they have been variously arranged by different authors. Some, among whom are Grant, Crombie, Hiley, Sutcliffe, Allen, Cooper, Brown, etc. class them with adjectives, and call them "Pronominal Adjectives;" and others, such as Lowth, Priestly, Smart, Murray, Lennie, Booth, Churchill, Wright, Cobbet, Kirkham, Smith, and many others, class them with pronouns, and call them Adjective Pronouns." Since all are agreed about the use of these words, it seems in itself a matter of less importance to which of these two classes they be attached, or whether they are more appropriately called Pronominal Adjectives, or Adjective Pronouns. But as in the Latin and Greek, and in most, if not all European languages, almost all of the corresponding words are ranked uniformly as adjective pronouns; and as there is no necessity for, and no advantage to be derived from a different classification, it seems to be unwise, merely for the sake of change or the love of singularity, to depart from this arrangement in English.

XV. THE VERB.

Though there is little, if any, difference of judgment among grammarians as to what a verb is, yet all have probably found it a difficult matter to give an accurate, and at the same time a brief definition of it, and, accordingly, nearly all grammars differ in their definition of this part of speech. The old definition, that a verb is a word which signifies to be, to do, or to suffer," though unexceptionable as any, as far as it goes, is yet greatly defective in stating nothing respecting the function or use of this part of speech.

The use of the verb in simple propositions is to affirm or declare, and that of which it affirms is called its subject or nominative. This is always the office of the verb in the indicative, potential, or subjunctive. In the use of its other parts, however, namely, the imperative, infinitive, and participles, there is properly no affirmation, though the action or state expressed by the verb in these parts is clearly seen to be the act or state of some person or thing, and which for that reason is strictly and properly, though not technically, its subject. Thus, "For me to die is gain," is a simple proposition, containing two verbs, the first of which, to die, in the infinitive, expresses no affirmation, though it evidently, without affirming, attributes dying to a person, expressed by the word me. So when we say, "I see a man walking," the word walking expresses an act of the person man, though there is properly no affirmation. In like manner, when I say, "Do this," the verb do attributes action imperatively to the person addressed. but there is no affirmation. To speak of "affirming imperatively" is certainly not very intelligible, though, for want of a better expression, we sometimes use it in a loose sense.

8

For these reasons, the definition of a verb which says it is " part of speech which asserts or affirms," appears to me to be de

fective. It states one function of this class of words, but excludes, or at least does not include, others. It gives, as the distinguishing characteristic of a verb, that which does not belong to it in several of its parts and uses. It is too restrictive.

The definition formerly given in this work, is liable to an objection of an opposite kind: it is too general, and not sufficiently distinctive. A verb does, indeed, express an action or state," but there are other words that do so also. Nouns, such as love, desire, wish, hope, etc., and most verbal nouns, such as eruption, friction, collision, diffusion, progression, etc., express action; and inany words, both nouns and adjectives, express a state.

The definition given in the text, though perhaps not unexceptionable, occupies a middle place between these extremes, avoids the indefiniteness of the old definition, and is probably less liable to objection than most of those which have been given.

XVI. DIVISION OF VERBS.

The division of verbs into Transitive and Intransitive is now so generally adopted by grammarians, instead of the former division into Active, Passive, and Neuter; and its propriety and simplicity so obvious, that it seems now unnecessary to argue the point. Of this division, it is necessary only to observe

1st. It divides all verbs into two classes, Transitive and Intransitive, distinguished by a clear and definite characteristic, derived from their use in the construction of sentences. To the first, belong those which are used transitively, whatever be their meaning or form; and to the second, all that are used intransitively, whether they denote action or not (§ 19).

2d. This arrangement and nomenclature leaves the terms Active and Passive at liberty to be applied exclusively to the two forms which all transitive verbs assume, called the active and the passive voice.

3d. It dispenses with the term neuter altogether, as applied to verbs, and leaves it to be appropriated in grammar to the designation of gender only.

Some grammarians are of opinion that no more moods or tenses ought to be assigned to the verb in English, than are distinguished by difference of form in the simple verb. This principle rejects at once the whole passive voice; and in the active, retains only the present and past tense of the indicative mood, and the present of the subjunctive. To carry out this principle to its full extent, we should reject also the plural number of the tenses that are left; for this is always in the same form with the first person singular. This certainly reduces the English verb to very narrow limits, and renders it a very simple thing; so simple, indeed, as to be of little use, being capable of expressing an action or state only in two relations of time.

This simplification of the verb, however, tends only to perplex the language, for though it reduces the number of moods and tenses, it does not, and can not, reduce the number of the forms of speech, by which the different times or modes of action are expressed. It is certain, for example, that we have such forms

of speech as, "have loved," "shall love," "might love," etc,

Now since these and other similar forms of speech express only different relations of time and manner of the one act, "to love," it certainly does seem more easy and simple to regard them as different moods and tenses of the verb to love, than to elevate the auxiliary to the rank of a principal verb, and then to combine them syntactically with the verb to love. Indeed, to dispose of them in this way satisfactorily, is not a quite easy or simple mat ter. For example, in the sentence, "I have written a letter," it is easy enough to say that have is a verb transitive, etc., and written a perfect participle; but when we inquire, what does have govern? what does written agree with? a correct and satisfactory answer will not be so easily found. This example will perhaps show that it is much easier, and quite as satisfactory, to rank the expression as a certain mood and tense of the verb to write."

This theory has its foundation in the supposition that a tense or mood must necessarily mean a distinct form of the simple verb. This supposition, however, is entirely gratuitous. There is nothing in the meaning of the word mood or tense, which countenances it. A verb is a word which expresses action; tense, expresses the action connected with certain relations of time; mood, represents it as further modified by circumstances of contingency, conditionality, etc.; but whether these modifications are expressed by a change in the form of the simple verb, or by its combination with certain auxiliaries, seems to be a matter perfectly indifferent. Indeed, the generally received opinion is, that the different forms of the verb, denominated mood and tense, in Latin and Greek, are nothing more than the incorporation of the auxiliary with the root of the simple verb. If so, why should not the uniform juxtaposition of the auxiliary with the verb, to answer the same purpose, be called by the same name? If a certain auxiliary, connected with a verb, express a certain relation of time, properly denominated the future tense; what essential difference can it make, whether the two words combine into one, or merely stand together? On the whole, then, there is nothing gained by the proposed simplification: Indeed, on the contrary, much, even of simplicity, is lost; and it moreover deprives our language of the analogy which it has in mood and tense with other languages, modern as well as ancient; and if adopted, instead of smoothing the path of the learner, it would tend only to perplex and obscure it.

INDICATIVE AND POTENTIAL.

The indicative mood attributes to its subject the act, being, or

state expressed by the verb simply and without limitation. The potential mood attributes to the subject not the act, etc., expressed by the verb, but only liberty, power, will, or obligation with respect to it; that is, the potential mood expresses not what the subject does or is, but only what it may, can, must, might, could, would, or should do or be, etc.

The auxiliaries may, can, etc., in the potential mood, in all probability, were at first independent verbs in the indicative, fol lowed by the verb in the infinitive, without the sign to before it as it is now used after such verbs as see, hear, feel, let, etc. Grammarians now generally combine them as one word, constituting a particular form of the verb, to which they have given the name of potential mood, from its leading use. The indicative and po tential both declare, but they declare different things: the former declares what the subject does, or is; the latter, what it may or can, etc., do or be. The declaration made by the indicative is simple; that made by the potential is always complex, containing the idea of liberty, power, etc., in connection with the act. "He writes," is the indicative of the verb to write. "He can write," is the indicative of the verb can, with the infinitive of to write; or, combined, the potential of the verb to write.

XVIII. THE SUBJUNCTIVE MOOD.

This mood, as its name implies, is always subjoined tɔ, and dependent on, another verb expressed or understood. "If he study, he will improve;" "O [I wish] that thou wert," etc. The subjunctive mood differs in form from the indicative in the present tense only; in the verb to be, in the present and past.

Both the indicative and potential, with a conjunctive particle prefixed, are used subjunctively; that is, they are used to express what is conditional, or contingent, and with dependence on another verb; as, "If he sleeps, he will do well;" "He would go if he could" (go).

The conditionality or contingency, etc. expressed by this mood, is usually intimated by such conjunctives as, if, though, lest, unless, so, etc. prefixed, which, however, make no part of the verb. The same thing is sometimes expressed without the conjunction, by merely putting the verb or auxiliary before the subject or nominative; as, Had I," for " If I had," "Were he," for "If he were," "Had he gone," for " If he had gone;" ." "Would he but reform," for "If he would but reform," etc.

Most grammarians consider the subjunctive present only as an abbreviated form of the future indicative, or the past potential, and that the supplement may always be made; thus, If he study," etc. that is, if he shall (or should) study," etc.; แ though he [should] come, This view is plausible, and may apply to the present tense of the subjunctive in most cases; but it will not apply to the past subjunctive of the verb to be, either as a principal or an auxiliary. For though we might say, “If I

" etc.

should be," for "If I be," yet we can not say, · If I should were?" And there are some cases in which the present subjunctive form seems to be indispensable; as, See thou do it not," "If he do but try, he will succeed;" still

66

The subjunctive mood, in its distinctive form, is now falling greatly into disuse. The tendency appears to be to lay it aside, and to use the indicative or potential in its stead, wherever it can be done. According to rule, the subjunctive form is used only when it has a future reference; as, "If he come [viz. at a future time], he will be welcome. The same idea is expressed by say. ing," "If he comes" (186, I. 5), "If he shall come ;" and one or other of these expressions is now generally preferred to the subjunctive. Formerly, in cases of supposition, the present subjunctive was used, whether it had a future reference or not; as, Though God be high, yet hath he respect to the lowly." In all such expressions, according to present usage, the present indicative would be used; thus, Though God is high," etc.

66

XIX. THE PARTICIPLE IN ing IN A PASSIVE SENSE.

According to the definition, the passive voice expresses, passively, the same thing that the active does actively. For exam ple, Cæsar conquered Gaul," and "Gaul was conquered by Cæsar," express precisely the same idea. This, however, is not always done by the regular passive form in the present tense, though it is generally done in the other tenses. Thus, it will be felt at once that the expressions, "Cæsar conquers Gaul," and "Gaul is conquered by Cæsar," do not express the same thing.

In regard to this matter, there are evidently two classes of verbs; namely, those whose present passive expresses precisely the same thing, passively, as the active voice does actively, and those in which it does not.

I. To the first of these classes belong

1. All those verbs which, in the regular present passive, imply a continuance of the act; such as, to love, to hate, to regard, to esteem, to envy, to please, etc. Thus, "James loves me," and "I am loved by James," express precisely the same idea, and consequently continuance is implied as much in the passive form as in the active. Hence, is loved," is a true present passive, both in form and meaning. In verbs of this class the progressive form in the active voice is seldom used, because it would express the same thing generally as the common form; thus, "James loves me," and "James is loving me," express the same thing.

2. To this class belong all verbs when used to express general truths, or what is usual or customary from time to time: Thus, "Vinegar dissolves pearls;" "Vice produces misery;" "The cob. bler mends shoes;""Masons build houses," etc. These verbs, used in this way, express precisely the same thing in the regular passive form as they do in the active. Thus, "Pearls are dissolved by vinegar," "Misery is produced by vice;" "Shoes are