[250] What the state of our literature would have been, had no author attempted any thing on English grammar, must of course be a matter of mere conjecture, and not of any positive "conviction." It is my opinion, that, with all their faults, most of the books and essays in which this subject has been handled, have been in some degree beneficial, and a few of them highly so; and that, without their influence, our language must have been much more chaotic and indeterminable than it now is. But a late writer says, and, with respect to some of our verbal terminations, says wisely: "It is my sincere conviction that fewer irregularities would have crept into the language had no grammars existed, than have been authorized by grammarians; for it should be understood that the first of our grammarians, finding that good writers differed upon many points, instead of endeavouring to reconcile these discrepancies, absolutely perpetuated them by citing opposite usages, and giving high authorities for both. To this we owe all the irregularity which exists in the personal terminations of verbs, some of the best early writers using them promiscuously, some using them uniformly, and others making no use of them; and really they are of no use but to puzzle children and foreigners, perplex poets, and furnish an awkward dialect to that exemplary sect of Christians, who in every thing else study simplicity."—Fowle's True E. Gram., Part II, p. 26. Wells, a still later writer, gives this unsafe rule: "When the past tense is a monosyllable not ending in a single vowel, the second person singular of the solemn style is generally formed by the addition of est; as heardest, fleddest, tookest. Hadst, wast, saidst, and didst, are exceptions."—Wells's School Gram., 1st Ed., p. 106; 3d Ed., p. 110; 113th Ed., p. 115. Now the termination d or ed commonly adds no syllable; so that the regular past tense of any monosyllabic verb is, with a few exceptions, a monosyllable still; as, freed, feed, loved, feared, planned, turned: and how would these sound with est added, which Lowth, Hiley, Churchill, and some others erroneously claim as having pertained to such preterits anciently? Again, if heard is a contraction of heared, and fled, of fleed, as seems probable; then are heardst and fledtst, which are sometimes used, more regular than heardest, fleddest: so of many other preterits.

[251] Chaucer appears not to have inflected this word in the second person: "Also ryght as thou were ensample of moche folde errour, righte so thou must be ensample of manifold correction."—Testament of Love. "Rennin and crie as thou were wode."—House of Fame. So others: "I wolde thou were cold or hoot."—WICKLIFFE'S VERSION OF THE APOCALYPSE. "I wolde thou were cold or hote."—VERSION OF EDWARD VI: Tooke, Vol. ii, p. 270. See Rev., iii, 15: "I would thou wert cold or hot."—COMMON VERSION.

[252] See evidence of the antiquity of this practice, in the examples under the twenty-third observation above. According to Churchill, it has had some local continuance even to the present time. For, in a remark upon Lowth's contractions, lov'th, turn'th, this author says, "These are still in use in some country places, the third person singular of verbs in general being formed by the addition of the sound th simply, not making an additional syllable."—Churchill's Gram., p. 255 So the eth in the following example adds no syllable:—

"Death goeth about the field, rejoicing mickle To see a sword that so surpass'd his sickle." Harrington's Ariosto, B. xiii: see Singer's Shak., Vol. ii, p. 296.

[253] The second person singular of the simple verb do, is now usually written dost, and read dust; being permanently contracted in orthography, as well as in pronunciation. And perhaps the compounds may follow; as, Thou undost, outdost, misdost, overdost, &c. But exceptions to exceptions are puzzling, even when they conform to the general rule. The Bible has dost and doth for auxilliaries, and doest and doeth for principal verbs.

[254] N. Butler avers, "The only regular terminations added to verbs are est, s, ed, edst, and ing."—Butler's Practical Gram., p. 81. But he adds, in a marginal note, this information: "The third person singular of the present formerly ended in eth. This termination is still sometimes used in the solemn style. Contractions sometimes take place; as, sayst for sayest."—Ibid. This statement not only imposes a vast deal of needless irregularity upon the few inflections admitted by the English verb, but is, so far as it disagrees with mine, a causeless innovation. The terminations rejected, or here regarded as irregular, are d, st, es, th, and eth; while edst, which is plainly a combination of ed and st,—the past ending of the verb with the personal inflection,—is assumed to be one single and regular termination which I had overlooked! It has long been an almost universal doctrine of our grammarians, that regular verbs form their preterits and perfect participles by adding d to final e, and ed to any other radical ending. Such is the teaching of Blair, Brightland, Bullions, Churchill, Coar, Comly, Cooper, Fowle, Frazee, Ingersoll, Kirkham, Lennie, Murray, Weld, Wells, Sanborn, and others, a great multitude. But this author alleges, that, "Loved is not formed by adding d to love, but by adding ed, and dropping e from love."—Butler's Answer to Brown. Any one is at liberty to think this, if he will. But I see not the use of playing thus with mute Ees, adding one to drop an other, and often pretending to drop two under one apostrophe, as in lov'd, lov'st! To suppose that the second person of the regular preterit, as lovedst, is not formed by adding st to the first person, is contrary to the analogy of other verbs, and is something worse than an idle whim. And why should the formation of the third person be called irregular when it requires es, as in flies, denies, goes, vetoes, wishes, preaches, and so forth? In forming flies from fly, Butler changes "y into ie," on page 20th, adding s only; and, on page 11th, "into i" only, adding es. Uniformity would be better.

[255] Cooper says, "The termination eth is commonly contracted into th, to prevent the addition of a syllable to the verb, as: doeth, doth."—Plain and Practical Gram., p. 59. This, with reference to modern usage, is plainly erroneous. For, when s or es was substituted for th or eth, and the familiar use of the latter ceased, this mode of inflecting the verb without increasing its syllables, ceased also, or at least became unusual. It appears that the inflecting of verbs with th without a vowel, as well as with st without a vowel, was more common in very ancient times than subsequently. Our grammarians of the last century seem to have been more willing to encumber the language with syllabic endings, than to simplify it by avoiding them. See Observations, 21st, 22d, and 23d, above.

[256] These are what William Ward, in his Practical Grammar, written about 1765, denominated "the CAPITAL FORMS, or ROOTS, of the English Verb." Their number too is the same. "And these Roots," says he, "are considered as Four in each verb; although in many verbs two of them are alike, and in some few three are alike."—P. 50. Few modern grammarians have been careful to display these Chief Terms, or Principal Parts, properly. Many say nothing about them. Some speak of three, and name them faultily. Thus Wells: "The three principal parts of a verb are the present tense, the past tense, and the perfect participle."—School Gram., 113th Ed., p. 92. Now a whole "tense" is something more than one verbal form, and Wells's "perfect participle" includes the auxiliary "having." Hence, in stead of write, wrote, writing, written, (the true principal parts of a certain verb,) one might take, under Wells's description, either of these threes, both entirely false: am writing, did write, and having written; or, do write, wrotest, and having written. But writing, being the root of the "Progressive Form of the Verb," is far more worthy to be here counted a chief term, than wrote, the preterit, which occurs only in one tense, and never receives an auxiliary. So of other verbs. This sort of treatment of the Principal Parts, is a very grave defect in sundry schemes of grammar.

[257] A grammarian should know better, than to exhibit, as a paradigm for school-boys, such English as the following: "I do have, Thou dost have, He does have: We do have, You do have, They do have."—Everest's Gram., p. 106. "I did have, Thou didst have, He did have: We did have, You did have, They did have."—Ib., p. 107. I know not whether any one has yet thought of conjugating the verb be after this fashion; but the attempt to introduce, "am being, is being," &c., is an innovation much worse.

[258] Hiley borrows from Webster the remark, that, "Need, when intransitive, is formed like an auxiliary, and is followed by a verb, without the prefix to; as, 'He need go no farther.'"—Hiley's Gram., p. 90; Webster's Imp. Gram., p. 127; Philos. Gram., p. 178. But he forbears to class it with the auxiliaries, and even contradicts himself, by a subsequent remark taken from Dr. Campbell, that, for the sake of "ANALOGY, 'he needs,' he dares,' are preferable to 'he need,' 'he dare,'"—Hiley's Gram., p. 145; Campbell's Rhet., p. 175

[259] This grammarian here uses need for the third person singular, designedly, and makes a remark for the justification of the practice; but he neither calls the word an auxiliary, nor cites any other than anonymous examples, which are, perhaps, of his own invention.

[260] "The substantive form, or, as it is commonly termed, infinitive mood, contains at the same time the essence of verbal meaning, and the literal ROOT on which all inflections of the verb are to be grafted. This character being common to the infinitive in all languages, it [this mood] ought to precede the [other] moods of verbs, instead of being made to follow them, as is absurdly practised in almost all grammatical systems."—Enclytica, p. 14.

[261] By this, I mean, that the verb in all the persons, both singular and plural, is the same in form. But Lindley Murray, when he speaks of not varying or not changing the termination of the verb, most absurdly means by it, that the verb is inflected, just as it is in the indicative or the potential mood; and when he speaks of changes or variations of termination, he means, that the verb remains the same as in the first person singular! For example: "The second person singular of the imperfect tense in the subjunctive mood, is also very frequently varied in its termination: as, 'If thou loved him truly, thou wouldst obey him.'"—Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 209. "The auxiliaries of the potential mood, when applied to the subjunctive, do not change the termination of the second person singular; as, 'If thou mayst or canst go.'"—Ib., p. 210. "Some authors think, that the termination of these auxiliaries should be varied: as, I advise thee, that thou may beware."—Ib., p. 210. "When the circumstances of contingency and futurity concur, it is proper to vary the terminations of the second and third persons singular."—Ib., 210. "It may be considered as a rule, that the changes of termination are necessary, when these two circumstances concur."—Ib., p. 207. "It may be considered as a rule, that no changes of termination are necessary, when these two circumstances concur."—Ingersoll's Gram., p. 264. Now Murray and Ingersoll here mean precisely the same thing! Whose fault is that? If Murray's, he has committed many such. But, in this matter, he is contradicted not only by Ingersoll, but, on one occasion, by himself. For he declares it to be an opinion in which he concurs. "That the definition and nature of the subjunctive mood, have no reference to change of termination."—Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 211. And yet, amidst his strange blunders, he seems to have ascribed the meaning which a verb has in this mood, to the inflections which it receives in the indicative: saying. "That part of the verb which grammarians call the present tense of the subjunctive mood, has a future signification. This is effected by varying the terminations of the second and third persons singular of the indicative!"—Ib., p. 207. But the absurdity which he really means to teach, is, that the subjunctive mood is derived from the indicative,—the primitive or radical verb, from it's derivatives or branches!

[262] Wert is sometimes used in lieu of wast; and, in such instances, both by authority and by analogy, it appears to belong here, if anywhere. See OBS. 2d and 3d, below.

[263] Some grammarians, regardless of the general usage of authors, prefer was to were in the singular number of this tense of the subjunctive mood. In the following remark, the tense is named "present" and this preference is urged with some critical extravagance: "Was, though the past tense of the indicative mood, expresses the present of the hypothetical; as, 'I wish that I was well.' The use of this hypothetical form of the subjunctive mood, has given rise to a form of expression wholly unwarranted by the rules of grammar. When the verb was is to be used in the present tense singular, in this form of the subjunctive mood, the ear is often pained with a plural were, as, 'Were I your master'—'Were he compelled to do it,' &c. This has become so common that some of the best grammars of the language furnish authority for the barbarism, and even in the second person supply wert, as a convenient accompaniment. If such a conjugation is admitted, we may expect to see Shakspeare's 'thou beest' in full use."—Chandler's Gram., Ed. of 1821, p. 55. In "Chandler's Common School Grammar," of 1847, the language of this paragraph is somewhat softened, but the substance is still retained. See the latter work, p. 80.

[264] "If I were, If thou were. If he were."—Harrison's Gram., p. 31. "If, or though, I were loved. If, or though, thou were, or wert loved. If, or though, he were loved."—Bicknell's Gram., Part i, p. 69. "If, though, &c. I were burned, thou were burned or you were burned, he were burned."—Buchanan's Gram., p. 53. "Though thou were. Some say, 'though thou wert.'"—Mackintosh's Gram., p. 178. "If or though I were. If or though thou were. If or though he were."—St. Quentin's General Gram., p. 86. "If I was, Thou wast, or You was or were, He was. Or thus: If I were, Thou wert, or you was or were, He were."—Webster's Philosophical Gram., p. 95; Improved Gram., p. 64. "PRESENT TENSE. Before, &c. I be; thou beest, or you be; he, she, or it, be: We, you or ye, they, be. PAST TENSE. Before, &c. I were; thou wert, or you were; he, she, or it, were; We, you or ye, they, were."—WHITE, on the English Verb, p. 52.

[265] The text in Acts, xxii, 20th, "I also was standing by, and consenting unto his death," ought rather to be, "I also stood by, and consented to his death;" but the present reading is, thus far, a literal version from the Greek, though the verb "kept," that follows, is not. Montanus renders it literally: "Et ipse eram astans, et consentiens interemptioni ejus, et custodiens vestimenta interficientium illum." Beza makes it better Latin thus: "Ego quoque adstabam, et una assentiebar caedi ipsius, et custodiebam pallia eorum qui interimebant eum." Other examples of a questionable or improper use of the progressive form may occasionally be found in good authors; as, "A promising boy of six years of age, was missing by his parents."—Whittier, Stranger in Lowell, p. 100. Missing, wanting, and willing, after the verb to be, are commonly reckoned participial adjectives; but here "was missing" is made a passive verb, equivalent to was missed, which, perhaps, would better express the meaning. To miss, to perceive the absence of, is such an act of the mind, as seems unsuited to the compound form, to be missing; and, if we cannot say, "The mother was missing her son," I think we ought not to use the same form passively, as above.

[266] Some grammarians, contrary to the common opinion, suppose the verbs here spoken of, to have, not a passive, but a neuter signification. Thus, Joseph Guy, Jun., of London: "Active verbs often take a neuter sense; as, A house is building; here, is building is used in a neuter signification, because it has no object after it. By this rule are explained such sentences as, Application is wanting; The grammar is printing; The lottery is drawing; It is flying, &c."—Guy's English Gram., p. 21. "Neuter," here, as in many other places, is meant to include the active-intransitives. "Is flying" is of this class; and "is wanting," corresponding to the Latin caret, appears to be neuter; hut the rest seem rather to be passives. Tried, however, by the usual criterion,—the naming of the "agent" which, it is said, "a verb passive necessarily implies,"—what may at first seem progressive passives, may not always be found such. "Most verbs signifying action" says Dr. Johnson, "may likewise signify condition, or habit, and become neuters, [i. e. active-intransitives;] as I love, I am in love; I strike, I am now striking."—Gram. before Quarto Dict., p. 7. So sell, form, make, and many others, usually transitive, have sometimes an active-intransitive sense which nearly approaches the passive, and of which are selling, is forming, are making, and the like, may be only equivalent expressions. For example: "It is cold, and ice forms rapidly—is forming rapidly—or is formed rapidly."—Here, with little difference of meaning, is the appearance of both voices, the Active and the Passive; while "is forming," which some will have for an example of "the Middle voice," may be referred to either. If the following passive construction is right, is wanting or are wanting may be a verb of three or four different sorts: "Reflections that may drive away despair, cannot be wanting by him, who considers," &c.—Johnson's Rambler, No. 129: Wright's Gram., p. 196.

[267] Dr. Bullions, in his grammar of 1849, says, "Nobody would think of saying, 'He is being loved'—'This result is being desired.'"—Analyt. and Pract. Gram., p. 237. But, according to J. W. Wright, whose superiority in grammar has sixty-two titled vouchers, this unheard-of barbarism is, for the present passive, precisely and solely what one ought to say! Nor is it, in fact, any more barbarous, or more foreign from usage, than the spurious example which the Doctor himself takes for a model in the active voice: "I am loving. Thou art loving, &c; I have been loving, Thou hast been loving, &c."—A. and P. Gr., p. 92. So: "James is loving me."—Ib., p 235.

[268] "The predicate in the form, 'The house is being built,' would be, according to our view, 'BEING BEING built,' which is manifestly an absurd tautology."—Mulligan's Gram., 1852, p. 151.

[269] "Suppose a criminal to be enduring the operation of binding:—Shall we say, with Mr. Murray,—'The criminal is binding?' If so, HE MUST BE BINDING SOMETHING,—a circumstance, in effect, quite opposed to the fact presented. Shall we then say, as he does, in the present tense conjugation of his passive verb,—'The criminal is bound?' If so, the action of binding, which the criminal is suffering, will be represented as completed, —a position which the action its self will palpably deny." See Wright's Phil. Gram., p. 102. It is folly for a man to puzzle himself or others thus, with fictitious examples, imagined on purpose to make good usage seem wrong. There is bad grammar enough, for all useful purposes, in the actual writings of valued authors; but who can show, by any proofs, that the English language, as heretofore written, is so miserably inadequate to our wants, that we need use the strange neologism, "The criminal is being bound," or any thing similar?

[270] It is a very strange event in the history of English grammar, that such a controversy as this should have arisen; but a stranger one still, that, after all that has been said, more argument is needed. Some men, who hope to be valued as scholars, yet stickle for an odd phrase, which critics have denounced as follows: "But the history of the language scarcely affords a parallel to the innovation, at once unphilosophical and hypercritical, pedantic and illiterate, which has lately appeared in the excruciating refinement 'is being' and its unmerciful variations. We hope, and indeed believe, that it has not received the sanction of any grammar adopted in our popular education, as it certainly never will of any writer of just pretensions to scholarship."—The True Sun. N. Y., April 16, 1846.

[271] Education is a work of continuance, yet completed, like many others, as fast as it goes on. It is not, like the act of loving or hating, so complete at the first moment as not to admit the progressive form of the verb; for one may say of a lad, "I am educating him for the law;" and possibly, "He is educating for the law;" though not so well as, "He is to be educated for the law." But, to suppose that "is educated" or "are educated" implies unnecessarily a cessation of the educating is a mistake. That conception is right, only when educated is taken adjectively. The phrase, "those who are educated in our seminaries," hardly includes such as have been educated there in times past: much less does it apply to these exclusively, as some seem to think. "Being," as inserted by Southey, is therefore quite needless: so it is often, in this new phraseology, the best correction being its mere omission.

[272] Worcester has also this citation: "The Eclectic Review remarks, 'That a need of this phrase, or an equivalent one, is felt, is sufficiently proved by the extent to which it is used by educated persons and respectable writers.'"—Gram. before Dict., p. xlvi. Sundry phrases, equivalent in sense to this new voice, have long been in use, and are, of course, still needed; something from among them being always, by every accurate writer, still preferred. But this awkward innovation, use it who will, can no more be justified by a plea of "need," than can every other hackneyed solecism extant. Even the Archbishop, if quoted right by Worcester, has descended to "uncouth English," without either necessity or propriety, having thereby only misexpounded a very common Greek word—a "perfect or pluperfect" participle, which means "beaten, struck, or having been beaten"—G. Brown.

[273] Wells has also the following citations, which most probably accord with his own opinions, though the first is rather extravagant: "The propriety of these imperfect passive tenses has been doubted by almost all our grammarians; though I believe but few of them have written many pages without condescending to make use of them. Dr. Beattie says, 'One of the greatest defects of the English tongue, with regard to the verb, seems to be the want of an imperfect passive participle.' And yet he uses the imperfect participle in a passive sense as often as most writers."—Pickbourn's Dissertation on the English Verb.

"Several other expressions of this sort now and then occur, such as the new-fangled and most uncouth solecism, 'is being done,' for the good old English idiomatic expression, 'is doing,'—an absurd periphrasis, driving out a pointed and pithy turn of the English language."—N. A. Review. See Wells's Grammar, 1850, p. 161.

The term, "imperfect passive tenses," seems not a very accurate one; because the present, the perfect, &c., are included. Pickbourn applies it to any passive tenses formed from the simple "imperfect participle;" but the phrase, "passive verbs in the progressive form," would better express the meaning. The term, "compound passive participle," which Wells applies above to "being built," "being printed," and the like, is also both unusual and inaccurate. Most readers would sooner understand by it the form, having been built, having been printed, &c. This author's mode of naming participles is always either very awkward or not distinctive. His scheme makes it necessary to add here, for each of these forms, a third epithet, referring to his main distinction of "imperfect and perfect;" as, "the compound imperfect participle passive," and "the compound perfect participle passive." What is "being builded" or "being printed," but "an imperfect passive participle?" Was this, or something else, the desideratum of Beattie?

[274] Borne usually signifies carried; born signifies brought forth. J. K. Worcester, the lexicographer, speaks of these two participles thus: "[Fist] The participle born is used in the passive form, and borne in the active form, [with reference to birth]; as, 'He was born blind,' John ix.; 'The barren hath borne seven,' I Sam. ii. This distinction between born and borne, though not recognized by grammars, is in accordance with common usage, at least in this country. In many editions of the Bible it is recognized; and in many it is not. It seems to have been more commonly recognized in American, than in English, editions."—Worcester's Universal and Critical Dict., w. Bear. In five, out of seven good American editions of the Bible among my books, the latter text is, "The barren hath born seven;" in two, it is as above, "hath borne." In Johnson's Quarto Dictionary, the perfect participle of bear is given erroneously, "bore, or born;" and that of forbear, which should be forborne, is found, both in his columns and in his preface, "forborn."

[275] According to Murray, Lennie, Bullions, and some others, to use begun for began or run for ran, is improper; but Webster gives run as well as ran for the preterit, and begun may be used in like manner, on the authority of Dryden, Pope, and Parnell.

[276] "And they shall pass through it, hardly bestead, and hungry."—Isaiah, viii, 21.

[277] "Brake [for the preterit of Break] seems now obsolescent."—Dr. Crombie, Etymol. and Syntax, p. 193. Some recent grammarians, however, retain it; among whom are Bullions and M'Culloch. Wells retains it, but marks it as, "Obsolete;" as he does also the preterits bare, clave, drove, gat, slang, spake, span, spat, sware, tare, writ; and the participles hoven, loaden, rid from ride, spitten, stricken, and writ. In this he is not altogether consistent. Forms really obsolete belong not to any modern list of irregular verbs; and even such as are archaic and obsolescent, it is sometimes better to omit. If "loaden," for example, is now out of use, why should "load, unload, and overload," be placed, as they are by this author, among "irregular verbs;" while freight and distract, in spite of fraught and distraught, are reckoned regular? "Rid," for rode or ridden, though admitted by Worcester, appears to me a low vulgarism.

[278] Cleave, to split, is most commonly, if not always, irregular, as above; cleave, to stick, or adhere, is usually considered regular, but clave was formerly used in the preterit, and clove still may be: as, "The men of Judah clave unto their king."—Samuel. "The tongue of the public prosecutor clove to the roof of his mouth."—Boston Atlas, 1855.

[279] Respecting the preterit and the perfect participle of this verb, drink, our grammarians are greatly at variance. Dr. Johnson says, "preter. drank or drunk; part. pass, drunk or drunken." Dr. Webster: "pret. and pp. drank. Old pret. and pp. drunk; pp. drunken." Lowth: "pret. drank; part, drunk or drunken." So Stamford. Webber, and others. Murray has it: "Imperf. drank, Perf. Part, drunk." So Comly, Lennie, Bullions, Blair, Butler. Frost, Felton, Goldsbury, and many others. Churchill cites the text, "Serve me till I have eaten and drunken;" and observes, "Drunken is now used only as an adjective. The impropriety of using the preterimperfect [drank] for the participle of this verb is very common."—New Gram., p. 261. Sanborn gives both forms for the participle, preferring drank to drunk. Kirkham prefers drunk to drank; but contradicts himself in a note, by unconsciously making drunk an adjective: "The men were drunk; i. e. inebriated. The toasts were drank."—Gram., p. 140. Cardell, in his Grammar, gives, "drink, drank, drunk;" but in his story of Jack Halyard, on page 59, he wrote, "had drinked:" and this, according to Fowle's True English Grammar, is not incorrect. The preponderance of authority is yet in favour of saying, "had drunk;" but drank seems to be a word of greater delicacy, and perhaps it is sufficiently authorized. A hundred late writers may be quoted for it, and some that were popular in the days of Johnson. "In the choice of what is fit to be eaten and drank."—Beattie's Moral Science, Vol. 1, p. 51. "Which I had no sooner drank."—Addison, Tattler, No. 131.

"Thy brother's blood the thirsty earth hath drank, Broach'd with the steely point of Clifford's lance."—Shakspeare.

[280] "Holden is not in general use; and is chiefly employed by attorneys."—Crombie, on Etymology and Synt., p. 190. Wells marks this word as, "Obsolescent."—School Gram., p. 103. L. Murray rejected it; but Lowth gave it alone, as a participle, and held only as a preterit.

[281] "I have been found guilty of killing cats I never hurted."—Roderick Random, Vol. i, p. 8.

[282] "They keeped aloof as they passed her bye."—J. Hogg, Pilgrims of the Sun, p. 19.

[283] Lie, to be at rest, is irregular, as above; but lie, to utter falsehood, is regular, as follows: lie, lied, lying, lied.

"Thus said, at least, my mountain guide, Though deep, perchance, the villain lied." —Scott's Lady of the Lake.

[284] Perhaps there is authority sufficient to place the verb rend among those which are redundant.

"Where'er its cloudy veil was rended." —Whittier's Moll Pitcher.

"Mortal, my message is for thee; thy chain to earth is rended; I bear thee to eternity; prepare! thy course is ended." —The Amulet.

"Come as the winds come, when forests are rended." —Sir W. Scott.

"The hunger pangs her sons which rended." —NEW QUARTERLY REVIEW: Examiner, No. 119.

[285] We find now and then an instance in which gainsay is made regular: as, "It can neither be rivalled nor gainsayed."—Chapman's Sermons to Presbyterians, p. 36. Perhaps it would be as well to follow Webster here, in writing rivaled with one l: and the analogy of the simple verb say, in forming this compound irregularly, gainsaid. Usage warrants the latter, however, better than the former.

[286] "Shoe, shoed or shod, shoeing, shoed or shod."—Old Gram., by W. Ward, p. 64; and Fowle's True English Gram., p. 46.

[287] "A. Murray has rejected sung as the Preterite, and L. Murray has rejected sang. Each Preterite, however, rests on good authority. The same observation may be made, respecting sank and sunk. Respecting the preterites which have a or u, as slang, or slung, sank, or sunk, it would be better were the former only to be used, as the Preterite and Participle would thus be discriminated."—Dr. Crombie, on Etymology and Syntax, p. 199. The preterits which this critic thus prefers, are rang, sang, stung, sprang, swang, sank, shrank, slank, stank, swam, and span for spun. In respect to them all, I think he makes an ill choice. According to his own showing, fling, string, and sting, always make the preterit and the participle alike; and this is the obvious tendency of the language, in all these words. I reject slang and span, as derivatives from sling and spin; because, in such a sense, they are obsolete, and the words have other uses. Lindley Murray, in his early editions, rejected sang, sank, slang, swang, shrank, slank, stank, and span; and, at the same time, preferred rang, sprang, and swam, to rung, sprung, and swum. In his later copies, he gave the preference to the u, in all these words; but restored sang and sank, which Crombie names above, still omitting the other six, which did not happen to be mentioned to him.

[288] Sate for the preterit of sit, and sitten for the perfect participle, are, in my opinion, obsolete, or no longer in good use. Yet several recent grammarians prefer sitten to sat; among whom are Crombie, Lennie, Bullions, and M'Culloch. Dr. Crombie says, "Sitten, though formerly in use, is now obsolescent. Laudable attempts, however, have been made to restore it."—On Etymol. and Syntax, p. 199. Lennie says, "Many authors, both here and in America, use sate as the Past time of sit; but this is improper, for it is apt to be confounded with sate to glut. Sitten and spitten are preferable [to sat and spit,] though obsolescent."—Principles of E. Gram., p. 45. Bullions says, "Sitten and spitten are nearly obsolete, though preferable to sat and spit."—Principles of E. Gram., p. 64. M'Culloch gives these verbs in the following form: "Sit, sat, sitten or sat. Spit, spit or spat, spit or spitten."—Manual of E. Gram., p. 65.

[289] "He will find the political hobby which he has bestrided no child's nag."—The Vanguard, a Newspaper.

"Through the pressed nostril, spectacle-bestrid."—Cowper.

"A lank haired hunter strided."—Whittier's Sabbath Scene.

[290] In the age of Pope, writ was frequently used both for the participle and for the preterit of this verb. It is now either obsolete or peculiar to the poets. In prose it seems vulgar: as, "He writ it, at least, published it, in 1670."—Barclay's Works, Vol. i, p. 77.

"He, who, supreme in judgement, as in wit, Might boldly censure, as he boldly writ."—Pope, Ess. on Crit.

Dr. Crombie remarked, more than thirty years ago, that, "Wrote as the Participle [of Write,] is generally disused, and likewise writ."—Treatise on Etym. and Synt., p. 202.

[291] A word is not necessarily ungrammatical by reason of having a rival form that is more common. The regular words, beseeched, blowed, bursted, digged, freezed, bereaved, hanged, meaned, sawed, showed, stringed, weeped, I admit for good English, though we find them all condemned by some critics.

[292] "And the man in whom the evil spirit was, leapt on them."—FRIENDS' BIBLE: Acts, xix, 16. In Scott's Bible, and several others, the word is "leaped." Walker says, "The past time of this verb is generally heard with the diphthong short; and if so, it ought to be spelled leapt, rhyming with kept."—Walker's Pron. Dict., w. Leap. Worcester, who improperly pronounces leaped in two ways, "l~ept or l=ept," misquotes Walker, as saying, "it ought to be spelled lept."—Universal and Critical Dict., w. Leap. In the solemn style, leaped is, of course, two syllables. As for leapedst or leaptest, I know not that either can be found.

[293] Acquit is almost always formed regularly, thus: acquit, acquitted, acquitting, acquitted. But, like quit, it is sometimes found in an irregular form also; which, if it be allowable, will make it redundant: as, "To be acquit from my continual smart."—SPENCER: Johnson's Dict. "The writer holds himself acquit of all charges in this regard."—Judd, on the Revolutionary War, p. 5. "I am glad I am so acquit of this tinder-box."—SHAK.

[294]

"Not know my voice! O, time's extremity! Hast thou so crack'd and splitted my poor tongue?" —SHAK.: Com. of Er.

[295] Whet is made redundant in Webster's American Dictionary, as well as in Wells's Grammar; but I can hardly affirm that the irregular form of it is well authorized.

[296] In S. W. Clark's Practical Grammar, first published in 1847—a work of high pretensions, and prepared expressly "for the education of Teachers"—sixty-three out of the foregoing ninety-five Redundant Verbs, are treated as having no regular or no irregular forms. (1.) The following twenty-nine are omitted by this author, as if they were always regular; belay, bet, betide, blend, bless, curse, dive, dress, geld, lean, leap, learn, mulet, pass, pen, plead, prove, rap, reave, roast, seethe, smell, spoil, stave, stay, wake, wed, whet, wont. (2.) The following thirty-four are given by him as being always irregular; abide, bend, beseech, blow, burst, catch, chide, creep, deal, freeze, grind, hang, knit, lade, lay, mean, pay, shake, sleep, slide, speed, spell, spill, split, string, strive, sweat, sweep, thrive, throw, weave, weep, wet, wind. Thirty-two of the ninety-five are made redundant by him, though not so called in his book.

In Wells's School Grammar, "the 113th Thousand," dated 1850, the deficiencies of the foregoing kinds, if I am right, are about fifty. This author's "List of Irregular Verbs" has forty-four Redundants, to which he assigns a regular form as well as an irregular. He is here about as much nearer right than Clark, as this number surpasses thirty-two, and comes towards ninety-five. The words about which they differ, are—pen, seethe, and whet, of the former number; and catch, deal, hang, knit, spell, spill, sweat, and thrive, of the latter.

[297] In the following example, there is a different phraseology, which seems not so well suited to the sense: "But we must be aware of imagining, that we render style strong and expressive, by a constant and multiplied use of epithets"—Blair's Rhet., p. 287. Here, in stead of "be aware," the author should have said, "beware," or "be ware;" that is, be wary, or cautious; for aware means apprised, or informed, a sense very different from the other.

[298] Dr. Crombie contends that must and ought are used only in the present tense. (See his Treatise, p. 204.) In this he is wrong, especially with regard to the latter word. Lennie, and his copyist Bullions, adopt the same notion; but Murray, and many others, suppose them to "have both a present and [a] past signification."

[299] Dr. Crombie says, "This Verb, as an auxiliary, is inflexible; thus we say, 'he will go;' and 'he wills to go.'"—Treatise on Etym. and Syntax, p. 203. He should have confined his remarks to the familiar style, in which all the auxiliaries, except do, be, and have, are inflexible. For, in the solemn style, we do not say, "Thou will go," but, "Thou wilt go."

[300] "HAD-I-WIST. A proverbial expression, Oh that I had known. Gower."—Chalmers's Dict., also Webster's. In this phrase, which is here needlessly compounded, and not very properly explained, we see wist used as a perfect participle. But the word is obsolete. "Had I wist," is therefore an obsolete phrase, meaning. If I had known, or, "O that I had known."

[301] That is, passive verbs, as well as others, have three participles for each; so that, from one active-transitive root, there come six participles—three active, and three passive. Those numerous grammarians who, like Lindley Murray, make passive verbs a distinct class, for the most part, very properly state the participles of a verb to be "three;" but, to represent the two voices as modifications of one species of verbs, and then say, "The Participles are three," as many recent writers do, is manifestly absurd: because two threes should be six. Thus, for example, Dr. Bullions: "In English [,] the transitive verb has always two voices, the Active and [the] Passive."—Prin. of E. Gram., p. 33. "The Participles are three, [:] the Present, the Perfect, and the Compound Perfect."—Ib., p. 57. Again: "Transitive verbs have two voices, called the Active and the Passive."—Bullions's Analyt. and Pract. Gram., p. 66. "Verbs have three participles—the present, the past, and the perfect; as, loving, loved, having loved, in the active voice: AND being loved, loved, having been loved, in the passive."—Ib., p. 76. Now either not all these are the participles of one verb, or that verb has more than three. Take your choice. Redundant verbs usually have duplicate forms of all the participles except the Imperfect Active; as, lighting, lighted or lit, having lighted or having lit; so again, being lighted or being lit, lighted or lit, having been lighted or having been lit.

[302] The diversity in the application of these names, and in the number or nature of the participles recognized in different grammars, is quite as remarkable as that of the names themselves. To prepare a general synopsis of this discordant teaching, no man will probably think it worth his while. The following are a few examples of it:

1. "How many Participles, are there; There are two, the Active Participle which ends in (ing), as burning, and the Passive Participle which ends in (ed) as, burned."—The British Grammar, p. 140. In this book, the participles of Be are named thus: "ACTIVE. Being. PASSIVE. Been, having been."—Ib., p. 138.

2. "How many Sorts of Participles are there? A. Two; the Active Participle, that ends always in ing; as, loving, and the Passive Participle, that ends always in ed, t, or n; as, loved, taught, slain."—Fisher's Practical New Gram., p. 75.

3. "ACTIVE VOICE. Participles. Present, calling. Past, having called. Future, being about to call. PASSIVE VOICE. Present, being called. Past, having been called. Future, being about to be called."—Ward's Practical Gram., pp. 55 and 59.

4. ACT. "Present, loving; Perfect, loved; Past, having loved."—Lowth's Gram., p. 39. The participles passive are not given by Lowth; but, by inference from his rule for forming "the passive verb," they must be these: "Present, being loved; Perfect, loved, or been loved; Past, having been loved." See Lowth's Gram., p. 44.

5. "ACT. V. Present, Loving. Past, Loved. Perfect, Having loved. PAS. V. Pres. Being loved. Past, Loved. Perf. Having been loved."—Lennie's Gram., pp. 25 and 33; Greene's Analysis, p. 225; Bullions's Analyt. and Pract. Gram., pp. 87 and 95. This is Bullions's revised scheme, and much worse than his former one copied from Murray.

6. ACT. "Present. Loving. Perfect. Loved. Compound Perfect, Having loved." PAS. "Present. Being loved. Perfect or Passive. Loved. Compound Perfect. Having been loved."—L. Murray's late editions, pp. 98 and 99; Hart's Gram., pp. 85 and 88; Bullions's Principles of E. Gram., pp. 47 and 55. No form or name of the first participle passive was adopted by Murray in his early editions.

7. ACT. "Present. Pursuing. Perfect. Pursued. Compound perfect. Having pursued." PAS. "Present and Perfect. Pursued, or being pursued. Compound Perfect. Having been pursued."—Rev. W. Allen's Gram., pp. 88 and 93. Here the first two passive forms, and their names too, are thrown together; the former as equivalents, the latter as coalescents.

8. "TRANSITIVE. Pres. Loving, Perf. Having loved. PASSIVE. Pres. Loved or Being loved, Perf. Having been loved."—Parkhurst's Gram. for Beginners, p. 110. Here the second active form is wanting; and the second passive is confounded with the first.

9. ACT. "Imperfect, Loving [;] Perfect, Having loved [.]" PAS. "Imperfect, Being loved [;] Perfect, Loved, Having been loved."—Wells's School Gram., pp. 99 and 101. Here, too, the second active is not given; the third is called by the name of the second; and the second passive is confounded with the third, as if they were but forms of the same thing.

10. ACT. "Imperfect, (Present,) Loving. Perfect. Having loved. Auxiliary Perfect, Loved." PAS. "Imperfect, (Present,) Being loved. Perfect, Having been loved. Passive, Loved."—N. Butler's Pract. Gram., pp. 84 and 91. Here the common order of most of the participles is very improperly disturbed, and as many are misnamed.

11. ACT. "Present, Loving [;] Perfect, Loved [;] Comp. Perf. Having loved [.]" PAS. "Present, Being loved [;] Perfect, Loved, or been loved [;] Compound Perfect, Having been loved."—Frazee's Improved Gram., 63 and 73. Here the second participle passive has two forms, one of which, "been loved," is not commonly recognized, except as part of some passive verb or preperfect participle.

12. ACT. V. "Imperfect, Seeing. Perfect, Seen. Compound, Having seen." PAS. V. "Preterimperfect, Being seen. Preterperfect, Having been seen."—Churchill's New Gram., p. 102. Here the chief and radical passive participle is lacking, and neither of the compounds is well named.

13. ACT. "Present, Loving, [;] Past, Loved, [;] Com. Past, Having loved." PAS. "Present, Being loved. [;] Past, Loved. [;] Com. Past. [,] Having been loved."—Felton's Analyt. and Pract. Gram., of 1843, pp. 37 and 50.

14. ACT. "Present. [,] Loving. [;] Perfect. [,] Loved. [;] Compound Perfect. [,] Having loved." PAS. "Perfect or Passive. Loved. Compound Perfect. Having been loved."—Bicknell's Gram. Lond., 1790, Part I, pp. 66 and 70; L. Murray's 2d Edition, York, 1796, pp. 72 and 77. Here "Being loved," is not noticed.

15. "Participles. Active Voice. Present. Loving. Past. Loved, or having loved. Participles. Passive Voice. Present. Being loved. Past. Having been loved."—John Burn's Practical Gram., p. 70. Here the chief Passive term, "Loved," is omitted, and two of the active forms are confounded.

16. "Present, loving, Past, loved, Compound, having loved."—S. W. Clark's Practical Gram., of 1848, p. 71. "ACT. VOICE.—Present ... Loving [;] Compound [,] Having loved...... Having been loving."—Ib., p. 81. "PAS. VOICE.—Present..... Loved, or, being loved [;] Compound..... Having been loved."—Ib., p. 83. "The Compound Participle consists of the Participle of a principal verb, added to the word having, or being, or to the two words having been. Examples—Having loved—being loved—having been loved."—Ib., p. 71. Here the second extract is deficient, as may be seen by comparing it with the first; and the fourth is grossly erroneous, as is shown by the third. The participles, too, are misnamed throughout.

The reader may observe that the punctuation of the foregoing examples is very discrepant. I have, in brackets, suggested some corrections, but have not attempted a general adjustment of it.

[303] "The most unexceptionable distinction which grammarians make between the participles, is, that the one points to the continuation of the action, passion, or state denoted by the verb; and the other, to the completion of it. Thus, the present participle signifies imperfect action, or action begun and not ended: as, 'I am writing a letter.' The past participle signifies action perfected, or finished: as, 'I have written a letter.'—'The letter is written.'"—Murray's Grammar, 8vo, p. 65. "The first [participle] expresses a continuation; the other, a completion."—W. Allen's Grammar, 12mo, London, 1813. "The idea which this participle [e.g. 'tearing'] really expresses, is simply that of the continuance of an action in an incomplete or unfinished state. The action may belong to time present, to time past, or to time future. The participle which denotes the completion of an action, as torn, is called the perfect participle; because it represents the action as perfect or finished."—Barnard's Analytic Gram., p. 51. Emmons stealthily copies from my Institutes as many as ten lines in defence of the term 'Imperfect' and yet, in his conjugations, he calls the participle in ing, "Present." This seems inconsistent. See his "Grammatical Instructer," p. 61.

[304] "The ancient termination (from the Anglo-Saxon) was and; as, 'His schynand sword.' Douglas. And sometimes ende; as, 'She, between the deth and life, Swounende lay full ofte.' Gower."—W. Allen's Gram., p. 88. "The present Participle, in Saxon, was formed by ande, ende, or onde; and, by cutting off the final e, it acquired a Substantive signification, and extended the idea to the agent: as, alysende, freeing, and alysend, a redeemer; freonde, loving or friendly, and freond, a lover or a friend."—Booth's Introd. to Dict., p. 75.

[305] William B. Fowle, a modern disciple of Tooke, treats the subject of grammatical time rather more strangely than his master. Thus: "How many times or tenses have verbs? Two, [the] present and [the] past," To this he immediately adds in a note: "We do not believe in a past any more than a future tense of verbs."—The True English Gram., p. 30. So, between these two authors, our verbs will retain no tenses at all. Indeed, by his two tenses, Fowle only meant to recognize the two simple forms of an English verb. For he says, in an other place, "We repeat our conviction that no verb in itself expresses time of any sort."—Ib., p. 69,

[306] "STONE'-BLIND," "STONE'-COLD," and "STONE'-DEAD," are given in Worcester's Dictionary, as compound adjectives; and this is perhaps their best classification; but, if I mistake not, they are usually accented quite as strongly on the latter syllable, as on the former, being spoken rather as two emphatic words. A similar example from Sigourney, "I saw an infant marble cold," is given by Frazee under this Note: "Adjectives sometimes belong to other adjectives; as, 'red hot iron.'"—Improved Gram., p. 141. But Webster himself, from whom this doctrine and the example are borrowed, (see his Rule XIX,) makes "RED'-HOT" but one word in his Dictionary; and Worcester gives it as one word, in a less proper form, even without a hyphen, "RED'HOT."

[307] "OF ENALLAGE.—The construction which may be reduced to this figure in English, chiefly appears when one part of speech, is used with the power and effect of another."—Ward's English Gram., p. 150.

[308] Forsooth is literally a word of affirmation or assent, meaning for truth, but it is now almost always used ironically: as, "In these gentlemen whom the world forsooth calls wise and solid, there is generally either a moroseness that persecutes, or a dullness that tires you."—Home's Art of Thinking, p. 24.

[309] In most instances, however, the words hereof, thereof, and whereof, are placed after nouns, and have nothing to do with any verb. They are therefore not properly adverbs, though all our grammarians and lexicographers call them so. Nor are they adjectives; because they are not used adjectively, but rather in the sense of a pronoun governed by of; or, what is nearly the same thing, in the sense of the possessive or genitive case. Example: "And the fame hereof went abroad."—Matt., ix, 26. That is, "the fame of this miracle;" which last is a better expression, the other being obsolete, or worthy to be so, on account of its irregularity.

[310] Seldom is sometimes compared in this manner, though not frequently; as, "This kind of verse occurs the seldomest, but has a happy effect in diversifying the melody."—Blair's Rhet., p. 385. In former days, this word, as well as its correlative often, was sometimes used adjectively; as, "Thine often infirmities."—1 Tim., v, 23. "I hope God's Book hath not been my seldomest lectures."—Queen Elizabeth, 1585. John Walker has regularly compared the adverb forward: in describing the latter L, he speaks of the tip of the tongue as being "brought a little forwarder to the teeth."—Pron. Dict., Principles, No. 55.

[311] A few instances of the regular inflection of adverbs ending in ly, may be met with in modern compositions, as in the following comparisons: "As melodies will sometimes ring sweetlier in the echo."—The Dial, Vol. i, p. 6. "I remember no poet whose writings would safelier stand the test."—Coleridge's Biog. Lit., Vol. ii, p. 53.

[312] De Sacy, in his Principles of General Grammar, calls the relative pronouns "Conjunctive Adjectives." See Fosdick's Translation, p. 57. He also says, "The words who, which, etc. are not the only words which connect the function of a Conjunction with another design. There are Conjunctive Nouns and Adverbs, as well as Adjectives; and a characteristic of these words is, that we can substitute for them another form of expression in which shall be found the words who, which, etc. Thus, when, where, what, how, as, and many others, are Conjunctive words: [as,] 'I shall finish when I please;' that is, 'I shall finish at the time at which I please.'—'I know not where I am;' i.e. 'I know not the place in which I am.'"—Ib., p. 58. In respect to the conjunctive adverbs, this is well enough, so far as it goes; but the word who appears to me to be a pronoun, and not an adjective; and of his "Conjunctive Nouns," he ought to have given us some examples, if he knew of any.

[313] "Now the Definition of a CONJUNCTION is as follows—a Part of Speech, void of Signification itself, but so formed as to help Signification by making TWO or more significant Sentences to be ONE significant Sentence."—Harris's Hermes, 6th Edition, London, p. 238.

[314] Whether these, or any other conjunctions that come together, ought to ho parsed together, is doubtful. I am not in favour of taking any words together, that can well be parsed separately. Goodenow, who defines a phrase to be "the union of two or more words having the nature and construcion [sic—KTH] of a single word," finds an immense number of these unions, which he cannot, or does not, analyze. As examples of "a conjunctional phrase," he gives "as if and "as though."—Gram., p. 25. But when he comes to speak of ellipsis, he says: "After the conjunctions than, as, but, &c., some words are generally understood; as, 'We have more than [that is which] will suffice;' 'He acted as [he would act] if he were mad.'"—Ib., p. 41. This doctrine is plainly repugnant to the other.

[315] Of the construction noticed in this observation, the Rev. Matt. Harrison cites a good example; pronounces it elliptical; and scarcely forbears to condemn it as bad English: "In the following sentence, the relative pronoun is three times omitted:—'Is there a God to swear by, and is there none to believe in, none to trust to?'—Letters and Essays, Anonymous. By, in, and to, as prepositions, stand alone, denuded of the relatives to which they apply. The sentence presents no attractions worthy of imitation. It exhibits a license carried to the extreme point of endurance."—Harrison's English Language, p. 196.

[316] "An ellipsis of from after the adverb off has caused the latter word sometimes to be inserted incorrectly among the prepositions. Ex. 'off (from) his horse.'"—Hart's Gram., p. 96. Off and on are opposites; and, in a sentence like the following, I see no more need of inserting "from" after the former, than to after the latter: "Thou shalt not come down off that bed on which thou art gone up."—2 Kings, i, 16.

[317] "Who consequently reduced the greatest part of the island TO their own power."—Swift, on the English Tongue. "We can say, that one nation reduces another TO subjection. But when dominion or power is used, we always, as [so] far as I know, say, reduce UNDER their power" [or dominion]—Blair's Rhet., p. 229.

[318] "O foy, don't misapprehend me; I don't say so."—DOUBLE DEALER: Kames, El. of Crit., i, 305.

[319] According to Walker and Webster, la is pronounced law; and, if they are right in this, the latter is only a false mode of spelling. But I set down both, because both are found in books, and because I incline to think the former is from the French la, which is pronounced lah. Johnson and Webster make la and lo synonymous; deriving lo from the Saxon la, and la either from lo or from the French la. "Law, how you joke, cousin."—Columbian Orator, p. 178. "Law me! the very ghosts are come now!"—Ibid. "Law, sister Betty! I am glad to see you!"—Ibid.

"La you! If you speak ill of the devil, How he takes it at heart!"—SHAKESPEARE: Joh. Dict., w. La.

[320] The interjection of interrogating, being placed independently, either after a question, or after something which it converts into a question, is usually marked with its own separate eroteme; as, "But this is even so: eh?"—Newspaper. "Is't not drown'd i' the last rain? Ha?"—Shakespeare. "Does Bridget paint still, Pompey? Ha?"—Id. "Suits my complexion—hey, gal? so I think."—Yankee Schoolmaster. Sometimes we see it divided only by a comma, from the preceding question; as, "What dost thou think of this doctrine, Friend Gurth, ha?"—SCOTT'S IVANHOE: Fowler's E. Gram., Sec.29.

[321] Though oh and ah are most commonly used as signs of these depressing passions, it must be confessed that they are sometimes employed by reputable writers, as marks of cheerfulness or exultation; as, "Ah, pleasant proof," &c.—Cowper's Task, p. 179. "Merrily oh! merrily oh!"—Moore's Tyrolese Song. "Cheerily oh! cheerily oh!"—Ib. But even if this usage be supposed to be right, there is still some difference between these words and the interjection O: if there were not, we might dispense with the latter, and substitute one of the former; but this would certainly change the import of many an invocation.

[322] This position is denied by some grammarians. One recent author says, "The object cannot properly be called one of the principal parts of a sentence; as it belongs only to some sentences, and then is dependent on the verb, which it modifies or explains."—Goodenow's Gram., p. 87. This is consistent enough with the notion, that, "An infinitive, with or without a substantive, may be the object of a transitive verb; as, 'I wish to ride;' 'I wish you to ride.'"—Ib., p. 37. Or, with the contrary notion, that, "An infinitive may be the object of a preposition, expressed or understood; as, 'I wish for you to ride.'"—Ibid. But if the object governed by the verb, is always a mere qualifying adjunct, a mere "explanation of the attribute," (Ib., p. 28,) how differs it from an adverb? "Adverbs are words added to verbs, and sometimes to other words, to qualify their meaning."—Ib., p. 23. And if infinitives and other mere adjuncts may be the objects which make verbs transitive, how shall a transitive verb be known? The fact is, that the true object of the transitive verb is one of the principal parts of the sentence, and that the infinitive mood cannot properly be reckoned such an object.

[323] Some writers distinguish sentences as being of three kinds, simple, and complex, and compound; but, in this work, care has not in general been taken to discriminate between complex sentences and compound. A late author states the difference thus: "A sentence containing but one proposition is simple; a sentence containing two propositions, one of which modifies the other, is complex; a sentence containing two propositions which in no way modify each other, is compound."—Greene's Analysis, p. 3. The term compound, as applied to sentences, is not usually so restricted. An other, using the same terms for a very different division, explains them thus: "A Simple Sentence contains but one subject and one attribute; as, 'The sun shines.' A Complex Sentence contains two or more subjects of the same attribute, or two or more attributes of the same subject; as, 'The sun and the stars shine.' 'The sun rises and sets.' 'The sun and the stars rise and set.' A Compound Sentence is composed of two or more simple or complex sentences united; as, 'The sun shines, and the stars twinkle.' 'The sun rises and sets, as the earth revolves.'"—Pinneo's English Teacher, p. 10; Analytical Gram., pp. 128, 142, and 146. This notion of a complex sentence is not more common than Greene's; nor is it yet apparent, that the usual division of sentences into two kinds ought to give place to any tripartite distribution.

[324] The terms clause and member, in grammar, appear to have been generally used as words synonymous; but some authors have thought it convenient to discriminate them, as having different senses. Hiley says, "Those parts of a sentence which are separated by commas, are called clauses; and those separated by semicolons, are called members."—Hiley' s Gram., p. 66. W. Allen too confines the former term to simple members: "A compound sentence is formed by uniting two or more simple sentences; as, Man is mortal, and life is uncertain. Each of these simple sentences is called a clause. When the members of a compound sentence are complex, they are subdivided into clauses; as, Virtue leads to honor, and insures true happiness; but vice degrades the understanding, and is succeeded by infamy."—Allen's Gram., p. 128. By some authors, the terms clause and phrase are often carelessly confounded, each being applied with no sort of regard to its proper import. Thus, where L. Murray and his copyists expound their text about "the pupil's composing frequently," even the minor phrase, "composing frequently," is absurdly called a clause; "an entire clause of a sentence."—See Murray's Gram., p. 179; Alger's, 61; Fisk's, 108; Ingersoll's, 180; Merchant's, 84; R. C. Smith's, 152; Weld's, 2d Ed., 150. The term sentence also is sometimes grossly misapplied. Thus, by R. C. Smith, the phrases "James and William," "Thomas and John," and others similar, are called "sentences."—Smith's New Gram., pp. 9 and 10. So Weld absurdly writes as follows; "A whole sentence is frequently the object of a preposition; as, 'The crime of being a young man.' Being a young man, is the object of the preposition of."—Weld's E. Gram., 2d Edition, p. 42. The phrase, "being a young man," here depends upon "of;" but this preposition governs nothing but the participle "being." The construction of the word "man" is explained below, in Obs. 7th on Rule 6th, of Same Cases.

[325] In the very nature of things, all agreement consists in concurrence, correspondence, conformity, similarity, sameness, equality; but government is direction, control, regulation, restrain, influence, authoritative requisition, with the implication of inequality. That these properties ought to be so far distinguished in grammar, as never to be supposed to co-exist in the same terms and under the same circumstances, must be manifest to every reasoner. Some grammarians who seem to have been not always unaware of this, have nevertheless egregiously forgotten it at times. Thus Nutting, in the following remark, expresses a true doctrine, though he has written it with no great accuracy: "A word in parsing never governs the same word which it qualifies, or with which it agrees."—Practical Gram., p. 108. Yet, in his syntax, in which he pretends to separate agreement from government, he frames his first rule under the better head thus: "The nominative case governs a verb."—Ib. p. 96. Lindsey Murray recognizes no such government as this; but seems to suppose his rule for the agreement of a verb with its nominative to be sufficient for both verb and nominative. He appears, however, not to have known that a word does not agree syntactically with another that governs it; for, in his Exercises, he has given us, apparently from his own pen, the following untrue, but otherwise not very objectionable sentence: "On these occasions, the pronoun is governed by, an consequently agrees with, the preceding word."—Exercises, 8vo, ii, 74. This he corrects thus: On these occasions, the pronoun is governed by the preceding word, and consequently agrees with it."—Key, 8vo, ii, 204. The amendments most needed he overlooks; for the thought is not just, and the two verbs which are here connected with one and the same nominative, are different in form. See the same example, with the same variation of it, in Smith's New Gram., p. 167; and, without the change, in Ingersoll's, p. 233; and Fisk's, 141.

[326] It has been the notion of some grammarians, that the verb governs the nominative before it. This is an old rule, which seems to have been very much forgotten by modern authors; though doubtless it is as true, and as worthy to be perpetuated, as that which supposes the nominative to govern the verb: "Omne verbum personale finiti modi regit ante se expresse vel subaudite ejusdem numeri et personae nominativum vel aliquid pro nominativo: ut, ego scribo, tu legis, ille auscultat."—DESPAUTERII SYNT. fol. xvi. This Despauter was a laborious author, who, within fifty years after the introduction of printing, complains that he found his task heavy, on account of the immense number of books and opinions which he had to consult: "Necdum tamen huic operi ultimam manum aliter imposui, quam Apelles olim picturis: siquidem aptius exire, quum in multis tum in hac arte est difficillimum, propter librorum legendorum immensitatem, et opinionum innumeram diversitatem."—Ibid., Epist. Apologetica, A. D. 1513. But if, for this reason, the task was heavy then, what is it now!

[327] Nutting's rule certainly implies that articles may relate to pronouns, though he gives no example, nor can he give any that is now good English; but he may, if he pleases, quote some other modern grammatists, who teach the same false doctrine: as, "RULE II. The article refers to its noun (OR PRONOUN) to limit its signification."—R. G. Greene's Grammatical Text-Book, p. 18. Greene's two grammars are used extensively in the state of Maine, but they appear to be little known anywhere else. This author professes to inculcate "the principles established by Lindley Murray." If veracity, on this point, is worth any thing, it is a pity that in both books there are so many points which, like the foregoing parenthesis, belie this profession. He followed here Ingersoll's RULE IV, which is this: "The article refers to a noun OR PRONOUN, expressed or understood, to limit its signification."— Conversations on E. Gram., p. 185.

[328] It is truly a matter of surprise to find under what titles or heads, many of the rules of syntax have been set, by some of the best scholars that have ever written on grammar. In this respect, the Latin and Greek grammarians are particularly censurable; but it better suits my purpose to give an example or two from one of the ablest of the English. Thus that elegant scholar the Rev. W. Allen: "SYNTAX OF NOUNS. 325. A verb agrees with its nominative case in number and person."—Elements of E. Gram., p. 131. This is in no wise the syntax of Nouns, but rather that of the Verb. Again: "SYNTAX OF VERBS. 405. Active Verbs govern the accusative case; as, I love him. We saw them. God rules the world."—Ib., p. 161. This is not properly the syntax of Verbs, but rather that of Nouns or Pronouns in the accusative or objective case. Any one who has but the least sense of order, must see the propriety of referring the rule to that sort of words to which it is applied in parsing, and not some other. Verbs are never parsed or construed by the latter of these rules nor nouns by the former.

[329] What "the Series of Grammars, English, Latin, and Greek, ON THE SAME PLAN," will ultimately be,—how many treatises for each or any of the languages it will probably contain,—what uniformity will be found in the distribution of their several sorts and sizes,—or what sameness they will have, except that which is bestowed by the binders,—cannot yet be stated with any certainty. It appears now, in 1850, that the scheme has thus far resulted in the production of three remarkably different grammars, for the English part of the series, and two more, a Latin grammar and a Greek, which resemble each other, or any of these, as little. In these works, abound changes and discrepances, sometimes indicating a great unsettlement of "principles" or "plan," and often exciting our wonder at the extraordinary variety of teaching, which has been claimed to be, "as nearly in the same words as the as the genius of the languages would permit!" In what should have been uniform, and easily might have been so, these grammars are rather remarkably diverse! Uniformity in the order, number, or phraseology of the Rules of Syntax, even for our own language, seems scarcely yet to have entered this "SAME PLAN" at all! The "onward progress of English grammar," or, rather, of the author's studies therein, has already, within "fifteen years," greatly varied, from the first model of the "Series," his own idea of a good grammar; and, though such changes bar consistency, a future progress, real or imaginary, may likewise, with as good reason, vary it yet as much more. In the preface to the work of 1840, it is said: "This, though not essentially different from the former, is yet in some respects a new work. It has been almost entirely rewritten." And again: "The Syntax is much fuller than in the former work; and though the rules are not different, they are arranged in a different order." So it is proved, that the model needed remodelling; and that the Syntax, especially, was defective, in matter as well as in order. The suggestions, that "the rules are not different," and the works, "not essentially" so, will sound best to those who shall never compare them. The old code has thirty-four chief, and twenty-two "special rules;" the new has twenty chief, thirty-six "special," and one "general rule." Among all these, we shall scarcely find exact sameness preserved in so many as half a dozen instances. Of the old thirty-four, fourteen only were judged worthy to remain as principal rules; and two of these have no claim at all to such rank, one of them being quite useless. Of the twenty now made chief, five are new to "the Series of Grammars," and three of these exceedingly resemble as many of mine; five are slightly altered, and five greatly, from their predecessors among the old: one is the first half of an old rule; one is an old subordinate rule, altered and elevated; and three are as they were before, their numbers and relative positions excepted!

[330] "The grammatical predicate is a verb."—Butler's Pract. Gram., 1845, p. 135, "The grammatical predicate is a finite verb."—Wells's School Gram., 1850, p. 185. "The grammatical predicate is either a verb alone, or the copula sum [some part of the verb be] with a noun or adjective."—Andrews and Stoddard's Lat. Gram., p. 163. "The predicate consists of two parts,—the verb, or copula, and that which is asserted by it, called the attribute; as 'Snow is white.'"—Greene's Analysis. p. 15. "The grammatical predicate consists of the attribute and copula not modified by other word."—Bullions, Analyt, and Pract. Gram., P. 129. "The logical predicate is the grammatical, with all the words or phrases that modify it." Ib. p. 130. "The Grammatical predicate is the word or words containing the simple affirmation, made respecting the subject."—Bullions, Latin Gram., p. 269. "Every proposition necessarily consists of these three parts: [the subject, the predicate, and the copula;] but then it is not alike needful, that they be all severally expressed in words; because the copula is often included in the term of the predicate; as when we say, he sits, which imports the same as, he is sitting."—Duncan's Logic, p 105. In respect to this Third Method of Analysis. It is questionable, whether a noun or an adjective which follows the verb and forms part of the assertion, is to be included in "the grammatical predicate" or not. Wells says, No: "It would destroy at once all distinction between the grammatical and the logical predicate."—School Gram., p. 185. An other question is, whether the copula (is, was or the like,) which the logicians discriminate, should be included as part of the logical predicate, when it occurs as a distinct word. The prevalent practice of the grammatical analyzers is, so to include it,—a practice which in itself is not very "logical." The distinction of subjects and predicates as "grammatical and logical," is but a recent one. In some grammars, the partition used in logic is copied without change, except perhaps of words: as "There are, in sentences, a subject, a predicate and a copula." JOS. R. CHANDLER, Gram. of 1821, p. 105; Gram. of 1847, p. 116. The logicians, however, and those who copy them, may have been hitherto at fault in recognizing and specifying their "copula." Mulligan forcibly argues that the verb of being is no more entitled to this name than is every other verb. (See his Exposition," Sec.46.) If he is right in this, the "copula" of the logicians (an in my opinion, his own also) is a mere figment of the brain, there being nothing that answers to the definition of the thing or to the true use of the word.

[331] I cite this example from Wells, for the purpose of explaining it without the several errors which that gentleman's "Model" incidentally inculcates. He suggests that and connects, not the two relative clauses, as such, but the two verbs can give and can take; and that the connexion between away and is must be traced through the former, and its object which. These positions, I think, are wrong. He also uses here, as elsewhere, the expressions, "which relates it" and, "which is related by," each in a very unusual, and perhaps an unauthorized, sense. His formule reads thus: "Away modifies can take; can take is CONNECTED with can give by and; WHICH is governed by CAN GIVE, and relates to security; security is the object of finding, which is RELATED BY of to conviction; conviction is the object of with, which RELATES IT to can look; to expresses the relation between whom and can look, and whom relates to Being, which is the subject of is." —Wells's School Gram., 113th Ed., p. 192. Neither this nor the subsequent method has been often called "analysis;" for, in grammar, each user of this term has commonly applied it to some one method only,—the method preferred by himself.

[332] The possessive phrase here should be, "Andrews and Stoddard's," as Wells and others write it. The adding of the apostrophe to the former name is wrong, even by the better half of Butler's own absurd and self-contradictory Rule: to wit, "When two or more nouns in the possessive case are connected by and, the possessive termination should be added to each of them; as, 'These are John's and Eliza's books.' But, if objects are possessed in common by two or more, and the nouns are closely connected without any intervening words, the possessive termination is added to the last noun only; as, 'These are John and Eliza's books.'"—Butler's Practical Gram., p. 163. The sign twice used implies two governing nouns: "John's and Eliza's books." = "John's books and Eliza's;" "Andrews' and Stoddard's Latin Grammar," = "Andrews' (or Andrews's) Latin Grammar and Stoddard's"

[333] In Mulligan's recent "Exposition of the Grammatical Structure of the English Language,"—the work of an able hand,—this kind of "Analysis," being most improperly pronounced "the chief business of the grammarian," is swelled by copious explanation under minute heads, to a volume containing more than three times as much matter as Greene's; but, since school-boys have little relish for long arguments, and prolixity had here already reached to satiety and disgust, it is very doubtful whether the practical utility of this "Improved Method of Teaching Grammar," will be greater in proportion to this increase of bulk.—G. B., 1853.

[334] "I will not take upon me to say, whether we have any Grammar that sufficiently instructs us by rule and example; but I am sure we have none, that in the manner here attempted, teaches us what is right, by showing what is wrong; though this perhaps may prove the more useful and effectual method of Instruction."—Lowth's Gram., Pref., p. viii.

[335] With the possessive case and its governing noun, we use but one article; and sometimes it seems questionable, to which of the two that article properly relates: as, "This is one of the Hebrews' children."—Exodus, ii, 6. The sentence is plainly equivalent to the following, which has two articles: "This is one of the children of the Hebrews." Not because the one article is equivalent to the two, or because it relates to both of the nouns; but because the possessive relation itself makes one of the nouns sufficiently definite. Now, if we change the latter construction back into the former, it is the noun children that drops its article; it is therefore the other to which the remaining article relates. But we sometimes find examples in which the same analogy does not hold. Thus, "a summer's day" means, "a day of summer;" and we should hardly pronounce it equivalent to "the day of a summer." So the questionable phrase, "a three days' journey," means, "a journey of three days;" and, whether the construction be right or wrong, the article a cannot be said to relate to the plural noun. Possibly such a phrase as, "the three years' war," might mean, "the war of three years;" so that the article must relate to the latter noun. But in general it is the latter noun that is rendered definite by the possessive relation: thus the phrase, "man's works" is equivalent to "the works of man," not to "works of the man;" so, "the man's works," is equivalent, not to "the works of man," but to "the works of the man."

[336] Horne Tooke says, "The use of A after the word MANY is a corruption for of; and has no connection whatever with the article A, i. e. one."—Diversions of Purley, Vol. ii, p. 324. With this conjecture of the learned etymologist, I do not concur: it is hardly worth while to state here, what may he urged pro and con.

[337] "Nothing can be more certain than that [in Greek syntax] all words used for the purpose of definition, either stand between the article and the noun, or have their own article prefixed. Yet it may sometimes happen that an apposition [with an article] is parenthetically inserted instead of being affixed."—J. W. DONALDSON: Journal of Philology, No. 2, p. 223.

[338] Churchill rashly condemns this construction, and still more rashly proposes to make the noun singular without repeating the article. See his New Gram., p. 311. But he sometimes happily forgets his own doctrine; as, "In fact, the second and fourth lines here stamp the character of the measure."—Ib., p. 391. O. B. Peirce says, "'Joram's second and third daughters,' must mean, if it means any thing, his second daughters and third daughters; and, 'the first and second verses.' if it means any thing, must represent the first verses and the second verses."— Peirce's English Gram., p. 263. According to my notion, this interpretation is as false and hypercritical, as is the rule by which the author professes to show what is right. He might have been better employed in explaining some of his own phraseology, such as, "the indefinite-past and present of the declarative mode."—Ib., p. 100. The critic who writes such stuff as this, may well be a misinterpreter of good common English. It is plain, that the two examples which he thus distorts, are neither obscure nor inelegant. But, in an alternative of single things, the article must be repeated, and a plural noun is improper; as, "But they do not receive the Nicene or the Athanasian creeds."—Adam's Religious World, Vol. ii, p. 105. Say, "creed." So in an enumeration; as, "There are three participles: the present, the perfect, and the compound perfect participles"—Ingersoll's Gram., p. 42. Expunge this last word, "participles." Sometimes a sentence is wrong, not as being in itself a solecism, but as being unadapted to the author's thought. Example: "Other tendencies will be noticed in the Etymological and Syntactical part."—Fowler's E. Gram., N. Y., 1850, p. 75. This implies, what appears not to be true, that the author meant to treat Etymology and Syntax together in a single part of his work. Had he put an s to the noun "part," he might have been understood in either of two other ways, but not in this. To make sure of his meaning, therefore, he should have said—"in the Etymological Part and the Syntactical."

[339] Oliver B. Peirce, in his new theory of grammar, not only adopts Ingersoll's error, but adds others to it. He supposes no ellipsis, and declares it grossly improper ever to insert the pronoun. According to him, the following text is wrong: "My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord."—Heb., xii, 5. See Peirce's Gram., p. 255. Of this gentleman's book I shall say the less, because its faults are so many and so obvious. Yet this is "The Grammar of the English Language," and claims to be the only work which is worthy to be called an English Grammar. "The first and only Grammar of the English Language!"—Ib., p. 10. In punctuation, it is a very chaos, as one might guess from the following Rule: "A word of the second person, and in the subjective case, must have a semicolon after it; as, John; hear me."—Id., p. 282. Behold his practice! "John, beware."—P. 84. "Children, study."—P. 80. "Henry; study."—P. 249. "Pupil: parse."—P. 211; and many other places. "Be thou, or do thou be writing? Be ye or you, or do ye or you be writing?"—P. 110. According to his Rule, this tense requires six semicolons; but the author points it with two commas and two notes of interrogation!

[340] In Butler's Practical Grammar, first published in 1845, this doctrine is taught as a novelty. His publishers, in their circular letter, speak of it as one of "the peculiar advantages of this grammar over preceding works," and as an important matter, "heretofore altogether omitted by grammarians!" Wells cites Butler in support of his false principle: "A verb in the infinitive is often preceded by a noun or pronoun in the objective, which has no direct dependence on any other word. Examples:—'Columbus ordered a strong fortress of wood and plaster to be erected.'—Irving. 'Its favors here should make us tremble.'— Young." See Wells's School Gram., p. 147.