The Grammar of English Grammars Part 73

IND. Loves he? _or_ Does he love? Loved he? _or_ Did he love? Has he loved?

Had he loved? Shall _or_ will he love? Will he have loved? POT. May, can, _or_ must he love? Might, could, would, _or_ should he love? May, can, _or_ must he have loved? Might, could, would, _or_ should he have loved?

VI. FORM OF QUESTION WITH NEGATION.

A verb is conjugated _interrogatively and negatively_, in the indicative and potential moods, by placing the nominative and the adverb _not_ after the verb, or after the first auxiliary: as,

FIRST PERSON PLURAL.

IND. Love we not? _or_ Do we not love? Loved we not? _or_ Did we not love?

Have we not loved? Had we not loved? Shall we not love? Shall we not have loved? POT. May, can, _or_ must we not love? Might, could, would, _or_ should we not love? May, can, _or_ must we not have loved? Might, could, would, _or_ should we not have loved?

SECOND PERSON PLURAL.

IND. See ye not? _or_ Do you not see? Saw ye not? _or_ Did you not see?

Have you not seen? Had you not seen? Will you not see? Will you not have seen? POT. May, can, _or_ must you not see? Might, could, would, _or_ should you not see? May, can, _or_ must you not have seen? Might, could, would, _or_ should you not have seen?

THIRD PERSON PLURAL.

IND. Are they not loved? Were they not loved? Have they not been loved? Had they not been loved? Shall _or_ will they not be loved? Will they not have been loved? May, can, _or_ must they not be loved? Might, could, would, _or_ should they not be loved? May, can, _or_ must they not have been loved? Might, could, would, _or_ should they not have been loved?

OBSERVATIONS.

OBS. 1.--In a familiar question or negation, the compound or auxiliary form of the verb is, in general, preferable to the simple: as, "No man lives to purpose, who _does not live_ for posterity."--_Dr. Wayland_. It is indeed so much more common, as to seem the only proper mode of expression: as, "_Do I say_ these things as a man?"--"_Do you think_ that we excuse ourselves?"--"_Do you not know_ that a little leaven _leavens_ the whole lump?"--"_Dost thou revile?_" &c. But in the solemn or the poetic style, though either may be used, the simple form is more dignified, and perhaps more graceful: as, "_Say I_ these things as a man?"--_1 Cor._, ix, 8.

"_Think ye_ that we excuse ourselves?"--_2 Cor._, xii, 19. "_Know ye not_ that a little leaven _leaveneth_ the whole lump?"--_1 Cor._, v, 6.

"_Revilest thou_ G.o.d's high priest?"--_Acts_. "King Agrippa, _believest thou_ the prophets?"--_Ib._ "_Understandest thou_ what thou readest?"--_Ib._ "Of whom _speaketh_ the prophet this?"--_Id._ "And the man of G.o.d said, Where _fell it?_"--_2 Kings_, vi, 6.

"What! _heard ye not_ of lowland war?"--_Sir W. Scott, L. L._

"_Seems he not_, Malise, like a ghost?"--_Id., L. of Lake_.

"Where _thinkst thou_ he is now? _Stands he_, or _sits he?_ Or _does he walk?_ or _is he_ on his horse?"--_Shak., Ant. and Cleop._

OBS. 2.--In interrogative sentences, the auxiliaries _shall_ and _will_ are not always capable of being applied to the different persons agreeably to their use in simple declarations: thus, "_Will_ I go?" is a question which there never can be any occasion to ask in its literal sense; because none knows better than I, what my will or wish is. But "_Shall_ I go?" may properly be asked; because _shall_ here refers to _duty_, and asks to know what is agreeable to the will of an other. In questions, the first person generally requires _shall_; the second, _will_; the third admits of both: but, in the second-future, the third, used interrogatively, seems to require _will_ only. Yet, in that figurative kind of interrogation which is sometimes used to declare a negative, there may be occasional exceptions to these principles; as, "_Will I eat_ the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats?"--_Psalms_, 1, 13. That is, _I will not eat_, &c.

OBS. 3.--_Cannot_ is not properly one word, but two: in parsing, the adverb must be taken separately, and the auxiliary be explained with its princ.i.p.al. When power is denied, _can_ and _not_ are now _generally united_--perhaps in order to prevent ambiguity; as, "I _cannot_ go." But when the power is affirmed, and something else is denied, the words are written separately; as, "The Christian apologist _can not merely_ expose the utter baseness of the infidel a.s.sertion, but he has positive ground for erecting an opposite and confronting a.s.sertion in its place."--_Dr.

Chalmers._ The junction of these terms, however, is not of much importance to the sense; and, as it is plainly contrary to a.n.a.logy, some writers,--(as Dr. Webster, in his late or "improved" works; Dr. Bullions, in his; Prof.

W. C. Fowler, in his new "English Grammar," 8vo; R. C. Trench, in his "Study of Words;" T. S. Pinneo, in his "revised" grammars; J. R. Chandler, W. S. Cardell, O. B. Peirce,--) always separate them. And, indeed, why should we write, "I _cannot_ go, Thou _canst not_ go, He _cannot_ go?"

Apart from the custom, we have just as good reason to join _not_ to _canst_ as to _can_; and sometimes its union with the latter is a gross error: as, "He _cannot only_ make a way to escape, but with the injunction to duty can infuse the power to perform."--_Maturin's Sermons_, p. 287. The fear of ambiguity never prevents us from disjoining _can_ and _not_ whenever we wish to put a word between them: as, "Though the waves thereof toss themselves, yet _can_ they _not_ prevail; though they roar, yet _can_ they _not_ pa.s.s over it."--_Jeremiah_, v, 22. "Which then I _can_ resist _not_."--_Byron's Manfred_, p. 1.

"_Can_ I _not_ mountain maiden spy, But she must bear the Douglas eye?"--_Scott_.

OBS. 4.--In negative questions, the adverb _not_ is sometimes placed before the nominative, and sometimes after it: as, "Told _not I_ thee?"--_Numb._, xxiii, 26. "Spake _I not_ also to thy messengers?"--_Ib._, xxiv, 12.

"_Cannot I_ do with you as this potter?"--_Jer._, xviii, 6. "Art _not thou_ a seer?"--_2 Sam._, xv, 27. "Did _not Israel_ know?"--_Rom._, x, 19. "Have _they not_ heard?"--_Ib._, 18. "Do _not they_ blaspheme that worthy name?"--_James_, ii, 7. This adverb, like every other, should be placed where it will sound most agreeably, and best suit the sense. Dr. Priestley imagined that it could not properly come before the nominative. He says, "When the nominative case is put after the verb, on account of _an_ interrogation, _no other word_ should be interposed between them.

[EXAMPLES:] 'May _not we_ here say with Lucretius?'--Addison on Medals, p.

29. May _we not_ say? 'Is _not it_ he.' [?] Smollett's Voltaire, Vol 18, p.

152. Is _it not_ he. [?]"--_Priestley's Gram._, p. 177.

OBS. 5.--In grave discourse, or in oratory, the adverb _not_ is spoken as distinctly as other words; but, _ordinarily_, when placed before the nominative, it is rapidly slurred over in utterance and the _o_ is not heard. In fact, it is _generally_ (though inelegantly) contracted in familiar conversation, and joined to the auxiliary: as, IND. Don't they do it? Didn't they do it? Haven't they done it? Hadn't they done it? Shan't, _or_ won't they do it? Won't they have done it? POT. Mayn't, can't, _or_ mustn't they do it? Mightn't, couldn't, wouldn't, _or_ shouldn't they do it? Mayn't, can't, _or_ mustn't they have done it? Mightn't, couldn't, wouldn't, _or_ shouldn't they have done it?

OBS. 6.--Well-educated people commonly utter their words with more distinctness and fullness than the vulgar, yet without adopting ordinarily the long-drawn syllables of poets and orators, or the solemn phraseology of preachers and prophets. Whatever may be thought of the grammatical propriety of such contractions as the foregoing, no one who has ever observed how the English language is usually spoken, will doubt their commonness, or their antiquity. And it may be observed, that, in the use of these forms, the distinction of persons and numbers in the verb, is almost, if not entirely, dropped. Thus _don't_ is used for _dost not_ or _does not_, as properly as for _do not_; and, "_Thou can't_ do it, or _shan't_ do it," is as good English as, "_He can't_ do it, or _shan't_ do it." _Will_, according to Webster, was anciently written _woll_: hence _won't_ acquired the _o_, which is long in Walker's orthoepy. _Haven't_, which cannot be used for _has not_ or _hast not_, is still further contracted by the vulgar, and spoken _ha'nt_, which serves for all three. These forms are sometimes found in books; as, "WONT, a contraction of _woll not_, that is, _will not_."--_Webster's Dict._ "HA'NT, a contraction of _have not_ or _has not_."--_Id._ "WONT, (w=ont _or_ w~unt,) A contraction of _would not_:-- used for _will_ not."--_Worcester's Dict._ "HAN'T, (hant or h=ant,) A vulgar contraction for _has not_, or _have not_."--_Id._ In the writing of such contractions, the apostrophe is not always used; though some think it necessary for distinction's sake: as, "Which is equivalent, because what _can't_ be done _won't_ be done."--_Johnson's Gram. Com._, p. 312.

IRREGULAR VERBS.

An _irregular verb_ is a verb that does not form the preterit and the perfect participle by a.s.suming _d_ or _ed_; as, _see, saw, seeing, seen_.

Of this cla.s.s of verbs there are about one hundred and ten, beside their several derivatives and compounds.

OBSERVATIONS.

OBS. 1.--Regular verbs form their preterits and perfect participles, by adding _d_ to final _e_, and _ed_ to all other terminations; the final consonant of the verb being sometimes doubled, (as in _dropped_,) and final _y_ sometimes changed into _i_, (as in _cried_,) agreeably to the rules for spelling in such cases. The verb _hear, heard, hearing, heard_, adds _d_ to _r_, and is therefore irregular. _Heard_ is p.r.o.nounced _h~erd_ by all our lexicographers, except _Webster_: who formerly wrote it _heerd_, and still p.r.o.nounces it so; alleging, in despite of universal usage against him, that it is written "more correctly _heared_."--_Octavo Dict._, 1829. Such p.r.o.nunciation would doubtless require this last orthography, "_heared_;"

but both are, in fact, about as fanciful as his former mode of spelling, which ran thus: "_Az_ I had _heerd_ suggested by _frends_ or indifferent _reeders_."--_Dr. Webster's Essays, Preface_, p. 10.

OBS. 2.--When a verb ends in a sharp consonant, _t_ is sometimes improperly subst.i.tuted for _ed_, making the preterit and the perfect participle irregular in spelling, when they are not so in sound; as, _distrest_ for _distressed, tost_ for _tossed, mixt_ for _mixed, cract_ for _cracked_.

These contractions are now generally treated as _errors_ in writing; and the verbs are accordingly (with a few exceptions) accounted regular. Lord Kames commends Dean Swift for having done "all in his power to restore the syllable _ed_;" says, he "possessed, if any man ever did, the true genius of the English tongue;" and thinks that in rejecting these ugly contractions, "he well deserves to be imitated."--_Elements of Criticism_, Vol. ii, p. 12. The regular orthography is indeed to be preferred in all such cases; but the writing of _ed_ restores no syllable, except in solemn discourse; and, after all, the poems of Swift have so very many of these irregular contractions in _t_, that one can hardly believe his lordship had ever read them. Since the days of these critics still more has been done towards the restoration of the _ed_, in orthography, though not in sound; but, even at this present time, our poets not unfrequently write, _est_ for _essed_ or _ess'd_, in forming the preterits or participles of verbs that end in the syllable _ess_. This is an ill practice, which needlessly multiplies our redundant verbs, and greatly embarra.s.ses what it seems at first to simplify: as,

"O friend! I know not which way I must look For comfort, being, as I am, _opprest_, To think that now our life is only _drest_ For show."--_Wordsworth's Poetical Works_, 8vo, p. 119.

OBS. 3.--When the verb ends with a smooth consonant, the subst.i.tution of _t_ for _ed_ produces an irregularity in sound as well as in writing. In some such irregularities, the poets are indulged for the sake of rhyme; but the best speakers and writers of prose prefer the regular form, wherever good use has sanctioned it: thus _learned_ is better than _learnt; burned_, than _burnt; penned_, than _pent; absorbed_, than _absorbt; spelled_, than _spelt; smelled_, than _smelt_. So many of this sort of words as are allowably contracted, belong to the cla.s.s of redundant verbs, among which they may be seen in a subsequent table.

OBS. 4.--Several of the irregular verbs are variously used by the best authors; redundant forms are occasionally given to some verbs, without sufficient authority; and many preterits and participles which were formerly in good use, are now obsolete, or becoming so. The _simple_ irregular verbs in English are about one hundred and ten, and they are nearly all monosyllables. They are derived from the Saxon, in which language they are also, for the most part, irregular.

OBS. 5.--The following alphabetical list exhibits the simple irregular verbs, as they are _now generally_ used. In this list, those preterits and participles which are supposed to be preferable, and best supported by authorities, are placed first. Nearly all compounds that follow the form of their simple verbs, or derivatives that follow their primitives, are here purposely omitted. _Welcome_ and _behave_ are always regular, and therefore belong not here. Some words which are obsolete, have also been omitted, that the learner might not mistake them for words in present use. Some of those which are placed last, are now little used.

LIST OF THE IRREGULAR VERBS.

_Imperfect Perfect_ _Present. Preterit. Participle. Participle_.

Arise, arose, arising, arisen.

Be, was, being, been.

Bear, bore _or_ bare, bearing, borne _or_ born.[274]

Beat, beat, beating, beaten _or_ beat.

Begin, began _or_ begun,[275] beginning, begun.

Behold, beheld, beholding, beheld.

Beset, beset, besetting, beset.

Bestead, bestead, besteading, bestead.[276]

Bid, bid _or_ bade, bidding, bidden _or_ bid.

Bind, bound, bing, bound.

Bite, bit, biting, bitten _or_ bit.

Bleed, bled, bleeding, bled.

Break, broke,[277] breaking, broken.

Breed, bred, breeding, bred.

Bring, brought, bringing, brought.

Buy, bought, buying, bought.

Cast, cast, casting, cast.

Chide, chid, chiding, chidden _or_ chid.