Part 77 (1/2)

_Begone_ is a needless coalition of _be_ and _gone_, better written separately, unless Dr Johnson is right in calling the coone! the Goddess cries with stern disdain, Begone! nor dare the hallow'd stream to stain!”--_Addison_

_Beware_ also seems to be a needless compound of _be_ and the old adjective _ware_, wary, aware, cautious Both these are, of course, used only in those fors, _beware_ of evil workers, _beware_ of the concision”--_Philippians_, iii, 2 ”But we _ our attention to this beauty too far”--_Blair's Rhet_, p 119 These words were formerly separated: as, ”Of whom _be_ thou _ware_ also”--_1 Tim_, iv, 15 ”They _are_ of it”--FRIENDS' BIBLE, and ALGER'S: _Acts_, xiii, 6 ”They were _aware_ of it”--SCOTT'S BIBLE: ib ”And in an hour _that_ he is not _ware_ of him”--_Johnson's Dict, w Ware_ ”And in an hour that he is not _aware_ of”--COMMON BIBLES: _Matt_, xxiv, 50 ”Bid her well _be ware_ and still erect”--MILTON: _in Johnson's Dict_ ”That even Silence _was took_ ere she _are_”--_Id, Comus_, line 558 The adjective _ware_ is now said to be ”_obsolete_;” but the propriety of this assertion depends upon that of for so?

”This to disclose is all thy guardian can; _Beware_ of all, but most _beware_ of man”--_Pope_

The words written separately will always have the sa, unless we omit the preposition _of_, and suppose the cou the terhter_ of the town; Thou springst a-leak already in thy crown”--_Dryden_

OBS 4 The words _ought_ and _oithout question, were originally parts of the redundant verb _to owe_; thus: _oed_ or _ought, owing, owed_ or _own_ But both have long been disjoined froular _Own_, as now used, is either a pronoular verb thence derived, as, ”to _own_ a house” _Ought_, under the naht to be properly used, in this one form, in all the persons and numbers of the present and the imperfect tense of the indicative and subjunctive moods Or, if it is really of one tense only, it is plainly an aorist; and hence the time ht_ to _go_; He _ought_ to _have gone_” ”If thou _ought_ to _go_; If thou _ought_ to _have gone_” Being originally a preterit, it never occurs in the infinitive mood, and is entirely invariable, except in the solehtest_ in both tenses; as, ”How thou _oughtest_ to _behave_ thyself”--_1 Tihtest_ therefore to _have put_ ers”--_Matt_, xxiv, 27 We never say, or have said, ”He, she, or it, _oughts_ or _oughteth_” Yet we manifestly use this verb in the present tense, and in the third person singular; as, ”Discourse _ought always to begin_ with a clear proposition”--_Blair's Rhet_, p 217 I have already observed that soht_ an auxiliary The learned authors of Brightland's Grammar, (which is dedicated to Queen Anne,) did so; and also affirht_ ”have only the _present time_,” and are alike _invariable_ ”It is _now_ quite obsolete to say, _thou oughtest_; for _ought_ now changes its ending no htland's Gram_, (approved by _Isaac Bickerstaff, Esq_,) p

112

”_Do, will_, and _shall, must_, OUGHT, and _may_, _Have, am_, or _be_, this Doctrine will display”--_Ib_, p 107

OBS 5--_Wis_, preterit _wist_, to know, to think, to suppose, to iine, appears to be now nearly or quite obsolete; but it may be proper to explain it, because it is found in the Bible: as, ”I _wist_ not, brethren, that he was the high priest”--_Acts_, xxiii, 5 ”He himself '_wist_ not that his face shone'”--_Life of Schiller_, p iv _Wit_, to know, and _wot_, knew, are also obsolete, except in the phrase _to wit_; which, being taken abstractly, is equivalent to the adverb _namely_, or to the phrase, _that is to say_ The phrase, ”_we do you to wit_,” (in 2 Cor, viii, 1st,) ives the present tense of this verb three forms, _weet, wit_, and _wot_; and there seems to have been some authority for thee”--_Thoht of the hts_, p 35 _To wit_, used alone, to indicate a thing spoken of, (as the French use their infinitive, _savoir, a savoir_, or the phrase, _c'est a savoir_,) is undoubtedly an elliptical expression: probably for, ”_I give you to wit_;” i e, ”I give you _to know_” _Trow_, to think, occurs in the Bible; as, ”I _trow_ not”--_N Test_ And Coar gives it as a defective verb; and only in the first person singular of the present indicative, ”_I trow_” Webster and Worcester mark the words as obsolete; but Sir W Scott, in the Lady of the Lake, has this line:

”Thinkst thou _he trow'd_ thine oht?”--_Canto_ iv, stanza 10

_Quoth_ and _quod_, for _say, saith_, or _said_, are obsolete, or used only in ludicrous language Webster supposes these words to be equivalent, and each confined to the first and third persons of the present and imperfect tenses of the indicative mood Johnson says, that, ”_quoth you_,” as used by Sidney, is irregular; but Tooke assures us, that ”The _th_ in _quoth_, does not designate the third person”--_Diversions of Purley_, Vol ii, p

323 They are each invariable, and always placed before the nominative: as, _quoth I, quoth he_

”Yea, so sayst thou, (_quod_ Troylus,) alas!”--_Chaucer_

”I feare, _quod_ he, it wyll not be”--_Sir T More_

”Stranger, go! Heaven be thy guide!

_Quod_ the beadsman of Nith-side”--_Burns_

OBS 6--_Methinks_, (i e, _to_ me _it_ thinks,) for I think, or, it seeht_, (i e, _to_ rained it to be ”a Nor apt to confound _ anolo-Saxon or Latin parallels; and, like its kindred, ”me _seemeth_,” or ”_h often used by Dryden, Pope, Addison, and other good writers Our lexicographers call it an _i compounded with an objective, it cannot have a nominative expressed It is nearly equivalent to the adverb _apparently_; and if impersonal, it is also defective; for it has no participles, no ”_ht_;” though Webster's Aests that the latter word may be used as a participle In the Bible, we find the following text: ”_Me thinketh_ the running of the fore of Ahimaaz”--_2 Saht_ an i the separate objective pronoun _hiht_ he by the brook of Cherith stood”

--_P R_, B ii, l 264

OBS 7--Some verbs from the nature of the subjects to which they refer, are chiefly confined to the third person singular; as, ”It _rains_; it _snows_; it _freezes_; it _hails_; it _lightens_; it _thunders_” These have been called _impersonal verbs_; because the neuter pronoun it, which is commonly used before them, does not seem to represent any noun, but, in connexion with the verb, s They are however, in fact, neither impersonal nor defective Some, or all of them, may possibly take some other nominative, if not a different person; as, ”The _Lord rained_ upon Sodom, and upon Gomorrah, brilory _thundereth_”--_Psalms_, xxix, 3 ”_Canst thou thunder_ with a voice like him?”--_Job_, xl, 9 In short, as Harris observes, ”The doctrine of Irammarians, both ancient and modern”--_Hermes_, p 175

OBS 8--By some writers, words of this kind are called _Monopersonal Verbs_; that is, verbs of _one person_ This nah not very properly compounded, is perhaps more fit than the other; but we have little occasion to speak of these verbs as a distinct class in our language Dr Murray says, ”What is called an impersonal verb, is not so; for _lic-et, juv-at_, and _oport-et_, have _Tha, that thing_, or _it_, in their coes_, Vol ii, p 146 _Ail, irk_, and _behoove_, are regular verbs and transitive; but they are used only in the third person singular: as, ”What _ails_ you?”--”It _irks_ me”--”It _behooves_ you” The last two are obsolescent, or at least not in very common use In Latin, _passive_ verbs, or neuters of the passive form, are often used impersonally, or without an obvious nominative; and this elliptical construction is solish, especially by the poets: as,

”Meanwhile, ere thus _was sinn'd_ and _judg'd_ on earth, Within the gates of hell sat Sin and Death”

--_Milton, P L_, B x, l 230

”Forthwith on all sides to his aid _was run_ By angels , who interpos'd”

--_Id_, B vi, l 335

LIST OF THE DEFECTIVE VERBS

_Present Preterit_ Beware, ------ Can, could