The admirable copiousness of the English verb is here triumphantly displayed, and certainly shows in our language, as in many other respects might be shown, a more philosophical structure, than many idolized languages can claim. "There is not more than one tense either in the Latin or French language to answer to the three first of these tenses,” says Pickbourn It was a view of the first of these expressions, I write, which made Bosworth term this tense indefinite, rather than present; for it is used to express general propositions; as, virtue promotes happiness; to denote habits, "he writes badly," and that even although the persons should have been long deceased, as, Virgil sings sweetly, Milton rivals Homer: after certain adverbs, to point out the relative time of a future action, as when he arrives he will hear the news; and frequently, and certainly elegantly and energetically, in historical narrations. Concerning the second expression, I do write, we must repeat the same remarks which we ventured to make relative to the corresponding past tenses. "I am writing," Pickbourn has significantly called the present imperfect. It is definite, and refers strictly to what we consider present, and philosophically, because it leaves the action unfinished, carrying our minds to the future, which is always arriving. The next form of expression, "I have been writing," is very peculiar, perhaps idiomatic. It is allowed it cannot be easily translated. It is composed of singular materials, an active auxiliary, a perfect auxiliary participle, and a present or indefinite principal participle; the first denotes present time, the second past time, and the last time indefinite, or the progressive state of the action; and it is remarkable, that grammarians, in their classification of tenses, frequently omit this, and such like forms of expression, to the no small confusion and discouragement of the anxious inquirer. The last form of expression, I have written, is called by Murray the perfect tense, but it has by others been called the present perfect, or perfect indefinite, because, although it speaks of what has been done, yet it refers to what has been completed in a present time,-in the present day,-the present year: thus, although it would be proper to say we have made some progress in the present year, we could not say we have made great improvement during the past year. Dr. Kippis remarked to Pickbourn, that this tense must be made use of when speaking of the works of authors deceased, provided they are extant: as we may say, "Cicero has written orations; but we cannot say, Cicero has written poems. In the first instance, by a bold figure, we suppose Cicero, as it were, still existing, and speaking to us in his orations; but, as the poems are lost, we cannot mention them in the same manner." In general, this tense may be applied wherever the action is connected with present time, by the actual existence, either of the author or of the work, though it may have been performed ages ago; but, if neither the author nor the work remains, it cannot be used. "Thus speaking of priests we may say, they have in all ages claimed great powers, because the order subsists. But, if we speak of the Druids, we cannot say the druid priests have claimed great powers, but the druid priests claimed great powers, because that order is no more. It only remains that we notice our means of denoting future time, further to show the copiousness of the English verb, of which we have eight: I shall write, I will write, I shall be writing, I will be writing, denoting future time in the simplest manner. I shall have been writing, I will have been writing, I shall have written, I will have written, denoting future time in a complex sense. It will be readily seen, that it is the free use of varied auxiliaries which gives to our language this peculiarity and advantage. It is customary for grammarians, that they may avoid the multiplication of tenses, to class some of these forms of expression: thus, I shall or will write, as if they were synonimous modes of expression and, although habit renders a tolerably correct application of these different auxiliaries familiar even to the illiterate, not only foreigners, but our northern brethren, commonly misapply them. And often, it is not until they have excited the mirth of their friends, that they are aware of their error, and then perhaps are left to grope, if we may so speak, for the reason of it. This reason appears to be, that the difference between shall and will, is "rather modal than temporal." They are allowedly of the same tense, and the difference in mode has not been deemed sufficiently important to require a distinct grammatical mood. Even Dr. Blair, the celebrated professor, needs correction in this particular. In vol. I. of his Lectures, he writes: Without having attended to this, we will be at a loss in understanding several passages of the classics. Vol. II.: I would offend unpardonably against unity, if I should mingle in one discourse, arguments for the love of God and for the love of our neighbour. Vol. I. as, besides the general fault of prolixity and indistinctness, this sentence contains several inaccuracies, I will be obliged to enter into a mi nute discussion of its structure and parts. The great difference between shall and will, will be further shown by the following quotation, which some years since ap peared as an article of intelligence in a public paper, which, whether it be considered as real or fictitious, will equally illustrate our meaning. "Yesterday morning a boat was overset in the Thames, and a foreigner unfortunately drowned. A waterman, who saw the accident, put off from the shore to his assistance, but, when he heard the unhappy gentleman vociferate, me will be drowned, me will be drowned, he returned instantly, muttering in a surly tone, then be drowned for what I care.' The waterman, on being reproached for inhumanity, answered, "why, he said he would be drowned." Dr. Lowth makes the following remarks: will, in the first person, promises or threatens ; in the second and third person, only fortels: shall, on the contrary, in the first person simply fortels, in the second and third person promises, commands, or threatens. But this must be understood of explicative sentences; for when the sentence is interrogative, just the reverse for the most part takes place. The author of a singular work, entitled Aristarchus, has these additional remarks and regulations: "When you speak of yourself, or of a company of which you are a part, never use will, unless it can be resolved into its primitive idea, desire. When the necessity by which you act is independent of your will, it is proper to use shall. Therefore, never use shall, unless you can resolve it into necessity arising from foreign influence. Foreign influence results either from the laws of nature, or from moral obligation." "If the speaker be not the subject of the proposition, he may use shall, whenever necessity is implied. Thus the Deity proclaims his holy law, Thou shalt do no murder. Inferior legislatures assume a similar style. But, in social life, polite people soften a precept, or indicate a necessity of compliance in milder terms, by supposing the concurrence of the will.” Besides these distinctions of moods and tenses, to verbs also belong numbers and persons, which, as Harris observes, are rather among the elegancies than the essentials of verbs. There can be no doubt, however, that the varying terminations of verbs were originally different words, or parts of words, which in the haste and familiarity of conversation, became so abridged and blended, as to become one long word, some of which can, and others cannot, now be analyzed. Etymological inquiries, to persons of thoughtful habits, cannot but be interesting, and cannot fail of unfolding much of the genius and history of a language. On an occasion of this kind, however, nothing more than a few general remarks can with propriety be attempted. It is highly probable that originally verbs were merely nouns employed in a verbal sense. This opinion is strengthened by a review of the Hebrew language, to which, in its grammatical construction, it bears a strong resemblance. It is very frequently so in the Saxon; thus, mey signified power, and, used as a verb, it denoted the power of the speaker, and hence originated our auxiliary may, which, with a slight orthographical variation, is still the same word, and with no great alteration of meaning. The noun Seon, the sight of the eye, in that language, became also the verb seon, to see, which, with a slight alteration of the vowel, and dropping the final consonant, became the English verb, to see. Indeed, the great body of Saxon verbs are merely nouns verbalized by the addition of an, ian, or gan, gean. These terminations are not to be considered arbitrary, but fragments of words long since obsolete, and signifying action, motion, possession, and power; and originally the whole of the words now so abbreviated were employed, but it became more convenient thus to contract, till, at last, almost all trace of the parent word was lost. 66 From the view we have taken of this part of speech, we trust it will be shown that our verbs are as remarkable for their simplicity, as their copiousness. "There is," to use the language of a modern writer, with which we shall conclude, no variety of conjugations, and there are no gerunds nor supines. The verbs preserve in many instances very nearly, and in some exactly, their radical form in the different tenses. Almost all the modifications of time, past, present, and future, are expressed by auxiliaries. This simplicity of structure renders it easy of acquirement. Of all languages, says the Abbe Sicard, the English is the most simple, the most rational, and the most natural, in its construction. These peculiarities give it a philosophical character, and as its terms are strong, expressive, and copious, no language seems better calculated to facilitate the intercourse of mankind, as a universal medium of communication." We shall merely add that the characteristics of a language furnish an unerring index to the discovery of the character of the people who speak it; and that, in the remarkable simplicity of the English language, are afforded striking indications of the undisguised and virtuous simplicity of the English character, while its copiousness and energy pleasingly bespeak the unrivalled wealth and vigour which distinguish the inhabitants of this happy country. 302 WED ME NOT. As my soul's health, I love thee; Oh! love me as sincerely, Be weal and woe forgot! If, while the summer smileth If poverty's foul weather Could make thee curse the lot 1 But if the shade and sun, love, Be each alike to thee, So but our doom be one, love, J. A. H. SONNET TO THE MEMORY OF THE LATE MRS. ANNE RADCLIFFE. Potent enchantress of the midnight hour! Who hath not felt, with interest strong and deep, Beneath thy magic spell?-owning a power None like thyself could wield! The moonlight tower, Before our eyes; as when thy mystic page We ponder'd breathless; and we hear the stride Again thy deep romance, which time shall ne'er destroy. J. B. |
