DISSERTATION IV.

Of the Formation of Language.—Horne Tooke's theory of the Particles.—Examination of particular Phrases.

FORMATION of LANGUAGE.

Having discussed the subject of pronunciation very largely in the two preceding Dissertations, I shall now examin the use of words in the construction of sentences.

Several writers of eminence have attempted to explain the origin, progress and structure of languages, and have handled the subject with great ingenuity and profound learning; as Harris, Smith, Beatie, Blair, Condillac, and others. But the discovery of the true theory of the construction of language, seems to have been reserved for Mr. Horne Tooke, author of the "Diversions of Purley." In this treatise, however exceptionable may be particular instances of the writer's spirit and manner, the principles on which the formation of languages depends, are unfolded and demonstrated by an etymological analysis of the Saxon or Gothic origin of the English particles. From the proofs which this writer produces, and from various other circumstances, it appears probable, that the noun or substantive is the principal part of speech, and from which most words are originally derived.

The invention and progress of articulate sounds must have been extremely slow. Rude savages have originally no method of conveying ideas, but by looks, signs, and those inarticulate sounds, called by grammarians, Interjections. These are probably the first beginnings of language. They are produced by the passions, and are perhaps very little superior, in point of articulation or significancy, to the sounds which express the wants of the brutes.[85]

But the first sounds, which, by being often repeated, would become articulate, would be those which savages use to convey their ideas of certain visible objects, which first employ their attention. These sounds, by constant application to the same things, would gradually become the names of those objects, and thus acquire a permanent signification. In this manner, rivers, mountains, trees, and such animals as afford food for savages, would first acquire names; and next to them, such other objects as can be noticed or perceived by the senses. Those names which are given to ideas called abstract and complex, or, to speak more correctly, those names which express a combination of ideas, are invented much later in the progress of language. Such are the words, faith, hope, virtue, genius, &c.

It is unnecessary, and perhaps impossible, to describe the whole process of the formation of languages; but we may reason from the nature of things that the necessary parts of speech would be the first formed; and it is very evident from etymology that all the others are derived from these, either by abbreviation or combination. The necessary parts of speech are the noun and verb; and perhaps we may add the article. Pronouns are not necessary, but from their utility, must be a very early invention.

That the noun and verb are the only parts of speech, absolutely necessary for a communication of ideas among rude nations, will be obvious to any person who considers their manner of life, and the small number of their necessary ideas. Their employments are war and hunting; and indeed some tribes are so situated as to have no occupation but that of procuring subsistence. How few must be the ideas of a people, whose sole employment is to catch fish, and take wild beasts for food! Such nations, and even some much farther advanced towards civilization, use few or no prepositions, adverbs and conjunctions, in their intercourse with each other, and very few adjectives. Some tribes of savages in America use no adjectives at all; but express qualities by a particular form of the verb; or rather blend the affirmation and quality into one word.[86] They have, it is said, some connecting words in their own languages, some of which have advanced towards copiousness and variety. But when they attempt to speak English, they use nouns and verbs long before they obtain any knowlege of the particles. They speak in this manner, go, way—— sun, shine—— tree, fall—— give, Uncas, rum; with great deliberation and a short pause between the words. They omit the connectives and the abbreviations, which may be called the "wings of Mercury." Thus it is evident, that, among such nations, a few nouns and verbs will answer the purposes of language.

Many of this kind of expressions remain in the English language to this day. Go away is the savage phrase with the article a, derived perhaps from one, or what is more probable, added merely to express the sound, made in the transition from one word to the other, for if we attend to the manner in which we pronounce these or two similar words, we shall observe that we involuntarily form the sound expressed by a or aw. In some such manner are formed astray, awhile, adown, aground, ashore, above, abaft, among, and many others. They are usually called adverbs and prepositions; but they are neither more nor less than nouns or verbs, with the prefix a.[87] That all the words called adverbs and prepositions, are derived in like manner, from the principal parts of language, the noun and verb, is not demonstrable; but that most of them are so derived, etymology clearly proves.

HORNE TOOKE's THEORY of the PARTICLES.

This theory derives great strength from analizing the words called conjunctions. It will perhaps surprize those who have not attended to this subject, to hear it asserted, that the little conjunction if, is a verb in the Imperative Mode. That this is the fact can no more be controverted than any point of history, or any truth that our senses present to the mind. If is radically the same word as give; it was in the Saxon Infinitive, gifan, and in the Imperative, like other Saxon verbs, lost the an; being written gif. This is the word in its purity; but in different dialects of the same radical tongue, we find it written gife, giff, gi, yf, yef, and yeve. Chaucer used y instead of g.[88]

Freres Tale, 7204.

But the true Imperative is gif, as in the Sad Shepherd. Act 2. Sc. 2.

This is the origin of the conjunction if; and it answers, in sense and derivation to the Latin si, which is but a contraction of sit. Thus what we denominate the Subjunctive mode is resolvable into the Indicative. "If ye love me, ye will keep my commandments," is resolvable in this manner; "Give, (give the following fact, or suppose it) ye love me, ye will keep my commandments." Or thus, "Ye love me, give that, ye will keep my commandments." But on this I shall be more particular when I come to speak of errors in the use of verbs.

An is still vulgarly used in the sense of if. "An please your honor," is the usual address of servants to their masters in England; tho it is lost in New England. But a word derived from the same root, is still retained; viz. the Saxon anan, to give; which is sometimes pronounced nan, and sometimes anan. It is used for what, or what do you say; as when a person speaks to another, the second person not hearing distinctly, replies, nan, or anan; that is, give or repeat what you said. This is ridiculed as a gross vulgarism; and it is indeed obsolete except among common people; but is strictly correct, and if persons deride the use of the word, it proves at least that they do not understand its meaning.

Unless, lest and else, are all derivatives of the old Saxon verb lesan, to dismiss, which we preserve in the word lease, and its compounds. So far are these words from being conjunctions, that they are, in fact, verbs in the Imperative mode; and this explanation serves further to lay open the curious structure of our language. For example:

"Unless ye believe ye shall not understand," may be thus resolved; "Ye believe; dismiss (that fact) ye shall not understand." Or thus, "Dismiss ye believe, (that circumstance being away) ye shall not understand." Thus by analizing the sentence we find no Subjunctive mode; but merely the Indicative and Imperative.

"Kiss the Son, lest he be angry," is resolvable in the same manner: "Kiss the Son, dismiss (that) he will be angry." Else is used nearly in the same sense, as in Chaucer, Freres Tale, 7240:

That is, "If thou dost not believe me, ask him thyself, or dismissing (omitting that) wait and thou shalt be convinced."

Though, or tho, commonly called a conjunction, is also a verb in the Imperative Mode. It is from the verb thafian or thafigan, which, in the Saxon, signified to grant or allow. The word in its purity is thaf or thof; and so it is pronounced by many of the common people in England, and by some in America.

"Tho he slay me, yet will I trust in him," may be thus explained; "Allow (suppose) he should slay me, yet will I trust in him." That this is the true sense of tho, is evident from another fact. The old writers used algife for although; and its meaning must be nearly the same.

Rel. An. Poet. 115.

Since is merely a participle of the old verb seon, to see. In ancient authors we find it variously written; as sith, sithence, sin, sithen, &c. and the common people in New England still pronounce it sin, sen or sence. Of all these, sin or sen, which is so much ridiculed as vulgar, comes nearest to the original seen.[89] This explanation of since unfolds the true theory of languages, and proves that all words are originally derived from those which are first used to express ideas of sensible objects. Mankind, instead of that abstract sense which we annex to since, if we have any idea at all when we use it, originally said, seen the sun rose, it has become warm; that is, after the sun rose, or that circumstance being seen or past. We use the same word now, with a little variation; but the etymology is lost to most people, who still employ the word for a precise purpose, intelligible to their hearers.

But has two distinct meanings, and two different roots. This is evident to any person who attends to the manner of using the word. We say, "But to proceed;" that is, more or further. We say also, "All left the room, but one;" that is, except one. These two significations, which are constantly and insensibly annexed to the word, will perhaps explain all its uses; but cannot be well accounted for, without supposing it to have two etymologies. Happily the early writers furnish us with the means of solving the difficulty. Gawen Douglass the poet, was cotemporary with Chaucer, or lived near his time, was Bishop of Dunkeld in Scotland, and probably wrote the language in the purity of his age and country. As the Scots in the Low Lands, are descendants of the Saxons, in common with the English, and from their local situation, have been less exposed to revolutions, they have preserved more of the Saxon idiom and orthography than their southern brethren. In Douglass we find two different words to express the two different meanings, which we now annex to one; viz. bot and but. The first is used in the sense of more, further or addition; and the last in the sense of except or take away.

The first Mr. Horne derives from botan, to boot, to give more; from which our English word boot, which is now for the most part confined to jockeys, is also derived; and the other from be utan,[90] to be out or away. That these etymologies are just is probable, both from old writings and from the present distinct uses of the word but. This word therefore is the blending or corruption of bot and beut, the Imperatives of two Saxon verbs, botan and beutan.[91]

And is probably a contraction of anan, to give, the verb before mentioned; and ad, the root of the verb add, and signifying series or remainder. An ad, give the remainder.

The word with, commonly called a preposition, is likewise a verb. It is from the Saxon withan, to join; or more probably from wyrth, to be, or the German werden, devenir, to be. The reason for this latter conjecture, is that we have preserved the Imperative of wyrth or werden, in this ancient phrase, "woe worth the day;" that is, woe be to the day. The German verb, in its inflections, makes wirst and wurde; and is undoubtedly from the same root as the Danish værer, to be. But whether with has its origin in withan, to join, or in werden, to be, its sense will be nearly the same; it will still convey the idea of connection. This will plainly appear to any person who considers, that by is merely a corruption of be, from the old verb beon; and that this word is still used to express connection or nearness; "He lives by me;" "He went by me;" that is, he lives be me.

This verb be was formerly used in this phrase; be my faith, be my troth; that is, by my faith, as in Chevy Chace.[92] We still find the same verb in a multitude of compounds, be-come, be-yond, be-tween, be-side, be-fore. Thus we see what are called prepositions, are mere combinations or corruptions of verbs; they are not a primitive part of language, and if we resolve this phrase, he went beyond me, we shall find it composed of these words, he went, be, gone, me; yond being nothing but the participle of go.

Will my grammatical readers believe me, when I assert that the affirmation yea, or yes, is a verb? That it is so, is undeniable. The English yea, yes, and the German ja, pronounced yaw, are derived from a verb in the Imperative Mode; or rather, they are but corruptions of aye, the Imperative of the French avoir, to have. The pure word aye, is still used in English. The affirmation yea or yes, is have, an expression of assent, have what you say.[93]

That all the words, called adverbs, are abbreviations or combinations of nouns, verbs and adjectives, cannot perhaps be proved; for it is extremely difficult to trace the little words, when, then, there, here, &c. to their true origin.[94] But excepting a few, the whole class of words, denominated adverbs, can be resolved into other parts of speech. The termination ly, which forms a large proportion of these words, is derived from the Saxon liche, like.

Chaucer, Cant. Tales, 1057.

We have in a few words retained the original pronunciation, as Godlike; but in strictness of speech, there is no difference between Godlike and Godly.[95]

Notwithstanding it is evident that conjunctions, prepositions, and adverbs are not original and necessary parts of speech, yet as species of abbreviations, or compound terms to express assemblages of ideas, they may be considered as very useful, and as great improvements in language. Every person, even without the least knowlege of etymology, acquires a habit of annexing a certain idea, or certain number of ideas to unless, lest, yes, between, and the other particles; he uses them with precision, and makes himself understood by his hearers or readers. These words enable him to communicate his ideas with greater facility and expedition, than he could by mere names and affirmations. They have lost the distinguishing characteristics of verbs, person, time, and inflection. It is therefore convenient for grammatical purposes, to assign them distinct places and give them names, according to their particular uses. Such of these old verbs as exhibit some connection between the members of a discourse, may be properly denominated conjunctions. Others, that are used to show certain relations between words and are generally prefixed to them, may be well called prepositions. A third species, which are employed to qualify the sense of other words, may, from their position and uses in a discourse, be denominated adverbs. But the foregoing investigation is necessary to unfold the true principles on which language is constructed, and the philosophical enquirer is referred for a more general view of the subject, to Mr. Horne Tooke's Diversions of Purley.

The verb or word is so called by way of eminence; the ancient grammarians having considered it as the principal part of speech. The noun is however entitled to the precedence; it is of equal importance in language, and undoubtedly claims priority of origin. Philosophy might teach us that the names of a few visible objects would be first formed by barbarous men, and afterwards the words which express the most common actions. But with respect to names of abstract ideas, as they are usually called, they not only precede the formation of the verbs which represent the action, but it often happens that the same word is used, with a prefix to denote the action of the object to which the name is given. For example, love and fear are the names of certain passions or affections of the mind. To express the action or exertion of these affections, we have not invented distinct terms; but custom has for this purpose prefixed the word do or to, which, in its primitive sense, is to act, move, or make.[96] Thus I do love, or do fear, are merely, I act, love, or act, fear; and to love and to fear in the Infinitive, are act, love, and act, fear.

To confirm these remarks, let it be considered that formerly do and did were almost invariably used with the verb; as I do fear, he did love; and the omission of these words in affirmative declarations is of a modern date. They are still preserved in particular modes of expression; as in the negative and interrogative forms, and in emphatical assertions.

The present hypothesis will derive additional strength from another circumstance. Grammarians allege that the termination of the regular preterit tense, ed, is a corruption of did. If so, it seems to have been originally optional, either to place the word did, which expressed the action of the object, before or after the name. Thus, he feared, is resolvable into he fear did, and must be a blending of the words in a hasty pronunciation. But it was also a practice to say he did fear, which arrangement is not yet lost nor obscured; but in no case are both these forms used, he did feared; a presumptive evidence of the truth of the opinion, that ed is a contraction of did. Indeed I see no objection to the opinion but this, that it is not easy on this supposition, to account for the formation of did from do. If did is itself a contraction of doed, the regular preterit, which is probable, whence comes ed in this word? To derive ed in other words from did is easy and natural; but this leaves us short of the primary cause or principle, and consequently in suspense, as to the truth of the opinion. Yet whatever may be the true derivation of the regular ending of the past time and perfect participle of English verbs, the use of do, did and to before the verb, is a strong evidence, that at least one class of affirmations are formed by the help of names, with a prefix to denote the action of the objects expressed by the names. I fear, therefore, is a phrase, composed of the pronoun I, and the noun fear; and the affirmation, contained in the phrase, is derived from the single circumstance of the position of the name after I. I fear is a modern substitute for I do fear; that is, I act, fear; all originally and strictly nouns. But by a habit of uniting the personal name I with the name of the passion fear, we instantly recognize an affirmation that the passion is exerted; and do, the primitive name of act, has become superfluous.

EXAMINATION of PARTICULAR PHRASES.

Having made these few remarks on the formation of our language, I shall proceed to examin the criticisms of grammarians on certain phrases, and endeavor to settle some points of controversy with respect to the use of words; and also to detect some inaccuracies which prevail in practice.

NOUNS.

Writers upon the subject of propriety in our language, have objected to the use of means, with the article a and the definitive pronouns singular, this and that. The objection made is, that as this word ends in s, it must be plural, and cannot be joined in construction with words in the singular. This objection supposes that all nouns ending with s are plural; but this would perhaps prove too much, and make it necessary to consider all nouns, not ending in s, as singular, which cannot be true, even on the principles of those who bring the objection. The supposition in both cases would be equally well founded.

It appears to me however, that the sense of the word, and particularly the universal practice of the English nation, ought to have induced the critical grammarian, who wished to reduce the language to some certainty, to suppress the objection. The word means, applied to a single instrument of action, or cause, conveys a single idea; and I presume, was generally used for this purpose, till Bishop Lowth questioned the propriety of the practice; at least mean is scarcely used as a noun, in any author from Chaucer to Lowth. On the contrary, the best writers have used means either in the singular or plural number, according as they had occasion to express by it an idea of one cause or more.

"By this means, it became every man's interest, as well as his duty to prevent all crimes."——Temple, Works, vol. 3. p. 133.

"And by this means I should not doubt," &c.—— Wilkins Real Character, book 1.

"And finding themselves by this means to be safe."——Sidney on Gov. chap. 3. sect. 36.

"For he hopeth by this means to acquit himself."——Rawley's Sylva Sylvarum.

"And by that means they lost their barrier."——Moyle on the Lacedem. Gov.

"Clodius was now quæstor and by that means a senator."——Middleton L. of Cic. vol. 1. p. 261.

"By this means however, there was nothing left to the Parliament of Ireland."——Blackstone's Com. vol. 1. p. 102.

In this manner was the word used by the elegant writers in Queen Anne's reign.

But we have not only the authority of almost every good writer in the language, for this use of means in the singular as well as plural number, but we have the authority of almost unanimous national practice in speaking. It is rare to hear mean used as a noun, and by those only who are fettered by the arbitrary rules of grammarians. I question whether the word, in the singular form, has obtained such an establishment, as to be entitled to a place among the English nouns. The use of it appears like pedantry. No man, whatever may be his rank and abilities, has a right to reject a mode of speech, established by immemorial usage and universal consent. Grammars should be formed on practice; for practice determines what a language is. I do not mean a local practice, for this would subject us to perpetual variety and instability; but national or general practice. The latter, it has been remarked, is the standard of propriety, to which all local idioms and private opinions should be sacrificed. The business of a grammarian is not to examin whether or not national practice is founded on philosophical principles; but to ascertain the national practice, that the learner may be able to weed from his own any local peculiarities or false idioms.

If this means and a means are now, and have immemorially been, used by good authors and the nation in general, neither Johnson, Lowth, nor any other person, however learned, has a right to say that the phrases are not good English. That this is the fact, every person may satisfy himself, by consulting the good authors and observing the universal practice in discourse.

Besides, the general practice of a nation is not easily changed, and the only effect that an attempt to reform it can produce, is, to make many people doubtful, cautious, and consequently uneasy; to render a few ridiculous and pedantic by following nice criticisms in the face of customary propriety; and to introduce a distinction between the learned and unlearned, which serves only to create difficulties for both.

Dr. Priestley is the only writer upon this subject who seems to have been guided by just principles. He observes, with great propriety, that "Grammarians have leaned too much to the analogies of the Latin language, contrary to our mode of speaking and to the analogies of other languages, more like our own. It must be allowed, that the custom of speaking, is the original and only just standard of any language." Pref. to Gram. page 9. His criticisms are exceedingly judicious, and are entitled to the consideration of the student, in preference to those of Lowth, or any other English author. He considers means as belonging "to that class of words which do not change their termination on account of number." It is used in both numbers, a means, or these means, with equal propriety.

To the same class of words belong pains, news, and perhaps some others. Every person who has read good English authors, or lived where the language is spoken in purity, must have observed that the word pains is usually preceded by much, and followed by a verb in the singular number; much pains was taken. If the word is a plural noun, it should neither be followed by a singular verb, nor preceded by much; for we never prefix much to plurals. The most untutored ear would be offended at much papers, much labors. But do we not always say much pains? Do we ever say many pains were taken? I confess I never yet heard or saw the expression. Yet Lowth contends that pains is plural. This criticism upon the word is an authority in vindication of an erroneous practice of using it with a plural verb, even when it is preceded by much. So in Sheridan's Art of Reading, we observe these words; "If so much pains were thought necessary among them," &c. Temple indulges the same mistake; "I know how much pains have been taken to deduce the words Baro and feudum from the Latin and Greek, and even from the Hebrew and Egyptian tongue." Works, vol. 3. p. 365.

Might not these writers have used, much sheep were killed, with the same propriety?

The sense of the word pains does not require that we should consider it as a plural; for it signifies labor or fatigue, in contradistinction to those uneasy sensations, each of which singly is called a pain, and to express a number of which pains is used as a plural. On the other hand we have the authority of general practice for uniting with it much, which can in no case be used with a plural, and also a verb in the singular number.

—"And taken much pains so to proportion the powers of the several magistrates."——Sidney on Gov. sect. I.

"I found much art and pains employed."——Middleton.

"He will assemble materials with much pains."——Bolling. on Hist. letter 4.

"As to our own language, several persons have taken much pains about the orthography of it."——Wilkins Real Char. book I. chap. 5.

There are a few instances in which good authors have considered news as a plural; as

"From all regions where the best news are made."——B. Johnson, Staple of News.

"And seal the news and issue them."——The same.

But can an English ear relish this affected correctness? Hear the language of Cowley and Shakespear, who wrote as the nation spoke:

Cowley's Davideis, book 1.

The same.

Rich. III. scene 1.

Such is the language at this day, and a man would expose himself to ridicule, who should say, these news are good.

Late writers seem to consider riches as plural; but erroneously. It is merely a contraction of richesse, the French singular, which was probably introduced into England under the Norman kings. Chaucer uses richesse as the singular:

Cant. Tales, 6691.

La Belle Dame sans mercy, 323.

The word richesse here is no more plural than gentilnesse, distresse, doublenesse, which the author uses in the same poem; and riches now, in strictness of speech, is no more plural than gentleness, distress, or any other word of similar ending. When Chaucer had occasion for a plural, he wrote the word richesses; as in the Tale of Melibeus: "Thou hast dronke so muche hony of swete temporal richesses and delices and honors of this world," &c.—— Works, vol. 4. p. 170. Bell's edit.

The word riches therefore is in the singular number and merely an abbreviation of richesse; as distress is of distresse; weakness, of weaknesse, &c. and the reason why the plural richesses has been neglected, may be, that the idea it conveys does not admit of number any more than that of wealth, which is also destitute of a plural form.

"Was ever riches gotten by your golden mediocrities?"——Cowley on Cromwell's Gov.

Cowley.

"The envy and jealousy which great riches is always attended with."——Moyle's Essay on Lacedem. Gov. 48.

"In one hour is so great riches come to nought."——Bible.

Here riches is considered in its true light. Notwithstanding this, the termination of the word has led late writers into the opinion, that it is plural; so that we generally see it followed by a plural verb: Should this become the unanimous opinion and a general correspondent practice ensue, riches will be established as a plural, contrary to etymology and ancient usage.

Alms is also in the singular number; being a contraction of the old Norman French, almesse, the plural of which was almesses. So in Chaucer:

"Ye knowen wel that I am poure and olde, Kithe (show) your almesse upon me poure wretche."

Freres Tale, 7190.

"This almesse shouldest thou do of thy propre thinges," &c.—— Vol. 5. p. 217. Bell.

"These ben generally the almesses and werkes of charitie of hem that have temporel richesses."——The same.

Alms is used as a noun singular in the Bible; "To ask an alms." "He gave much alms;" that is, almesse, or charity. The plural of this word is not used.

Largess is a word of this class. It is from the old French largesse; but the idea admits of number, and accordingly we find the plural, largesses, still in use.

Laches, from the French lachesse, is still retained in the law stile; but custom has abbreviated the word into lache, a single syllable.

Amends may properly be considered as in the singular number, and so it is used by one of our best writers. "They must needs think that this honor to him, when dead, was but a necessary amends for the injury which they had done him, when living."——Middleton's L. of Cic. vol. 3. p. 131.

The idea here conveyed by amends is as single as that expressed by compensation. The word has no change of termination, and may be considered as singular or plural, at the choice of the writer.

Wages is a word of the same kind.

Victuals is derived from the old French vitaille,[97] and was formerly used in the singular form, victual. But the latter is now wholly disused, and victuals generally used with a singular verb and pronoun. So Swift uses the word. "We had such very fine victuals that I could not eat it."[98] The editor of his works remarks, that here is false concord; but I believe Swift has followed the general practice of the English. The word seems to have lost the plurality of ideas, annexed to many different articles included in the term, and to have assumed the general meaning of the word food, which does not admit of the plural.

The word odds seems to be of the same kind. We sometimes find a plural verb united to it, as in Pope's translation of Homer:

Iliad, b. 15. l. 670.

But in common practice odds is considered as in the singular number. We always say, "What is the odds;" and I should rank this among the words, which, altho they have the termination of regular plurals, more properly belong to the singular number.

The word gallows is evidently of this class. "Let a gallows be made," say the translators of the Bible, with perfect propriety. Indeed I cannot conceive how any man who has read English authors, can consider this word as in the plural.

Bellows, tongs, sheers, scissors, snuffers, pincers, have no change of termination, and it is the practice to prefix to them the word pair. Yet notwithstanding these articles are composed of two principal parts, both are necessary to form a single indivisible instrument, and the names might have been considered as nouns in the singular.[99] Pair is more properly applied to two separate articles of the same kind, and used together; a pair of shoes, or gloves. Custom, however, has sanctioned the use of it before the words just enumerated, and therefore a pair of tongs, &c. must be admitted as good English.[100]

There are many other words in our language which have the plural termination; as billiards, ethics, metaphysics, mathematics, measles, hysterics, and many others; which properly belong to the singular number. Ethics is a science, is better English than ethics are.

On the other hand, there are many words, which, without ever taking the plural termination, often belong to the plural. Sheep, deer and hose, are often mentioned as belonging to this description. To these we may add many names of fish; as trout, salmon, carp, tench and others, which are in fact names of species; but which apply equally to the individuals of the species. We say a trout, or five trout; but never five trouts.

POSSESSIVE CASE.

In many instances we find two or three words used to describe or designate a particular person or thing; in which case they are to be considered as a single noun or name, and the sign of the possessive annexed to the last; as, "the King of France's army."

"Fletcher of Salton's plan of a militia differs little from that of Harrington."[101]—— Home, Sketch 9.

ARTICLE.

Most grammarians have given the article the first rank among the parts of speech. To me this arrangement appears very incorrect; for the article is a mere appendage of the noun, and without it cannot even be defined. The noun is the primary and principal part of speech, of which the article, pronoun and adjective are mere adjuncts, attendants, or substitutes, and the latter therefore should follow the former in grammatical order and definition.

Under this head I will introduce a few observations on the use of a. Grammarians have supposed that a, in the phrases a going, a hunting, is a corruption of the preposition on; a supposition, which, if we attend to the sense of the phrases, appears highly absurd, but which etymology, in a great measure, overthrows.

In the first place, the preposition is not among the original parts of language; its use, and consequently its formation, are not necessary among rude nations; it is a part of speech of a late date in the progress of language, and is itself a derivative from other words. I have, in another place,[102] given some reasons to prove on to be an abbreviation of the numeral one, or top one. It is very evident that on is a contraction of upon, which was formerly written uppone; and there are good reasons for believing the latter to be derived from top one. In addition to the authorities quoted in the Institute, an example or two from Chaucer will almost place the question beyond a doubt.

Cant. Tales, 4288.

That is, there lieth one upon my head; where up is used for upon, as it is in other places.

Ibm. 1709.

That is, upon pain of losing your head.

The word up is undoubtedly but a corruption of top, or a noun derived from the same root, and this hypothesis is supported by the true theory of language; which is, that rude nations converse mostly by names. Up myn hed, is top mine head. An improvement of this phrase would be the use of one, ane or an, to ascertain particular things; uppone, upon. In the progress of language, these words would be contracted into on, which we denominate a preposition.

I am very sensible that Chaucer used on in the manner mentioned by Lowth; on live for alive; on hunting; on hawking; which would seem to warrant the supposition of that writer, that a is a contraction of on, considering on originally as a preposition. But it is contrary to all just ideas of language to allow such a primitive part of speech. On the other hand, Chaucer uses on for other purposes, which cannot be explained on Lowth's hypothesis.

Cant. Tales, 343.

So also in line 1783. In this example on is allowed on all hands to be a contraction of one; after one (way, manner) that is, alike, or in the same manner.

"They were at on;" line 4195. They were at one; that is, together or agreed.

"Ever in on;" line 1773, and 3878; ever in one (way, course, &c.) that is, continually.

If therefore we suppose on to be merely a corruption of one, we can easily explain all its uses. On hunting, or contractedly, a hunting, is one hunting. On live, on life, or alive, is merely one life. This form of expression is very natural, however childish or improper it may appear to us. It seems very obvious to resolve ashore, abed, into on shore, on bed; but even Lowth himself would be puzzled to make us believe that adry, athirst, came from on dry, on thirst; and Wallis would find equal difficulty to convince us that they came from at dry, at thirst. If we suppose a to be a contraction of one, or the Saxon ane or an, the solution of all these phrases is perfectly easy, and corresponds with Horne's theory of the particles. For if rude nations converse without particles, they must say go shore, or go one shore; he is bed, or he is one bed; he is dry, or one dry; I am thirst, or I am one thirst. Indeed every person who will attend to the manner of speaking among the American savages, must believe this explanation of the phrases to be probably just.

That on was formerly used both as a preposition and an adjective, is acknowleged by the Editor of the British Poets;[103] but its uses in all cases may be easily explained on the single principle before mentioned.

This hypothesis however will be confirmed by the fact, that the English article a, "is nothing more than a corruption of the Saxon adjective, ane or an (one) before a substantive beginning with a consonant." Editor of Chaucer's works, Gloss. p. 23. And the article a and the numeral one have still the same signification. That ane or an, and one are originally the same, is a point not to be controverted. We have therefore the strongest reason to believe that a in the phrases a going, a hunting, a fishing is derived from one. On, as a contraction of upon, has, in modern language, a different sense, and cannot be well substituted for a; for on going, on fishing, have an awkward appearance and will not obtain in the language, to the exclusion of a going, a fishing. The vulgar practice is more correct than Lowth's correction, and ought by no means to be rejected.

Cowley's Ode to the New Year.

Cowley.

If the foregoing opinion of the origin of a in such phrases, should not be deemed satisfactory, we may perhaps ascribe its origin to a mere custom of forming expletive sounds in the transition from one word to another.[104]

The following phrases, three shillings a piece, a day, a head, a bushel, it is said are elliptical forms of speech; some preposition being implied, as, for or by. This assertion can proceed only from an imperfect view of the subject. Unless grammarians can prove that some preposition was formerly used, which is now omitted, they cannot prove that any is implied, nor should they have recourse to implication to find a rule to parse the phrases. The truth is, no such preposition can be found, nor is there need of any. A, in this form of speech, carries the full meaning of the Latin per, and the substitution of the latter, for want, as it is said, of an English word, in the phrases, per day, per head, per pound, is a burlesque upon the English to this day. We see continually a wretched jargon of Latin and English in every merchant's book, even to the exclusion of a pure English phrase, more concise, more correct, and more elegant. It is to be wished that a might be restored to its true dignity, as it is used by some of the purest English writers.

"He had read almost constantly, twelve or fourteen hours a day;" that is, one day.—— Bolingbroke on History, letter 4.

"To the sixteen scholars twenty pounds a piece."——Cowley.

This is pure elegant English, and the common people have the honor of preserving it, unadulterated by foreign words.

VERB.

The most difficult branch of this subject is the verb. Next to the noun, this is the most important part of speech, and as it includes all the terms by which we express action and existence, in their numberless varieties, it must, in all languages, be very comprehensive.

The English verb suffers very few inflections or changes of termination, to express the different circumstances of person, number, time and mode. Its inflections are confined to the three persons of the singular number, in the present tense, indicative mode, and the first and second persons of the past tense; unless we consider the irregular participles as a species of inflection belonging to the verb. All the other varieties of person, number, time and mode, are expressed by prefixing other words, by various combinations of words, or by a particular manner of utterance.

This simplicity, as it is erroneously called, is said to render our language easy of acquisition. The reverse however of this is true; for the use of auxiliaries or combinations of words, constitutes the most perplexing branch of grammar; it being much easier to learn to change the termination of the verb, than to combine two, three or four words for the same purpose.

Grammarians have usually divided the English verbs into active, passive and neuter. "Active verbs," say they,[105] "express action, and necessarily imply an agent and an object acted upon." But is not a man passive in hearing? Yet hear is called an active verb.

"A verb neuter expresses being, or a state or condition of being; when the agent and object coincide, and the event is properly neither action nor passion, but rather something between both." But is there neither action nor passion in walking, running, existing? One would think that running at least might be called action.

The common definitions, copied, in some measure, from the Latin Grammars, are very inaccurate. The most correct and general division of English verbs, is, into transitive and intransitive; the former term comprehending all verbs that may be followed by any object receiving the action, or of which any thing is affirmed; the latter, all those verbs, the affirmation in which is limited to the agent. Thus hear is a transitive verb, for it affirms something of an object; I hear the bell.

Run is an intransitive verb, for the action mentioned is confined to the agent; he runs. Yet the last is an active verb, and the first, strictly speaking, is not;[106] so that there is a distinction to be made between a verb active and transitive.

In strict propriety, we have in English no passive verb; that is, we have no single word which conveys the idea of passion or suffering, in the manner of the Greek or Latin passive verb. It may be useful, in teaching English to youth or foreigners, to exhibit a specimen of the combinations of the verb be, with the participles of other verbs in all their varieties; but each word should be parsed as a distinct part of speech; altho two or more may be necessary to convey an idea which is expressed by a single word in another language.

TIME.

Time is naturally divided into past, present and future. The English verb has but two variations of ending to express time; the present, as love, write; and the past, as loved, wrote. The usual division of tenses, or combinations of words corresponding to the Latin tenses, is not wholly accurate. The definition of the second tense, in the ordinary arrangement of them in Latin grammars, may be correct, as it relates to the Roman tongue; but does not apply to the English tense, which is commonly called by the same name, the Imperfect. The Latin words movebam, legebam, are translated I moved, I read. Now the English words express actions perfectly past, and therefore the time or tense cannot be justly denominated imperfect. If the Latin words expressed, in the Roman tongue, actions imperfectly past, they should be rendered by us, I was moving, was reading, which convey ideas of actions, as taking place at some preceding period, but not then past. In this sense, the name of the tense might have been used with propriety. But the English form of expression, he moved, conveys the idea of an action completely past, and does not fall within the definition of the Latin Imperfect.

It is surprizing that the great Lowth should rank this form of the verb, they moved, under the head of indefinite or undetermined time; and yet place this form, have moved, or what is called the perfect tense, under the head of definite or determined time. The truth is, the first is the most definite. I have loved, or moved, expresses an action performed and completed, generally within a period of time not far distant; but leaves the particular point of time wholly indefinite or undetermined. On the other hand, I loved is necessarily employed, when a particular period or point of time is specified. Thus it is correct to say, I read a book yesterday, last week, ten years ago, &c. but it is not grammatical to say, I have read a book yesterday, last week, &c. so that, directly contrary to Lowth's rule, I moved, is the definite, and I have moved, the indefinite time.

Great inaccuracy is likewise indulged in the usual description of the English future tense. There is no variation of the verb to express a future action; to remedy this defect, the English use shall and will, before the verb in its radical form. But these words are both in the present time; being merely the Teutonic verbs sollen and wollen, which formerly had, and in the German still have, most of the inflections of regular verbs. Thus:

Ind. Pref. Ich soll, I ought or should. Ich will, I will.

Imp. Ich sollt, I ought or should. Ich wollt, I would.

Preter. Ich habe gesollt, I ought or should have. Ich habe gewollt, I would or would have, &c. &c.[107]

I will go is really nothing more than a present promise of a future action. I shall go is a present prediction of a future action. In the second and third persons, will expresses the prediction; and as one cannot promise for a second or third person, shall, in these persons, implies a promise of the first person, that he will command or oblige the second or third person to do an action in some future time. The whole may be thus explained:

I will go,

Is my own present promise to do a future action.

Thou wilt go—He will go,

are my (the speaker's) present predictions that the persons mentioned will do a future action; or perhaps more properly, a declaration of their inclination or intention.

I shall go,

is my present prediction of a future action.

Thou shalt go—He shall go,

are my (the speaker's) present promise that the second and third persons will do a future action. But as a man cannot compel a superior, he can promise only for himself or inferiors; therefore these last expressions imply a promise in the speaker, and a right to command the second and third persons to do the thing promised; for which reason they are used only in addressing or speaking of, inferiors or subjects. The same remarks apply to the three persons in the plural number.

Hence we observe the inaccuracy of translating the future tense of the Greeks, Romans, and French, by shall or will indifferently. It is probable that the future tense in those languages, and perhaps in others, where the tense is formed by inflections, was employed merely to foretell. If so, shall only should be used in the first person of the English translation, and will, in the second and third. Thus:

Latin.French.English.

Habebo,J'aurai,I shall have.

Habebimus,nous aurons,we shall have.

Habebis,tu auras,thou wilt have.

Habebit,il aura,he will have.

Habebitis,vous aurez,you will have.

Habebunt,ils auront,they will have.

On the other hand, a promise in the first person expressed in English by will, and a promise or command in the second and third, expressed by shall, seem, in these languages, to be communicated by other words or a circumlocution.

In strictness of speech therefore, we have no future tense of the verb in English; but we use auxiliaries, which, in the present tense, express a prediction of an action, or a disposition of mind to produce an action. These auxiliaries, united with the verb or affirmation, answer the purposes of the future tenses of verbs in other languages; and no inconvenience can arise from calling such a combination a tense.

MODE.

Most languages are so constructed, that the verbs change their terminations for the purpose of expressing the manner of being or action. In this particular, the English is singular; there being but one inflection of a single verb, which can be said to be peculiar to the conditional or subjunctive mode.[108] In all other respects, the verbs in the declaratory and conditional modes are the same; and the condition is known only by some other word prefixed to the verb.

It is astonishing to see how long and how stupidly English grammarians have followed the Latin grammars in their divisions of time and mode; but in particular the latter. By this means, we often find may, can, should and must in a conditional mode, when they are positive declarations and belong to the indicative. All unconditional declarations, whether of an action, or of a right, power or necessity of doing an action, belong to the indicative; and the distinction between the indicative and potential is totally useless. Should is commonly placed in the imperfect time of the subjunctive; yet is frequently used to express an unconditional obligation, as he should go; and belongs to the present time of the indicative, as much as he ought, or the French il faut or il doit.

Would is sometimes employed in a declaratory sense to express a present volition, and then belongs to the indicative. In the past time, should, would, might, could, often express unconditional ideas, and belong to the indicative. In short, the usual arrangement of the English verbs and auxiliaries in our grammars is calculated to perplex and mislead a learner; and I have never found a foreigner who could use them with tolerable propriety.

NUMBER and PERSON.

Under this head, I shall remark on a single article only, the use of you in the singular number, with a plural verb. The use of the plural nos and vos, for ego and tu in Latin; of nous and vous for je and tu in French; seems to have been very ancient, and to have been originally intended to soften the harshness of egotism, or to make a respectful distinction in favor of great personages. But the practice became general in the French nation, was introduced by them into England, and gradually imitated by the English in their own tongue. You, in familiar discourse, is applied to an individual, except by a single sect of Christians; the practice is general and of long standing; it has become correct English, and ought to be considered, in grammar, as a pronoun in the singular number. It may be objected, that we unite with it a verb in the plural number, you are, you have; this is true, but the verb, in these instances, becomes singular; and both the pronoun and verb should be placed in the singular number.

In the union of you with a plural verb in the present time, we are all unanimous; but in the past time, there is a difference between books and common practice in a single instance. In books, you is commonly used with the plural of the verb be, you were; in conversation, it is generally followed by the singular, you was. Notwithstanding the criticisms of grammarians, the antiquity and universality of this practice must give it the sanction of propriety; for what but practice forms a language? This practice is not merely vulgar; it is general among men of erudition who do not affect to be fettered by the rules of grammarians, and some late writers have indulged it in their publications. I should therefore inflect the verb be in the past time after this manner; I was, thou wast, or you was, he was, &c. Whatever objections may be raised to this inflection, it is the language of the English, and rules can hardly change a general practice of speaking; nor would there be any advantage in the change, if it could be effected.

AUXILIARIES.

There are several verbs in English, which, from the necessity of their union with other verbs, have obtained the name of auxiliaries. Originally they were principal verbs, with regular Saxon infinitives, and the usual inflections; as may be observed by any person, who has the smallest acquaintance with the modern German, which retains more of the ancient structure, than any other branch of the primitive language.

The verbs, called auxiliaries or helpers, are do, be, have, shall, will, may, can, must. The three first are often employed alone, and are therefore acknowleged to be sometimes principal verbs. That the others were so, will be made obvious by a specimen from the German, with the corresponding English.

German.English.

Inf.Wollen,to will.

Ind. Pref.Ich will,I will.

Wir wollen,[109]we will.

Imper.Ich wolte,I would.

Preterit.Ich habe gewolt,I have would, or willed.

Plup.Ich hatte gewolt,I had would.

Fut.Ich werde wollen,I shall will.

Imp.Wolle du,will thou.

Subj.Ich wolle,(if) I would, &c.

Inf.Wollen,to will.

Gewolte haben,to have would, or willed.

Part.Wollend,willing.

Gewollte,having would, or willed.

Sollen, to shall, is inflected in the same manner. Koennen, to can, or be able, is inflected much in the same manner. Ich kann, I can, &c. Imperfect, Ich konnte, I could. Preterit, Ich habe gehonnt, I have could (or been able.) Participle, Kænnend, canning, being able. Thus mægen, to may, makes, in the past tenses, Ich mochte, I might or mought, as the vulgar sometimes pronounce it; Ich habe gemocht, I have might. Must also, which in English has lost all inflection, is varied in the German; mussen, to must, or be obliged; Imperfect, Ich muste, I must, or was obliged.

But whatever these verbs may have once been, yet from their loss of several inflections and the participles, with their singular use in combination with other verbs, they may very well be denominated auxiliary verbs. Their true force in English should be ascertained and explained in grammars for the benefit of learners, and particularly for the assistance of foreigners;[110] yet in resolving sentences, each should be considered as a verb or distinct part of speech.

For want of a clear and accurate knowlege of the English auxiliaries, foreigners are apt to fall into material errors in constructing sentences. The most numerous errors appear in the use of will and shall, and their inflections. The Scots and Irish, even of the first rank, generally use will for shall in the first person; by which means, they substitute a promise for an intended prediction. Several errors of this kind have escaped the notice of the most celebrated writers.

"Without having attended to this, we will be at a loss in understanding several passages in the classics, which relate to the public speaking, and the theatrical entertainments of the ancients."——Blair's Lectures, p. 48. Philad. edit.

"In the Latin language, there are no two words, we would more readily take to be synonimous, than amare and diligere."——The same, p. 83.

In these and several other instances which occur in Blair's writings, the words will and would are used very improperly, for shall and should. The author means only to foretell certain events, and has employed words which carry, to an English ear, the full force of a promise.

English writers have rarely fallen into this error; yet a few instances may be found in authors of reputation.

"If I draw a catgut or any other cord to a great length between my fingers, I will make it smaller than it was before," &c.—— Goldsmith's Survey of Experimental Philosophy, book 2. chap. 2.

In the middle and southern states of America, this error is frequent, both in writing and conversation.

"Let us suppose the charter repealed and the bank annihilated; will we be better situated?"——Argument against repealing the charter of the Bank of North America.

This is very incorrect; there is hardly a possible case, in which will can be properly employed to ask a question in the first person.

"As soon as the diploma is made out, I will have the honor to transmit it to you."——Letter to Count Rochambeau.

Is not this promising to have the honor of a communication, an engagement which delicacy forbids? It is impossible for a foreigner to have a just idea of the absurdity of using will in this manner; but a correct English ear revolts at the practice.

Dr. Priestley observes very justly, that the form of the auxiliaries, shall, will, which is generally conditional, viz. should and would, is elegantly used to express a slight assertion, with modest diffidence.

"The royal power, it should seem, might be intrusted in their hands."——Hume's History, vol. 3. p. 383.

We say also, "I would not choose any." In these cases, the verbs are not conditional; they modestly declare a fact, and therefore properly belong to the indicative mode. But in the following passage, should is improperly employed:

"In judging only from the nature of things, and without the surer aid of divine revelation, one should be apt to embrace the opinion of Diodorus Siculus," &c.—— Warburton's Divine Legation, vol. 2. p. 81.

Should, in the second and third persons, expresses duty, and the idea of the author was, to express an event, under a condition, or a modest declaration; he should have used would.

"There is not a girl in town, but let her have her will in going to a mask, and she shall dress as a shepherdess."——Spect. No. 9.

Shall, in this example, expresses command, an idea very different from the author's meaning.

"Think what reflection shall most probably arise."——Blair, Serm. 9.

"A person, highly entertained at a play, shall remember perfectly the impression made on him by a very moving scene."——Nugent's Trans. of Condillac, p. 1. s. 1.

I would just remark here, that the errors in the use of the auxiliary verbs before mentioned, are not English; that they are little known among the inhabitants of South Britain, and still less among their descendants in New England. This is a new proof of the force of national customs. I do not remember to have heard once in the course of my life, an improper use of the verbs will and shall, among the unmixed English descendants in the eastern states.

But of all the errors or inaccuracies in speaking or writing the English language, the most numerous class appear in the improper use of verbs in the subjunctive mode. Not only illiterate men, but authors of the first rank, often use the present tense for the future, the future for the present, and the past for both.

"If any member absents himself, he shall forfeit a penny for the use of the club, unless in case of sickness and imprisonment."——Rules of the Two Penny Club, Spect. No. 9.

"If thou neglectest or dost unwillingly what I command, I'll rack thee with old cramps."——Temp. act 1. s. 4.

In both these examples, the events mentioned in the verbs are future; "if any member shall absent himself;" "if thou shalt neglect;" therefore the auxiliary verb shall should have been employed, or the sentences should have been elliptical, "if any member absent himself;" "if thou neglect;" where shall is understood and easily supplied by the reader.

Numberless examples of the same kind of inaccuracy may be found in good authors. Thus in Haley's Happy Prescription, act 2.

The idea is, "if my scheme shall prosper;" and this is obvious by the subsequent part of the sentence, where the future is employed, "with joy I'll confess."

"If Punch grows extravagant, I shall reprimand him very freely; if the stage becomes a nursery of folly and impertinence, I shall not be afraid to animadvert upon it."——Spect. No. 35.

These should have been grow or should grow; become or should become.

"If any thing offers (shall offer) from Dublin, that may serve either to satisfy or divert you, I will not fail," &c.—— Swift's Corresp. letter 2.

In the following passage, the same writer is much more correct.

"If any one matter in it prove (that is, shall prove) false, what do you think will become of the paper?"——Letter 8.

But the use of the future for the present is much more frequent.

"If reverence, gratitude, obedience and confidence be our duty."——Priestley, let. 7 to a Phil. Unbeliever.

"If he have any knowlege of actual existence, he must be satisfied."——Same, letter 8.

The author doubtless intended these sentences to be strictly grammatical, by placing the verbs in the present tense of the subjunctive. But in the first example, be is wrong even on Lowth's principles. The rule of the Bishop, with respect to the use of the indicative and subjunctive modes, is this: That when something conditional, hypothetical, or doubtful, is expressed, the verb should be in the subjunctive mode; but when the fact is certain, or taken for granted, the verb should be in the indicative. He gives for examples of the former, several passages from scripture: "If thou be the son of God." Matth. iv. 3. "Tho he slay me, yet will I trust in him." Job xiii. 15. "Unless he wash his flesh." Lev. xxii. 6. "No power except it were given from above." John xix. 11. "Whether it were I or they, so we preach." 1 Cor. xv. 11. "The subjunctive in these instances," says the Bishop, "implies something contingent or doubtful; the indicative would express a more absolute and determinate sense." To illustrate the latter part of his rule, he quotes a passage from Atterbury's Sermons. "Tho he were divinely inspired, and spake therefore as the oracles of God, with supreme authority; tho he were endued with supernatural powers," &c. That our Savior was divinely inspired, and endued with supernatural powers, are positions that are here taken for granted, as admitting not of the least doubt; they would therefore have been better expressed in the indicative mode; "tho he was divinely inspired," &c. Even on these principles, the verb in the first example from Priestley, just quoted, should have been in the indicative; for there is no doubt that reverence, gratitude, &c. are our duty to the Supreme Being.

But I apprehend, that however just Lowth's distinction between the modes, may have formerly been, it is not warranted by the present idiom of the language. Indeed I cannot think the rule just. In the first, fourth and fifth examples quoted by the Bishop, the indicative might be substituted for the subjunctive, and the passages rendered more correct, according to the present practice of speaking and writing. "If thou art the son of God." "No power except it was given from above." "Whether it was I, or they, so we preach." Every English ear must acknowlege that these expressions are more agreeable to our present practice, than those employed by the translators of the Bible, and they convey an idea of condition or doubt, as fully as the other form. But why did the translators deviate from the original? In the Greek, the verbs, in the two first examples, are in the indicative mode; and in the last, the verb is not expressed. Ει υιος ει του Θεου, literally, If thou art the son of God. Ουκ εχεις εξουσιαν ουδεμιαν κατ' εμου, ει μη ην σοι δεδομενον ανωθεν; literally, Thou hast no power (or authority) against me, except it was given thee from above. In the last instance the verb is omitted; Ειτε δε εγω, ειτε εκεινοι; Whether I or they. In these instances therefore the translators of the Bible, and Bishop Lowth have evidently mistaken the true structure of the English verbs. The translators deviated from the original Greek, in changing the modes; and the Bishop has taken their error, as the foundation of a distinction which does not exist in the language. The indicative mode is employed to express conditional ideas, more frequently than the subjunctive, even by the best English writers. Take the following examples.

"And if the same accident is able to restore them to us."——Bolingbroke, Reflec. on Exile.

"If this being, the immediate maker of the universe, has not existed from all eternity, he must have derived his being and power from one who has."——Priestley, let. 4 to Phil. Unb.

"If there is one, I shall make two in the company."——Merry Wives of Windsor, act 3. sc. II.

Midsum. Night's Dream, act 1. s. 2.

Tempest, act 2. s. 3.

Cowley's Request.

Spenser's Fairy Queen, book 2. chap. 1.

"If any one imagines."——Moyle.

"Why did Caligula wish that the people had but one neck, that he might strike it off at a blow, if their welfare was thus reciprocal."——Sidney on Gov. sect. 5.

"If Governments are constituted."——Sidney.

Haley's Happy Prescription.

"If she has stolen the color of her ribbons from another."——Spect. No. 4.

"If we are rightly informed."——Same, No. 8.

"If she is tall enough, she is wife enough."——No. 66.

"If you are in such haste, how came you to forget the miscellanies?"——Swift's Letter to Mr. Tooke.

"If men's highest assurances are to be believed."——Same.

Shall we say that the use of the indicative after if in the foregoing examples is improper or ungrammatical? By no means. Yet the verbs express something conditional or doubtful; and therefore Lowth's rule cannot be well founded.

Let the foregoing passages be contrasted with the following.

"But if he say true, there is but one government in the world that can have any thing of justice in it."——Sidney, sect. 1.

"If he have any knowlege of actual existence, he must be satisfied."——Priestley, let. 8.

"But tho criticism be thus his only declared aim, he will not disown," &c.—— Introd. to Elements of Criticism.

"But if a lively picture, even of a single emotion, require an effort of genius, how much greater the effort to compose a passionate dialogue, with as many different tones of passion as there are speakers?"——Elements of Criticism, vol. 1. chap. 16.

"Here we must also observe, that tho THOU be long in the first part of the verse, it becomes short when repeated in the second."——Sheridan's Art of Reading.

The Scotch writers, who learn the English language grammatically, are the most particular in the use of this subjunctive form of the verb; in consequence of which their stile generally appears stiff and fettered. In all the foregoing examples, and in every instance where the affirmation respects present time, the indicative form is the most correct, and the only form that corresponds with the actual present state of the language. If he says, if he has, if he requires, are the true expressions universally used in speaking; and grammars should exhibit and enforce this practice, rather than amend it.

There are few or no English writers, who seem to have adhered uniformly to any rule in the use of the verbs after the conjunctions. In consequence, either of ignorance or inattention, the most correct writers have fallen into inconsistencies, even in the same sentence. This will appear by the following examples.

"If life and health enough fall to my share, and I am able to finish what I meditate."——Bolingbroke, let. 4, on History.

The author intended the verbs, fall and am, to be in the present time; but this would make him write nonsense; for the events were future at the time of writing. The first part of the sentence, to make sense, must be considered as elliptical, "if life and health enough shall or should fall to my share;" in the last part therefore be should be substituted for am, if I shall be able: This would make the whole sentence correct and consistent.

"Whether our conduct be inspected, and we are under a righteous government, or under no government at all."——Priestley's Pref. to Let. to a Phil. Unb.

What a confusion of modes! or rather of tenses!

"Tho THOU be long, in the first part of the verse," says Sheridan, in the passage just quoted; yet soon after uses the indicative in a phrase precisely similar; "And tho it is impossible to prolong the sound of this word." Can this great critic give a reason for this change of modes? Such examples serve to show at least the necessity of studying our language with more attention, than even many eminent scholars are willing to bestow.

It has been remarked by Lowth, and many other writers on this subject, that "the verb itself in the present, and the auxiliary both of the present and past imperfect times, often carry with them somewhat of a future sense."[112] Thus, if he come tomorrow, if he should or would come tomorrow, carry somewhat of a future sense. The writer should have gone farther, and said that these expressions are in future time; for they form the English future, and belong to no other tense. This would have been the truth, and have prevented the numberless errors which have proceeded from his arranging them in the present tense of the subjunctive. Let us attend to the following passages.

"This can never happen till patriotism flourish more in Britain."—Home's Sketches, book 2. s. 9.

"Pray heaven, he prove so, when you come to him."——Two Gent. of Verona, act 2. s. 10.

"But if thou linger in my territories."——Same, act 3. s. 2.

"Lest, growing ruinous, the building fall."——Same, act 5. s. 6.

"If the second be pronounced thus, the verse will be degraded into hobbling prose."——Sheridan's Art of Reading.

It is needless to multiply similar passages; the same use of the verb, without the personal termination, occurs in almost every page of our best writings, and it is perfectly correct.

But will any person contend that the verbs in these passages are in the present tense? The sense is entirely future, and could not be translated into Latin or French, without employing the future tense. The expressions are elliptical, and cannot be clearly understood, without inserting shall or should before the verbs. This pretended present tense of the subjunctive is therefore the real future of the indicative. To confirm this remark, let us attend to some other passages.

"Tho he slay me, yet will I trust in him."

"Unless he wash his flesh, he shall not eat of the holy thing."

In the original Hebrew these verbs are in the future tense; and so are most similar expressions.[113]

Matth. vii. 10.—Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? Και εαν ιχθυν αιτησῃ μη οφιν επιδωσει αυτῳ;

Rom. xiv. 15.—But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat. Ει γαρ δια βρωμα ὁ αδελφος σου λυπειται

Luke xvii. 3.—If thy brother trespass against thee. Εαν αμαρτηση ὁ αδελφος σου. 4. And seven times in a day turn again to thee. Και επτακις της ημηρας επιστρεψη.

Luke xvi. 28.—Lest they also come into this place of torment. Μη και αυτος ελθωσιν εις τουτον τον τοπον της βασανου.[114]

Is not the sense of the foregoing verbs future? Are not the verbs in the original, either in the future tense, or in the indefinite tenses, which, in the subjunctive mode, usually have the sense of the future, and perhaps never the sense of the present? Why then should we consider the English verbs as in the present time? Either the translators made a mistake, and placed the verbs in a wrong tense; or Lowth and his followers have mistaken the tense, and called that present which is really future.

That the fault is, in some measure, to be ascribed to the translators, is evident from their using the same form of the verb, after a conjunction, when the original Greek is in the present of the indicative.

1 Cor. xvi. 22.—If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be, &c.Ει τις ου φιλει τον Κυριον Ιησουν Χριστον, ητω, &c.

1 Cor. xiv. 37.—If any man think himself a prophet. Ει δε τις δοκει προφητης ειναι. 38.—If any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant still. Ει δε τις αγνοει, αγνοειτω.

In these instances, the verbs express conditional facts in the present time. In the original they are in the indicative present; and on what authority did the translators introduce a different mode in English? Can they be justified by the idioms of the language at the time when they lived? Was the subjunctive always used after a conjunction? By no means: Their own translation of other passages proves the contrary.

1 Cor. xv. 13.—And if there is no resurrection of the dead. Ει δε αναστασις νεκρων ουκ εστιν.

Here is the present tense of the indicative used, where the fact mentioned is supposed, by the argument, to be at least doubtful. In other places the present time of the same mode is used, where the future would have been more accurate.

Prov. ii. 3, 4.—"Yea if thou criest after knowlege, and liftest up thy voice for understanding; if thou seekest for her as for hid treasures, then shalt thou understand," &c.

What conclusion shall we draw from this state of facts? This at least may be said with safety, either that the English modes and tenses have not been ascertained and understood, or that the best of our writers have been extremely negligent.

After an attentive and accurate examination of this subject, I believe I may venture to assert, that nine times out of ten, when the pretended subjunctive form of the verb is used after a conjunction, either in the vulgar translation of the Bible, or in our best profane authors, the sense is actually future, and to render the sentences complete, it would be necessary to insert shall or should.[115] This will be more obvious by attending to the Latin translation of the New Testament, where the future is almost always employed to express the Greek future and aorists. Igitur si munus tuum attuleris ad altare—If thou bring thy gift to the altar; et illic memineris—and there rememberest; (what confusion of modes.) If his son ask bread—Si filius ejus petierit panem. And if the house be worthy—Et si quidem fuerit domus digna; and so throughout the whole New Testament.

Will any person pretend to say that the verbs bring, ask and be, in the foregoing passages, are present time; or that rememberest is not bad English? The elliptical future, If thou be, if he ask, &c. is correct English, but should by no means be confounded with the present tense, which, in English, has but one form.

I do not deny that good authors have used this form, after conjunctions, in the present time; but I deny that the genius of the language requires it, that it is agreeable to the ancient or modern elegant languages, and that it has been or is now the general practice.

With respect to the ancient practice, examples sufficient have been already produced, to show that authors have considered the present of the indicative, after conjunctions, denoting uncertainty or doubt, as at least correct; and the present practice in speaking is wholly on this side of the argument.

With respect to the Roman and Greek languages, I believe examples enough may be brought to prove, that the subjunctive mode after the conditional conjunctions or adverbs, was not generally used, except when the idea was such as we should express by may, might, should, let, or some other auxiliary before the verb. "Quid est autem, quod deos veneremur propter admirationem ejus naturæ, in qua egregium nihil videmus?" "Ut, quos ratio non posset, eos ad officium religio duceret."—Cicero, De nat Deorum, l. I. 42. To render veneremur and duceret into English, should may be prefixed to adore, and might to lead.

At any rate, the conditional conjunctions do not all, nor generally require the subjunctive mode: "Quæ, si mundus est Deus, quoniam mundi partes sunt, Dei membra parim ardentia, partim refrigerata dicenda sunt."—Ibm. 1. I. 10. "Si Di possunt esse sine sensu," &c. The indicative after this conjunction occurs frequently in the best Roman authors.

In Greek the case is nearly the same. Several instances of the indicative after the conditional conjunction ει (if) have already been quoted from scripture; and similar instances without number may be produced from profane writers.

"Εἰ ουν ουτως εχει, εφη, ω Κῦρε, τι αν αλλο τις κρειττον ευροι, ἢ πεμπειν εις Περσας, και αμα μεν διδασκειν αυτους οτι ει τι πεισονται Μηδοι, εις Περσας το δεινον ηξει, αμα δε αιτειν πλειον στρατευμα;"——Xenoph. de Cyri. Inst. l. 2. p. 80. Lond. Ed.

Here the verb εχει is in the present tense of the indicative, after a conjunction denoting condition or doubt; "if the affair is so—if such is the true state of affairs, Cyrus, what better method can be taken (ευροι) than to send to the Persians, and inform them that if any accident happen to the Medes (so we should render πεισονται, which is in the future) calamity will fall upon the Persians also, and let us ask for a greater force."

In French, the conditional conjunctions do not require the subjunctive mode. "Si ma prédiction est fausse, vous serez libre de nous immoler dans trois jours."—Telemaque, liv. 1. "S'il est vrai que vous aimiez la justice."—Liv. 4. If my prediction is false—if it is true—are correct modes of speaking in French. No argument therefore in favor of the use of the English subjunctive, can be drawn from the analogy of other languages.

But this subjunctive form is not agreeable to the structure of the language. It has been demonstrated that our conjunctions are mostly old Saxon verbs in the imperative mode. Let us resolve some sentences where the subjunctive form is used; for example, the passages before quoted.

"If he have any knowlege of actual existence, he must be satisfied."——Priestley's Letters.

Resolved—"He have any knowlege of actual existence, (if) give that, he must be satisfied." Is this English?

"If thou be the son of God, command that these stones be made bread."——Matth. iv. 3.

Resolved—"Thou be the son God, give that, command," &c.

"Tho he slay me, yet will I trust in him."

Resolved—"He slay me, grant it, yet will I trust in him."

This is the literal construction of those sentences; the two first are present time, the last, which is future, is merely elliptical.

If therefore, I be, he have, are good English in the present tense of the indicative, the foregoing are correct expressions; if not, they are incorrect; for every such conditional sentence is resolvable into two or more declaratory phrases. Let us substitute the Latin derivative, which precisely answers to if, viz. suppose; thus, in place of "if thou be the son of God," write, "suppose thou be the son of God," does not every ear acknowlege the impropriety? The only difference between the two expressions is this; if is a Saxon verb in the imperative mode, and suppose, a Latin one in the same mode.

With respect to be, it may be said very justly, that it was anciently used after the conjunctions in almost all cases. But it must be observed also, it was used without the conjunctions. Be, from the Saxon beon, is the true radical verb, still preserved in the German, Ich bin, I be, du bist, thou beest, in the indicative. The old English writers employed be in the same mode and tense.

"O, there be players that I have seen play."——Shakesp. Hamlet to the Players.

"They that be drunken, are drunken in the night."——1 Thess. v. 7.

"As we be slanderously reported."——Rom. iii. 8.

The common people in New England still employ be in the present tense of the indicative, except in the third person. They almost universally say, I be, we be, you be, and they be. While be remained the proper substantive verb in the indicative, it was very correctly employed after the conjunctions, If he be, tho he be, but when, am, are, art and is were substituted in the indicative, they should likewise have been employed in the subjunctive; for the latter is resolvable into the former.

From the facts produced, and the remarks made, we may draw the following conclusions; that the distinction made by grammarians between the present tense of the indicative and subjunctive mode in English, is not well founded; that it is not warranted by the construction of the language, nor by the analogy of other languages; that the expressions commonly supposed to be in the present tense of the subjunctive, are mostly in fact an elliptical form of the future in the indicative, and that the present translation of the Bible cannot be vindicated on any other supposition; that the present practice, both in speaking and writing, is generally in favor of the indicative after the conjunctions; and consequently, that the arrangement of the verbs by Lowth and his followers, is calculated to lead both foreigners and natives into error.

I have been more particular upon this article, because the Scotch writers, many of whom stand among the first authors of the British nation, follow the usual grammatical division of verbs, and thus write a stile not conformed to the present practice of speaking.

In the use of what is called the imperfect tense, after the conjunctions, there is something peculiar, which has not yet been sufficiently explained. On examination it will probably be found that custom has established one singular distinction in the sense of verbs in different tenses, a knowlege of which is necessary to enable us to speak and write with precision. This distinction will readily be understood by a few examples.

A servant calls on me for a book, which his master would borrow. If I am uncertain whether I have that book or not, I reply in this manner; "If the book is in my library, or if I have the book, your master shall be welcome to the use of it."

But if I am certain I do not possess the book, the reply is different; "I have not the book you mention; if I had, it should be at your master's service."

Both these forms of speaking are correct; but the question is, what is the difference? It cannot be in time; for both refer to the same. The ideas both respect present time; "If I have it now, it shall be at your master's service"—"If I had it now, it should be." The distinction in the meaning is universally understood, and is simply this; the first expresses uncertainty; the last implies certainty, but in a peculiar manner; for an affirmative sentence implies a positive negation; and a negative sentence implies a positive affirmation. Thus, if I had the book, implies a positive denial of having it; if I had not the book, implies that I have it: And both speak of possessing or not possessing it at this present time.

The same distinction runs thro all the verbs in the language. A man, shut up in an interior apartment, would say to his friend, "if it rains you cannot go home." This would denote the speaker's uncertainty. But on coming to the door and ascertaining the fact, he would say, "if it rained, you should not go;" or, "if it did not rain, you might go." Can these verbs be in past time? By no means; if it did not rain now, you could go, is present, for the present existence of the fact prevents the man from going.

These forms of speech are established by unanimous consent in practice.

"It remaineth that they who have wives, be as tho they had none, and they that weep, as tho they wept not; and they that rejoice, as tho they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as tho they possessed not."——1 Cor. vii. 29, 30.[116]

"Nay, and the villains march wide betwixt the legs, as if they had gyves on."——1 Henry IV.

"We have not these antiquities; and if we had them, they would add to our uncertainty."——Bolingbroke on Hist. let. 3.

"Whereas, had I (if I had) still the same woods to range in, which I once had, when I was a fox hunter, I should not resign my manhood for a maintenance."——Spect. No. 14.

"I confess I have not great taste for poetry; but if I had, I am apt to believe I should read none but Mr. Pope's."[117]—— Shenstone on Men and Manners.

Whatever these verbs may be in declaratory phrases, yet after the conditional conjunctions if and tho, they often express present ideas, as in the foregoing examples. In such cases, this form of the verb may be denominated the hypothetical present tense. This would distinguish it from the same form, when it expresses uncertainty in the past time; for this circumstance must not be passed without notice. Thus, "If he had letters by the last mail," denotes the speaker's uncertainty as to a past fact or event. But, "if he had a book, he would lend it," denotes a present certainty that he has it not. The times referred to are wholly distinct.

As the practice of all writers and good speakers, and even of the vulgar, is nearly uniform in the distinction here mentioned, it is needless to produce more examples for illustration. One verb however deserves a separate consideration; which is be. In the use of this verb in the hypothetical sense, there is a difference between good authors and common parlance; the first write were, but most people in conversation say, was. Thus,

"Every rich man has usually some sly way of jesting, which would make no great figure, were he not rich."——Spect. No. 2.

"He will often argue, that if this part of our trade were well cultivated, we should gain from one nation," &c.—— Same.

"Were I (if I were) a father, I should take a particular care to preserve my children from these little horrors of imagination."——Same, No. 12.

Milton, P. L.

Pope, Iliad, b. 7. 189.

"Yes, if the nature of a clock were to speak, not strike."——Ben Johnson.

Were, in these examples, is the same hypothetical present tense just described, having not the least reference to the past.[118] But in conversation, we generally hear was; "if I was in his place;" "if he was here now," &c. and I observe that modern writers are copying the general practice.

"If I was not afraid of being thought to refine too much."—Boling. Refl. on Exile.

Both these forms have such authorities to support them, that neither can be considered as wholly incorrect; they are both English. But custom will eventually establish the latter, was, as the hypothetical form of the substantive verb. It is now almost universally used, except in books; and the tide of general practice is irresistible.

The following examples will illustrate what has been advanced.

Present time. Affirmative.

If he has or is—denotes uncertainty. If he had or were or was—denote certainty that he has not, or is not.

Negative.

If he has not or is not—uncertainty. If he had not, were not or was not—certainty that he has or is.

Past time. Affirm.

If he had or was yesterday—uncertainty. If he had have,[119] or had been yesterday—certainty that he had not, or was not.

Negative.

If he had or was not—uncertainty. If he had not have, or had not been—certainty that he had or was.[120]

I cannot close my remarks on the tenses of the English verb, without noticing a common error, which must have sprung from inattention, and is perhaps too general now to admit of correction. It is the use of the past tense after another verb or that, when the sense requires a change of tenses. Thus,

"Suppose I were to say, that to every art there was a system of such various and well approved principles."——Harris.

The first part of the sentence is hypothetical, suppose I were to say; but the last becomes declaratory under the supposition, and therefore the form of the verb should be changed to the present, indicative, that to every art there is a system: For it must be remarked that when the English speak of general existence, they use the present time; as, truth is great above all things; the scriptures are a rule of faith; the heavens display the glory of the Lord. The past or the future, in such cases, would be highly improper. Hence the absurdity of the passage just quoted; the supposition is that every art has (generally—at all times) a system of principles.

"If the taxes laid by government were the only ones we had to pay."

The author's meaning is, "the only taxes we have to pay;" and he was probably led into the mistake by not understanding the preceding hypothetical verb, were, which actually speaks of the present time conditionally.

The error will be more striking in the following passages.

"If an atheist would well consider the arguments in this book, he would confess there was a God."

There was a God! And why not confess that there is a God? The writer did not consider that the first part of the sentence is conditional, and that the last ought to be declaratory of a fact always existing.

"Two young men have made a discovery that there was a God."——Swift's Arg. against Abolishing Christianity.

A curious discovery indeed! Were the Dean still alive, he might find there is a great inaccuracy in that passage of his works.

"Yet were we to use the same word, where the figure was manifest, we should use the preposition from."——Priestley, Gram. p. 158.

Here is the same error, and the author may live to correct it.

But of all this class of mistakes, the following is the most palpable.

"I am determined to live, as if there was a future life."——Hammon, quoted by Price and Priestley.

Hammon is an atheist, and it would require the same abilities to reconcile the two words was future, as to reconcile his principles with the common sense of mankind.[121]

The following passage, from Gregory's Comparative View of the State and Faculties of Man, is remarkable for this error.

"Men have been taught that they did (do) God acceptable service, by abstracting themselves from all the duties they owed (owe) to society; and by inflicting on themselves the severest tortures which nature can support. They have been taught that it was (is) their duty," &c.

"And yet one would think that this was the principal use of the study of history."——Bolingbroke on Hist. letter 3.

A similar fault occurs in one of Mrs. Thale's letters to Dr. Johnson, Aug. 9, 1775.

"—Yet I have always found the best supplement for talk was writing."

So in Blackstone's Commentaries, book 1. chap. 7.

"It was observed in a former chapter, that one of the principal bulwarks of civil liberty, or, in other words, of the British constitution, was the limitation of the king's prerogative."

The observation had been made in time past, but respecting a fact that exists now, and at all times while the British constitution exists. The sentence therefore should run thus; "it was observed that one principal bulwark of civil liberty, is the limitation of the king's prerogative."

No fault is more common; we every day hear such expressions as these; "If I thought it was so;" "suppose I should say she was handsome;" "I did not think it was so late," &c. Was, in the first and last examples, should be the infinitive, to be; and in the second, the present time, is. Had proper attention been paid to our language, so many palpable mistakes would not have crept into practice, and into the most correct and elegant writings. Dr. Reid is perhaps the only writer who has generally avoided this error.