present tense, for the action expressed by the principal verb which is
produced by the agent operating upon the object, is always _past_ tense,
and the auxiliary, or helping verb _to be_, is always present. Let this
verb be analyzed, and the true meaning of each word understood, little
difficulty will be found in giving it an explanation.
I will not spend more time in exposing the futility of this attempted
distinction. It depends solely on a verbal form, but can never _be
explained_ so as _to be understood_ by any scholar. Most grammarians
have seen the fallacy of attempting to give the meaning of this verb.
They can show its _form_, but _are_ frequently _compelled_, as in the
cases above, to sort out the "_passed_ participles" from a host of
adjectives, and it will _be found_ exceeding troublesome to make
scholars perceive any difference in the use of the words, or in the
construction of a sentence. But it may be they have never thought that
duty belonged to them; that they have nothing to do but to show them
what the book says. Suppose they should teach arithmetic on the same
principles, and learn the scholars to set down 144 as the product of 12
times 12. Let them look at the form of the figures, observe just how
they appear, and make some more like them, and thus go thro the book.
What would the child know of arithmetic? Just as much as they do of
grammar, and no more. They would understand nothing of the science of
numbers, of proportion, or addition. They would exercise the power of
imitation, and make one figure look like another. Beyond that, all would
be a _terra incognita_, a land unknown. So in the science of language;
children may learn that the verb _to be_, joined with the past
participle of an active verb, makes _a passive verb_; but what that
passive verb is when made, or how to apply it, especially in the present
tense, they have no means of knowing. Their knowledge is all taken on
trust, and when thrown upon their own resources, they have none on which
to rely.
LECTURE XII.
ON VERBS.
=Mood=.--Indicative.--Imperative.--Infinitive.--Former distinctions.
--Subjunctive mood.--=Time=.--Past.--Present.--Future.--The future
explained.--How formed.--Mr. Murray's distinction of time.--
Imperfect.--Pluperfect.--Second future.--How many tenses.--
=Auxiliary Verbs=.--Will.--Shall.--May.--Must.--Can.--Do.--Have.
We are now come to consider the different relations of action in
reference to _manner_ and _time_. We shall endeavor to be as brief as
possible upon this subject, keeping in view meanwhile that candor and
perspicuity which are indispensable in all our attempts to explain new
views.
_Mood_ signifies _manner_. Applied to verbs it explains _how_, in _what
manner_, by what means, under what circumstances, actions are performed.
There are _three_ moods, the _indicative_ or declarative, the
_imperative_ or commanding, and the _infinitive_ or unlimited.
The indicative mood declares an action to be _done_ or _doing_, _not
done_, or _not doing_. It is always in the past or present tense; as,
David _killed_ Goliath; scholars _learn_ knowledge; I _spoke not_ a
word; they _sing not_.
The imperative mood denotes a command given from the first _person_ to
the _second_, _to do_ or _not do_ an action. It expresses the wish or
desire of the first person to have a certain action performed which
depends on the agency of the second. The command is _present_, but the
action signified by the word is _future_ to the giving of the command.
The second person cannot comply with the will of the first till such
will is made known; as, bring me a book; go to the door.
The _infinitive_ mood has no direct personal agent, but is produced as a
necessary consequence, growing out of a certain condition of things. It
is always _future_ to such condition; that is, some prior arrangement
must be had before such consequences will follow. It is always _future_;
as, they are collecting a force _to besiege_ the city. We study grammar
_to acquire_ a knowledge of language. Windows are made _to admit_ light.
The act of besieging the city depends on the previous circumstance, the
collection of a force _to do_ it. Were there no windows, the light would
not be admitted to the room.
These distinctions in regard to action must be obvious to every hearer.
You all are aware of the fact that action necessarily implies an actor,
as every effect must have an efficient cause; and such action clearly or
distinctly _indicated_, must have such an agent to produce it. 2d. You
are acquainted with the fact that one person can express his will to the
second, directing him to do or avoid some thing. 3d. From an established
condition of things, it is easy to deduce a consequence which will
follow, in the nature of things, as an unavoidable result of such a
combination of power, cause, and means.
With these principles you are all familiar, whether you have studied
grammar or not. They are clearly marked, abundantly simple, and must be
obvious to all. They form the only necessary, because the only real,
distinction, in the formation and use of the verb to express action. Any
minor distinctions are only calculated to perplex and embarrass the
learner.
But some grammarians have passed these natural barriers, and built to
themselves schemes to accord with their own vain fancies. The remarks of
Mr. Murray upon this point are very appropos. He says:
"Some writers have given our moods a much greater extent than we have
assigned to them. They assert that the english language may be said,
without any great impropriety, to have as many moods as it has auxiliary
verbs; and they allege, in support of their opinion, that the compound
expression which they help to form, point out those various dispositions
and actions, which, in other languages, are expressed by moods. This
would be to multiply the moods without advantage. It is, however,
certain, that the conjugation or variation of verbs, in the english
language, is effected, almost entirely, by the means of auxiliaries. We
must, therefore, accommodate ourselves to this circumstance; and do that
by their assistance, which has been done in the learned languages (a few
instances to the contrary excepted) in another manner, namely, by
varying the form of the verb itself. At the same time, it is necessary
to set proper bounds to this business, so as not to occasion obscurity
and perplexity, when we mean to be simple and perspicuous. Instead,
therefore, of making a separate mood for every auxiliary verb, and
introducing moods _interrogative_, _optative_, _promissive_,
_hortative_, _precative_, &c., we have exhibited such only as are
obviously distinct; and which, whilst they are calculated to unfold and
display the subject intelligibly to the learner, seem to be sufficient,
and not more than sufficient, to answer all the purposes for which moods
were introduced.
"From grammarians who form their ideas, and make their decisions,
respecting this part of english grammar, on the principles and
constructions of languages which, in these points, do not suit the
peculiar nature of our own, but differ considerably from it, we may
naturally expect grammatical schemes that are not very perspicuous nor
perfectly consistent, and which will tend more to perplex than to inform
the learner."
Had he followed this rule, he would have saved weeks and months to every
student in grammar in the community. But his remarks were aimed at Mr.
Harris, who was by far the most popular writer on language in England at
that time. He has adopted the very rules of Mr. Murray, and carried them
out. By a careful observance of the different forms and changes of the
verb and its auxiliaries, he makes out quite evidently to his own mind,
_fourteen_ moods, which I forbear to name.
Most grammarians contend for _five_ moods, two of which, the _potential_
or powerful, and the _subjunctive_, are predicated on the same
principles as Mr. Harris' optative, interrogative, etc., which they
condemn. It is impossible to explain the character of these moods so as
to be understood. _If_, it is said, is the sign of the subjunctive, and
_may_ and _can_ of the potential; and yet they are often found together;
as, "I will go _if I can_." No scholar can determine in what mood to put
this last verb. It of right belongs to both the potential and
subjunctive. _If_ I _may_ be allowed to speak my mind, I _should_ say
that such distinctions were false.
I will not go into an exposure of these useless and false distinctions,
which are adopted to help carry out erroneous principles. The only
pretence for a subjunctive mood is founded on the fact that _be_ and
_were_ were formerly used in a character different from what they are
at present. _Be_ was used in the indicative mood, present tense, when
doubt or supposition was implied; as, If I _be_ there; if they _be_
wise. _Be_ I a man, and _receive_ such treatment? _Were_ was also used
instead of _was_ in the past tense; as, "_Were_ I an American I would
fight for liberty. If I _were_ to admit the fact." In this character
these words are rapidly becoming obsolete. We now say, "If I _am_ there;
am I a man, and _receive_ such abuses? _was_ I an American; if I was to
admit," etc.
All the round about, perplexing, and tedious affair of conjugating verbs
thro the different modes and tenses will appear in its true character,
when we come to give you a few brief examples, according to truth and
plain sense. But before doing that it will be necessary to make some
remarks on time.
_Tense_ means _time_. We distinguish time according to certain events
which are generally observed. In the use of the verb we express action
in reference to periods of time when it is performed.
There are three tenses, or divisions of time; _past_, _present_, and
_future_.
_Past tense_ applies to actions which are accomplished; as, I _wrote_ a
book; he _recited_ his lesson.
_Present tense_ denotes actions commenced, but not finished, and now in
operation; as, he _reads_ his book; we _sit_ on our seats and _hear_ the
lecture.
_Future tense_ refers to actions, which are _to take_ place hereafter;
as, I am _to go_ from the Institute; we desire _to learn_ grammar
correctly.
Every body can mark three plain distinctions of time, past, present, and
future. With the past we have been acquainted. It has ceased to be. Its
works are ended. The present is a mere line--, nothing as it
were--which is constantly passing unchecked from the past to the future.
It is a mere division of the past and future. The Hebrew, which is
strictly a philosophic language, admits no present; only a _past_ and
_future_. We speak of the present as denoting an action begun and not
finished. In the summer, we say the trees grow, and bear fruit. But when
the fruit is fallen, and the leaves seared by the frost, we change the
expression, and say, it _grew_ and _bore_ fruit.
Of the _future_ we can know nothing definitely. Heaven has hung before
all human eyes an impenetrable veil which obscures all future events. No
man without prophetic vision bestowed by Him who "sees the end from the
beginning," can know what is _to be_, and no expression can be made, no
words employed which will positively declare a future action. We may see
a present condition of things, and from it argue what is _to be_, or
take place hereafter; but all that knowledge is drawn from the past and
deduced from a review of the present relation and tendencies of things.
I hold the paper near the fire and you say it _will_ burn, and you say
truly, for it has a _will_, or what is the same, an inherent tendency
_to burn_. It is made of combustible matter, like paper which we have
seen burn, and hence we argue this has the same tendency to be consumed.
But how does your mind arrive at that fact? If you had never seen a
substance like it burn, why should you conclude this _will_? Does the
child know it _will_ burn? No; for it has not yet learned the quality of
the paper. It is not till the child has been burned that it dreads the
fire. Suppose I take some asbestus, of the kind called amianthus, which
is a mineral, and is formed of slender flexible fibres like flax; and in
eastern countries, especially in Savoy and Corsica, is manufactured into
cloth, paper, and lamp wicks. It was used in making winding sheets for
the dead, in which the bodies were burned, and the ashes, retained in
the incombustible sheet, were gathered into an urn, and revered as the
manes of the dead. Suppose I take some of this incombustible paper or
cloth, and present to you. You say it _will_ burn. Why do you say thus?
Because you have seen other materials which appear like this, consume to
ashes. Let us put it into the fire. It _will not_ burn. It has no
_tendency_ to burn; no quality which will consume. But this is a new
idea to you and hence your mistake. You did not know it _would_ burn,
nor could you _indicate_ such a fact. You only told your opinion derived
from the present appearance of things, and hence you made an assertion
in the _indicative_ mood, present tense, and added to it an _infinitive_
mood, in order to deduce the consequence of this future action--it
_wills_, or has a _tendency_ to burn. But you were mistaken, because
ignorant of the _nature_ of things. This amianthus looks like flax, and
to a person unacquainted with it, appears to be as truly combustible;
but the mineralogist, and all who know its properties, know very well
that it _will_ not--wills nothing, has no inclination, or tendency, to
burn.
Take another example. Here is a steel needle. I hold it before you. You
say, "if I let go of it, it _will_ fall," and you say correctly, for it
has such a tendency. But suppose a magnet, as great as that which is
said to have drawn the iron coffin of Mohammed to the roof of the temple
at Mecca, should be placed in the room above us. The needle, instead of
falling to the floor, would be drawn in the nearest direction to that
magnet. The _will_ or _tendency_ of the needle, as generally understood,
would be overcome, the natural law of gravitation would lose its
influence, by the counteracting power of the loadstone.
I say, "I will go home in an hour." But does that expression _indicate_
the act of _going_? It is placed in the indicative mood in our grammars;
and _go_ is the principal, and _will_ the auxiliary verb. May be I shall
fall and die before I reach my home. But the expression is correct;
_will_ is _present_, go _future_. I _will_, I now _resolve_, am now
inclined _to go_ home.
You see the correctness of our position, that we can not positively
assert a future active in the indicative mood. Try and form to
yourselves a phrase by which it can be done. Should you succeed, you
would violate a law of nature. You would penetrate the dark curtain of
the future, and claim to yourself what you do not possess, a power to
declare future actions. Prophets, by the help of the Almighty, had this
power conferred upon them. But in the revelation of the sublime truths
they were instructed to make known, they were compelled to adopt human
language, and make it agree with our manner of speech.
The only method by which we express a future event, is to make an
assertion in the indicative mood, present tense, and to that append the
natural consequence in the infinitive or unlimited; as, I _am to go_ to
Boston. He is preparing _to visit_ New-York. The infinitive mood is
always future to the circumstance on which it depends.
Mr. Murray says, that "tense, being the distinction of time, might seem
to admit of only the present, past, and future; but to mark it more
_accurately_, it is made to consist of six variations, viz.: the
present, imperfect, perfect, pluperfect, first and second future
tenses." This _more accurate mark_, only serves to expose the author's
folly, and distract the learner's mind. Before, all was plain. The past,
present, and future are distinct, natural divisions, easily understood
by all. But what idea can a person form of an _imperfect_ tense in
action. If there was ever such an action in the world, it was when
_grammarians_ =made= their grammars, which is, if I mistake not,
according to their own authority, in the _im-perfect_ tense! I _wrote_ a
letter. He _read_ his piece well. The scholar learn_ed_ and recit_ed_
his lesson _perfectly_; and yet _learned_, tho made _perfect_ by the
qualification of an _adverb_, is an _imperfect_ action!
But this explains the whole mystery in the business of grammar. We can
here discover the cause of all the troubles and difficulties we have
encountered in the whole affair. When authors _made_ their books, they
_did_ it _imperfectly_; when teachers _taught_ them, it was
_imperfectly_; and when scholars _learned_ them, it was _imperfectly_!!
So at last, we have found the origin of this whole difficulty, in the
grammars themselves; it was all imperfectly done.
But here, again, _mirabile dictu!_ wonderful to tell, we are presented
with a _plu-perfect_ tense; that is,--_plus_ means _more_,--a _more_
than perfect tense! What must that be? If a thing is perfect, we can not
easily conceive any thing beyond. That is a _ne plus ultra_ to all
advancement--there can be no more beyond. If any change is introduced,
it must be by falling from _perfect_ back to _imperfect_.
I _have said_, "many of the distinctions in the grammar books _have
proved_ mischievous; that they are as false as frivolous;" and
this is said _perfectly_, in the perfect tense. If I should say,
"they _had been_ of some benefit," that would be _more_ than
_perfect_--plu-perfect. But when I say, "they _exhibited_ great depth
of research, and _conveyed_ some light on the subject of which they
_treated_," it would all be _im_-perfect.
Next, we are presented with a _second future_ tense, which attempts a
division of time unbounded and unknown. In the greek, they have what is
called a "_paulo post future_," which in plain english, means a "_little
after the future_;" that is, I suppose, when futurity has come to an
end, this tense will commence! At that time we may expect to meet a
"_præter plus quam perfectum_"--a more than perfect tense! But till that
period shall arrive, we see little need of making such false and
unphilosophic distinctions.
A teacher once told me that he explained the distinctions of time to his
scholars from the clock dial which stood in the school room. Suppose
_twelve_ o'clock represents the _present_ tense; _nine_ would signify
the _perfect_; any thing between nine and twelve would be _imperfect_;
any thing beyond, _pluperfect_. On the other hand, any act, forward of
twelve, would be _future_; and at _three_ the _second future_ would
commence. I remarked that I thought this a wonderful improvement,
especially to those who were able to have clocks by which to teach
grammar, but that I could not discover why he did not have _three
future_, as well as _three past_ tenses. Why, he said, there were no
such tenses marked in the books, and hence there was no occasion to
explain them. I asked him why he did not have a tense for every hour,
and so he could distinguish with Mr. Webster, _twelve_ tenses, without
any trouble whatever; and, by going three times round the dial, he could
easily prove the correctness of Dr. Beattie's division; for he says, in
his grammar, there are _thirty-six_ tenses, and thinks there can not be
less without "introducing confusion in the grammatical _art_." But he
thought such a course would serve rather to perplex than enlighten; and
so thought I. But he was the teacher of a popular school in the city
of ----, and had published a duodecimo grammar of over 300 pages,
entitled "Murray's Grammar, _improved_, by ----." I will not give his
name; it would be libellous!
Mr. Murray thinks because certain things which he asserts, but does not
prove, are found in greek and latin, "we may doubtless apply them to the
english verb; and extend the principle _as far as convenience_, and the
idiom of our language require." He found it to his "convenience" to note
_six_ principal, and as many _indefinite_ tenses. Mr. Webster does the
same. Dr. Beattie found it "convenient" to have _thirty-six_. In the
greek they have _nine_. Mr. Bauzee distinguishes in the french _twenty_
tenses; and the royal academy of Spain present a very learned and
elaborate treatise on _seven future tenses_ in that language. The clock
dial of my friend would be found quite "_convenient_" in aiding the
"convenience" of such distinctions.
The fact is, there are only three real divisions of time in any
language, because there are only three in nature, and the ideas of all
nations must agree in this respect. In framing language it was found
impossible to mark any other distinctions, without introducing other
words than those which express simple action. These words became
compounded in process of time, till they are now used as changes of the
same verb. I would here enter into an examination of the formation of
the tenses of greek, latin, french, spanish, and german verbs, did I
conceive it necessary, and show you how, by compounding two words, they
form the various tenses found in the grammars. But it will be more
edifying to you to confine my remarks to our own language. Here it will
be found impossible to distinguish more than three tenses, or find the
verb in any different form, except by the aid of other words, wholly
foreign from those that express the action under consideration.
It is by the aid of auxiliary verbs that the perfect, pluperfect, or
future tenses are formed. But when it is shown you that these are
principal verbs, and like many other words, are used before the
infinitive mood without the word _to_ prefixed to them, you will
perceive the consistency of the plan we propose. That such is the fact
we have abundant evidence to show, and with your consent we will
introduce it in this place. I repeat, all the words long considered
auxiliaries, are _principal_ verbs, declarative of positive action, and
as such are in extensive use in our language. We can hardly agree that
the words _will_, _shall_, _may_, _must_, _can_, _could_, _would_,
_should_, etc. have no meaning, as our grammars and dictionaries would
teach us; for you may look in vain for a definition of them, as
principal verbs, with a few exceptions.
The reason these words are not found in the same relation to other
words, with a _to_ after them, is because they are so often used that we
are accustomed to drop that word. The same may be said of all small
words in frequent use; as, _bid_, _do_, _dare_, _feel_, _hear_, _have_,
_let_, _make_, _see_, and sometimes _needs_, _tell_, and a few others.
Bid him go. I _dare say_ so. I _feel_ it _move_. We _hear_ him _sing_.
_Let_ us _go_. _Make_ him _do_ it. He _must go_ thro Samaria. _Tell_ him
_do_ it immediately.
It is a singular fact, but in keeping with neuter verb systems, that all
the _neuter_ verbs as well as the active, take these auxiliary or
_helping_ verbs, which, according to their showing _help them do
nothing_--"express neither action or passion." A wonderful _help_
indeed!
* * * * *
=Will.= This verb signifies to _wish_, to _resolve_, to _exercise
volition_, in reference to a certain thing or action. "I will go." I
_now resolve_ to perform the act of going. When applied to inanimate
things incapable of volition, it signifies what is analogous to it,
_inherent tendency_; as, paper _will_ burn; iron _will_ sink; water
_will_ run. All these things have an inherent or active tendency to
change. Water is composed of minute particles of a round form, piled
together. While on a level they do not move; but let a descent be made,
and these particles, under the influence of gravitation, _will_ change
position, and roll one over another with a rapidity equalled to the
condition in which they are placed. The same may be observed in a
quantity of shot opened at one side which _will_ run thro the aperture;
but the particles being larger, they will not find a level like water.
Grain, sand, and any thing composed of small particles, _will_ exhibit
the same tendency. Iron, lead, or any mineral, in a state of igneous
solution, _will_ run, has the same _inclination_ to run as water, or any
other liquid. In oil, tallow, and lard, when expanded by heat, the same
tendency is observed; but severely chilled with the cold, it congeals,
and _will_ not, has no such _tendency_, to run.