Lectures on Language Part 17

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 a.s.sumes, 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 a.n.a.lyze any sentence, and pa.r.s.e 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.

In this mood the verb must have an agent and object, expressed or implied; as, "_farmers_ cultivate the _soil_." But a whole sentence, that is, an idea written out, may perform this duty; as, "The study of grammar, on false principles, is productive of no good." What is productive of no good? What is the agent of _is_? "The _study_," our books and teachers tell us. But does such a construction give the true meaning of the sentence? I think not, for _study_ is indispensable to knowledge and usefulness, and _the study_ of grammar, properly directed, is a most useful branch of literature, which should never be dispensed with. It is the study of grammar _on false principles_, which _is productive of no good_. You discover my meaning, and will not question its correctness. You must also see how erroneous it would be to teach children that "_to study_ is productive of no good." The force of the sentence rests on the "false principles" taught. Hence the whole statement is truly the agent of the verb.

The object on which the action terminates is frequently expressed in a similar manner; as, "He wrote to me, that he will adopt the new system of grammar, if he can procure some books to give his scholars to learn."

Will you pa.r.s.e _wrote_? Most grammarians will call it an _intransitive_ verb, and make out that "he wrote" _nothing_ to me, because there is no regular objective word after it. Will you pa.r.s.e _that_? It is a "conjunction _copulative_." What does it connect? "_He wrote_" to the following sentence, according to Rule 18 of Mr. Murray; "conjunctions connect the _same_ moods and tenses of verbs and cases of nouns and p.r.o.nouns." Unluckily you have two different tenses connected in this case. Will you pa.r.s.e _if_? It is a _copulative_ conjunction, connecting the two members of the sentence--_he will adopt_ if _he can procure_: Rule, as above. How exceeding unfortunate! You have _two_ different moods, and too different tenses, connected by a _copulative_ conjunction which the rule says "connects _the same_ moods and tenses! What nonsense! What a falsehood! What a fine thing to be a grammarian! And yet, I venture the opinion, and I judge from what I have seen in myself and others, there is not one teacher in a hundred who will not learn children to pa.r.s.e as above, and apply the same rule to it. "I _will go_ if I _can_." "I _do_ and _will_ contend." "As it _was_ in the beginning, _is_ now, _and_ ever _shall be_." "I _am_ here and _must_ remain." "He _will do_ your business _if_ he _has_ time." "I _am_ resolved _to expose_ the errors of grammar, _and will do_ it thoroly _if_ I _can_."

In these examples you have different moods and tenses, indiscriminately, yet correctly coupled together, despite the rules of syntax which teach us to explain language "with propriety."

_That_, in the sentence before us, is an adjective, referring to the following sentence, which is the _object_ of _wrote_, or is the thing written. "He wrote to me _that_" fact, sentiment, opinion, determination, or resolution, that writing, letter, or word--"he will adopt the new system of grammar, if he can procure some books."

This subject properly belongs to that department of language called syntax; but as I shall not be able to treat of that in this course of lectures, I throw in here these brief remarks to give you some general ideas of the arrangement of words into sentences, according to their true meaning, as obtained from a knowledge of their etymology. You cannot fail to observe this method of constructing language if you will pay a little attention to it when reading; keeping all the time in view the fact that words are only the signs of ideas, derived from an observation of things. You all know that it is not merely the steam that propels the boat, but that it is steam _applied to machinery_. Steam is the more latent cause; and the engine with its complicated parts is the direct means. In the absence of either, the boat would not be propelled.

In the formation of language, I may say correctly, "Solomon _built_ the temple;" for he stood in that relation to the matter which supposes it would not have been built without his direction and command. To accomplish such an action, however, he need not raise a hammer or a gavel, or draw a line on the trestle board. His command made known to his ministers was sufficient to _cause_ the work to be done. Hence the whole fact is _indicated_ or declared by the single expression, "Solomon _built_ the temple."

The Imperative mood is unchanged in form. I can say to one man, _go_, or to a thousand, _go_. The commander when drilling _one_ soldier, says, _march_; and he bids the whole battalion, _march_. The agent who is _to perform_ the action is understood when not expressed; as, _go_, _go thou_, or _go you_. The agent is generally omitted, because the address is given direct to the person who is expected to obey the instruction, request, or command. This verb always agrees with an agent in the _second_ person. And yet our "grammars made easy" have given us _three persons_ in this mood--"_Let me love_; _love_, _love thou_, or _do_ thou _love_; let him love." In the name of common sense, I ask, what can children learn by such instruction? "_Let me love_," in the conjugation of the verb _to love_! To whom is this command given? To _myself_ of course! I command myself to "_let me love_!" What nonsense! "Let _him_ love." I stand here, you set there, and the _third_ person is in Philadelphia. I utter these words, "Let _him love_." What is my meaning?

Why, our books tell us, that the verb to _love_ is _third_ person. Then I command _him_ to _let himself love_! What jargon and falsehood! You all know that we can address the _second_ person only. You would call me insane if I should employ language according to the rules of grammar as laid down in the standard books. In my room alone, no person near me, I cry out, "_let me be quiet_"--imperative mood, first person of _to be_!

Do I command myself to _let_ myself _be_ quiet? Most certainly, if _be_ is the princ.i.p.al verb in the first person, and _let_ the auxiliary. The teacher observes one of his pupils take a pencil from a cla.s.smate who sets near him. He says, "_let him have it_." To whom is the command given? It is the imperative mood, third person of the verb _to have_.

Does he command the third person, the boy who _has_ not the pencil? Such is the resolution of the sentence, according to the authority of standard grammars. But where is there a child five years old who does not know better. Every body knows that he addresses the second person, the boy who has the pencil, to _let_ the other _have_ it.

Teachers have learned their scholars the _first_ and _third_ persons of this mood when committing the conjugation of verbs; but not one in ten thousand ever adopted them in parsing. "_Let me love._" _Let_, all pa.r.s.e, Mr. Murray not excepted, in the _second_ person, and _love_ in the infinitive mood after it, without the sign _to_; according to the rule, that "verbs which follow _bid_, _dare_, _feel_, _hear_, _let_, _needs_, _speak_," etc. are in the infinitive mood. It is strange people will not eat their own cooking.

There can be no trouble in understanding this mood, as we have explained it, always in the future tense, that is, future to the command or request, agreeing with the _second_ person, and never varied on account of number.

The only variation in the infinitive mood is the omission of _to_ in certain cases, which is considered as a part of the verb; tho in truth it is no more so than when used in the character of an old fashioned preposition. In certain cases, as we have before observed, it is not expressed. This is when the infinitive verb follows small words in frequent use; as, shall, will, let, can, must, may, bid, do, have, make, feel, hear, etc.

This mood is always in the future tense; that is, it is future to the circ.u.mstances or condition of things upon which it depends; as, they are making preparations _to raise_ the building. Here _to raise_ is future to the preparations, for if they make no preparations, the buildings will not be raised. The boy studies his book _to learn_ his lesson. If he does not study, he will not be likely _to learn_ his lesson.

The allied powers of Europe combined their forces _to defeat_ Napoleon.

In this instance the whole expression is in the past tense; nevertheless, the action expressed in the infinitive mood, _was future_ to the circ.u.mstance on which it depended; that is, the _defeat_ was _future_ to the _combination_ of the forces. Abraham raised the knife _to slay_ his son. Not that he did _slay_ him, as that sentence must be explained on the common systems, which teach us that _to slay_ is in the _present tense_; but he raised the fatal knife for that purpose, the fulfilment of which was future; but the angel staid his hand, and averted the blow. The patriots of Poland _made_ a n.o.ble attempt _to gain_ their liberty. But they did not _gain it_, as our grammars would teach us. _To gain_ was future to the attempt, and failed because the circ.u.mstances _indicated_ by the event, were insufficient to produce so favorable a result.

No person of common discernment can fail to observe the absolute falsehood of existing systems in respect to this mood. It is used by our authors of grammar in the _present_ and _past_ tenses, but never in the _future_. Let us give a moment to the consideration of this matter. Take the following example. He _will prepare_ himself next week _to go_ to Europe. Let the school master pa.r.s.e _will prepare_. It is a verb, indicative mood, _first future_ tense. _Next week_ is the point in futurity when the _preparation_ will be _made_. Now pa.r.s.e _to go_. It is a verb, infinitive mood, _present tense_! Then _he_ is already on his way to Europe, when he is not _to prepare_ himself till next week! An army is collected _to fight_ the enemy. Is the fight already commenced?

_To fight_ is present tense, say the books. We shall study grammar next year, _to obtain_ a knowledge of the principles and use of language. Is _to obtain_ present tense? If so there is little need of spending time and money to study for a knowledge we _already possess_.