both are present as regards each other. This is expressed, in English, by the past tense of the verb substantive and the present participle, I was speaking ; and in Latin and Greek by the imperfect tense, dicebam, ἔτυπτον. 5. Perfect. Action past, but connected with the present by its effects or consequences.-I have written, and here is the letter. Expressed in English by the auxiliary verb have followed by the participle passive in the accusative case and neuter gender of the singular number. The Greek expresses this by the reduplicate perfect: τέτυφα I have beaten. 6. Pluperfect.-Action past, but connected with a second action subsequent to it, which is also past—I had written when he came in. 7. Future present.—Action future as regards the time of speaking, present as regards some future time.-I shall be speaking about this time to-morrow. 8. Future præterite.-Action future as regards the time of speaking, past as regards some future time.-I shall have spoken by this time to-morrow. § 584. These are the chief expressions which are simply determined by the relations of actions to each other and to the time of speaking, either in the English or any other language. But over and above the simple idea of time, there may be others superadded: thus, the phrase, I do speak, means, not only that I am in the habit of speaking, but that I also insist upon it being understood that I am so. Again, an action that is mentioned as either taking place, or as having taking place at a given time, may take place again and again. Hence the idea of habit may arise out of the idea of either present time or aorist time. § 585. 1. The emphatic present and præterite.-Ex pressed by do (or did), as stated above. A man says I do (or did) speak, read, &c., when, either directly or by implication, it is asserted or implied that he does not. As a question implies doubt, do is used in interrogations. Do et did indicant emphatice tempus præsens et præteritum imperfectum. Uro, urebam; I burn, I burned: vel (emphatice) I do burn, I did burn.-WALLIS, p. 106. 2. The predictive future.—I shall be there to-morrow. This means simply that the speaker will be present. It gives no clue to the circumstances that will determine his being so. 3. The promissive future.-I will be there to-morrow. -This means not only that the speaker will be present, but that he intends being so. 4. That the power of the present tense is, in English, not present, but habitual, has already been stated. § 586. The representative expression of past and future time.-An action may be past; yet, for the sake of bringing it more vividly before the hearers, we may make it present. He walks (for walked) up to him, and knocks (for knocked) him down, is, by no means, the natural habitual power of the English present. So, in respect to a future, I beat you if you don't leave off, for I will beat you. This is sometimes called the historic use of the present tense. I find it more convenient to call it the representative use: inasmuch as it is used more after the principles of painting than of history; the former of which, necessarily, represents things as present, the latter, more naturally, describes them as past. The use of the representative present to express simple actions is unequivocally correct. To the expression, however, of complex actions it gives an illogical character,— As I was doing this he enters (for entered). Nevertheless, D D such a use of the present is a fact in language, and we must take it as it occurs. § 587. The present time can be used instead of the future; and that on the principle of representation. Can a future be used for a present? No. The present tense can be used instead of the aorist ; and that on the principle of representation. Can a past time be used for a present ? In respect to the perfect tense, where it exists, there is no doubt. The answer is in the affirmative. For all purposes of syntax a perfect tense, or a combination equivalent to one, is a present. Contrast the expression, I come that I may see; with the expression, I came that I might see; i. e. the present construction with the aorist. Then, bring in the perfect construction, I have come. It differs with the aorist, and agrees with the present—I have come that I may see. The reason for this is clear. There is not only a present element in all perfects, but for the purposes of syntax, the present element predominates. Hence expressions like I shall go, need give us no trouble; even though shall be considered as a perfect tense. Suppose the root sk-ll to mean to be destined (or fated). Provided we consider the effects of the action to be continued up to the time of speaking, we may say, I have been destined to go, just as well as we can say I am destined to go. The use of the aorist as a present (except so far as both the tenses agree in their power of expressing habitual actions) is a more difficult investigation. It bears upon such expressions as I ought to go, &c., for which see §§ 468-471. It is necessary to remember that the connection between the present and the past time, which is involved in the idea of a perfect tense (Térupa), or perfect combination (I have beaten), is of several sorts. It may consist in the present proof of the past fact, I have It written, and here is the evidence that I have done so. may consist in the present effects of the past fact,—I have written, and here is the answer. Without either enumerating or classifying these different kinds of connection, it is necessary to indicate two sorts of inference to which they may give origin. 1. The inference of continuance.-When a person says, I have learned my lesson, we presume that he can say it, i. e. that he has a present knowledge of it. Upon this principle éxτnuaι = I have earned = I possess. past action is assumed to be continued in its effects. κέκτημαι The 2. The inference of contrast.-When a person says, I have been young, we presume that he is so no longer. The action is past, but it is continued up to the time of speaking by the contrast which it supplies. Upon this principle, fuit Ilium means Ilium is no more. In speaking, this difference can be expressed by a difference of accent.-I have learned my lesson, implies that I don't mean to learn it again. I have learned my lesson, implies that I can say it. = § 588. Notwithstanding its name, the present tense, in English, does not express a strictly present action. It rather expresses an habitual one. He speaks well he is a good speaker. If a man means to say that he is in the act of speaking, he says I am speaking. It has also, especially when combined with a subjunctive mood, a future power-I beat you (= I will beat you) if you don't leave off. Again—the English præterite is the equivalent, not to the Greek perfect, but the Greek aorist. I beatervla, not TÉTupa. The true perfect is expressed, in English, by the auxiliary have+the past participle. CHAPTER XV. SYNTAX OF VERBS.-IMPERSONALS. § 589. Meseems.-Equivalent to it seems to me; mihi videtur; qaíveTaí μo. Here, seems is intransitive; and me has the power of a dative case. Methinks. In the Anglo-Saxon there are two forms; pencan to think, and pincanto seem. It is from the latter that the verb in methinks comes. is intransitive; the pronoun dative. Methought I saw my late espoused wife The verb MILTON. Me listeth or me lists. Equivalent to it pleases meme juvat. Anglo-Saxon lystan to wish, to choose, also to please, to delight. Unlike the other two, the verb is transitive, so that me is accusative. These three are the only true impersonal verbs in the English language. They form a class by themselves, because no pronoun accompanies them, as is the case with the equivalent expressions it appears, it pleases, and with all the other verbs in the language. CHAPTER XVI. SYNTAX OF VERBS.-THE AUXILIARIES. § 590. THE auxiliary verbs, in English, play a most important part in the Syntax of the language. They may be classified upon a variety of principles. The following, however, are all that need here be applied. § 591. According to their inflectional or non-inflectional |