Chapter XXX: Section VII: The Conjunction (2)

The author observes, that “from grammarians, who form their ideas and _make_ their decisions respecting this part of grammar, on the principles and construction 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 neither perspicuous nor consistent, and which will tend more to perplex than inform the learner.” Had I been reprehending the author’s own practice, I should have employed nearly the same language. How these observations, certainly judicious and correct, can be reconciled with the doctrine of the writer himself, I am utterly at a loss to conceive. His ideas of consistency and simplicity are to me incomprehensible. He rejects _prepositional_ cases for the sake of simplicity, and he admits various moods and tenses, equally foreign to the genius of our language, in order to avoid perplexity. Surely this is not a “consistent scheme.” Nay, he tells us, “that on the principle of imitating other languages in names and forms (I beseech the reader to mark the words), without a correspondence in nature and idiom, we might adopt a number of declensions, as well as a variety of cases, for English substantives: but,” he adds, “this variety does not at all correspond with the idiom of our language.” After this observation, argument surely becomes unnecessary.

I have here, the reader will perceive, assailed the author’s doctrine merely on the ground of inconsistency. It is liable, however, to objections of a more serious nature; and were I not apprehensive that I have already exhausted the patience of the reader, I should now proceed to state these objections. There is one observation, however, which I feel it necessary to make. The author remarks, that to take the tenses as they are commonly received, and endeavour to ascertain their nature and their differences, “is a much more useful exercise, as well as a more proper, for a work of this kind, than to raise, as might be easily raised, new theories on the subject.” If the author by this intends to insinuate that our doctrine is new, he errs egregiously. For Wallis, one of the oldest, and certainly one of the best of our English grammarians, duly attentive to the simplicity of that language whose grammar he was exhibiting, assigned only two tenses to the English verb. He says, _Nos duo tantum habemus tempora Præsens et Præteritum_; and on this simple principle his explanation of the verb proceeds. In the preface to his grammar, he censures his few predecessors for violating the simplicity of the English language, by the introduction of names and rules foreign to the English idiom. _Cur hujusmodi casuum, generum, modorum, temporumque fictam et ineptam plane congeriem introducamus citra omnem necessitatem, aut in ipsa lingua fundamentum, nulla ratio suadet._ And so little was he aware that the introduction of technical names for things which have no existence, facilitates the acquisition of any art or science, that he affirms it in regard to the subject before us to be the cause of great confusion and perplexity. _Quæ (inutilia præcepta) a lingua nostra sunt prorsus aliena, adeoque confusionem potius et obscuritatem pariunt, quam explicationi inserviunt._

[45] Mr. Gilchrist, in his “Philosophic Etymology,” represents the terminations _ath_, _eth_, _ad_, _ed_, _et_, _en_, _an_, as conjunctives, equivalent to the sign +, denoting _add_, or _join_ (see p. 162). In another part of the same work, he considers _did_ to be _do_ doubled, as _dedi_ from the Latin _do_, which he believes to be the very same word with our _do_. Repetition, he observes, is a mode of expressing complete action. Hence we have _do_, _do-ed_, _dede_, _did_, in English. This explanation is ingenious, and furnishes a probable account of the origin of the word _did_, which he remarks was formerly spelled _dede_.

[46]

I be Thou beest He, she, or it be
We be Ye or you be They be,
from the Saxon
Ic beo Thu beest He beeth,

are obsolete, unless followed by a concessive term. Thus, instead of saying, “Many there _be_ that go in thereat,” we should now say, “Many there _are_.” For “to whom all hearts _be_ open,” we should now write, “to whom all hearts _are_ open.” We find them, however, used with the conjunctions _if_ and _though_; thus, “If this be my notion of a great part of that high science, divinity, you will be so civil as to imagine, I lay no mighty stress upon the rest.”--_Pope._ That this was his notion the author had previously declared; the introductory clause, therefore, is clearly affirmative, and is the same as if he had said, “As this is my notion.” “Although she _be_ abundantly grateful to all her protectors, yet I observe your name most often in her mouth.”--_Swift._ “The paper, although it _be_ written with spirit, yet would have scarce cleared a shilling.”--_Swift._ In the two last sentences the meaning is affirmative; nothing conditional or contingent being implied.

In the following examples, it expresses doubt or contingency. “If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down:” _i.e._ “shouldst be.” “If I be in difficulty, I will ask your aid;” _i.e._ “If I should be.”

[47] Though the authority of Milton, Dryden, Pope, and Swift, can be pleaded in favour of _wert_, as the second person singular of this tense, I am inclined to agree with Lowth, that in conformity to analogy, as well as the practice of the best ancient writers, it would be better to confine _wert_ to the imperfect conditional.

[48] If the expression of time with an attribute “be sufficient to make a verb, the participle must be a verb too, because it signifies time also. But the essence of a verb consisting in predication, which is peculiar to it, and incommunicable to all other parts of speech, and these infinitives never predicating, they cannot be verbs. Again, the essence of a noun consisting in its so subsisting in the understanding, as that it may be the subject of predication, and these infinitives being all capable of so subsisting, they must of necessity be nouns.”--_R. Johnson’s Gram. Comment._

[49] The variety of form which this verb assumes, clearly shows that it has proceeded from different sources.

_Am_ is from the Anglo-Saxon _eom_, and _is_ from the Anglo-Saxon _ys_ or _is_; and these have been supposed to have come from the Greek εἰμὶ, εἶς.

The derivation of _are_ is doubtful. It may, perhaps, have proceeded directly from _er_ or _erum_ of the Icelandic verb, denoting “to be.” By Mr. Gilchrist it is considered as “the same with the infinitive termination _are, ere, ire_.” Mr. Webb conjectured, that it might have some relation to the Greek ἔαρ, _spring_. Both these explanations appear to us somewhat fanciful.

_Art_ is from the Anglo-Saxon _eart_. “Thou eart,” _thou art_.

_Was_ is evidently the Anglo-Saxon _wæs_; and _wast_, _wert_, probably from the Franco-Theatisc, _warst_; and _were_ from the Anglo-Saxon _wære_, _wæron_.

_Be_ is from the Anglo-Saxon _Ic beo_, _I am_, which, with the Gaelic verb _bi_, _to be_, Mr. Webb considered to be derived from βίος, _life_, as the Latin _fui_, from φύω, _to grow_. This conjecture he supports by several pertinent quotations. See Mr. Bosworth’s “Elements of Anglo-Saxon Grammar,” p. 164.

[50] The words _did_, _hast_, _hath_, _has_, _had_, _shall_, _wilt_, are evidently, as Wallis observes, contracted for _doed_, _haveth_, _haves_, _haved_, _shall’st_, _will’st_.

[51] This verb is derived from the Saxon magan, _posse_, the present of which is _Ic mæg_, and the preterite _Ic miht_. Hence also _Ic mot_.

“For as the fisshe, if it be drie,
Mote in defaute of water die.”--_Gower._

[52] This verb is derived from cunnan, _scire_, _posse_, _sapere_. Hence is derived the verb “to ken,” or “to know;” or more probably, indeed, they were one and the same word: hence also the word _cunning_. “To ken” is still used in Scotland; and in the expression of Shakspeare, “I ken them from afar,” is erroneously considered by some critics to mean, “I see them.”

[53] This verb is, unquestionably, a derivative from the Saxon ꞅceal, _I owe_ or _I ought_, and was originally of the same import. _I shall_ denoted “it is my duty,” and was precisely synonymous with _debeo_ in Latin. Chaucer says, “The faith I shall to God;” that is, “the faith I owe to God.” “Thou shalt not kill,” or “thou oughtest not to kill.” In this sense _shall_ is a present tense, and denoted present duty or obligation. But, as all duties and all commands, though present in respect to their obligation and authority, must be future in regard to their execution; so by a natural transition, observable in most languages, this word, significant of present duty, came to be a note of future time. I have considered it, however, as a present tense; 1st, because it originally denoted present time; 2dly, because it still retains the form of a present, preserving thus the same analogy to _should_ that _can_ does to _could_, _may_ to _might_, _will_ to _would_; and 3dly, because it is no singular thing to have a verb in the present tense, expressive of future time, commencing from the present moment; for such precisely is the Greek verb μέλλω, _futurus sum_. Nay, the verb _will_ denotes present inclination, yet in some of its persons, like _shall_, expresses futurition. I have considered, therefore, the verb _shall_ as a present tense, of which _should_ is the preterperfect.

Johnson’s explanation of the meaning of this verb is so perspicuous, that, as foreigners are apt to mistake its use, I shall here transcribe his words. _I shall love_: “it will be so that I must love,” “I am resolved to love.” _Shall I love?_ “will it be permitted me to love?” “will it be that I must love?” _Thou shalt love_: “I command thee to love;” “it is permitted thee to love;” “it will be, that thou must love.” _Shalt thou love?_ “will it be, that thou must love?” “will it be permitted thee to love?” _He shall love_: “it will be, that he must love;” “it is commanded that he love.” _Shall he love?_ “is it permitted him to love?” The plural persons follow the signification of the singular.

I transcribe also the same author’s explanation of the verb _I will_. _I will come_: “I am willing to come,” “I am determined to come.” _Thou wilt come_: “it must be, that thou must come,” importing necessity; or “it shall be, that thou shalt come,” importing choice. _Wilt thou come?_ “hast thou determined to come?” importing choice. _He will come_: “he is resolved to come;” or “it must be, that he must come,” importing choice or necessity.

Brightland’s short rule may be of some service in assisting foreigners to distinguish the use of these two verbs. It is this:

“In the first person simply _shall_ foretels:
In _will_ a threat, or else a promise, dwells;
_Shall_ in the second and the third does threat;
_Will_ simply then foretels the future feat.”

In addition to these directions for the use of _shall_ and _will_, it is to be observed, that, when the second and third persons are represented as the subjects of their own expressions, or their own thoughts, _shall_ foretels, as in the first person, thus, “he says he shall be a loser by this bargain:” “do you suppose you shall go?” “He hoped he should recover,” and “he hoped he would recover,” are expressions of different import. In the former, the two pronouns necessarily refer to the same person; in the latter, they do not.

[54] This verb is derived from the Saxon verb willan, _velle_, the preterite of which is Ic wold.

[55] The preterite _would_ is frequently employed, like the Latin preterimperfect tense, to denote what is usual or customary. Thus,

Quintilio si quid recitares, corrige, sodes,
Hoc, aiebat, et hoc; melius te posse negares,
Bis terque expertum frustra; delere jubebat,
Et malè tornatos incudi reddere versus:
Si defendere delictum quàm vertere, malles,
Nullum ultra verbum, aut operam insumebat inanem.
_Horace._

where the verbs aiebat, jubebat, insumebat, may be translated, “he would say,” “he would desire,” “he would spend.” Thus also in English,

Pleas’d with my admiration, and the fire
His speech struck from me, the old man _would_ shake
His years away, and act his young encounters:
Then having show’d his wounds, _he’d_ sit him down.

[56] In Latin the imperfect potential is frequently employed in the same manner to denote present time; thus, _irem si vellem_, expresses present liberty and inclination. And the same analogy obtains in Latin; for we say, either, _tu, si hic sis, aliter sentias_, or _tu, si hic esses, aliter sentires_. In such examples, it is intended to signify either the coexistence of two circumstances, or the one as the immediate consequence of the other. An identity of tense, therefore, best expresses contemporary events.

[57] If it should be said, that the participle may properly be considered as a verb, since it implies an attribute with time, I would ask, whether _affirmation_, the most important of all circumstances, and without which no communication could take place, should be overlooked in our classification of words agreeably to their import, or the offices which they perform. If the verb and participle be referred to one class, the principal part of speech which has been pre-eminently distinguished by the name of verb, or _the word_, is degraded from its rank, and confounded with a species of words which are not even necessary to the communication of thought. Surely, if any circumstance can entitle any sort of words to a distinct reference, it is that of _affirmation_.

If it should be objected that the participle, like the verb, governs a case, I would ask, because _lectio_, _tactio_, and many other substantives, are found sometimes joined with an accusative case, were they ever on this account considered as verbs? Besides, if the government of a case be urged as an argument, what becomes of those participles which govern no case? Nay, if the government of a case be deemed the criterion of a verb, what name shall we assign to those verbs which have no regimen at all? If any species of words is to be distinguished from another, the characteristic difference must surely belong, not to part only, but to the whole.

[58] The termination _ing_ is from the Anglo-Saxon _ande_, _ænde_, _ende_, _ind_, _onde_, _unde_, _ynde_, and corresponds to the termination of the Latin gerunds in _andum_ and _endum_, expressing continuation, _Amandum_, _Lufiande_, _Loving_.

[59] Here I would be understood to reason on their own principles; for the truth is, that each of these tenses admits a definitive.

[60] See the _Transactions of the Royal Irish Academy_, vol. iii.

[61] Dr. Beattie observes, “that the fundamental error of those philosophers who deny the existence of present time is, that they suppose the present instant to have, like a geometrical point, neither parts nor magnitude. But as nothing is, in respect of our senses, a geometrical point, (for whatever we see or touch must of necessity have magnitude,) so neither is the present, or any other instant, wholly unextended.” His argument amounts to this, that as a mathematical point is not an object of sense, nor has any real existence, so neither has a metaphysical instant. It is granted. They are each ideal. But does this prove the author’s position, that philosophers have erred in asserting their similarity? or does it evince that no analogy subsists between them? Quite the reverse. The truth is, a geometrical point is purely ideal; it is necessary to the truth of mathematical demonstration, that it be conceived to have no parts. Finding it convenient to represent it to sense, we therefore give it magnitude. A metaphysical instant, or present time, is in like manner ideal; but we find it convenient to assume as present an extended space. The doctor observes, that sense perceives nothing but what is present. It is true; but it should be remembered that not time, but objects which exist in time, are perceived by the senses. It may enable a person to form a correct idea of this matter, if he will ask himself, what he means by present time. If it be the present hour, is it not obvious that part of it is past, and part of it future? If it be the present minute, it is equally clear, that the whole of it cannot be present at once. Nay, if it be the present vibration of the pendulum, is it not obvious that part of it is performed, and part of it remains to be performed? Nor is it possible to stop in this investigation, till present time, strictly speaking, be proved to have no existence. Did it exist, it must be extended; and if extended, it cannot be present, for past and future must necessarily be included in it. If it should be answered, that this proves time, like matter, infinitely divisible, and that the most tedious process will still leave something capable of division, I reply, that as whatever may be left in the one case must be figure, and not a point, so the remainder, in the other, must be a portion of extended time, how minute soever, and not an instant. The process, therefore, must be continued, till we arrive in idea at a point and an instant, incapable of division, being not made up of parts.

[62] When we say, _God is good_, I would ask Dr. Browne whether the verb be definite or indefinite, whether it denote perfection or imperfection, or have no reference to either. It appears to me that neither of the terms is in his sense applicable; for that the verb denotes simple affirmation with time; or, if applicable, that the tense is, contrary to his opinion, indefinite, the idea of completion or imperfection being entirely excluded.

[63] These phraseologies, as the author last quoted justly observes, are harsh to the ear, and appear exceedingly awkward; but a little attention will suffice to show that they correctly exhibit the ideas implied by the tense which we have at present under consideration.

[64] See Encyc. Brit., Art. Grammar.

[65] I consider that no language, grammatically examined, has more cases, tenses, or moods, than are formed by inflexion. But if any person be inclined to call these forms of expression by the name of imperative mood, I have no objection. Only let him be consistent, and call “Dost thou love?” an interrogative mood, adopting also the precative, the requisitive, the optative, the hortative, &c., together with the various cases in nouns, and tenses in verbs, which are formed by prepositions and auxiliary verbs: I should only apprehend, that language would fail him to assign them names.

If it should be asked, “Agreeably to your doctrine of the verb, as implying affirmation, what part of speech would you make the verbs in the following sentences, _Depart instantly_, _improve your time_, _forgive us our sins_? Will it be said that the verbs in these phrases are assertions?” I should answer that all moods, metaphysically considered, are, in my apprehension, equally indicative. Every possible form of speech can do nothing but express the sentiment of the speaker, his desire, his wish, his sensation, his perception, his belief, &c. Whatever form, therefore, the expression may assume, it must be resolvable into assertion; and must be considered as expressing, in the person of the speaker, what he desires, wishes, feels, thinks, and so forth. No one surely will deny, that “thou oughtest not to kill,” “thou shalt not kill,” “thou art forbidden to kill,” are affirmations. And are not these expressions so nearly equivalent to “do not kill,” that in Greek and Latin they are rendered indifferently either by οὐ φονεύσεις, or, μὴ φόνευε; _non occides_, or _ne occidito_? If then we say, “kill thou,” will it be contended that, though the prohibition implies an affirmation of the speaker, the command does not? The expression I conceive to be strictly equivalent to “thou shalt kill,” “thou art ordered to kill.” Hence _ave_ and _jubeo te avere_, are deemed expressions of the same import. If the question be examined grammatically, or as a subject of pure grammar, I am inclined to think that where there is no variety of termination, there cannot be established a diversity of mood.

[66] This verb is derived from the Saxon verb Ic most, _ego debeo_.

[67] It belongs not to my province to inquire, how _amarem_ came to signify _I might_ or _could love_, or whether it be strictly in the potential or the subjunctive mood. I here take it for granted that _amarem_ does, without an ellipsis, signify, _I might, could, would_, or _should love_, implying _licet_, _possum_, _volo_, _debeo_.--See _Johnson’s Comment_.

[68] Why this verb forms an exception, it would be easy to explain.

[69] See Webster’s Dissertations, p. 263.

[70] A similar phraseology in the use of the pluperfect indicative for the same tense subjunctive, obtains in Latin, as

“Impulerat ferro Argolicas fœdare latebras.”--_Virgil._

[71] The Latins used _si_ in both cases: and though their poets did not attend to this distinction, their prose writers generally observed it, by joining _si_ for _quoniam_ with the indicative mood.

[72] Where R is added, the verb follows also the general rule.

[73] Some have excluded _bore_ as the preterite of this verb. We have sufficient authority, however, for admitting it; thus,

“By marrying her who bore me.”--_Dryden._

[74] _Beholden_ is obsolescent in this sense.

[75] “So kept the diamond, and the rogue was bit.”--_Pope._

“There was lately a young gentleman bit to the bone.”--_Tatler._

[76] _Brake_ seems now obsolescent.

[77] Though Johnson has not admitted the regular form of the participle in this verb, I think there is sufficient authority for concurring with Lowth in receiving _builded_ as the participle as well as _built_, though it be not in such general use.

[78] _Chode_, which occurs twice in the Bible, is now obsolete.

[79] Lowth has given _clomb_ as the preterite of climb. I can find, however, no authority later than Spenser, and am inclined to think it is now obsolete.

[80] The irregular preterite _clad_ is obsolescent.

[81] I know no example in which the preterite, which analogically would be _forwent_, is to be found. It may be here remarked that this verb, in violation of analogy, is generally spelled _forego_, as if it meant “to go before.” This is equally improper as it would be to write _forebid, foresake, foreswear_, for _forbid, forsake, forswear_.

[82] _Fraught_ is more properly an adjective than participle.

[83] This verb, Lowth says, when employed as an active verb, “may perhaps, most properly be used in the regular form.” Here the learned author appears to me, if he be not chargeable with error, to have expressed his meaning incorrectly; for it cannot be disputed that the irregular form of this verb is frequently, and with unquestionable propriety, used in an active sense. Thus we say, “the servant hung the scales in the cellar;” and passively, “the scales were hung by the servant.” I should, therefore, rather say that, when this verb denotes suspension, for the purpose of destroying life, the regular form is far preferable. Thus, “the man was hanged,” not “hung.”

[84] The irregular preterite and participle of this verb are employed in sea language; but the latter rarely.

[85] Lowth has given _holpen_ as the participle; it is now obsolescent, if not obsolete. It belonged to the verb _to holp_, which has been long out of use.

[86] Several grammarians have rejected _hid_ as a participle. It rests, however, on unquestionable authority; but _hidden_ is preferable.

[87] _Holden_, which was some years ago obsolescent, is now returning into more general use.

[88] _Laden_, like _fraught_, may be deemed an adjective.

[89] Priestley, I apprehend, has erred in giving _lain_ as the participle of this verb.

[90] _Lien_, though not so generally used as _lain_, is not destitute of unexceptionable authority. I have, therefore, with Johnson and Lowth, given it as the participle. Murray has omitted it.

[91] Some grammarians have rejected _lit_. It can plead, however, colloquial usage in its favour, and even other authority. “I lit my pipe with the paper.”--_Addison._

[92] With Priestley and Lowth, I have given this verb a regular participle; for which, I believe, there is sufficient authority, without adducing the example of Shakspeare. Most other grammarians have rejected it.

[93] _Quitted_ is far more generally used as the preterite than _quit_.

[94] Priestley has rejected _rid_, and Murray _ridden_, as the participle, while Johnson makes _rid_ the preterite of _ride_. As _rid_ is the present and preterite of another verb, it would, perhaps, be better to dismiss it entirely from the verb _to ride_, and conjugate, with Priestley, _ride, rode, ridden_.

[95] Our translators of the Bible have used _roast_ as the perfect participle. In this sense it is almost obsolete. _Roast beef_ retains its ground.

[96] Story, in his Grammar, has most unwarrantably asserted, that the participle of this verb should be _shaked_. This word is certainly obsolete, and, I apprehend, was never in general use. I have been able to find only one example of _shaked_ as the participle, “A sly and constant knave, not to be _shaked_.”--_Shakspeare._ And two as the preterite, “They shaked their heads.”--_Psal._ cxi. 55. “I shaked my head.”--_Steele_, _Spectator_, No. iv.

[97] Of these preterites, the latter is now more generally used. Our translators of the Bible used the former.

[98] A. Murray has rejected _sung_ as the preterite, and L. Murray has rejected _sang_. Each preterite, however, rests on good authority.

The same observation may be made respecting _sank_ and _sunk_.

[99] _Sitten_, though formerly in use, is now obsolescent. Laudable attempts, however, have been made to restore it. “To have _sitten_ on the heads of the apostles.”--_Middleton._

“Soon after the termination of this business, the parliament, which had now _sitten_ three years,” &c.--_Belsham’s Hist._

“And he would gladly, for the sake of dispatch, have called together the same parliament, which had _sitten_ under his father.”--_Hume_, vol. vi. p. 199.

Respecting the preterites which have _a_ or _u_, as _slang_, or _slung_, _sank_, or _sunk_, it would be better were the former only to be used, as the preterite and participle would thus be discriminated.

[100] Pope has used the regular form of the preterite:

“In the fat age of pleasure, wealth, and ease,
Sprung the rank weed, and thrived with large increase.”
_Essay on Crit._

Horsley, with one or two other writers, have employed the regular participle.

[101] _Washen_ seems obsolescent, if not obsolete. The compound _unwashen_ occurs in our translation of the Bible.

[102] Pope, and our translators of the Bible, have used _winded_ as the preterite. The other form, however, is in far more general use.

[103] _Wrote_, as the participle, is generally disused, and likewise _writ_. The latter was used as a preterite by Pope, Swift, and other writers of the same period.

[104] _Wit_ is now confined to the phrase _to wit_, or _namely_. It is an abbreviation from the Anglo-Saxon verb þiꞇan, to know.

[105] This verb, as an auxiliary, is inflexible; thus we say, “he will go,” and “_he wills to go_.”

[106] This verb, which signifies “to think,” or “to imagine,” is now obsolete.

[107] This verb is now used as significant of present duty. It was originally the preterite, and the perfect participle of the verb _to owe_; and is corruptedly used in Scotland still to express a past debt. “Apprehending the occasion, I will add a continuance to that happy motion, and besides give you some tribute of the love and duty I long have ought you.”--_Spelman._

“This blood, which men by treason sought,
That followed, sir, which to myself I ought.”--_Dryden._

It is now used in the present tense only; and, when past duty or obligation is to be signified, we note, as I formerly mentioned, the past time by the preterite sense of the subsequent verb; thus, “I ought to read,” “I ought to have read.” The classical scholar knows that the reverse takes place in Latin. _Debeo legere, debui legere_. Cicero, however, though very rarely indeed, uses the preterite of the infinitive after the preterite tense of this verb.

Murray has told us, that _must_ and _ought_ have both a present and past signification, and, in proof of this, he adduces the following examples:--“I must own, that I am to blame.” “He must have been mistaken.” “Speaking things which they ought not.” “These ought ye to have done.” This is truly a strange, and, I verily believe, a singular opinion. Its inaccuracy is so manifest, that every reader of discernment must intuitively perceive it. The opinion itself, indeed, is not more surprising, than the ground on which it is maintained by the author. It surely requires but a moderate portion of sagacity to perceive, that the past time, in the second and fourth examples, is not denoted by _must_ and _ought_, but by the expressions “have been” and “have done.” In Latin, as I have just observed, _necessity_ and _duty_ are expressed as either present, past, or future, the verbs denoting these having the three correspondent tenses; and the object of the necessity or duty is expressed as contemporary, or relatively present. In English, on the contrary, the two verbs _must_ and _ought_ having only the present tense, we are obliged to note the past time by employing the preterite tense of the subsequent verb. Thus, _Me ire oportet_, “I ought to go,” “I must go.” _Me ire oportuit_, “I ought to have gone,” “I must have gone.” As well may it be affirmed, that the past time is denoted by _ire_ and not _oportuit_, as that it is signified by _must_ and not by “have gone.”

In the time of Wallis, the term _must_, as a preterite tense, was almost obsolete. “_Aliquando_,” he remarks, “_sed rarius in præterito dicitur_.” And when it was employed as a preterite, it was followed by the present tense. This verb in German has, I understand, a preterite tense.

[108] _Firstly_, is used by some writers.

[109] Denominativa terminantur in _lic_ vel _lice_, ut þeꞃlic virilis, ælic legitimus, ꞃælic marinus, þiꝼlic muliebris, &c. Hanc terminationem hodie mutavimus in _like_ vel _ly_, ut in _godlike_ vel _godly_. Hickesii Thes.

The correctness of this explanation has been controverted by Mr. Gilchrist, who contends that, though it may answer in some cases, it will fail “in nine times out of ten.” In the expressions “weekly wages,” “daily labour,” “yearly income,” he observes, that the meaning cannot be, “wages like a week,” “labour like a day,” “income like a year.” He rejects, therefore, this explanation, and considers the termination _lic_ to be the same with _lig_ in the Latin verb _ligo_, “to tie,” or “join,” and to have the same effect as other conjunctive particles, as “a friendly part,” “a friend’s part,” “yearly produce,” “year’s produce.” Though a copious induction of examples justifies us in refusing our assent to Mr. Gilchrist’s exaggerated statement, that the derivation proposed by Hickes will fail in nine cases out of ten; we candidly acknowledge, that in many instances it is inadmissible; and that Mr. Gilchrist’s suggestion is ingenious, though it will be found, we apprehend, opposed by the same objection as he urges against Hickes’s explanation. Nor does it appear to us, that Mr. Gilchrist’s argument subverts the doctrine generally received. The termination may have been originally what Hickes supposed, and the principle of analogy may, in time, have introduced similar compositions, when this meaning of the termination ceased to be regarded. Thus the term _candidly_, which we have just now used, was probably introduced, in conformity to _analogy_, with no reference whatever to the meaning of the termination. It may be here also observed, that the import of this term seems inexplicable on the hypothesis that _ly_ is a mere term of conjunction.

[110] These three adverbs, denoting motion or rest in a place, are frequently employed by us, in imitation of the French, to denote motion to a place in the same sense with the three following adverbs. It would be better, however, were the distinction observed. The French use _ici_ for _here_ and _hither_, _là_ for _there_ and _thither_, _où_ for _where_ and _whither_.

[111]

“For blithesome Sir John Barleycorn
Had sae allur’d them i’ the morn,
That, what wi’ drams, and mony a horn,
And reaming bicker,
The ferly is, _withouten_ scorn,
They wauk’d sae sicker.”
_Mayne’s Siller Gun._

This animated little poem will be read with no common pleasure by every admirer of the Scottish muse. In felicity of description the author is not inferior to Burns, while in delicacy of humour he may claim the superiority.

This preposition is supposed by Mr. Gilchrist to be derived from _forth_, or rather to be a different form of that word. See his “Philosophic Etymology,” a work exhibiting considerable ingenuity and philological knowledge, combined with many fanciful and unphilosophical opinions.

[112] It is possible that the Greek ἀπό, and the Latin _ab_ derived from it, had their origin in אב _pater principium_, “author,” or “principle of existence.”

[113] The verb, “to twin,” is still used in Scotland for “to part,” or “separate.”

[114] That the Saxon word _ægther_ signified _each_, is sufficiently evident from a variety of examples; and the adjective _either_ has continued to be used in that sense by reputable writers. Lowth, who, I apprehend, did not advert to its primitive signification, condemns the use of it as equivalent to _each_; and notwithstanding its original import, I agree with him in thinking, that it is much better to confine its meaning to “one of two.” The reason will be assigned hereafter.

[115] _Bot_ ser that Virgil standis _but_ compare.--_Gawin Douglass._

[116] _An_ occurs frequently for _if_ in the earliest English writers. Bacon frequently uses it in this sense. “Fortune is to be honoured and respected, _an_ it be but for her daughters, Confidence and Reputation.” “And certainly it is the nature of extreme self-lovers, as they will set their house on fire, _an_ it were, but to roast their eggs.”--_Bacon’s Essays, Civ. and Mor._ In the folio edition, printed in 1740, it is improperly spelled _and_. _An_ for _if_ is still retained in our address to royalty, _An ’t please your majesty_: and in Scotland is in general use.

[117] The correctness of most of these, and several other of Tooke’s etymologies, has been disputed, in a learned and ingenious article in the Quarterly Review (No. 108). In many of the critic’s animadversions it is impossible not to concur; but we do not agree with him, when he rejects the derivation of _if_ from the Anglo-Saxon verb _gifan_, “to give;” nor do we consider that Jamieson’s argument, to which he refers, is such as to justify the critic’s conclusion. The distinction between _bot_ and _but_ he confidently pronounces to be “a mere chimera,” and maintains that _but_ is in every instance _be utan_, “be out,” without corresponding to the Latin words _sed_, _vero_, _autem_, _sine_. It must be acknowledged that Tooke’s derivation is erroneous, there being no such Anglo-Saxon verb as “botan,” of which _bot_ could be the imperative. But we agree with Dr. Jamieson in thinking, whatever may be the etymology, that _but_ and _bot_ are originally distinct words. Indeed, it appears to us, that the reasoning of the critic is neither correct, nor quite consistent with itself. We do not consider _but_ for _bot_ to be discriminative; nor can we allow, that, if _but_ be equivalent to _sed_, _se_, _sine_, implying separation, it can also be equivalent to _autem_, “moreover,” to which _bot_ corresponds, implying adjection, or subjunction. Nor can we admit, that the synonymous words _mais_ (French), _maar_ (Dutch), _ma_ (Italian), imply preference, as the critic affirms, but something to be added, corresponding with what has been previously said.

[118] The critic to whom we have alluded in the preceding note contends, that _except_ cannot be an imperative, “because it has no subject; and that a verb could not be employed, in any language that distinguishes the different persons, without a gross violation of idiom.” He considers the word to be an abbreviated participle. The correctness of this opinion I am disposed to question. In our Anglo-Saxon translation, the term _except_ is rendered by _buton_, which is no participle; moreover, to place the participle perfect before the noun, the clause being absolute, is irreconcilable with the idiom of our language. “‘All were involved in this affair, except one;’ that is,” says Webster, who seems divided between the imperative and the participle, “‘one excepted.’” Now “one excepted,” and “excepting one,” are perfectly consonant with analogy; but “excepted one” is sanctioned by no authority. I am inclined to think that our translators, without regarding the Latin or the Icelandic idiom, to which the reviewer refers, used the word _except_ as an imperative, without a subject. He denies, however, that it can be so employed. He surely will not deny, that usage warrants us in saying, “His arguments, take them as here exhibited, amount to nothing.” The use of the imperative, infinitive, and participles, in an absolute sense, or without a subject, is a common idiom in our language, and recommends itself, as shall be afterwards shown, by some peculiar advantages.

[119] This phraseology has been censured by Buchanan and the author of the British Grammar; but, as I apprehend, without the shadow of authority. To ask a question with a principal verb, as _burns he_, the latter affirms to be a barbarism. To disprove the assertion, I shall only, in addition to the one quoted from Macbeth, produce these examples. “Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me?”--_Bible._ “Died he not in bed?”--_Shakspeare._ “Or flies the javelin swifter to its mark?”--_Ib._ “And live there men who slight immortal fame?”--_Pope._

[120] Our translators, as the judicious critic last quoted observes, have totally enervated the strength of the original, which runs thus, ἔπεσε, ἔπεσε, Βαβυλὼν ἡ πόλις ἡ μεγάλη, and which they have rendered, “Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city.”

[121] The ellipsis of the copulative, in such examples, was termed by the ancients _asyndeton_; and this deviation from the established rules of syntax they referred to a grammatical figure termed _syllepsis indirecta_, or “indirect comprehension of several singulars under one plural,” opposed to the _syllepsis directa_, or that expressed by a copulative.

[122] It is sometimes used for _every_, and applied to more than two.

[123] In the vulgar translation of the Bible, this mode of expression frequently occurs, thus, “I am thy exceeding great reward.” “I will make thee exceeding fruitful.”

Wallis’s admission of this phraseology proves it to have been good English when he wrote, or that, in his opinion at least, it was unobjectionable. His translation of _vir summe sapiens_, is “a man exceeding wise.” This, and similar modes of expression, appear to have been in his time very common, thus,

“Although he was exceeding wealthy.”--_Peers._

“He was moreover extraordinary courteous.”--_Ibid._

“The Athenians were extreme apprehensive of his growing power.”--_Tully._

And in our version of the Bible we find a few such expressions as the following: “The house I am to build, shall be _wonderful_ great.”

Addison likewise often uses the phrase “exceeding great;” and Swift, less pardonably, writes “extreme unwilling,” “extreme good.”

[124] We say, indeed, “Messrs. Thomson;” but we seldom or never say, “the two Messrs. Thomson,” but “the two Mr. Thomsons.”

[125] Horne Tooke observes, that Lowth has rejected much good English: and it is to be apprehended, that the classical scholar is too prone to condemn in his own language whatever accords not with the Latin idiom.

[126] See Johnson’s Comm. p. 351, and Seyer on the Latin Verb, p. 174. To the arguments there offered, many others might be added.

[127] The propriety of this collocation of the _negative_ will be more evident, if we attend to the two very different meanings of the word _but_. According to the former construction of the sentence, _but_ is the imperative of _beutan_, “to be out,” and is synonymous with _unless_ or _except_; thus, “but with the approbation,” or _except_ with the approbation. According to the latter construction, it is properly _bot_, the imperative of _botan_, “to add.” Thus, “he was honoured not with (_i.e._ exclude or except) this reward, but (add) with the approbation of the people.”

[128] It is to be observed that a different collocation is sometimes admissible without any risk of ambiguity, especially when the clause is negative. Thus we may say, “His thoughts were entertained with not only,” _i.e._ “with not one thing,” viz. “the joys” with which he was surrounded; or, “not only with the joys; but (_bot_ or _add_) a noble gratitude and divine pleasure.”

Usage in common conversation, and in familiar language, inclines to this arrangement, and many of our best writers frequently adopt it.

[129] The omission of the auxiliary in such examples tends much to produce ambiguity: for, as the adverb, when placed between the noun and the attributive, may qualify either the former or the latter, perspicuity requires the insertion of the auxiliary.

[130] Non ut intelligere possit, sed ne omnino possit non intelligere, curandum.

[131] In this and similar examples, the word _only_ has been generally considered as an adjective, equivalent to _solus_. Thus, if we say, _ille solum erat dives_, it means, “he was only rich,” or “he was nothing but rich.” If we say, _ille solus erat dives_, it means, “he only,” or “he alone was rich.” In the latter example, the word _only_ has been termed an adjective. It is from the equivalence of the words _only_ and _alone_, in such examples as the latter, that several writers have employed them, as if, in all cases, synonymous. They are by no means, however, of the same import. Thus, if we say, “virtue alone is true nobility,” it means “virtue singly, or by itself, is true nobility;” if we say, “virtue only is true nobility,” it implies that nothing but virtue is true nobility. The expressions, therefore, are not equivalent. Both sentiments are conveyed in the following passage:

... “Nobilitas sola est atque unica virtus.”--_Juvenal_, Sat. viii.

The same observations are applicable to the collocation of the numeral term _first_, as equivalent either to _primus_ or _primum_; and also to the position of many other words, which are used adjectively and adverbially. The classical scholar needs not to be informed, that _Annibal primus_, and _Annibal primum--Alpes transiit_, are not expressions mutually convertible.

[132] Addison, Pope, Swift, Steele, and Johnson, very generally place the adverb before the attributive, to which it refers, and very often also, before the substantive. “What he said, was only to commend my prudence.”--_Addison._ “He did not pretend to extirpate French music, but only to cultivate and civilise it.”--_Addison._ “I was only scribbling.”--_Johnson._ “Not only the thought, but the language is majestic.”--_Addison._ “Known only to those, who enjoy.”--_Johnson._ “Lay the blame only on themselves.”--_Johnson._ “Witty only by the help of speech.”--_Steele._

Our translators of the Bible have almost uniformly observed the same collocation in respect to the predicate; but have, with few or no deviations, preferred a different arrangement in regard to the subject, placing the adverb after, and not before it. It is in conformity to their practice, that we have recommended the rule here given. From the following examples, to which many more might be added, it will appear that when the adverb referred to a sentence, they made it the introductory word; when it affected an attributive, they placed the adverb before it; and when it referred to a substantive, or the name of a subject, they put the adverb after it. “Only take heed to thyself.” “Only he shall not go in unto the vail.” “Only thou shalt not number the tribe of Levi.” ... “The thoughts of his heart are only evil.” “Thou shalt be only oppressed.” “They might only touch the hem of his garment.” ... “None followed David, but Judah only.” “He only of Jeroboam shall come to the grave.” “Against thee only have I sinned.” “Take nothing for your journey, but a staff only.” “David did that only which was right.” “They only shall be delivered.” “This only have I found.” “If in this life only we have hope.”

[133] In colloquial language, but chiefly among the vulgar, prepositions are prefixed to verbs indicative.

[134]

“Est vetus, atque probus, centum qui perficit annos.
Quid? qui deperiit minor uno mense, vel anno;
Inter quos referendus erit? veteresne poetas,
An quos et præsens et postera respuet ætas?
Iste quidem veteres inter ponetur honestè,
Qui vel mense brevi, vel toto est junior anno.
Utor permisso, caudæque pilos ut equinæ
Paulatim vello; et demo unum, demo etiam unum;
Dum cadat elusus ratione ruentis acervi,
Qui redit ad fastos.”
_Horace_, Ep. I. Lib. 2.

[135] The Saxon word is _awiht_, contracted _auht_, _aliquid_.

[136] We have remarked the same violation of common sense, as occurring in Cicero, oftener than once. “Alium alio nequiorem.”--_Ep. Fam._ “Aliam alia jucundiorem.”--_Att._

[137] Deprehendat, quæ barbara, quæ impropria, quæ contra legem loquendi composita.--_Quintil._ lib. i. cap. 5.

[138] In conformity to the example of most of our grammarians, I have employed the term _etymology_ in the title of this work, and wherever else it occurs, as denoting that part of grammar, which teaches the inflection of words. In its primitive acceptation, it means an exposition of their derivation, and is still employed in that sense, as well as in the signification in which it is here used. Some writers have preferred the term _analogy_ to express the doctrine of inflection. If the principle of analogy or similitude were confined to inflection, the designation might be proper; but, as this principle extends to the concord, the government, and the collocation, generally termed the _syntax_ of words, it cannot be considered an appropriate name for that part of grammar, which teaches merely inflection or verbal termination. Analogy is the leading principle, on which every grammatical rule is founded; and those, who have employed the term for etymology, it would be easy to show, have not been observant of strict consistency.

[139] The reader is requested to observe, that under “solecism,” I have included several phraseologies, which, though not consistent with syntactical propriety, may be justly called by the softer name of “inaccuracies.”

[140] See Canon I., p. 229.

[141] We perceive intuitively the error of Milton, when he calls Adam “the comeliest of men since born,” Eve also “the fairest of her daughters,” and we laugh, perhaps, when the Cork almanack-maker gravely tells us, “that the principal republics in Europe, are Venice, Holland, and America;” yet the error here reprehended is precisely of the same species, though it passes frequently unnoticed. See p. 74.

[142] It has been already offered as the opinion of the writer, (see p. 47,) that the English word _other_ is the Saxon oðeꞃ, and that this word with the Arabic _ahd_, the Hebrew _had_ or _ahad_, the Saxon oððe, the Teutonic _odo_, the Swedish _udda_, and probably the Latin _aut_, have all sprung from the same source, or that one of these is the parent of the rest, denoting _unus_ or _singulus_, “one,” or “one by itself.” Of the origin of the Saxon _other_, Lye has hazarded no opinion. It appears to me to be a comparative from oððe. To those who have carefully examined, and have approved the theory of Mr. Tooke, it will furnish no valid objection against this opinion, that the word oððe is uniformly found in Saxon, signifying _aut_. Such can have little or no difficulty in perceiving, not only from the similarity of the elements, but from the affinity in point of sense, that _had_, _ahd_, _aut_, oððe, oðeꞃ, _other_, _or_, are all members of one and the same family.

[143] In French the article and the adjectives admitting a plural termination, the expression “les uns et les autres” joined to a plural verb is in perfect consistence with analogy. So also, in Latin, are _utrique_ and _alteri_, referring to a plurality. But _unus_ was never in this sense used as a plural.

[144] “Utrumque fecisse, dicimus, si et hic et ille fecerit divisim; ambos fecisse dicimus, si duo conjunctim aliquid fecerint.”--_Stephan._ This distinction, however, as the learned critic acknowledges, is not uniformly observed.

[145] “The truth is, that _as_ is also an article; and however and whenever used in English, means the same as _it_, or _that_, or _which_. In the German, where it still evidently retains its original signification and use, (as _so_ also does,) it is written _es_.”--_Tooke’s Diversions._

[146] The error here involved suggests a few observations, which it may be useful to offer, concerning the distinctive character of active and neuter verbs. A neuter verb has been defined to be that, which denotes neither doing nor suffering. An active verb, as its name imports, denotes, that the subject is doing something. Johnson, however, in his Dictionary, gives every active verb the designation of _neuter_, unless followed by an objective case, that is, unless the object or subject of the action be expressed. In the following instances, for example, he considers the verbs as neuter. “’T is sure, that Henry _reads_;” “so I _drank_; and she made the camels _drink_ also;” “if you _plant_ where savages are;” “the priests _teach_ for hire;” “nor feel him where he _struck_;” “they that _sow_ in tears, shall _reap_ in joy.” These are a few out of numberless examples, which might be produced. Indeed, Johnson’s idea seems to be, as has been just now observed, that the verb must be regarded as neuter, unless followed by an objective case. This is certainly a great inaccuracy, and tends to introduce perplexity and confusion. The verb surely does not the less denote action, because it expresses it absolutely, or because the subject acted upon is not particularly specified. In the examples now quoted, can it be questioned, when we say _he struck_, that _he_ was active; or when we say, _they that sow shall reap_, will it be affirmed that _they_ are not active? This would be to confound distinctions not merely acknowledged in theory, and adopted in definition, but also founded in the very nature of things. This matter, I conceive, may be shortly explained, and very easily understood. It is admitted by every grammarian, that an active verb denotes, that the subject is acting, and that a neuter verb signifies that the subject is neither doing nor suffering. Now, of active verbs there are two kinds, transitive and intransitive. The latter is that which denotes immanent action, or that which does not pass from the agent to anything else, as, _I walk_, _I run_. Transitive verbs are such as denote that the action passes from the agent to something acted upon, as, “Hector wounded him,” “Cain slew his brother.” But the subject to which the energy passes, may not always be expressed; the verb, however, is not the less active. Whether we say, “the drummer beats his drum,” or “the drummer beats every day,” it surely will not be contended, that there is less of action implied in the one case than in the other. The reader, then, is requested to observe, that it is not necessary to the active transitive verb, that the subject acted upon should be expressed. The active verb may predicate of its subject merely the action generally and absolutely, as, “he reads in the morning, and writes in the evening;” or with the action may be expressed the subject or object, as, “he reads Homer in the morning, and writes letters in the evening;” or the object or subject may be implied, and not expressed, as, “the drummer beats at night,” namely, his drum. But in all these cases the verb is equally active.

[147] In justice to this respectable sect, it is incumbent on me to observe, that the Quakers are not Deists, nor does their religious creed approach to Deism.

[148] A similar ambiguity sometimes occurs in Latin by the indiscriminate use of _quod_. This may be prevented by employing _quoniam_ when the succeeding member of the sentence expresses the cause of the preceding subject. Thus, “Nec consilium eo minus erat firmum, quoniam secretum cum perpaucis adhuc erat communicatum,” where the _eo_ refers to a preceding circumstance. “Nec consilium eo minus erat firmum, quod” where the _eo_ refers to the subsequent clause. The former phraseology affirms, the latter denies, the influence of the circumstance subjoined.

[149] In our penal statutes, which should be precisely worded, because they are literally interpreted, much ambiguity frequently arises from the loose and incorrect manner in which this conjunction is used.

[150] The issue of a question, respecting a contested election at Rochester in 1820, depended on the construction of this designation, “a peer, or lord of parliament.”

[151] The superior ductility of the Greek, above every other language, must appear from its singular aptitude to form new words by composition or derivation, so as immediately to communicate any new idea. Hence the names of most of our modern discoveries and inventions are of Greek extraction. Thus we have the terms “microscope,” “telegraph,” “panorama,” “odometer,” and many others.

[152]

“Cui lecta potenter erit res,
Nec facundia deseret hunc, nec lucidus ordo.

Verbaque provisam rem non invita sequentur.”
_Hor. de Art. Poet._

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE

Obvious typographical errors and punctuation errors have been
corrected after careful comparison with other occurrences within
the text and consultation of external sources.

Except for those changes noted below, all misspellings in the text,
and inconsistent or archaic usage, have been retained.