Part 292 (1/2)

and ”the Principles of English Graeable; and, what is very remarkable, a comparison of different editions will show, that the fundalish, Latin, and Greek,” le lustruether different Dr Bullions's grareat oracles, Adam, Murray, and Lennie, divided verbs into ”three kinds, _Active, Passive_, and _Neuter_” Now they divide them into two only, ”_Transitive_ and _Intransitive_;” and absurdly aver, that ”_Verbs in the passive form are really transitive as in the active form_”--_Prin of E Gram_, 1843, p 200 Now, as if no verb could be plural, and no transitive act could be future, conditional, in progress, or left undone, they define thus: ”A _Transitive_ verb expresses an _act done_ by one person or thing to another”--_Ib_, p 29; _analyt and Pract Gram_, 60; _Latin Gram_, 77 Now, the division which so lately as 1842 was pronounced by the Doctor to be ”eously accordant with ”e,”

(see his _Fourth Edition_, p 30,) is wholly rejected from this notable ”_Series_” Now, the ”_vexed question_” about ”the classification of verbs,” which, at soes of weak argues_, is complacently supposed to have been _well settled_ in his favour! Of this matter, now, in 1849, he speaks thus: ”The division of verbs into transitive and intransitive has been so generally adopted and approved by the best grammarians, that any discussion of the subject is now unnecessary”--_Bullions's analyt and Pract Gram_, p 59

[227] This late writer seems to have published his doctrine on this point as a _novelty_; and several teachers ignorantly received and admired it as such: I have briefly shown, in the Introduction to this work, how easily they were deceived ”By this, that Question overns always an Accusative, at least understood: '_Tis the Opinion of some very able_ GRAMMARIANS, but for _our_ Parts _we_ don't think it”--_Grahtland_, 7th Ed, London, 1746, p 115

[228] Upon this point, Richard Johnson cites and criticises Lily's system thus: ”'A Verb Neuter endeth in _o_ or _m_, and cannot take _r_ to make _him_ a Passive; as, _Curro_, I run; _Su_ p 13

This Definition, is founded upon the Notion abovementioned, viz That none but Transitives are Verbs Active, which is contrary to the reason of Things, and the common sense of Mankind And what can shock a Child enuity, than to be told, That _Ambuto_ and _Curro_ are Verbs Neuter; that is, to speak according to the conifie neither to do, nor suffer”--_Johnson's Grammatical Commentaries_, 8vo, London, 1706, p 273

[229] Murray says, ”_Mood_ or _Mode_ is a particular for, action, or passion is represented”--_Octavo Grarammarians, the term _Mode_ is preferred to _Mood_; but the latter is, for this use, the more distinctive, and by far the raic, certain _parts of speech_, as _adjectives_ and _adverbs_, are called _Modes_, because they qualify or , ”Thus all the parts of speech are reducible to four; viz, _Names, Verbs, Modes, Connectives_”--_Enclytica, or Universal Gram_, p

8 ”_Modes_ are naturally divided, by their attribution to names or verbs, into _adna this application of the name _modes_, was it not improper for the learned author to call the enuine subjunctive mood, except the preterimperfect, if I _were_, if thou _wert_, &c of the verb _to be_ [See Notes and Observations on the Third Exaation, in this chapter] The phrase termed _the subjunctiveunderstood: as, 'Though hand (shall) join in hand, the wicked shall not be unpunished' 'If it (may) be possible, live peaceably with all' Scriptures”--_Rev W Allen's Gram_, p 61 Such expressions as, ”If thou _do love_, If he _do love_,” appear to disprove this doctrine

[See Notes and Reated below]

[231] ”Mr Murray has changed his opinion, as often as Laban changed Jacob's wages In the edition we print from, we find _shall_ and _will_ used in each person of the _first_ and _second_ future tenses of the subjunctive, but he now states that in the second future tense, _shalt, shall_, should be used instead of _wilt, will_ Perhaps this is _the only improvement_ he has made in his Grammar since 1796”--_Rev T Slish Gra this expression, Murray did not teach, as do rammarians, that _inflected_ forms of the present tense, such as, ”If he _thinks_ so,” ”Unless he _deceives_ h, when he rejected his changeless forms of the other tenses of this mood, he _improperly_ put as many indicatives in their places With hi determines the mood in one tense, while the conjunction controls it in the other five!

In his syntax, he argues, ”that in cases wherein contingency and futurity do not occur, it is not proper to turn the verb fronification of present tie_] its form or termination [Fist] _The verb would then be in the indicative ht attend it_”--_L Murray's Grara whonize only three tenses, or ”_tilish verbs; namely, _the present, the past_, and _the future_ A few, like Latha all the coe only the first two, _the present_ and _the past_; and these they will have to consist only of the simple or radical verb and the sie six tenses, such as are above described, have endeavoured of late to _change the naree citations: (1) ”We have six tenses; three, the _Present, Past_, and _Future_, to represent tieneral way; and three, the _Present Perfect, Past Perfect_, and _Future Perfect_, to represent the precise ti_ the action”--_Perley's Gram_, 1834, p 25 (2) ”There are six tenses; the _present_, the _past_, the _present-perfect_, the _past-perfect_, the _future_, and the _future-perfect_”--_Hiley's Gram_, 1840, p 28 (3) ”There are six tenses; the _Present_ and _Present Perfect_, the _Past_ and _Past Perfect_, and the _Future_ and _Future Perfect_”--_Farnum's Gram_, 1842, p 34 (4) ”The names of the tenses will then be, _Present, Present Perfect; Past, Past Perfect; Future, Future Perfect_ They are _usually_ named as follows: _Present, Perfect, Imperfect, Pluperfect, Future, Second Future_”--_N Butler's Gram_, 1845, p 69 (5) ”We have six tenses;--the _present_, the _past_, the _future_, the _present perfect_, the _past perfect_, and the _future perfect_”--_Wells's School Gralish are six--the _Present_, the _Present-perfect_, the _Past_, the _Past-perfect_, the _Future_, and the _Future-perfect_”--_Bullions's Gram_, 1849 p 71 (7) ”Verbs have _Six Tenses_, called the _Present_, the _Perfect-Present_, the _Past_, the _Perfect-Past_, the _Future_, and the _Perfect-Future_”--_Spencer's Gram_, 1852, p 53 (8) ”There are six tenses: the _present, past, future, present perfect, past perfect_, and _future perfect_”--_Covell's Gram_, 1853, p 62 (9) ”The tenses are--the _present_, the _present perfect_; the _past_, the _past perfect_; the _future_, the _future perfect_”--_S S Greene's Gram_, 1853, p 65

(10) ”There are six tenses; _one present_, and _but one, three past_, and _two future_” They are named thus: ”_The Present, the First Past, the Second Past, the Third Past, the First Future, the Second Future_”--”For the sake of symmetry, to call _two_ of them _present_, and _two_ only past, while _one_ only is _present_, and _three_ are _past_ tenses, is to sacrifice truth to beauty”--_Pinneo's Gram_, 1853, pp 69 and 70 ”The old names, _imperfect, perfect_, and _pluperfect_,” which, in 1845, Butler justly admitted to be the _usual_ names of the three past tenses Dr

Pinneo, who dates his copy-right froenerally discarded_!”--_analytical Gram_, p 76; _Same Revised_, p 81 These terely supposes to have been suddenly superseded by others which are no better, if so good: i that the scheme which Perley or Hiley introduced, of ”_two present, two past_, and _two future_ tenses,”--a scheme which, he says, ”has no foundation in truth, and is therefore to be rejected,”--had prepared the way for the above-cited innovation of his ohich merely presents the old ideas under new terms, or terms partly new, and wholly unlikely to prevail Willia in 1765 the two terms _imperfect_ and _perfect_, adopted others which resemble Pinneo's; but few, if any, have since named the tenses as he did, thus: ”_The Present, the First Preterite, the Second Preterite, the Pluperfect, the First Future, the Second Future_”--_Ward's Gram_, p 47

[234] ”The infinitive mood, as '_to shi+ne_,' may be called the name of the verb; it carries _neither time nor affirmation_; but sis, which is to be the subject of the other moods and tenses”--_Blair's Lectures_, p 81 By the word ”_subject_” the Doctor does not here mean the _nominative to_ the other moods and tenses, but the _material of_ therammarians absurdly deny that persons and numbers are properties of verbs at all: not indeed because our verbs have so few inflections, or because these authors wish to discard the little distinction that remains; but because they have some fanciful conception, that these properties cannot pertain to a verb Yet, when they coet, that if a verb has no person and nuree with a nominative in these respects Thus KIRKHAM: ”_Person_, strictly speaking, is a quality that belongs _not to verbs_, but to nouns and pronouns We say, however, that the verb _ree_ with its nominative in _person_, as well as in number”--_Gram in Familiar Lect_, p 46 So J W WRIGHT: ”In truth, nurants that, 'in philosophical strictness, both nuht (say, _may_) be excluded from every verb, as they are, in fact, the properties of substantives, not a part of the essence of the verb'”--_Philosophical Gram_, p 68 This author's rule of syntax for verbs, ree with their nominatives, not in person and number, but in _termination_, or else in _nobody knohat_: ”A verb _ree with the nominative to which it is connected”--_Ib_, p 168 But Murray's rule is, ”A verb ree with its nominative case in _nunant to that interpretation of his words above, by which these gentleiously misled themselves and others Undoubtedly, both the nuht be abolished, and the language would still be intelligible But while any such distinctions remain, and the verb is actuallyas properly to this part of speech as they can to any other De Sacy says, ”The distinction of number _occurs_ in the verb;” and then adds, ”yet this distinction does not properly _belong to_ the verb, as it signifies nothing which can be numbered”--_Fosdick's Version_, p 64 This deceptive reason is only a new for the nurammar with nu what is above cited from Murray, adds: ”The terurative_ The properties which belong to one thing, for convenience' sake are ascribed to another”--_Graines, if ten ate_ a shi+p round the world, they perform just ”_ten actions_,” and no more ”Common sense teaches you,” says he, ”that _there must be as many actions as there are actors_; and that the verb when it has no for to show it, is as strictly plural, as when it has So, in the phrase, '_We walk_,' the verb _walk_ is [of the] first person, because it expresses the _actions_ performed by the _speakers_ The verb, then, when correctly written, always agrees, _in sense_, with its nominative in number and person”--_Kirkham's Gram_, p 47 It seems to me, that these authors do not very well knohat persons or nurammar, are

[236] John Despauter, whose ae appeared in its third edition in 1517, represents this practice as a corruption originating in false pride, and ry flatterers On the twentieth leaf of his Syntax, he says, ”Videntur hodie Christiani superbiores, quam olim ethnici imperatores, qui dii haberi voluerunt; nam hi nunquam inviti audierunt pronomina _tu, tibi, tuus_ Quae si hodie alicui monachorum antistiti, aut decano, aut pontifici dicantur aut scribantur, videbitur ita loquens aut scribens blasphenus: nec tare feret, quanathones, his assistentes, et vociferantes, _Sic loqueris, aut scribis, pontifici?_ Quintilianus et Donatus dicunt barbarismum, aut soloecismum esse, siquis uni dicat _Salvete_” The learned Eras those who adopted it, ”_voscitatores_,” or _youyouers_

[237] ”By a _perversion of language_ the pronoun _you_ is alular, as well as plural; always, however, retaining the plural verb; as, 'My friend, _you write_ a good hand' _Thou_ is confined to a solemn style, or [to] poetical compositions”--_Chandler's Grammar_, Edition of 1821, p 41; Ed of 1847, p 66

[238] In regard to the inflection of our verbs, Williarammar, and who professes now to be ”conservative” of the popular systelish verbs have three _Styles_[,] or _Modes_,[;] called [the] _Familiar_, [the] _Solemn_[,] and [the] _Ancient_ The _familiar style_, or mode, is that used in common conversation; as, you _see_, he _fears_ The _solemn style_, or mode, is that used in the Bible, and in prayer; as, Thou _seest_, he _feareth_ The _ancient style_, or e_ in the second and third person, [_persons_,] singular, of the verb, and generally follows the word _if_, _though, lest_, or _whether_; as, if thou _see_; though he _fear_; lest he _be_ angry; whether he _go_ or _stay_”--_Fowle's Co his subsequent exa: ”Thou _lovest_, Thou _lovedst_, Thou _art_, Thou _wast_, Thou _hast_, Thou _hadst_, Thou _doest_ or _dost_, Thou _didst_”

And, as corresponding examples of the _Ancient style_, he has these forms: ”Thou _love_, Thou _loved_, Thou _or you be_, Thou _wert_, Thou _have_, Thou _had_, Thou _do_, Thou _did_”--_Ib_, pp 44-50 This distinction and this arrangeether warranted by facts

The necessary distinction of _ the _Subjunctive_ with the _Indicative_, in order to furnish out this useless and fanciful contrast of his _Solemn_ and _Ancient styles_

[239] In that monstrous julish Grammar on the Productive System, by Roswell C Smith,”

_you_ is everywhere preferred to _thou_, and the verbs are conjugated _without the latter pronoun_ At the close of his paradig ”_these obsolete conjugations_,” with the pronoun _thou_; for a further account of which, he refers the learner, _with a sneer_, to the corammars in the schools See the work, p 79

He rammarian, hoain: ”_Thou_ in the singular _is obsolete_, except a the Society of Friends; and _ye_ is an _obsolete_ plural!”--_Guy's School Grarammar, professedly ”constructed upon the _basis of Murray's_, by the _Rev Charles Adams_, A M, Principal of Newbury Seular is everywhere superseded by the plural; the forations, without soit; and the latter, which is put in its stead, is falsely called _singular_ By his pupils, all forree only with _thou_, will of course be conceived to be either obsolete or barbarous, and consequently ungraentleman makes any account of the Bible or of prayer, does not appear; he cites some poetry, in which there are exalish Grainners,” tells us that, ”Such words as are used in the Bible, and not used in co these, he reckons all the distinctive forular, and all the ”peculiarities” which ”constitute what is commonly called the _Solereat consistency, he adds: ”This style _is always used_ in prayer, and _is frequently used_ in poetry”--_Ibid_ Joab Brace, Jnr, may be supposed to have the same notion of what is obsolete: for he too has perverted all Lennie's examples of the verb, as Sives _durst_ in the ”Indicative mood,” thus: ”I durst, _thou durst_, he durst;” &c--_Coar's E Gram_, p 115 But when he coular should be, and so he leaves it out: ”I wist, ------, he wist; ist, ye wist, they wist”--_Coar's E Gram_, p 116

[241] Dr Latham, who, oftener perhaps than any other e by efforts to revive in it things really and deservedly obsolete, ely avers that ”The words _thou_ and _thee_ are, except in the mouths of Quakers, obsolete The plural forms, _ye_ and _you_, have replaced the also any current or ”vital” process of forravely tells us that the old form, as ”_callest_”

(which is still the true for obsolete”--_Ib_, p 210 ”In phrases like _you are speaking_, &c,” says he rightlier, ”even when applied to a single individual, _the idea is really plural_; in other words, the courtesy consists in treating _one_ person as _ hiular sense It is certain that, grammatically considered, _you=thou_ is a plural, since the verb hich it agrees is plural”--_Ib_, p 163 If these things be so, the English Language owes much to the scrupulous conservatisraular number would now have had but two persons!

[242] For the substitution of _you_ for _thou_, our gran various causes That which is inal one, because it concerns no other language than ours: ”In order _to avoid the unpleasant formality_ which accompanies the use of _thou_ with a correspondent verb, its plural _you_, is usually adopted to familiar conversation; as, Charles, _will you_ walk? instead of--_wilt thou_ walk? _You read_ too fast, instead of--_thou readest_ too fast”--_Jaudon's Gram_, p 33