Lectures on Language Part 16

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 princ.i.p.al 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 a.s.sumes 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 _s.p.a.ce 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 subst.i.tuted the _object_ form of the p.r.o.noun for the _agent_, and say, "_thee thinks_," for _thou thinkest_. Their mistake is even greater than the subst.i.tution 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 p.r.o.nounciation. 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 a.s.sociated 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 p.r.o.nounciation 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 _pa.s.sed_; _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._