A verb is a word which expresses _action;_ as, Man _exists_; Trees
_grow_; Waters_flow_; Mountains _stand_; I _am_.
All verbs are active, and have one object or more than one,
expressed or implied. The pillar _stands_; that is, it _keeps
itself_ in an erect or standing posture; it _upholds_ or _sustains
itself_ in that position. They _are_; i.e. they _air_ themselves, or
_breathe_ air; they _inspirit, vivify_, or _uphold_ themselves by
inhaling air.
Many verbs whose objects are seldom expressed, always have a persona
or verbal one implied. The clouds _move_; i.e. move _themselves_
along. The troops _marched_ twenty miles a day; i.e. marched
_themselves_. The moon _shines_:--The moon _shines_ or _sheds_ a
_shining, sheen, lustre_, or _brightness_. The sparrow
_flies:--flies_ or _takes_ a _flight_. Talkers talk or speak _words_
or _talk_; Walkers walk _walkings_ or _walks_; The rain rains
_rain_; Sitters sit or hold _sittings_ or _sessions_.
To prove that there is no such thing as a neuter verb, the following
appear to be the strongest arguments adduced.
1. No portion of matter is ever in a state of perfect quiescence;
but the component parts of every thing are at all times "influenced
by different, active principles, tending to produce change." Hence,
it follows, that no being or thing can be represented in a _neuter_
or _non-acting state_.
This argument supposes the essential character of the verb to be
identified with the primary laws of action, as unfolded by the
principles of physical science. The correctness of this position may
be doubted; but if it can be clearly demonstrated, that every
particle of matter is always in motion, it does not, by any means,
follow, that we cannot _speak of_ things in a state of quiescence.
What is _false_ in fact may be _correct_ in grammar. _The point
contested, is not whether things always_ act, _but whether, when we
assert or affirm something respecting them, we always_ represent
_them as acting_.
2. Verbs were _originally_ used to express the motions or changes of
things which produced obvious actions, and, by an easy transition,
were afterward applied, in the same way, to things whose actions
were not apparent. This assumption is untenable, and altogether
gratuitous.
3. Verbs called neuter are used in the imperative mood; and, as this
mood commands some one to _do_ something, any verb which adopts it,
must be active. Thus, in the common place phrases, "_Be_ there
quickly; _Stand_ out of my way; _Sit_ or _lie_ farther."
It is admitted that these verbs are here employed in an _active_
sense; but it is certain, that they are not used according to their
proper, _literal_ meaning. When I tell a man, _literally_, to
_stand, sit_, or _lie_, by _moving_ he would disobey me; but when I
say, "_Stand_ out of my way," I employ the neuter verb _stand_,
instead of the active verb _move_ or _go_, and in a correspondent
sense. My meaning is, _Move_ yourself out of my way; or _take_ your
_stand_ somewhere else. This, however, does not prove that _stand_
is properly used. If we choose to overstep the bounds of custom, we
can employ any _word_ in the language as an active-transitive verb.
_Be, sit_, and _lie_, may be explained in the same manner.
4. Neuter verbs are used in connexion with adverbs which express the
manner of _action_. They must, therefore, be considered active
verbs. The child _sleeps soundly_; He _sits genteelly_; They _live
contentedly_ and _happily_ together.
The class of verbs that are never employed as active, is small. By
using adverbs in connexion with verbs, we can fairly prove that some
verbs are _not_ active. It is incorrect to say, I am _happily_; They
were _peacefully_; She remains _quietly_; The fields appear
_greenly_. These verbs in their common acceptation, do not express
_action_; for which reason we say, I am _happy_; They are
_peaceful_; &c. But in the expressions, The child sleeps _soundly_;
She sits _gracefully_; They live _happily_ and _contentedly_; we
employ the verbs _sleeps, sits_, and _live_, in an active sense.
When no action is intended, we say, They live _happy_ and
_contented_.
If, on scientific principles, it can be proved that those verbs
generally denominated neuter, _originally_ expressed action, their
present, accepted meaning will still oppose the theory, for the
generality of mankind do not attach to them the idea of _action_.
Thus I have endeavored to present a brief but impartial abstract of
the _modern_ theory of the verb, leaving it with the reader to
estimate it according to its value.
To give a satisfactory definition of the verb, or such a one as
shall be found scientifically correct and unexceptionable, has
hitherto baffled the skill, and transcended the learning, of our
philosophical writers. If its essential quality, as is generally
supposed, is made to consist in _expressing affirmation_, it remains
still to be defined _when_ a verb _expresses_ affirmation. In
English, and in other languages, words appropriated to express
affirmation, are often used without any such force; our idea of
affirmation, in such instances, being the mere _inference of
custom_.
In the sentence,--"_Think, love_, and _hate_, denote moral actions,"
the words _think, love_, and _hate_, are nouns, because they are
mere _names_ of actions. So, when I say, "John, _write_--is an
irregular verb," the word _write_ is a noun; but when I say, "John,
_write_--your copy," _write_ is called a verb.
Why is this word considered a noun in one construction, and a verb
in the other, when both constructions, until you pass beyond the
word write, are exactly alike? If write does not _express_ action in
the former sentence, neither does it in the latter, for, in both, it
is introduced in the same manner. On scientific principles, _write_
must be considered a noun in the latter sentence, for it does not
_express_ action, or make an affirmation; but it merely _names_ the
action which I wish John to perform, and affirmation is the
_inferential_ meaning.
The verb in the infinitive, as well as in the imperative mood, is
divested of its affirmative or verbal force. In both these moods, it
is always presented in its _noun-state_.
If, after dinner, I say to a servant, "_Wine,"_ he infers, that I
wish him to bring me wine; but all this is not said. If I say,
_Bring_ some _wine_, he, in like manner, understands, that I wish
him to bring me wine; but all that is expressed, is the _name_ of
the action, and of the object of the action. In fact, as much is
done by _inference_, as by actual expression, in every branch of
language, for thought is too quick to be wholly transmitted by
words.
It is generally conceded, that the termination of our verbs, _est,
eth, s, ed_, and, also, of the other parts of speech, were
originally separate words of distinct meaning; and that, although
they have been contracted, and, by the refinement of language, have
been made to coalesce with the words in connexion with which they
are employed, yet, in their present character of terminations, they
retain their primitive meaning and force. To denote that a verbal
name was employed as a verb, the Saxons affixed to it a verbalizing
adjunct; thus, _the_ (to take, hold) was the noun-state of the verb;
and when they used it as a verb, they added the termination _an_;
thus, the_an_. The termination added, was a sign that _affirmation_
was intended. The same procedure has been adopted, and, in many
instances, is still practised, in our language. _An_, originally
affixed to our verbs, in the progress of refinement, was changed to
en, and finally dropped. A few centuries ago, the plural number of
our verbs was denoted by the termination, _en_; thus, they _weren_,
they _loven_; but, as these terminations do not supersede the
necessity of expressing the _subject_ of affirmation, as is the case
in the Latin and Greek verbs, they have been laid aside, as
unnecessary excrescences. For the same reason, we might, without any
disparagement to the language, dispense with the terminations of our
verbs in the singular.
In support of the position, that these terminations were once
separate words, we can trace many of them to their origin. To denote
the feminine gender of some nouns, we affix _ess_; as, heir_ess_,
instructr_ess. Ess_ is a contraction of the Hebrew noun _essa_, a
female. Of our verbs, the termination _est_ is a contraction of
_doest, eth_, of _doeth_, _s_ of _does_. We say, thou _dost_ or
_doest_ love; or thou _lovest_; i.e. _love-dost_, or _love-doest_.
Some believe these terminations to be contractions of _havest,
haveth, has_. We affix _ed_, a contraction of _dede_, to the present
tense of verbs to denote that the action named is _dede, did, doed_,
or _done_.
_To_ and _do_ from the Gothic noun _taui_, signifying _act_ or
_effect_, are, according to Horne Tooke, nearly alike in meaning and
force; and when the custom of affixing some more ancient verbalizing
adjunct, began to be dropped, its place and meaning were generally
supplied by prefixing one of these. When I say, "I am going _to
walk,"_ the verbal or affirmative force is conveyed by the use of
_to_, meaning the same as _do_; and _walk_ is employed merely as a
verbal name; that is, I assert that I shall _do_ the act which I
name by the word _walk_, or the act of _walking_.
Perhaps such speculations as these will prove to be more curious
than profitable. If it be made clearly to appear, that, on
scientific principles, whenever the verbal name is unaccompanied by
a verbalizing adjunct, it is in the _noun-state_, and does not
express affirmation, still this theory would be very inconvenient in
practice.