The changes in the termination of words, in all languages, have been
formed by the _coalescence_ of words of appropriate meaning. This
subject was approached on page 49. It is again taken up for the
purpose of showing, that the moods and tenses, as well as the number
and person, of English verbs, do not solely depend on inflection.
The coalescing syllables which form the number and person of the
Hebrew verb, are still considered pronouns; and, by those who have
investigated the subject, it is conceded, that the same plan has
been adopted in the formation of the Latin and Greek verbs, as in
the Hebrew. Some languages have carried this process to a very great
extent. Ours is remarkable for the small number of its inflections.
But they who reject the passive verb, and those moods and tenses
which are formed by employing what are called "auxiliary verbs,"
_because they are formed of two or more verbs_, do not appear to
reason soundly. It is inconsistent to admit, that walk-_eth_, and
walk-_ed_, are tenses, because each is but one word, and to reject
_have_ walked, and _will_ walk, as tenses, because each is composed
of two words. _Eth_, as previously shown, is a contraction of
_doeth_, or _haveth_, and _ed_, of _dede, dodo, doed_, or _did_;
and, therefore, walk-_eth_; i.e. walk-_doeth_, or _doeth_-walk, and
walk-_ed_; i.e. walk-_did_, or _doed_ or _did_-walk, are, when
analyzed, as strictly compound, as _will_ walk, _shall_ walk, and
_have_ walked. The only difference in the formation of these tenses,
is, that in the two former, the associated verbs have been
contracted and made to coalesce with the main verb, but in the two
latter, they still maintain their ground as separate words.
If it be said that _will walk_ is composed of two words, each of
which conveys a distinct idea, and, therefore, should be analyzed by
itself, the same argument with all its force, may be applied to
walk-_eth_, walk-_ed_, walk-_did_, or _did_ walk. The result of all
the investigations of this subject, appears to settle down into the
hackneyed truism, that the passive verbs, and the moods and tenses,
of some languages, are formed by inflections, or terminations either
prefixed or postfixed, and of other languages, by the association of
auxiliary verbs, which have not yet been contracted and made to
coalesce as _terminations_. The auxiliary, when contracted into a
_terminating syllable,_ retains its distinct and intrinsic meaning,
as much as when associated with a verb by juxtaposition:
consequently, an "auxiliary verb" may form a part of a mood or
tense, or passive verb, with as much propriety as a _terminating
syllable_. They who contend for the ancient custom of keeping the
auxiliaries distinct, and parsing them as primary verbs, are, by the
same principle, bound to extend their dissecting-knife _to every
compound word in the language_.
Having thus attempted briefly to prove the philosophical accuracy of
the theory which recognises the tenses, moods, and passive verbs,
formed by the aid of auxiliaries, I shall now offer one argument to
show that this theory, and this _only_, will subserve the purposes
of the practical grammarian.
As it is not so much the province of philology to instruct in the
exact meaning of single and separate words, as it is to teach the
student to combine and employ them properly in framing sentences,
and as those _combinations_ which go by the name of compound tenses
and passive verbs, are necessary in writing and discourse, it
follows, conclusively, that that theory which does not explain these
verbs in their _combined_ state, cannot teach the student the
correct use and application of the verbs of our language. By such an
arrangement, he cannot learn when it is proper to use the phrases,
_shall have walked, might have gone, have seen_, instead of, _shall
walk, might go_, and _saw_; because this theory has nothing to do
with the combining of verbs. If it be alleged, that the speaker or
writer's own good sense must guide him in combining these verbs,
and, therefore, that the directions of the grammarian are
unnecessary, it must be recollected, that such an argument would
bear, equally, against every principle of grammar whatever. In
short, the theory of the compound tenses, and of the passive verb,
appears to be so firmly based in the genius of our language, and so
practically important to the student, as to defy all the engines of
the paralogistic speculator, and the philosophical quibbler, to
batter it down.
But the most plausible objection to the old theory is, that it is
encumbered with much useless technicality and tedious prolixity,
which are avoided by the _simple_ process of exploding the passive
verb, and reducing the number of the moods to three, and of the
tenses to two. It is certain, however, that if we reject the _names_
of the perfect, pluperfect, and future tenses, the _names_ of the
potential and subjunctive moods, and of the passive verb, in writing
and discourse we must still employ those _verbal combinations_ which
form them; and it is equally certain, that the proper mode of
employing such combinations, is as easily taught or learned by the
old theory, which _names_ them, as by the new, which gives them _no
name_.
On philosophical principles, we might, perhaps, dispense with the
_future_ tenses of the verb, by analyzing each word separately; but,
as illustrated on page 79, the combined words which form our perfect
and pluperfect tenses have an _associated_ meaning, which is
destroyed by analyzing each word separately. That arrangement,
therefore, which rejects these tenses, appears to be, not only
_unphilosophical_, but inconsistent and inaccurate.
For the satisfaction of those teachers who prefer it, and for their
adoption, too, a modernized _philosophical_ theory of the moods and
tenses is here presented. If it is not quite so convenient and
useful as the old one, they need not hesitate to adopt it. It has
the advantage of being _new_; and, moreover, it sounds _large_, and
will make the _commonalty stare_. Let it be distinctly understood,
that you teach _"philosophical grammar, founded on reason and common
sense_," and you will pass for a very learned man, and make all the
good housewives wonder at the rapid march of intellect, and the vast
improvements of the age.