ON TENSES IN GENERAL.
s. 359. The nature of tenses in general is best exhibited by reference to
the Greek; since in that language they are more numerous, and more strongly
marked than elsewhere.
_I strike, I struck._--Of these words, the first implies an action taking
place at the time of speaking, the second marks an action that has already
taken place.
These two notions of present and of past time, being expressed by a change
of form, are true tenses. They are however, the only true tenses in our
language. In _I was beating_, _I have beaten_, _I had beaten_, and _I shall
beat_, a difference of time is expressed; but as it is expressed by a
combination of words, and not by a change of form, no true tenses are
constituted.
In Greek the case is different. [Greek: Tupto] (_typt[^o]_)=_I beat_;
[Greek: etupton] (_etypton_)=_I was beating_; [Greek: tupso]
(_typs[^o]_)=_I shall beat_; [Greek: etupsa] (_etypsa_)=_I beat_; [Greek:
tetupha] (_tetyfa_)=_I have beaten_; [Greek: etetuphein] (_etetyfein_)=_I
had beaten_. In these words we have, of the same mood, the same voice, and
the same conjugation, six different tenses;[47] whereas, in English, there
are but two. The forms [Greek: tetupha] and [Greek: etupsa] are so strongly
marked, that we recognise them wheresoever they occur. The first is formed
by a reduplication of the initial [tau], and, consequently, may be called
the reduplicate form. As a tense it is called the perfect. In the form
[Greek: etupsa] an [epsilon] is prefixed, and an [sigma] is added. In the
allied language of Italy {304} the [epsilon] disappears, whilst the [sigma]
(_s_) remains. [Greek: Etupsa] is said to be an aorist tense. _Scripsi_ :
_scribo_ :: [Greek: etupsa] : [Greek: tupto].
s. 360. Now in the Latin language a confusion takes place between these two
tenses. Both forms exist. They are used, however, indiscriminately. The
aorist form has, besides its own, the sense of the perfect. The perfect
has, besides its own, the sense of the aorist. In the following pair of
quotations, _vixi_, the aorist form, is translated _I have lived_, while
_tetigit_, the perfect form, is translated _he touched_.
_Vixi_, et quem dederat cursum Fortuna peregi;
Et nunc magna mei sub terras ibit imago.--_Aen._ iv.
Ut primum alatis _tetigit_ magalia plantis.--_Aen._ iv.
When a difference of form has ceased to express a difference of meaning, it
has become superfluous. This is the case with the two forms in question.
One of them may be dispensed with; and the consequence is, that, although
in the Latin language both the perfect and the aorist forms are found, they
are, with few exceptions, never found in the same word. Wherever there is
the perfect, the aorist is wanting, and _vice vers[^a]_. The two ideas _I
have struck_ and _I struck_ are merged into the notion of past time in
general, and are expressed by one of two forms, sometimes by that of the
Greek perfect, and sometimes by that of the Greek aorist. On account of
this the grammarians have cut down the number of Latin tenses to _five_;
forms like _cucurri_ and _vixi_ being dealt with as one and the same tense.
The true view is, that in _curro_ the aorist form is replaced by the
perfect, and in _vixi_ the perfect form is replaced by the aorist.
s. 361. In the present English there is no undoubted perfect or reduplicate
form. The form _moved_ corresponds in meaning not with [Greek: tetupha] and
_momordi_, but with [Greek: etupsa] and _vixi_. Its sense is that of
[Greek: etupsa], and not that of [Greek: tetupha]. The notion given by
[Greek: tetupha] we express by the circumlocution _I have beaten_. We have
no such form as _bebeat_ or _memove_. In the Moeso-Gothic, however, there
was a true reduplicate form; in other words, a perfect tense as well as an
aorist. It {305} is by the possession of this form that the verbs of the
first six conjugations are characterized.
1st. Faltha, _I fold_ . F['a]ifalth, _I have folded_, or _I folded_.
Halda, _I feed_ . H['a]ihald, _I have fed_, or _I fed_.
Haha, _I hang_ . H['a]ihah, _I have hanged_, or _I hanged_.
2nd. H['a]ita, _I call_ . H['a]ih['a]it, _I have called_, or _I called_.
L['a]ika, _I play_ . L['a]il['a]ik, _I have played_, or _I played_.
3d. Hl['a]upa,_I run_ . Hl['a]il['a]up,_I have run_, or _I ran_.
4th. Sl[^e]pa, _I sleep_ . S['a]izl[^e]p, _I have slept_, or _I slept_.
5th. L['a]ia, _I laugh_ . L['a]il[^o], _I have laughed_, or
_I laught_.
S['a]ija, _I sow_ . S['a]is[^o], _I have sown_, or _I sowed_.
6th Gr[^e]ta, _I weep_ . G['a]igr[^o]t, _I have wept_, or _I wept_.
T[^e]ka, _I touch_ . T['a]it[^o]k, _I have touched_, or
_I touched_.
In Moeso-Gothic, as in Latin, the perfect forms have, besides their own, an
aorist sense, and _vice vers[^a]_.
In Moeso-Gothic, as in Latin, few (if any) words are found in both forms.
In Moeso-Gothic, as in Latin, the two forms are dealt with as a single
tense; _l['a]il[^o]_ being called the praeterite of _l['a]ia_, and
_sv[^o]r_ the praeterite of _svara_. The true view, however, is that in
Moeso-Gothic, as in Latin, there are two past tenses, each having a certain
latitude of meaning, and each, in certain words, replacing the other.
The reduplicate form, in other words, the perfect tense, is current in none
of the Gothic languages except the Moeso-Gothic. A trace of it is found in
the Anglo-Saxon of the seventh century in the word _heht_, which is
considered to be _h[^e]-ht_, the Moeso-Gothic _h['a]ih['a]it_, _vocavi_.
This statement is taken from the Cambridge Philological Museum, ii. 378.
_Did_ from _do_ is also considered to be a reduplicate form.
s. 362. In the English language the tense corresponding with the Greek
aorist and the Latin forms like _vixi_, is formed after two modes; 1, as in
_fell_, _sang_, and _took_, from _fall_, _sing_, and _take_, by changing
the vowel of the present: 2, as in _moved_ and _wept_, from _move_ and
_weep_, by the addition of _d_ or _t_; the _d_ or _t_ not being found in
the original word, but being a fresh element added to it. In forms, on the
contrary, like _sang_ and _fell_, no addition being made, no new element
appears. The {306} vowel, indeed, is changed, but nothing is added. Verbs,
then, of the first sort, may be said to form their praeterites out of
themselves; whilst verbs of the second sort require something from without.
To speak in a metaphor, words like _sang_ and _fell_ are comparatively
independent. Be this as it may, the German grammarians call the tenses
formed by a change of vowel the strong tenses, the strong verbs, the strong
conjugation, or the strong order; and those formed by the addition of _d_
or _t_, the weak tenses, the weak verbs, the weak conjugation, or the weak
order. _Bound_, _spoke_, _gave_, _lay_, &c., are strong; _moved_,
_favoured_, _instructed_, &c., are weak. For the proof that the division of
verbs into weak and strong is a natural division, see the Chapter on
Conjugation.
* * * * *
{307}