _can_, _could_, _would_, _should_, etc. have no meaning, as our grammars and dictionaries would teach us; for you may look in vain for a definition of them, as principal verbs, with a few exceptions.

The reason these words are not found in the same relation to other words, with a _to_ after them, is because they are so often used that we are accustomed to drop that word. The same may be said of all small words in frequent use; as, _bid_, _do_, _dare_, _feel_, _hear_, _have_, _let_, _make_, _see_, and sometimes _needs_, _tell_, and a few others. Bid him go. I _dare say_ so. I _feel_ it _move_. We _hear_ him _sing_. _Let_ us _go_. _Make_ him _do_ it. He _must go_ thro Samaria. _Tell_ him _do_ it immediately.

It is a singular fact, but in keeping with neuter verb systems, that all the _neuter_ verbs as well as the active, take these auxiliary or _helping_ verbs, which, according to their showing _help them do nothing_--"express neither action or passion." A wonderful _help_ indeed!

* * * * *

=Will.= This verb signifies to _wish_, to _resolve_, to _exercise volition_, in reference to a certain thing or action. "I will go." I _now resolve_ to perform the act of going. When applied to inanimate things incapable of volition, it signifies what is analogous to it, _inherent tendency_; as, paper _will_ burn; iron _will_ sink; water _will_ run. All these things have an inherent or active tendency to change. Water is composed of minute particles of a round form, piled together. While on a level they do not move; but let a descent be made, and these particles, under the influence of gravitation, _will_ change position, and roll one over another with a rapidity equalled to the condition in which they are placed. The same may be observed in a quantity of shot opened at one side which _will_ run thro the aperture; but the particles being larger, they will not find a level like water. Grain, sand, and any thing composed of small particles, _will_ exhibit the same tendency. Iron, lead, or any mineral, in a state of igneous solution, _will_ run, has the same _inclination_ to run as water, or any other liquid. In oil, tallow, and lard, when expanded by heat, the same tendency is observed; but severely chilled with the cold, it congeals, and _will_ not, has no such _tendency_, to run.

You have doubtless observed a cask filled with water and nearly tight, (if it is possible, make it quite so,) and when an aperture is made in the side, it _will_ run but a trifle before it will stop. Open a vent upon the top of the cask and it _will_ run freely. This _will_ or tendency was counteracted by other means which I will not stop here to explain.

This is a most important word in science, physical and moral, and may be traced thro various languages where it exerts the same influence in the expression of thought.

"To avoid multiplying of words, I would crave leave here, under the word _action_, to comprehend the _forbearance_ too of any action proposed; _sitting still_, or _holding one's peace_, when _walking_ or _speaking_ are proposed, tho mere forbearances, requiring as much the determination of the _will_, and being as often weighty in their consequences as the _contrary actions_, may, on that consideration, well enough pass for actions too. For he that shall turn his thoughts inwards upon what passes in his mind when he _wills_, shall see that the _will_ or power of volition is conversant about nothing."--_Locke's Essay_, b. II. c. 21. § 30.

It is correctly applied by writers to _matter_ as well as mind, as may be seen by consulting their works.

"Meanwhile as nature _wills_, night bids us rest."
_Milton._

The _lupulis_, or common hop, _feels_ for some elevated object which will assist it in its high aspirations, and _will_ climb it by winding from left to right, and _will_ not be obliged to go in an opposite direction; while the _phaseolus_, or kidney bean, takes the opposite direction. Neither _will_ be compelled to change its course. They _will_ have their own way, and grow as they please, or they _will_ die in the contest for liberty.

Arsenic has a _tendency_ in itself, a latent power, which only requires an opportunity suited to its objects, when it _will act_ in the most efficacious manner. It _will_ destroy the life of the Emperor, who has _voluntarily_ slain his thousand and tens of thousands. This secret power does not reside in the flour of wheat, for that _will not_, has no tendency, to produce such disastrous consequences.

This word is applied in a similar manner to individuals and nations. The man _will_ fall, not of intention, but of accident. He _will_ kill himself. The man _will_ drown, and the boat _will_ swim. The water _will_ hold up the boat, but it _will_ allow the man to sink. The Russians _will_ conquer the Turks. If conquest depended solely on the _will_, the Turks would as soon conquer as the Russians. But I have not time to pursue this topic farther. You can follow out these hints at your leisure.

=Shall= signifies to be _bound_, _obligated_, or _required_, from external necessity. Its etymology may be traced back thro various languages. It is derived direct from the saxon _scaelan_ or _scylan_, and is found as a principal verb in that language, as well as in ours. In the church homily they say, "To Him alone we _schall us_ to devote ourselves;" we _bind_ or _obligate_ ourselves. Chaucer, an early english poet, says.

"The faith we _shall_ to God."

Great difficulty has been found in distinguishing between _shall_ and _will_, and frequent essays have been written, to give arbitrary rules for their use. If the words were well understood, there could be no difficulty in employing them correctly. _Will_ signifies _inherent tendency_, _aptitude_, or _disposition_, and _volition_ in beings capable of using it. _Shall_ implies _external necessity_, or foreign obligation. The parent says, "You _will_ suffer misery if you do evil," for it is in accordance with the nature of things for evil to produce misery. "You _shall_ regard my wishes," for you are under _obligation_, from the relation in which you stand to me, to do so. Let these words be clearly explained, and there will be no difficulty in using them correctly.

=May=, past tense _might_. This verb expresses _power_, _strength_, or _ability_ to perform an action. It is a mistake that it means permission or liberty only. It implies more than that, the delegation of a power to perform the contemplated action. Suppose the scholar should faint, would the teacher say to him you _may_ go into the open air? He has no _power_, _might_, or _strength_, communicated by such liberty, and must receive the _might_ or strength of others to carry him out. But to the scholar in health he says you _may_ go out, thereby giving to him a power and liberty sufficient to perform the action. This is done on the same principle that one man gives another a "_power_ of attorney" to transact his business; and that _power_ constitutes his _liberty_ of action.

=Must= signifies to be _confined_, _limited_, _bound_, or _restrained_. I _must_, or am bound, to obey; certain obligations require me to obey. The adjective of this word is in common use. The air in the cask is _musty_. It has long been _bound_ or _confined_ there, and prevented from partaking of the purifying qualities of the atmosphere, and hence has become _musty_.

=Can.= This word is found as a principal verb and as a noun in our language, especially in the Scotch dialect. "I _ken_ nae where he'd gone." Beyond the _ken_ of mortals. Far from all human _ken_. It signifies to _know_, to perceive, to understand. I knew not where he had gone. Beyond the knowledge of mortals. Far from all human reach. To _con_ or _cun_ is a different spelling of the same word. _Cunning_ is that quick _perception_ of things, which enables a person to use his knowledge adroitly. The child _can_ read; _knows_ how to read. It _can_ walk. Here it seems to imply _power_; but power, in this case, as in most others, is gained only by knowledge, for =knowledge is power=. Many children have strength sufficient to walk, long before they do. The reason why they _can not_ walk, is, they do not _know how_; they have not learned to balance themselves in an erect position, so as to move forward without falling.

A vast proportion of human ability is derived from knowledge. There is not a being in creation so entirely incapable of self-support, as the new-born infant; and yet, by the help of knowledge, he becomes the lord of this lower world. Bonaparte was once as helpless as any other child, and yet by dint of _can_, _ken_, _cunning_, or knowledge, he made all Europe tremble. But his knowledge was limited. He became blind to danger, bewildered by success, and he _could_ no longer follow the prudent course of wisdom, but fell a sacrifice to his own unbridled ambition, and blinded folly. An enlightened people _can_ govern themselves; but _power_ of government is gained by a knowledge of the principles of equality, and mutual help and dependency; and whenever the people become ignorant of that fact, they _will_ fall, the degraded victims of their own folly, and the wily influence of some more knowing aspirant for power.

This is a most important topic; but I dare not pursue it farther, lest I weary your patience. A few examples _must_ suffice.

"Jason, she cried, for aught I _see_ or _can_,
This deed," &c.
_Chaucer._

A famous man,
Of every _witte_ somewhat he _can_,
_Out take_ that him lacketh rule,
His own estate to guide and rule.
_Gower._

=Do= has been called a _helping_ verb; but it needs little observation to discover that it is no more so than a hundred other words. "_Do_ thy diligence to come before winter." "_Do_ the work of an evangelist."--_Paul to Timothy._ I _do_ all in my power _to expose_ the error and wickedness of false teaching. _Do_ afford relief. _Do_ something to afford relief.

=Have= has also been reckoned as an auxiliary by the "helping verb grammars," which has no other duty to perform than help conjugate other verbs thro some of their moods and tenses. It is a word in very common use, and of course must possess a very important character, which should be carefully examined and distinctly known by all who desire a knowledge of the construction of our language.

The principal difficulty in the explanation of this word, is the peculiar meaning which some have attached to it. It has been defined to denote _possession_ merely. But when we say, a man _has_ much _property destroyed_ by fire, we do not mean that he _gains_ or _possesses_ much property by the fire; nor can we make _has_ auxiliary to _destroyed_, for in that case it would stand thus: a man _has destroyed_ much property by fire, which would be false, for the destruction was produced by an incendiary, or some other means wholly unknown to him.

You at once perceive that _to possess_ is not the only meaning which attaches to _have_. It assumes a more important rank. It can be traced, with little change in form, back thro many generations. It is the same word as _heave_, originally, and retains nearly the same meaning. Saxon _habban_, Gothic _haban_, German _haben_, Latin _habeo_, French _avoir_, are all the same word, varied in spelling more than in sound; for _b_ in many languages is sounded very much like _v_, or _bv_. It may mean to _hold_, _possess_, _retain_, _sway_, _control_, _dispose of_, either as a direct or _relative_ action; for a man sustains relations to his actors, duties, family, friends, enemies, and all the world, as well as to his possessions. He _has_ a hard task to perform. He _has_ much pain _to suffer_. He _has_ suffered much unhappiness.

I _have written_ a letter. I _have_ a written letter. I _have_ a letter _written_. These expressions differ very little in meaning, but the verb _have_ is the same in each case. By the first expression, I signify that I have _caused_ the letter to be _written_; by the second that I have a letter on which such action has been performed; and by the third, that such written letter stands in such relation to myself.

I _have written_ a letter and sent it away. _Written_ is the past participle from _write_; as an adjective it describes the letter in the condition I placed it; so that it will be defined, wherever it is found, as my letter; that is, some way _related_ to me.

We can here account for the old _perfect tense_, which is said, "not only to refer to what is _past_, but also _to convey an allusion to the present time_." The verb is in the _present_ tense, the participle is in the _past_, and hence the reason of this allusion. I _have_ no _space allowed_ me to go into a full investigation of this word, in its application to the expression of ideas. But it is necessary to _have_ it well _understood_, as it _has_ an important _service entrusted_ to it; and I hope you will _have_ clear _views presented_ to your minds, strong enough to _have_ former _errors eradicated_ therefrom.

If you _have_ leisure _granted_, and patience and disposition equal-_ed_ to the task, you have my consent to go back and read this sentence over again. You will find it _has_ in it embodied much important information in relation to the use of _have_ and the perfect tense.

LECTURE XIII.

ON VERBS.

Person and number in the agent, not in the action.--Similarity of
agents, actions, and objects.--Verbs made from nouns.--Irregular
verbs.--Some examples.--Regular Verbs.--_Ed_.--_Ing_.--Conjugation
of verbs.--To love.--To have.--To be.--The indicative mood
varied.--A whole sentence may be agent or object.--Imperative
mood.--Infinitive mood.--Is always future.

I have said before that action can never be known separate from the actor; that the verb applies to the agent in an _acting_ condition, as that term has been defined and should be understood. Hence Person and Number can never attach to the verb, but to the agent with which, of course, the action must, in every respect, agree; as, "_I write_." In this case the action corresponds with myself. But to say that _write_ is in the "first person, singular number," would be wrong, for no such number or person belongs to the verb, but is confined to myself as the agent of the action.

The form of the verb is changed when it agrees with the second or third person singular; more on account of habit, I apprehend, than from any reason, or propriety as to a change of meaning in the word. We say, when using the regular _second_ person singular, "_thou writest_," a form rarely observed except in addresses to Deity, or on solemn occasions. In the _third_ person, an _s_ is added to the regular form; as, "_he writes_." The old form, which was in general use at the time the common version of the Bible was published, was still different, ending in _eth_; as, _he thinketh_, _he writeth_. This style, altho considerably used in the last century, is nearly obsolete. When the verb agrees with the plural number it is usually the same as when it agrees with the first person; as, "_We write_, _you write_, _they write_." There are few exceptions to these rules.

Some people have been very tenacious about retaining the old forms of words, and our books were long printed without alteration; but change will break thro every barrier, and book-makers must keep pace with the times, and put on the dress that is catered for them by the public taste; bearing in mind, meanwhile, that great and practical truths are more essential than the garb in which they appear. We should be more careful of our health of body and purity of morals than of the costume we put on. Many genteel coats wrap up corrupt hearts, and fine hats cover silly heads. What is the chaff to the wheat?

Even our good friends, the quakers, who have particularly labored to retain old forms--"the plain language,"--have failed in their attempt, and have substituted the _object_ form of the pronoun for the _agent_, and say, "_thee thinks_," for _thou thinkest_. Their mistake is even greater than the substitution of _you_ for _thou_.

So far as language depends on the conventional regulation of those who use it, it will be constantly changing; new words will be introduced, and the spelling of old ones altered, so as to agree with modern pronounciation. We have all lived long enough to witness the truth of this remark. The only rule we can give in relation to this matter is, to follow our own judgments, aided by our best writers and speakers.

The words which express action, are in many cases very similar to the agents which produce them; and the objects which are the direct results produced by such action, do not differ very materially. I will give you a few examples.

_Agent._ _Verb._ _Object._
Actors Act Actions
Breathers Breathe Breath
Builders Build Buildings
Coiners Coin Coins
Casters Cast Casts or castings
Drinkers Drink Drink
Dreamers Dream Dreams
Earners Earn Earnings
Fishers Fish Fishes
Gainers Gain Gain
Hewers Hew Hewings
Innkeepers Keep Inns
Light or lighters Light or shed Lights
Miners Mine or dig Mines
Pleaders Plead or make Pleas
Producers Produce Products
Raisers Raise Raisings or houses
Runners or racers Run Runs or races
Sufferers Suffer Sufferings
Speakers Speak Speeches
Thinkers Think Thoughts
Writers Write Writings
Workers Work Works

I give you these examples to show you the near alliance between _actors_, ( ,) and _actions_; or agents, _actions_, and objects. Such expressions as the above are inelegant, because they are uncommon; but for no other reason, for we, in numberless cases, employ the same word for agent and verb; as, _painters paint_ buildings, and _artists_ paint paintings; _bookbinders bind books_; _printers print_ books, and other _prints_. A little observation will enable you to carry out these hints, and profit by them. You have observed the disposition in children, and foreigners, who are partially acquainted with our language, to make verbs out of almost every noun, which appears to us very aukward; but was it common, it would be just as correct as the verbs now used. There are very few verbs which have not a noun to correspond with them, for we make verbs, that is, we use words to express action, which are nearly allied to the agent with which such action agrees.[17] From botany we have made _botanize_; from Mr. McAdam, the inventor of a particular kind of road, _macadamize_, which means to make roads as he made them. Words are formed in this way very frequently. The word _church_ is often used as a noun to express a building used for public worship; for the services performed in it; for the whole congregation; for a portion of believers associated together; for the Episcopal order, etc. It is also used as a verb. Mr. Webster defines it, "To perform with any one the office of returning thanks in the church after any signal deliverance." But the word has taken quite a different turn of late. _To church_ a person, instead of receiving him into communion, as that term would seem to imply, signifies to deal with an offending member, to excommunicate, or turn him out.

But I will not pursue this point any farther. The brief hints I have thrown out, will enable you to discover how the meaning and forms of words are changed from their original application to suit the notions and improvements of after ages. A field is here presented which needs cultivation. The young should be taught to search for the etymology of words, to trace their changes and meaning as used at different times and by different people, keeping their minds constantly directed to the object signified by such verbal sign. This is the business of philosophy, under whatever name it may be taught; for grammar, rhetoric, logic, and the science of the mind, are intimately blended, and should always be taught in connexion. We have already seen that words without meaning are like shadows without realities. And persons can not employ language "correctly," or "with propriety," till they have acquainted themselves with the import of such language--the ideas of things signified by it. Let this course be adopted in the education of children, and they will not be required to spend months and years in the study of an "_art_" which they can not comprehend, for the simple reason that they can not apply it in practice. Grammar has been taught as a mere _art_, depending on arbitrary rules to be mechanically learned, rather than a science involving the soundest and plainest principles of philosophy, which are to be known only as developed in common practice among men, and in accordance with the permanent laws which govern human thought.

Verbs differ in the manner of forming their _past_ tenses, and participles, or adjectives. Those ending in _ed_ are called _regular_; those which take any other termination are _irregular_. There are about two hundred of the latter in our language, which differ in various ways. Some of them have the _past_ tense and the past participle the same; as,

Bid Bid Bid
Knit Knit Knit
Shut Shut Shut
Let Let Let
Spread Spread Spread, etc.

Others have the past tense and participle alike, but different from the present; as,

Lend Lent Lent
Send Sent Sent
Bend Bent Bent
Wend Went Went
Build Built or builded Built
Think Thought Thought, etc.

Some have the present and past tense and participle different; as,

Blow Blew Blown
Grow Grew Grown
Begin Began Begun
See Saw Seen
Write Wrote Written
Give Gave Given
Speak Spoke Spoken
Rise Rose Risen
Fall Fell Fallen, etc.

There are a few which are made up of different radicals, which have been wedded together by habit, to avoid the frequent and unpleasant recurrence of the same word; as,

Am Was Been
Go (wend) Went Gone, etc.

Some which were formerly irregular, are now generally used with the regular termination, in either the past tense or participle, or both; as,

Hang Hung or hanged Hung or hanged
Dare Dared or durst Dared
Clothe Clad or clothed Clad or clothed
Work Worked or wrought Worked
Shine Shined or shone Shone or shined
Spill Spilled or spilt Spilt or spilled, etc.

The syllable _ed_ is a contraction of the past tense of _do_; as, I _loved_, love _did_, _did_ love, or love-_ed_. He learn_ed_, learn did, did learn, or learned. It signifies action, _did_, done, or accomplished. You have all lived long enough to have noticed the change in the pronounciation of this syllable. Old people sound it full and distinct; and so do most others in reading the scriptures; but not so generally as in former times. In poetry it was usually abbreviated so as to avoid the full sound; and hence we may account for the _irregular_ termination of many words, such as _heard_, for _heared_; _past_, for _passed_; _learnt_, for _learned_; _built_, for _builded_. In modern poetry, however, the _e_ is retained, tho sounded no more than formerly.

_Ing_ is derived from the verb to _be_, and signifies _being_, _existing_; and, attached to a verb, is used as a noun, or adjective, retaining so much of its former character as to have an object after it which is affected by it; as, "I am _writing_ a lecture." Here _writing_, the present participle of _write_, describes myself in my present employment, and yet retains its action as a verb, and terminates on _lecture_ as the thing written. "The man was taken in the act of _stealing_ some money." In this case _stealing_ names the action which the man was performing when detected, which action thus named, has _money_ for the object on which it terminates.

I barely allude to this subject in this place to give you an idea of the method we adopt to explain the meaning and use of participles. It deserves more attention, perhaps, to make it plain to your minds; but as it is not an essential feature in the new system, I shall leave it for consideration in a future work. Whoever is acquainted with the formation of the present participle in other languages, can carry out the suggestions I have made, and fully comprehend my meaning.

I will present you with an example of the conjugations of a few verbs which you are requested to compare with the "_might could would should have been loved_" systems, which you were required to learn in former times. You will find the verb in every _form_ or position in which it ever occurs in our language, written or spoken.

Conjugation of the regular verb =to love=.

INDICATIVE MOOD.

_Singular_ _Plural_

I _love_ We _love_
Present tense Thou _lovest_ You _love_
He, she, or it _loves_ They _love_

I _loved_ We _loved_
Past tense Thou _lovedst_ You _loved_
He, she, or it _loved_ They _loved_

IMPERATIVE MOOD.

_Love._

INFINITIVE MOOD.

_To love._

PARTICIPLES.

Present, _Loving_
Past, _Loved_

The irregular verb =to have=, is thus conjugated.

INDICATIVE MOOD.

I _have_ We _have_
Present tense Thou _hast_ You _have_
He _has_ They _have_

I _had_ We _had_
Past tense Thou _hadst_ You _had_
He _had_ They _had_

IMPERATIVE MOOD.

_Have._

INFINITIVE MOOD.

_To have._

PARTICIPLES.

Present, _Having_
Past, _Had_

The irregular verb =to be=, stands thus:

INDICATIVE MOOD.

I _am_ We _are_
Present tense Thou _art_ You _are_
He _is_ They _are_

I _was_ We _were_
Past tense Thou _wast_ You _were_
He _was_ They _were_

IMPERATIVE MOOD.

_Be._

INFINITIVE MOOD.

_To be._

PARTICIPLES.

Present, _Being_
Past, _Been_

These examples will suffice to give you an idea of the ease and simplicity of the construction of verbs, and by a comparison with old systems, you can, for yourselves, determine the superiority of the principles we advocate. The above tabular views present every form which the verb assumes, and every position in which it is found. In use, these words are frequently compounded together;[18] but with a knowledge of the above principles, and the _meaning_ of the words--a most essential consideration--you will always be able to analyze any sentence, and parse it correctly. I have not time to enlarge on this point, to show how words are connected together. Nor do I think it necessary to enable you to understand my views. To children such a work would be indispensable, and shall be attended to if we are able to publish a grammar containing the simple principles of language.

* * * * *

The indicative mood is varied four ways. 1st, affirmatively, _he writes_; 2d, negatively, _he writes not_; 3d, interrogatively, _does_ he write? or _writes_ he? 4th, suppositively, if _he writes_, _suppose he writes_, allow _he writes_.

The _first_ is a simple affirmation of a fact, and is easily understood. The _second_ is formed by annexing a term to express negation. _Not_ is a contraction from _nought_ or _naught_, which is a compound of _ne_, negative, and ought or aught, _ne-aught_, meaning _no-thing_. _He writes not_; he writes nothing. He does _not_ write; he does _nothing_ to write. _Neither_ is a compound of _ne_ and _either_, _not either_. He _can not_ read; he _can_, _kens_, _knows nothing_, has no ability _to read_.

The third is constructed into a question by placing the verb before the agent, or by prefixing another word before the agent, and then placing the former verb as an infinitive after it; as, _Does_ he write? or _writes_ he? When another verb is prefixed, one is always chosen which will best decide the query. Does he _any thing_ to write? Does he make any motions or show any indications to write? When the _will_ or disposition of a person is concerned, we choose a word accordingly. _Will_ he write? Has he the _will_ or disposition to write? _Can_ he write? Is he able--_knows_ he how to write? A little observation will enable you to understand my meaning.

In the fourth place, a supposition is made in the imperative mood, in accordance with which the action is performed. "_If_ ye _love_ me, keep my commandments." _Give_, _grant_, _allow_, _suppose_ this fact--you _love_ me, keep my commandments. I will go if I can. I _resolve_, _will_, or _determine_ to go; _if_, _gif_, _give_, grant, allow this fact, I _can_, _ken_, _know_ how, or _am_ able _to go_. But more on this point when we come to the consideration of contractions.