The Grammar of English Grammars Part 58

OBS. 5.--Among the many English grammars in which verbs are divided, as above mentioned, into _active, pa.s.sive_, and _neuter_, only, are those of the following writers: Lowth, Murray, Ainsworth, Alden, Allen, Alger, Bacon, Bicknell, Blair, Bullions, (at first,) Charles Adams, Bucke, Cobbett, Cobbin, Dilworth, A. Flint, Frost, (at first,) Greenleaf, Hall, Johnson,[223] Lennie, Picket, Pond, Sanborn, R. C. Smith, Rev. T. Smith, and Wright. These authors, and many more, agree, that, "A _verb neuter_ expresses neither action nor pa.s.sion, but being, or a state of being."--_L.

Murray_. Yet, according to their scheme, such words as _walk, run, fly, strive, struggle, wrestle, contend_, are verbs _neuter_. In view of this palpable absurdity, I cannot but think it was a useful improvement upon the once popular scheme of English grammar, to make active-intransitive verbs a distinct cla.s.s, and to apply the term _neuter_ to those few only which accord with the foregoing definition. This had been done before the days of Lindley Murray, as may be seen in Buchanan's English Syntax, p. 56, and in the old British Grammar, p. 153, each published many years before the appearance of his work;[224] and it has often been done since, and is preferred even by many of the professed admirers and followers of Murray; as may be seen in the grammars of Comly, Fisk, Merchant, Kirkham, and others.

OBS. 6.--Murray himself quotes this improved distribution, and with some appearance of approbation; but strangely imagines it must needs be _inconvenient_ in practice. Had he been a schoolmaster, he could hardly have so judged. He says, "Verbs have been distinguished by some writers, into the following kinds:--

"1st. _Active-transitive_, or those which denote an action that pa.s.ses from the agent to some object: as, Caesar conquered Pompey.

"2d. _Active-intransitive_, or those which express that kind of action, which has no effect upon any thing beyond itself: as, Caesar walked.

"3d. _Pa.s.sive_, or those which express, not action, but pa.s.sion, whether pleasing or painful: as, Portia was loved; Pompey was conquered.

"4th. _Neuter_, or those which express an attribute that consists neither in action nor pa.s.sion: as, Caesar stood.

"This appears to be an orderly arrangement. But if the cla.s.s of _active-intransitive_ verbs were admitted, _it would rather perplex_ than a.s.sist the learner: for the difference between verbs active and neuter, as transitive and intransitive is easy and obvious: but the difference between verbs absolutely neuter and [those which are] intransitively active, is not always clear. It is, indeed, often _very difficult_, if not impossible to be ascertained."--_Murray's Gram._, 8vo, p. 60.[225]

OBS. 7.--The following note, from a book written on purpose to apply the principles of Murray's Grammar, and of Allen's, (the two best of the foregoing two dozen,) may serve as an offset to the reason above a.s.signed for rejecting the cla.s.s of active-intransitive verbs: "It is possible that some teachers may look upon the nice distinction here made, between the active _transitive_ and the active _intransitive verbs_, as totally unnecessary. They may, perhaps, rank the latter with the neuter verbs. The author had his choice of difficulties: on the one hand, he was aware that his arrangement might not suit the views of the above-mentioned persons; and, on the other, he was so sensible of the inaccuracy of their system, and of its clashing with the definitions, as well as rules, laid down in almost every grammar, that he was unwilling to bring before the public a work containing so well-known and manifest an error. Of what use can Murray's definition of the _active_ verb be, to one who endeavours to prove the propriety of thus a.s.signing an epithet to the various parts of speech, in the course of parsing? He says, 'A verb active expresses an action, and necessarily implies an agent, and an object acted upon.' In the sentence, 'William hastens away,' the active intransitive verb _hastens_ has indeed an _agent_, 'William,' but where is the _object_? Again, he says, 'Active verbs govern the objective case;' although it is clear it is not the _active_ meaning of the verb which requires the objective case, but the _transitive_, and that only. He adds, 'A verb neuter expresses _neither action, nor pa.s.sion_, but being, or a state of being;' and the accuracy of this definition is borne out by the a.s.sent of perhaps every other grammarian. If, with this clear and forcible definition before our eyes, we proceed to cla.s.s _active_ intransitive verbs with neuter verbs, and direct our pupils to prove such a cla.s.sification by reciting Murray's definition of the _neuter_ verb, we may indeed expect from a thinking pupil the remonstrance which was actually made to a teacher on that system, while parsing the verb '_to run_.' 'Sir,' asks the boy, 'does not _to run_ imply action, for it always makes me perspire?'"--_Nixon's English Pa.r.s.er_, p. 9.

OBS. 8.--For the consideration of those cla.s.sical scholars who may think we are bound by the authority of _general usage_, to adhere to the old division of verbs into active, pa.s.sive, and neuter, it may be proper to say, that the distribution of the verbs in Latin, has been as much a matter of dispute among the great grammarians of that language, as has the distribution of English verbs, more recently, among ourselves; and often the points at issue were precisely the same.[226] To explain here the different views of the very old grammarians, as Charisius, Donatus, Servius, Priscian; or even to notice the opinions of later critics, as Sanctius, Scioppius, Vossius, Perizonius; might seem perhaps a needless departure from what the student of mere English grammar is concerned to know. The curious, however, may find interesting citations from all these authors, under the corresponding head, in some of our Latin grammars. See _Prat's Grammatica Latina_, 8vo, London, 1722. It is certain that the division of _active_ verbs, into _transitive_ and _intransitive_--or, (what is the same thing,) into "_absolute_ and _transitive_"--or, into "_immanent_ and _transient_"--is of a very ancient date. The notion of calling _pa.s.sive_ verbs _transitive_, when used in their ordinary and proper construction, as some now do, is, I think, a _modern_ one, and no small error.

OBS. 9.--Dr. Adam's distribution of verbs, is apparently the same as the first part of Murray's; and his definitions are also in nearly the same words. But he adds, "The verb _Active_ is also called _Transitive_, when the action _pa.s.seth over_ to the object, or hath an effect on some other thing; as, _scribo literas_, I write letters: but when the action is confined within the agent, and _pa.s.seth not over_ to any object, it is called _Intransitive_; as, _ambulo_, I walk; _curro_, I run: [fist] which are likewise called _Neuter Verbs_."--_Adam's Latin and English Gram._, p.

79. But he had just before said, "A _Neuter_ verb properly expresses neither action nor pa.s.sion, but _simply the being, state, or condition_ of things; as, _dormio_, I sleep; _sedeo_, I sit."--_Ibid._ Verbs of motion or action, then, must needs be as improperly called neuter, in Latin, as in English. Nor is this author's arrangement orderly in other respects; for he treats of "_Deponent_ and _Common_ Verbs," of "_Irregular_ Verbs," of "_Defective_ Verbs," and of "_Impersonal_ Verbs," none of which had he mentioned in his distribution. Nor are the late revisers of his grammar any more methodical.

OBS. 10.--The division of our verbs into _active-transitive, active-intransitive, pa.s.sive_, and _neuter_, must be understood to have reference not only to their _signification_ as of themselves, but also to their _construction_ with respect to the government of an objective word after them. The latter is in fact their most important distinction, though made _with reference_ to a different part of speech. The cla.s.sical scholar, too, being familiar with the forms of Latin and Greek verbs, will doubtless think it a convenience, to have the arrangement as nearly correspondent to those ancient forms, as the nature of our language will admit. This is perhaps the strongest argument for the recognition of the cla.s.s of _pa.s.sive verbs_ in English. Some grammarians, choosing to pa.r.s.e the pa.s.sive participle separately, reject this cla.s.s of verbs altogether; and, forming their division of the rest with reference to the construction alone, make but two cla.s.ses, _transitive_ and _intransitive_. Such is the distribution adopted by C. Alexander, D. Adams, Bingham, Chandler, E. Cobb, Harrison, Nutting, and John Peirce; and supported also by some British writers, among whom are McCulloch and Grant. Such too was the distribution of Webster, in his Plain and Comprehensive Grammar, as published in 1800. He then taught: "We have no _pa.s.sive_ verb in the language; and those which are called _neuter_ are mostly _active_."--Page 14. But subsequently, in his Philosophical, Abridged, and Improved Grammars, he recognized "a more natural and comprehensive division" of verbs, "_transitive, intransitive, and pa.s.sive_."--_Webster's Rudiments_, p. 20. This, in reality, differs but little from the old division into _active, pa.s.sive_, and _neuter_. In some grammars of recent date, as Churchill's, R. W. Bailey's, J. R. Brown's, Butler's, S. W. Clark's, Frazee's, Hart's, Hendrick's, Perley's, Pinneo's, Weld's, Wells's, Mulligan's, and the _improved_ treatises of Bullions and Frost, verbs are said to be of _two_ kinds only, _transitive_ and _intransitive_; but these authors allow to transitive verbs a "pa.s.sive form," or "pa.s.sive voice,"--absurdly making all pa.s.sive verbs transitive, and all neuters intransitive, as if _action_ were expressed by both. For this most faulty cla.s.sification, Dr. Bullions pretends the authority of "Mr. Webster;" and Frazee, that of "Webster, Bullions, and others."--_Frazee's Gram._, Ster. Ed., p. 30. But if Dr. Webster ever taught the absurd doctrine _that pa.s.sive verbs are transitive_, he has contradicted it far too much to have any weight in its favour.

OBS. 11.--Dalton makes only two cla.s.ses; and these he will have to be _active_ and _pa.s.sive_: an arrangement for which he might have quoted Scaliger, Sanctius, and Scioppius. Ash and Coar recognize but two, which they call _active_ and _neuter_. This was also the scheme of Bullions, in his Principles of E. Gram., 4th Edition, 1842. Priestley and Maunder have two, which they call _transitive_ and _neuter_; but Maunder, like some named above, will have transitive verbs to be susceptible of an active and a pa.s.sive voice, and Priestley virtually a.s.serts the same. Cooper, Day, Davis, Hazen, Hiley, Webster, Wells, (in his 1st Edition,) and Wilc.o.x. have three cla.s.ses; _transitive, intransitive_, and _pa.s.sive_. Sanders's Grammar has _three_; "_Transitive, Intransitive_, and _Neuter_;" and two voices, both _transitive!_ Jaudon has four: _transitive, intransitive, auxiliary_, and _pa.s.sive_. Burn has four; _active, pa.s.sive, neuter_, and _substantive_.

Cardell labours hard to prove that all verbs are _both active and transitive_; and for this, had he desired their aid, he might have cited several ancient authorities.[227] Cutler avers, "_All verbs are active_;"

yet he divides them "into _active transitive, active intransitive_, and _participial verbs_."--_Grammar and Pa.r.s.er_, p. 31. Some grammarians, appearing to think all the foregoing modes of division useless, attempt nothing of the kind. William Ward, in 1765, rejected all such cla.s.sification, but recognized three voices; "Active, Pa.s.sive, and Middle; as, _I call, I am called, I am calling_." Farnum, in 1842, acknowledged the first two of these voices, but made no division of verbs into cla.s.ses.

OBS. 12.--If we admit the cla.s.s of _active-intransitive_ verbs, that of verbs _neuter_ will unquestionably be very small. And this refutes Murray's objection, that the learner will "_often_" be puzzled to know which is which. Nor can it be of any consequence, if he happen in some instances to decide wrong. To _be_, to _exist_, to _remain_, to _seem_, to _lie_, to _sleep_, to _rest_, to _belong_, to _appertain_, and perhaps a few more, may best be called _neuter_; though some grammarians, as may be inferred from what is said above, deny that there are any neuter verbs in any language. "Verba Neutra, ait Sanctius, nullo pacto esse possunt; quia, teste Aristotele, omnis motus, actio, vel pa.s.sio, nihil medium est."--_Prat's Latin Gram._, p. 117. John Grant, in his Inst.i.tutes of Latin Grammar, recognizes in the verbs of that language the distinction which Murray supposes to be so "very difficult" in those of our own; and, without falling into the error of Sanctius, or of Lily,[228] respecting neuter verbs, judiciously confines the term to such as are neuter in reality.

OBS. 13.--Active-transitive verbs, in English, generally require, that the agent or doer of the action be expressed _before_ them in the nominative case, and the object or receiver of the action, _after_ them in the objective; as, "Caesar _conquered_ Pompey." Pa.s.sive verbs, which are never primitives, but always derived from active-transitive verbs, (in order to form sentences of like import from natural opposites in voice and sense,) reverse this order, change the cases of the nouns, and denote that the subject, named before them, is affected by the action; while the agent follows, being introduced by the preposition _by_: as, "Pompey _was conquered_ by Caesar." But, as our pa.s.sive verb always consists of two or more separable parts, this order is liable to be varied, especially in poetry; as,

"How many things _by season seasoned are_ To their right praise and true perfection!"--_Shakspeare_.

"Experience _is by industry achieved_, And _perfected by_ the swift _course_ of time."--_Id._

OBS. 14.--Most active verbs may be used either transitively or intransitively. Active verbs are transitive whenever there is any person or thing expressed or clearly implied on which the action terminates; as, "I _knew_ him well, and every truant _knew_."--_Goldsmith_. When they do not govern such an object, they are intransitive, whatever may be their power on other occasions; as, "The grand elementary principles of pleasure, by which he _knows_, and _feels_, and _lives_, and _moves_."--_Wordsworth's Pref._, p. xxiii. "The Father _originates_ and _elects_. The Son _mediates_ and _atones_. The Holy Spirit _regenerates_ and _sanctifies_."--_Gurney's Portable Evidences_, p. 66. "Spectators _remark_, judges _decide_, parties _watch_."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 271. "In a sermon, a preacher _may explain, demonstrate, infer, exhort, admonish, comfort_."--_Alexander's E. Gram._, p. 91.

OBS. 15.--Some verbs may be used in either an active or a neuter sense. In the sentence, "Here I rest," _rest_ is a neuter verb; but in the sentence, "Here I rest my hopes," _rest_ is an active-transitive verb, and governs _hopes_. And a few that are always active in a grammatical sense, as necessarily requiring an object after them, do not always indicate such an exertion of force as we commonly call _action_. Such perhaps are the verbs to _have_, to _possess_, to _owe_, to _cost_; as, "They _have_ no wine."--"The house _has_ a portico."--"The man _possesses_ no real estate."--"A son _owes_ help and honour to his father."--_Holyday_. "The picture _cost_ a crown."--_Wright_, p. 181. Yet possibly even these may be sometimes rather active-intransitive; as, "I can bear my part; 'tis my occupation: _have_ at it with you."--_Shakspeare_. "Kings _have_ to deal with their neighbours."--_Bacon_. "She will let her instructions enter where folly now _possesses_."--_Shakspeare._

"Thou hast deserv'd more love than I can show; But 'tis thy fate to give, and mine to _owe_."--_Dryden_.

OBS. 16.--An active-intransitive verb, followed by a preposition and its object, will sometimes admit of being put into the pa.s.sive form: the object of the preposition being a.s.sumed for the nominative, and the preposition itself being retained with the verb, as an adverb: as, (_Active_,) "They _laughed_ at him."--(_Pa.s.sive_,) "He _was laughed at_." "For some time the nonconformists _were connived at_."--_Robertson's America_, Vol. ii, p.

414. "Every man _shall be dealt_ equitably with."--_Butler's a.n.a.logy_, p.

212. "If a church _would be looked up to_, it must stand high."--_Parker's Idea_, p. 15.

OBS. 17.--In some instances, what is commonly considered the active form of the verb, is used in a pa.s.sive sense; and, still oftener, as we have no other pa.s.sive form that so well denotes continuance, we employ the participle in _ing_ in that sense also: as, "I'll teach you all what's _owing_ to your Queen."--_Dryden_. That is--what is _due_, or _owed_. "The books continue _selling_; i.e. _upon the sale_, or _to be sold_."--_Priestley's Gram._, p. 111. "So we say the bra.s.s is _forging_; i.e. _at the forging_, or _in_ [_being forged_."]--_Ib._ "They are to _blame_; i.e. to _be blamed._"--_Ib._ Hence some grammarians seem to think, that in our language the distinction between active and pa.s.sive verbs is of little consequence: "Mr. Grant, however, observes, p. 65, 'The component parts of the English verb, or name of action, are few, simple, and natural; they, consist of three words, as _plough, ploughing, ploughed_. Now these words, and their inflections, may be employed either actively or pa.s.sively.

Actively, 'They _plough_ the fields; they _are ploughing_ the fields; they _ploughed_, or _have ploughed_, the fields.' Pa.s.sively, 'The fields _plough_ well; the fields _are ploughing_; the fields _are ploughed_.' This pa.s.sive use of the present tense and participle is, however, restricted to what he denominates 'verbs of _external, material_, or _mechanical action_;' and not to be extended to verbs of _sensation_ and _perception_; e.g. _love, feel, see, &c_."--_Nutting's Gram._, p. 40.

MODIFICATIONS.

Verbs have modifications of four kinds; namely, _Moods, Tenses, Persons_ and _Numbers_.

MOODS.

Moods [229] are different forms of the verb, each of which expresses the being, action, or pa.s.sion, in some particular manner.

There are five moods; the _Infinitive_, the _Indicative_, the _Potential_, the _Subjunctive_, and the _Imperative_.

The _Infinitive mood_ is that form of the verb, which expresses the being, action, or pa.s.sion, in an unlimited manner, and without person or number: as, "To _die_,--to _sleep_;--To _sleep_!--perchance, to _dream!_"

The _Indicative mood_ is that form of the verb, which simply indicates or declares a thing: as, I _write_; you _know_: or asks a question; as, "Do you _know?_"--"_Know_ ye not?"

The _Potential mood_ is that form of the verb which expresses the power, liberty, possibility, or necessity, of the being, action, or pa.s.sion: as, "I _can walk_; he _may ride_; we _must go_."

The _Subjunctive mood_ is that form of the verb, which represents the being, action, or pa.s.sion, as conditional, doubtful, and contingent: as, "If thou _go_, see that thou _offend_ not."--"See thou _do_ it not."--_Rev._, xix, 10.

The _Imperative mood_ is that form of the verb which is used in commanding, exhorting, entreating, or permitting: as, "_Depart_ thou."--"Be _comforted_."--"_Forgive_ me."--"_Go_ in peace."

OBSERVATIONS.

OBS. 1.--The _Infinitive_ mood is so called in opposition to the other moods, in which the verb is said to be _finite_. In all the other moods, the verb has a strict connexion, and necessary agreement in person and number, with some subject or nominative, expressed or understood; but the infinitive is the mere verb, without any such agreement, and has no power of completing sense with a noun. In the nature of things, however, all being, action, or pa.s.sion, not contemplated abstractly as a _thing_, belongs to something that is, or acts, or is acted upon. Accordingly infinitives have, in most instances, a _reference_ to some subject of this kind; though their grammatical dependence connects them more frequently with some other term. The infinitive mood, in English, is distinguished by the preposition to; which, with a few exceptions, immediately precedes it, and may be said to govern it. In dictionaries, and grammars, _to_ is often used as a mere _index_, to distinguish verbs from the other parts of speech. But this little word has no more claim to be ranked as a part of the verb, than has the conjunction _if_, which is the sign of the subjunctive. It is the nature of a preposition, to show the relation of different things, thoughts, or words, to each other; and this "sign of the infinitive" may well be pursued separately as a preposition, since in most instances it manifestly shows the relation between the infinitive verb and some other term. Besides, by most of our grammarians, the present tense of the infinitive mood is declared to be the _radical form_ of the verb; but this doctrine must be plainly untrue, upon the supposition that this tense is a compound.

OBS. 2.--The _Indicative_ mood is so called because its chief use is, to _indicate_, or declare positively, whatever one wishes to say. It is that form of the verb, which we always employ when we affirm or deny any thing in a direct and independent manner. It is more frequently used, and has a greater number of tenses, than any other mood; and is also, in our language, the only one in which the princ.i.p.al verb is varied in termination. It is not, however, on all occasions, confined to its primary use; else it would be simply and only declarative. But we use it sometimes interrogatively, sometimes conditionally; and each of these uses is different from a simple declaration. Indeed, the difference between a question and an a.s.sertion is practically very great. Hence some of the old grammarians made the form of inquiry a separate mood, which they called the _Interrogative Mood_. But, as these different expressions are distinguished, not by any difference of form in the verb itself, but merely by a different order, choice, or delivery of the words, it has been found most convenient in practice, to treat them as one mood susceptible of different senses. So, in every conditional sentence, the _prot'asis_, or condition, differs considerably from the _apod'osis_, or princ.i.p.al clause, even where both are expressed as facts. Hence some of our modern grammarians, by the help of a few connectives, absurdly merge a great mult.i.tude of Indicative or Potential expressions in what they call the _Subjunctive Mood_. But here again it is better to refer still to the Indicative or Potential mood whatsoever has any proper sign of such mood, even though it occur in a dependent clause.

OBS. 3.--The _Potential_ mood is so called because the leading idea expressed by it, is that of the _power_ of performing some action. This mood is known by the signs _may, can, must, might, could, would_, and _should_. Some of these auxiliaries convey other ideas than that of power in the agent; but there is no occasion to explain them severally here. The potential mood, like the indicative, may be used in asking a question; as, "_Must_ I _budge_? _must_ I _observe_ you? _must_ I _stand_ and _crouch_ under your testy humour?"--_Shakspeare_. No question can be asked in any other mood than these two. By some grammarians, the potential mood has been included in the subjunctive, because its meaning is often expressed in Latin by what in that language is called the subjunctive. By others, it has been entirely rejected, because all its tenses are compound, and it has been thought the words could as well be pa.r.s.ed separately. Neither of these opinions is sufficiently prevalent, or sufficiently plausible, to deserve a laboured refutation. On the other hand, James White, in his Essay on the English Verb, (London, 1761,) divided this mood into the following five: "the _Elective_," denoted by _may_ or _might_; "the _Potential_," by _can_ or _could_; "the _Determinative_" by _would_; "the _Obligative_," by _should_; and "the _Compulsive_," by _must_. Such a distribution is needlessly minute. Most of these can as well be spared as those other "moods, _Interrogative, Optative, Promissive, Hortative, Precative_, &c.", which Murray mentions only to reject. See his _Octavo Gram._, p. 68.

OBS. 4.--The _Subjunctive_ mood is so called because it is always _subjoined_ to an other verb. It usually denotes some doubtful contingency, or some supposition contrary to fact. The manner of its dependence is commonly denoted by one of the following conjunctions; _if, that, though, lest, unless_. The indicative and potential moods, in all their tenses, may be used in the same dependent manner, to express any positive or potential condition; but this seems not to be a sufficient reason for considering them as parts of the subjunctive mood. In short, the idea of a "subjunctive mood in the indicative form," (which is adopted by Chandler, Frazee, Fisk, S. S. Greene, Comly, Ingersoll, R. C. Smith, Sanborn, Mack, Butler, Hart, Weld, Pinneo, and others,) is utterly inconsistent with any just notion of what a mood is; and the suggestion, which we frequently meet with, that the regular indicative or potential mood may be _thrown into the subjunctive_ by merely prefixing a conjunction, is something worse than nonsense.

Indeed, no mood can ever be made _a part of an other_, without the grossest confusion and absurdity. Yet, strange as it is, some celebrated authors, misled by an _if_, have tangled together three of them, producing such a snarl of tenses as never yet can have been understood without being thought ridiculous. See _Murray's Grammar_, and others that agree with his late editions.

OBS. 5.--In regard to the number and form of the tenses which should const.i.tute the _subjunctive mood_ in English, our grammarians are greatly at variance; and some, supposing its distinctive parts to be but elliptical forms of the indicative or the potential,[230] even deny the existence of such a mood altogether. On this point, the instructions published by Lindley Murray, however commended and copied, are most remarkably vague and inconsistent.[231] The early editions of his Grammar gave to this mood _six tenses_, none of which had any of the personal inflections; consequently there was, in all the tenses, _some difference_ between it and the indicative. His later editions, on the contrary, make the subjunctive exactly like the indicative, except in the present tense, and in the choice of auxiliaries for the second-future. Both ways, he goes too far. And while at last he restricts the _distinctive form_ of the subjunctive to narrower bounds than he ought, and argues against, "If thou _loved_, If thou _knew_," &c., he gives to this mood not only the last five tenses of the indicative, but also all those of the potential, with its multiplied auxiliaries; alleging, "that as the indicative mood _is converted_ into the subjunctive, by the expression of a condition, motive, wish, supposition, &c.[232] being superadded to it, so the potential mood may, in like manner, _be turned into_ the subjunctive."--_Octavo Gram._, p. 82. According to this, the subjunctive mood of every regular verb embraces, in one voice, as many as one hundred and thirty-eight different expressions; and it may happen, that in one single tense a verb shall have no fewer than fifteen different forms in each person and number. Six times fifteen are ninety; and so many are the several phrases which now compose Murray's pluperfect tense of the subjunctive mood of the verb _to strow_--a tense which most grammarians very properly reject as needless! But this is not all. The scheme not only confounds the moods, and utterly overwhelms the learner with its multiplicity, but condemns as bad English what the author himself once adopted and taught for the imperfect tense of the subjunctive mood, "If thou _loved_, If thou _knew_," &c., wherein he was sustained by Dr.

Priestley, by Harrison, by Caleb Alexander, by John Burn, by Alexander Murray, the schoolmaster, and by others of high authority. Dr. Johnson, indeed, made the preterit subjunctive like the indicative; and this may have induced the author to change his plan, and inflect this part of the verb with _st_. But Dr. Alexander Murray, a greater linguist than either of them, very positively declares this to be wrong: "When such words as _if, though, unless, except, whether_, and the like, are used before verbs, they lose their terminations of _est, eth_, and _s_, in those persons which commonly have them. No speaker of good English, expressing himself conditionally, says, Though thou _fallest_, or Though he _falls_, but, Though thou _fall_, and Though he _fall_; nor, Though thou _camest_, but, Though, or although, thou _came_."--_History of European Languages_, Vol.

i, p. 55.

OBS. 6.--Nothing is more important in the grammar of any language, than a knowledge of the _true forms_ of its verbs. Nothing is more difficult in the grammar of our own, than to learn, in this instance and some others, what forms we ought to prefer. Yet some authors tell us, and Dr. Lowth among the rest, that our language is wonderfully simple and easy. Perhaps it is so. But do not its "simplicity and facility" appear greatest to those who know least about it?--i.e., least of its grammar, and least of its history? In citing a pa.s.sage from the eighteenth chapter of Ezekiel, Lord Kames has taken the liberty to change the word _hath_ to _have_ seven times in one sentence. This he did, upon the supposition that the subjunctive mood has a perfect tense which differs from that of the indicative; and for such an idea he had the authority of Dr. Johnson's Grammar, and others. The sentence is this: "But if he _be_ a robber, a shedder of blood; if he _have_ eaten upon the mountains, and defiled his neighbour's wife; if he _have_ oppressed the poor and needy, _have_ spoiled by violence, _have_ not restored the pledge, _have lift_ up his eyes to idols, _have_ given forth upon usury, and _have_ taken increase: shall he live? he shall not live."--_Elements of Criticism_, Vol. ii, p. 261. Now, is this good English, or is it not? One might cite about half of our grammarians in favour of this reading, and the other half against it; with Murray, the most noted of all, first on one side, and then on the other. Similar puzzles may be presented concerning three or four other tenses, which are sometimes ascribed, and sometimes denied, to this mood. It seems to me, after much examination, that the subjunctive mood in English should have _two tenses_, and no more; the _present_ and the _imperfect_. The present tense of this mood naturally implies contingency and futurity, while the imperfect here becomes an _aorist_, and serves to suppose a case as a mere supposition, a case contrary to fact. Consequently the foregoing sentence, if expressed by the subjunctive at all, ought to be written thus: "But if he _be_ a robber, a shedder of blood; if he _eat_ upon the mountains, and _defile_ his neighbour's wife; if he _oppress_ the poor and needy, _spoil_ by violence, _restore_ not the pledge, _lift_ up his eyes to idols, _give_ forth upon usury, and _take_ increase; shall he live? he shall not live."

OBS. 7.--"Grammarians _generally_ make a present and a past time under the subjunctive mode."--_Cobbett's E. Gram._, -- 100. These are the tenses which are given to the subjunctive by _Blair_, in his "_Practical Grammar_." If any one will give to this mood _more_ tenses than these, the five which are adopted by _Staniford_, are perhaps the least objectionable: namely, "_Present_, If thou love, or do love; _Imperfect_, If thou loved, or did love; _Perfect_, If thou have loved; _Pluperfect_, If thou had loved; _Future_, If thou should or would love."--_Staniford's Gram._, p. 22. But there are no sufficient reasons for even this extension of its tenses.--Fisk, speaking of this mood, says: "Lowth restricts it entirely to the present tense."--"Uniformity on this point is highly desirable."--"On this subject, we adopt the opinion of Dr. Lowth."--_English Grammar Simplified_, p. 70. His desire of uniformity he has both heralded and backed by a palpable misstatement. The learned Doctor's subjunctive mood, in the second person singular, is this: "_Present time_. Thou love; AND, Thou _mayest_ love. _Past time_. Thou _mightest_ love; AND, Thou _couldst_, &c. love; and have loved."--_Lowth's Gram._, p. 38. But Fisk's subjunctive runs thus: "_Indic. form_, If thou lovest; _varied form_, If thou love."

And again: "_Present tense_, If thou art, If thou be; _Imperfect tense_, If thou wast, If thou wert."--_Fisk's Grammar Simplified_, p. 70. His very definition of the subjunctive mood is ill.u.s.trated _only by the indicative_; as, "If thou _walkest_."--"I will perform the operation, if he _desires_ it."--_Ib._, p. 69. Comly's subjunctive mood, except in some of his early editions, stands thus: "_Present tense_, If thou lovest; _Imperfect tense_, If thou lovedst or loved; _First future tense_, If thou (shalt) love."--_Eleventh Ed._, p. 41. This author teaches, that the indicative or potential, when preceded by an _if_, "should be _pa.r.s.ed_ in the subjunctive mood."--_Ib._, p. 42. Of what is in fact the true subjunctive, he says: "_Some writers_ use the singular number in the present tense of the subjunctive mood, without any variation; as, 'if I _love_, if thou _love_, if he _love_.' But this usage _must be ranked amongst the anomalies_ of our language."--_Ib._, p. 41. Cooper, in his pretended "_Abridgment of Murray's Grammar, Philad._, 1828," gave to the subjunctive mood the following form, which contains all six of the tenses: "2d pers. If thou love, If thou do love, If thou loved, If thou did love, If thou have loved, If thou had loved, If thou shall (or will) love, If thou shall (or will) have loved."

This is almost exactly what Murray at first adopted, and afterwards rejected; though it is probable, from the abridger's preface, that the latter was ignorant of this fact. Soon afterwards, a perusal of Dr.

Wilson's Essay on Grammar dashed from the reverend gentleman's mind the whole of this fabric; and in his "Plain and Practical Grammar, Philad., 1831," he acknowledges but four moods, and concludes some pages of argument thus: "From the above considerations, it will appear _to every sound grammarian_, that our language does not admit a subjunctive mode, at least, separate and distinct from the indicative and potential."--_Cooper's New Gram._, p. 63.

OBS. 8.--The true _Subjunctive_ mood, in English, is virtually rejected by some later grammarians, who nevertheless acknowledge under that name a greater number and variety of forms than have ever been claimed for it in any other tongue. All that is peculiar to the Subjunctive, all that should const.i.tute it a distinct mood, they represent as an archaism, an obsolete or antiquated mode of expression, while they willingly give to it every form of both the indicative and the potential, the two other moods which sometimes follow an _if_. Thus Wells, in his strange entanglement of the moods, not only gives to the subjunctive, as well as to the indicative, a "Simple" or "Common Form," and a "Potential Form;" not only recognizes in each an "Auxiliary Form," and a "Progressive Form;" but enc.u.mbers the whole with distinctions of style,--with what he calls the "Common Style," and the "Ancient Style;" or the "Solemn Style," and the "Familiar Style:" yet, after all, his own example of the Subjunctive, "Take heed, lest any man _deceive_ you," is obviously different from all these, and not explainable under any of his paradigms! Nor is it truly consonant with any part of his theory, which is this: "The subjunctive of all verbs except _be_, takes _the same form as the indicative_. Good writers were formerly much accustomed to _drop_ the personal termination in the _subjunctive present_, and write 'If he _have_,' 'If he _deny_,' etc., for 'If he _has_,' 'If he _denies_,' etc.; but this termination is now _generally retained_, unless _an auxiliary is understood_. Thus, 'If he _hear_,' may properly be used for 'If he _shall hear_' or 'If he _should hear_,' but not for 'If he _hears_.'"--_Wells's School Gram._, 1st Ed., p. 83; 3d Ed., p. 87. Now every position here taken is demonstrably absurd. How could "good writers"

indite "much" bad English by _dropping_ from the subjunctive an indicative ending which never belonged to it? And how can a needless "auxiliary" be "_understood_," on the principle of equivalence, where, by awkwardly changing a mood or tense, it only helps some grammatical theorist to convert good English into bad, or to pervert a text? The phrases above may all be right, or all be wrong, according to the correctness or incorrectness of their application: when each is used as best it may be, there is no exact equivalence. And this is true of half a dozen more of the same sort; as, "If he _does hear_,"--"If he _do hear_,"--"If he is _hearing_,"--"If he _be hearing_,"--"If he _shall be hearing_,"--"If he _should be hearing_."

OBS. 9.--Similar to Wells's, are the subjunctive forms of Allen H. Weld.