OBS. 9.—If need is to be recognized as an auxiliary of the potential mood, it must be understood to belong to two tenses; the present and the perfect; like may, can, and must: as, "He need not go, he need not have gone; Thou need not go, Thou need not have gone;" or, in the solemn style, "Thou needst not go, Thou needst not have gone." If, on the contrary, we will have it to be always a principal verb, the distinction of time should belong to itself, and also the distinction of person and number, in the parts which require it: as, "He needs not go. He needed not go; Thou needst not go, Thou needed not go;" or, in the solemn style, "Thou needest not go, Thou neededst not go." Whether it can be right to say, "He needed not have gone," is at least questionable. From the observations of Murray, upon relative tenses, under his thirteenth rule of syntax, it seems fair to infer that he would have judged this phraseology erroneous. Again, "He needs not have gone," appears to be yet more objectionable, though for the same reason. And if, "He need not have gone," is a correct expression, need is clearly proved to be an auxiliary, and the three words taken together must form the potential perfect. And so of the plural; for the argument is from the connexion of the tenses, and not merely from the tendency of auxiliaries to reject inflection: as, "They need not have been under great concern about their public affairs."—Hutchinson's History, i, 194, From these examples, it may be seen that an auxiliary and a principal verb have some essential difference; though these who dislike the doctrine of compound tenses, pretend not to discern any. Take some further citations; a few of which are erroneous in respect to time. And observe also that the regular verb sometimes admits the preposition to after it: "' There is great dignity in being waited for,' said one who had the habit of tardiness, and who had not much else of which he need be vain."—Students Manual, p. 64. "But he needed not have gone so far for more instances."— Johnson's Gram. Com., p. 143. "He need not have said, 'perhaps the virtue.'"—Sedgwick's Economy, p. 196. "I needed not to ask how she felt."—Abbott's Young Christian, p. 84. "It need not have been so."—Ib., p. 111. "The most unaccommodating politician need not absolutely want friends."—Hunts Feast of the Poets, p. iii. "Which therefore needs not be introduced with much precaution."—Campbell's Rhet., p. 326. "When an obscurer term needs to be explained by one that is clearer."—Ib., p. 367. "Though, if she had died younger, she need not have known it."—West's Letters, p. 120. "Nothing need be said, but that they were the most perfect barbarisms."—Blair's Rhet., p. 470. "He need not go."—Goodenow's Gram., p. 36. "He needed but use the word body."—LOCKE: in Joh. Dict. "He need not be required to use them."—Parker's Eng. Composition, p. 50. "The last consonant of appear need not be doubled."—Dr. Webster. "It needs the less to be inforced."—Brown's Estimate, ii, 158. "Of these pieces of his, we shall not need to give any particular account."—Seneca's Morals, p. vi "And therefore I shall need say the less of them."—Scougal, p. 1101. "This compounding of words need occasion no surprise."—Cardell's Essay on Language, p. 87.

"Therefore stay, thou needst not to be gone."—Shakspeare.

"Thou need na start awa sae hasty."—Burns, Poems, p. 15.

"Thou need na jouk behint the hallan."—Id., ib., p. 67.

OBS. 10.—The auxiliaries, except must, which is invariable, have severally two forms in respect to tense, or time; and when inflected in the second and third persons singular, are usually varied in the following manner:—

TO DO.

PRESENT TENSE; AND SIGN OF THE INDICATIVE PRESENT.

Sing. I do, thou dost, he does; Plur. We do, you do, they do.

IMPERFECT TENSE; AND SIGN of THE INDICATIVE IMPERFECT.

Sing. I did, thou didst, he did; Plur. We did, you did, they did.

TO BE.

PRESENT TENSE; AND SIGN OF THE INDICATIVE PRESENT.

Sing. I am, thou art, he is; Plur. We are, you are, they are.

IMPERFECT TENSE; AND SIGN OF THE INDICATIVE IMPERFECT.

Sing. I was, thou wast, he was; Plur. We were, you were; they were.

TO HAVE.

PRESENT TENSE; BUT SIGN OF THE INDICATIVE PERFECT.

Sing. I have, thou hast, he has; Plur. We have, you have, they have.

IMPERFECT TENSE; BUT SIGN OF THE INDICATIVE PLUPERFECT.

Sing. I had, thou hadst, he had; Plur. We had, you had, they had.

SHALL AND WILL.

These auxiliaries have distinct meanings, and, as signs of the future, they are interchanged thus:

PRESENT TENSE; BUT SIGNS OF THE INDICATIVE FIRST-FUTURE.

1. Simply to express a future action or event:—

Sing. I shall, thou wilt, he will; Plur. We shall, you will, they will.

2. To express a promise, command, or threat:—

Sing.: I will, thou shalt, he shall; Plur. We will, you shall, they shall.

IMPERFECT TENSE; BUT, AS SIGNS, AORIST, OR INDEFINITE.

1. Used with reference to duty or expediency:—

Sing. I should, thou shouldst, he should; Plur. We should, you should, they should.

2. Used with reference to volition or desire:—

Sing. I would, thou wouldst, he would; Plur. We would, you would, they would.

MAY.

PRESENT TENSE; AND SIGN OF THE POTENTIAL PRESENT.

Sing. I may, thou mayst, he may; Plur. We may, you may, they may.

IMPERFECT TENSE; AND SIGN OF THE POTENTIAL IMPERFECT.

Sing. I might, thou mightst, he might; Plur. We might, you might, they might.

CAN.

PRESENT TENSE; AND SIGN OF THE POTENTIAL PRESENT.

Sing. I can, thou canst, he can; Plur. We can, you can, they can.

IMPERFECT TENSE; AND SIGN OF THE POTENTIAL IMPERFECT.

Sing. I could, thou couldst, he could; Plur. We could, you could, they could.

MUST.

PRESENT TENSE; AND SIGN OF THE POTENTIAL PRESENT.

Sing. I must, thou must, he must; Plur. We must, you must, they must.

If must is ever used in the sense of the Imperfect tense, or Preterit, the form is the same as that of the Present: this word is entirely invariable.

OBS. 11.—Several of the auxiliaries are occasionally used as mere expletives, being quite unnecessary to the sense: as, 1. DO and DID: "And it is night, wherein all the beasts of the forest do creep forth."—Psalms, civ, 20. "And ye, that on the sands with printless foot do chase the ebbing Neptune, and do fly him when he comes back."—Shak. "And if a man did need a poison now."—Id. This needless use of do and did is now avoided by good writers. 2. SHALL, SHOULD, and COULD: "'Men shall deal unadvisedly sometimes, which after-hours give leisure to repent of.' I should advise you to proceed. I should think it would succeed. He, it should seem, thinks otherwise."—W. Allen's Gram., p. 65. "I could wish you to go."—Ib., p. 71. 3. WILL, &c. The following are nearly of the same character, but not exactly: "The isle is full of noises; sometimes a thousand twanging instruments will hum about mine ears."—Shak. "In their evening sports she would steal in amongst them."—Barbauld.

"His listless length at noontide would he stretch."—Gray.

OBS. 12.—As our old writers often formed the infinitive in en, so they sometimes dropped the termination of the perfect participle. Hence we find, in the infancy of the language, done used for do, and do for done; and that by the same hand, with like changes in other verbs: as, "Thou canst nothing done."—Chaucer. "As he was wont to done."—Id. "The treson that to women hath be do."—Id. "For to ben honourable and free."—Id. "I am sworn to holden it secre."—Id. "Our nature God hath to him unyte."—Douglas. "None otherwise negligent than I you saie haue I not bee."—Id. See W. Allen's E. Gram., p. 97.

"But netheless the thynge is do, That fals god was soone go."—GOWER: H. Tooke, Vol. i, p. 376.

OBS. 13.—"May is from the Anglo-Saxon, mægan, to be able. In the parent language also, it is used as an auxiliary. It is exhibited by Fortescue, as a principal verb; 'They shall may do it:' i. e. they shall be able (to) do it."—W. Allen's Gram., p. 70. "May not, was formerly used for must not; as, 'Graces for which we may not cease to sue.' Hooker."—Ib., p. 91. "May frequently expresses doubt of the fact; as, 'I may have the book in my library, but I think I have not.' It is used also, to express doubt, or a consequence, with a future signification; as, 'I may recover the use of my limbs, but I see little probability of it.'—'That they may receive me into their houses.' Luke, xvi, 4."—Churchill's Gram., p. 247. In these latter instances, the potential present is akin to the subjunctive. Hence Lowth and others improperly call "I may love," &c. the subjunctive mood. Others, for the same reason, and with as little propriety, deny that we have any subjunctive mood; alleging an ellipsis in every thing that bears that name: as, "'If it (may) be possible, live peaceably with all men.' Scriptures."—W. Allen's Gram., p. 61. May is also a sign of wishing, and consequently occurs often in prayer: as, "May it be thy good pleasure;"—"O that it may please thee;"—"Mayst thou be pleased." Hence the potential is akin also to the imperative: the phrases, "Thy will be done,"—"May thy will be done,"—"Be thy will done,"—"Let thy will be done,"—are alike in meaning, but not in mood or construction.

OBS. 14.—Can, to be able, is etymologically the same as the regular verbs ken, to see, and con, to learn; all of them being derived from the Saxon connan or cunnan, to know: whence also the adjective cunning, which was formerly a participle. In the following example will and can are principal verbs: "In evil, the best condition is, not to will; the second, not to can."—Ld. Bacon. "That a verb which signifies knowledge, may also signify power, appears from these examples: Je ne saurois, I should not know how, (i. e. could not.) [Greek: Asphalisasthe hos oidate], Strengthen it as you know how, (i. e. as you can.) Nescio mentiri, I know not how to (i.e. I cannot) lie."—W. Allen's Gram., p. 71. Shall, Saxon sceal, originally signified to owe; for which reason should literally means ought. In the following example from Chaucer, shall is a principal verb, with its original meaning:

"For, by the faith I shall to God, I wene, Was neuer straungir none in hir degre."—W. Allen's Gram., p. 64.

OBS. 15.—Do and did are auxiliary only to the present infinitive, or the radical verb; as, do throw, did throw: thus the mood of do throw or to throw is marked by do or to. Be, in all its parts, is auxiliary to either of the simple participles; as, to be throwing, to be thrown; I am throwing, I am thrown: and so, through the whole conjugation. Have and had, in their literal use, are auxiliary to the perfect participle only; as, have thrown, had thrown. Have is from the Saxon habban, to possess; and, from the nature of the perfect participle, the tenses thus formed, suggest in general a completion of the action. The French idiom is similar to this: as, J'ai vu, I have seen. Shall and should, will and would, may and might, can and could, must, and also need, (if we call the last a helping verb,) are severally auxiliary to both forms of the infinitive, and to these only: as, shall throw, shall have thrown; should throw, should have thrown; and so of all the rest.

OBS. 16.—The form of the indicative pluperfect is sometimes used in lieu of the potential pluperfect; as, "If all the world could have seen it, the wo had been universal."—Shakspeare. That is,—"would have been universal." "I had been drowned, but that the shore was shelvy and shallow."—Id. That is,—"I should have been drowned." This mode of expression may be referred to the figure enallage, in which one word or one modification is used for an other. Similar to this is the use of were for would be: "It were injustice to deny the execution of the law to any individual;" that is, "it would be injustice."—Murray's Grammar, p. 89. In some instances, were and had been seem to have the same import; as, "Good were it for that man if he had never been born."—Mark, xiv, 21. "It had been good for that man if he had not been born."—Matt., xxvi, 24. In prose, all these licenses are needless, if not absolutely improper. In poetry, their brevity may commend them to preference; but to this style, I think, they ought to be confined: as,

"That had been just, replied the reverend bard; But done, fair youth, thou ne'er hadst met me here."—Pollok.

"The keystones of the arch!—though all were o'er, For us repeopled were the solitary shore."—Byron.

OBS. 17.—With an adverb of comparison or preference, as better, rather, best, as lief, or as lieve, the auxiliary had seems sometimes to be used before the infinitive to form the potential imperfect or pluperfect: as, "He that loses by getting, had better lose than get."—Penn's Maxims. "Other prepositions had better have been substituted."— Priestley's Gram., p. 166. "I had as lief say."—LOWTH: ib., p. 110. "It compels me to think of that which I had rather forget."— Bickersteth, on Prayer, p. 25. "You had much better say nothing upon the subject."—Webster's Essays, p. 147. "I had much rather show thee what hopes thou hast before thee."—Baxter. "I had rather speak five words with my understanding, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue."—1 Cor., xiv, 19. "I knew a gentleman in America who told me how much rather he had be a woman than the man he is."—Martineau's Society in America, Vol. i, p. 153. "I had as lief go as not."— Webster's Dict., w. Lief. "I had as lieve the town crier spoke my lines."—SHAK.: Hamlet. "We had best leave nature to her own operations."—Kames, El. of Crit., Vol. i, p. 310. "What method had he best take?"—Harris's Hermes, p. ix. These are equivalent to the phrases, might better lose—might better have been substituted—would as lief say—would rather forget—might much better say—would much rather show—would rather speak—how much rather he would be—would as lief go—should best leave—might he best take; and, for the sake of regularity, these latter forms ought to be preferred, as they sometimes are: thus, "For my own part, I would rather look upon a tree in all its luxuriancy."—Addison, Spect., No. 414; Blair's Rhet., p. 223. The following construction is different: "Augustus had like to have been slain."—S. Butler. Here had is a principal verb of the indicative imperfect. The following examples appear to be positively erroneous: "Much that was said, had better remained unsaid."—N. Y. Observer. Say, "might better have remained." "A man that is lifting a weight, if he put not sufficient strength to it, had as good put none at all."—Baxter. Say, "might as well put." "You were better pour off the first infusion, and use the latter."—Bacon. Say, "might better pour;" or, if you prefer it, "had better pour." Shakspeare has an expression which is still worse:—

"Or, by the worth of mine eternal soul, Thou hadst been better have been born a dog."—Beauties, p. 295.

OBS. 18.—The form of conjugating the active verb, is often called the Active Voice, and that of the passive verb, the Passive Voice. These terms are borrowed from the Latin and Greek grammars, and, except as serving to diversify expression, are of little or no use in English grammar. Some grammarians deny that there is any propriety in them, with respect to any language. De Sacy, after showing that the import of the verb does not always follow its form of voice, adds: "We must, therefore, carefully distinguish the Voice of a Verb from its signification. To facilitate the distinction, I denominate that an Active Verb which contains an Attribute in which the action is considered as performed by the Subject; and that a Passive Verb which contains an Attribute in which the action is considered as suffered by the Subject, and performed upon it by some agent. I call that voice a Subjective Voice which is generally appropriated to the Active Verb, and that an Objective Voice which is generally appropriated to the Passive Verb. As to the Neuter Verbs, if they possess a peculiar form, I call it a Neuter Voice."—Fosdick's Translation, p. 99.

OBS. 19.—A recognition of the difference between actives and passives, in our original classification of verbs with respect to their signification,— a principle of division very properly adopted in a great majority of our grammars and dictionaries, but opinionately rejected by Webster, Bolles, and sundry late grammarians,—renders it unnecessary, if not improper, to place Voices, the Active Voice and the Passive, among the modifications of our verbs, or to speak of them as such in the conjugations. So must it be in respect to "a Neuter Voice," or any other distinction which the classification involves. The significant characteristic is not overlooked; the distinction is not neglected as nonessential; but it is transferred to a different category. Hence I cannot exactly approve of the following remark, which "the Rev. W. Allen" appears to cite with approbation: "'The distinction of active or passive,' says the accurate Mr. Jones, 'is not essential to verbs. In the infancy of language, it was, in all probability, not known. In Hebrew, the difference but imperfectly exists, and, in the early periods of it, probably did not exist at all. In Arabic, the only distinction which obtains, arises from the vowel points, a late invention compared with the antiquity of that language. And in our own tongue, the names of active and passive would have remained unknown, if they had not been learnt in Latin.'"—Allen's Elements of English Gram., p. 96.

OBS. 20.—By the conjugation of a verb, some teachers choose to understand nothing more than the naming of its principal parts; giving to the arrangement of its numbers and persons, through all the moods and tenses, the name of declension. This is a misapplication of terms, and the distinction is as needless, as it is contrary to general usage. Dr. Bullions, long silent concerning principal parts, seems now to make a singular distinction between "conjugating" and "conjugation." His conjugations include the moods, tenses, and inflections of verbs; but he teaches also, with some inaccuracy, as follows: "The principal parts of the verb are the Present indicative, the Past indicative and the Past participle. The mentioning of these parts is called CONJUGATING THE VERB."—Analyt. and Pract. Gram., 1849, p. 80.

OBS. 21.—English verbs having but very few inflections to indicate to what part of the scheme of moods and tenses they pertain, it is found convenient to insert in our conjugations the preposition to, to mark the infinitive; personal pronouns, to distinguish the persons and numbers; the conjunction if, to denote the subjunctive mood; and the adverb not, to show the form of negation. With these additions, or indexes, a verb may be conjugated in four ways:—

1. Affirmatively; as, I write, I do write, or, I am writing; and so on.

2. Negatively; as, I write not, I do not write, or, I am not writing.

3. Interrogatively; as, Write I? Do I write? or, Am I writing?

4. Interrogatively and negatively; as, Write I not? Do I not write? or, Am I not writing?

1. SIMPLE FORM, ACTIVE OR NEUTER.

The simplest form of an English conjugation, is that which makes the present and imperfect tenses without auxiliaries; but, even in these, auxiliaries are required for the potential mood, and are often preferred for the indicative.

FIRST EXAMPLE.

The regular active verb LOVE, conjugated affirmatively.

PRINCIPAL PARTS.

Present. Preterit. Imperfect Participle. Perfect Participle. Love. Loved. Loving. Loved.

INFINITIVE MOOD.[260]

The infinitive mood is that form of the verb, which expresses the being, action, or passion, in an unlimited manner, and without person or number. It is used only in the present and perfect tenses.

PRESENT TENSE.

This tense is the root, or radical verb; and is usually preceded by the preposition to, which shows its relation to some other word: thus,

To love.

PERFECT TENSE.

This tense prefixes the auxiliary have to the perfect participle; and, like the infinitive present, is usually preceded by the preposition to: thus,

To have loved.

INDICATIVE MOOD.

The indicative mood is that form of the verb, which simply indicates or declares a thing, or asks a question. It is used in all the tenses.

PRESENT TENSE.

The present indicative, in its simple form, is essentially the same as the present infinitive, or radical verb; except that the verb be has am in the indicative.

1. The simple form of the present tense is varied thus:—

Singular. Plural. 1st person, I love, 1st person. We love, 2d person, Thou lovest, 2d person, You love, 3d person, He loves; 3d person, They love.

2. This tense may also be formed by prefixing the auxiliary do to the verb: thus,

Singular. Plural. 1. I do love, 1. We do love, 2. Thou dost love, 2. You do love, 3. He does love; 3. They do love.

IMPERFECT TENSE.

This tense, in its simple form is the preterit; which, in all regular verbs, adds d or ed to the present, but in others is formed variously.

1. The simple form of the imperfect tense is varied thus:—

Singular. Plural. 1. I loved, 1. We loved, 2. Thou lovedst, 2. You loved, 3. He loved; 3. They loved.

2. This tense may also be formed by prefixing the auxiliary did to the present: thus,

Singular. Plural. 1. I did love, 1. We did love, 2. Thou didst love, 2. You did love, 3. He did love; 3. They did love.

PERFECT TENSE.

This tense prefixes the auxiliary have to the perfect participle: thus,

Singular. Plural. 1. I have loved, 1. We have loved, 2. Thou hast loved, 2. You have loved, 3. He has loved; 3. They have loved.

IMPERFECT TENSE.

This tense prefixes the auxiliary had to the perfect participle: thus,

Singular. Plural. 1. I had loved, 1. We had loved, 2. Thou hadst loved, 2. You had loved, 3. He had loved; 3. They had loved.

FIRST-FUTURE TENSE.

This tense prefixes the auxiliary shall or will to the present: thus,

1. Simply to express a future action or event:—

Singular. Plural. 1. I shall love, 1. We shall love, 2. Thou wilt love, 2. You will love, 3. He will love; 3. They will love;

2. To express a promise, volition, command, or threat:—

Singular. Plural. 1. I will love, 1. We will love, 2. Thou shalt love, 2. You shall love, 3. He shall love; 3. They shall love.

SECOND-FUTURE TENSE.

This tense prefixes the auxiliaries shall have or will have to the perfect participle: thus,

Singular. Plural. 1. I shall have loved, 1. We shall have loved, 2. Thou wilt have loved, 2. You will have loved, 3. He will have loved; 3. They will have loved.

OBS.—The auxiliary shall may also be used in the second and third persons of this tense, when preceded by a conjunction expressing condition or contingency; as, "If he shall have completed the work by midsummer."—L. Murray's Gram., p. 80. So, with the conjunctive adverb when; as, "Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power."—1 Cor., xv, 24. And perhaps will may here be used in the first person to express a promise, though such usage, I think, seldom occurs. Professor Fowler has given to this tense, first, the "Predictive" form, as exhibited above, and then a form which he calls "Promissive," and in which the auxiliaries are varied thus: "Singular. 1. I will have taken. 2. Thou shalt have taken, you shall have taken. 3. He shall have taken. Plural. 1. We will have taken. 2. Ye or you shall have taken. 3. He [say They,] shall have taken."—Fowler's E. Gram., 8vo., N. Y., 1850, p. 281. But the other instances just cited show that such a form is not always promissory.

POTENTIAL MOOD.

The potential mood is that form of the verb, which expresses the power, liberty, possibility, or necessity of the being, action, or passion. It is used in the first four tenses; but the potential imperfect is properly an aorist: its time is very indeterminate; as, "He would be devoid of sensibility were he not greatly satisfied."—Lord Kames, El. of Crit., Vol. i, p. 11.

PRESENT TENSE.

This tense prefixes the auxiliary may, can, or must, to the radical verb: thus,

Singular. Plural. 1. I may love, 1. We may love, 2. Thou mayst love, 2. You may love, 3. He may love; 3. They may love.

IMPERFECT TENSE.

This tense prefixes the auxiliary might, could, would, or should, to the radical verb: thus,

Singular. Plural. 1. I might love, 1. We might love, 2. Thou mightst love, 2. You might love, 3. He might love; 3. They might love.

PERFECT TENSE.

This tense prefixes the auxiliaries, may have, can have, or must have, to the perfect participle: thus,

Singular. Plural. 1. I may have loved, 1. We may have loved, 2. Thou mayst have loved, 2. You may have loved, 3. He may have loved; 3. They may have loved.

PLUPERFECT TENSE.

This tense prefixes the auxiliaries, might have, could have, would have, or should have, to the perfect participle: thus,

Singular. Plural. 1. I might have loved, 1. We might have loved, 2. Thou mightst have loved, 2. You might have loved, 3. He might have loved; 3. They might have loved.

SUBJUNCTIVE MOOD.

The subjunctive mood is that form of the verb, which represents the being, action, or passion, as conditional, doubtful, or contingent. This mood is generally preceded by a conjunction; as, if, that, though, lest, unless, except. But sometimes, especially in poetry, it is formed by a mere placing of the verb before the nominative; as, "Were I," for, "If I were;"—"Had he," for, "If he had;"—"Fall we" for, "If we fall;"—"Knew they," for, "If they knew." It does not vary its termination at all, in the different persons.[261] It is used in the present, and sometimes in the imperfect tense; rarely—and perhaps never properly—in any other. As this mood can be used only in a dependent clause, the time implied in its tenses is always relative, and generally indefinite; as,

"It shall be in eternal restless change, Self-fed, and self-consum'd: if this fail, The pillar'd firmament is rottenness."—Milton, Comus, l. 596.

PRESENT TENSE.

This tense is generally used to express some condition on which a future action or event is affirmed. It is therefore erroneously considered by some grammarians, as an elliptical form of the future.

Singular. Plural. 1. If I love, 1. If we love, 2. If Thou love, 2. If you love, 3. If He love; 3. If they love.

OBS.—In this tense, the auxiliary do is sometimes employed; as, "If thou do prosper my way."—Genesis, xxiv, 42. "If he do not utter it."—Leviticus, v, 1. "If he do but intimate his desire."—Murray's Key, p. 207. "If he do promise, he will certainly perform."—Ib., p. 208. "An event which, if it ever do occur, must occur in some future period."—Hiley's Gram., (3d Ed., Lond.,) p. 89. "If he do but promise, thou art safe."—Ib., 89.

"Till old experience do attain To something like prophetic strain."—MILTON: Il Penseroso.

These examples, if they are right, prove the tense to be present, and not future, as Hiley and some others suppose it to be.

IMPERFECT TENSE.

This tense, like the imperfect of the potential mood, with which it is frequently connected, is properly an aorist, or indefinite tense; for it may refer to time past, present, or future: as, "If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, what further need was there that an other priest should rise?"—Heb., vii, 11. "They must be viewed exactly in the same light, as if the intention to purchase now existed."—Murray's Parsing Exercises, p. 24. "If it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect."—Matt., xxiv, 24. "If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing?"—1 Corinthians, xii, 17. "If the thankful refrained, it would be pain and grief to them."—Atterbury.

Singular. Plural. 1. If I loved, 1. If we loved, 2. If thou loved, 2. If you loved, 3. If he loved; 3. If they loved.

OBS.—In this tense, the auxiliary did is sometimes employed. The subjunctive may here be distinguished from the indicative, by these circumstances; namely, that the time is indefinite, and that the supposition is always contrary to the fact: as, "Great is the number of those who might attain to true wisdom, if they did not already think themselves wise."—Dillwyn's Reflections, p. 36. This implies that they do think themselves wise; but an indicative supposition or concession—(as, "Though they did not think themselves wise, they were so—") accords with the fact, and with the literal time of the tense,—here time past. The subjunctive imperfect, suggesting the idea of what is not, and known by the sense, is sometimes introduced without any of the usual signs; as, "In a society of perfect men, where all understood what was morally right, and were determined to act accordingly, it is obvious, that human laws, or even human organization to enforce God's laws, would be altogether unnecessary, and could serve no valuable purpose."—PRES. SHANNON: Examiner, No. 78.

IMPERATIVE MOOD.

The imperative mood is that form of the verb, which is used in commanding, exhorting, entreating, or permitting. It is commonly used only in the second person of the present tense.

PRESENT TENSE.

Singular. 2. Love [thou,] or Do thou love;

Plural. 2. Love [ye or you,] or Do you love.

OBS.—In the Greek language, which has three numbers, the imperative mood is used in the second and third persons of them all; and has also several different tenses, some of which cannot be clearly rendered in English. In Latin, this mood has a distinct form for the third person, both singular and plural. In Italian, Spanish, and French, the first person plural is also given it. Imitations of some of these forms are occasionally employed in English, particularly by the poets. Such imitations must be referred to this mood, unless by ellipsis and transposition we make them out to be something else; and against this there are strong objections. Again, as imprecation on one's self is not impossible, the first person singular may be added; so that this mood may possibly have all the persons and numbers. Examples: "Come we now to his translation of the Iliad."—Pope's Pref. to Dunciad. "Proceed we therefore in our subject."—Ib. "Blessed be he that blesseth thee."—Gen., xxvii, 29. "Thy kingdom come."—Matt., vi, 10. "But pass we that."—W. Scott. "Third person: Be he, Be they."—Churchill's Gram., p. 92.

"My soul, turn from them—turn we to survey," &c.—Goldsmith.

"Then turn we to her latest tribune's name."—Byron.

"Where'er the eye could light these words you read: 'Who comes this way—behold, and fear to sin!'"—Pollok.

"Fall he that must, beneath his rival's arms, And live the rest, secure of future harms."—Pope.

"Cursed be I that did so!—All the charms Of Sycorax, toads, beetles, bats, light on you!"—Shakspeare.

"Have done thy charms, thou hateful wither'd hag!"—Idem.

PARTICIPLES.

1. The Imperfect. 2. The Perfect. 3. The Preperfect. Loving. Loved. Having loved.

SYNOPSIS OF THE FIRST EXAMPLE.

FIRST PERSON SINGULAR.

IND. I love or do love, I loved or did love, I have loved. I had loved, I shall or will love, I shall or will have loved. POT. I may, can, or must love; I might, could, would, or should love; I may, can, or must have loved; I might, could, would, or should have loved. SUBJ. If I love, If I loved.

SECOND PERSON SINGULAR.

IND. Thou lovest or dost love, Thou lovedst or didst love, Thou hast loved, Thou hadst loved, Thou shalt or wilt love, Thou shalt or wilt have loved. POT. Thou mayst, canst, or must love; Thou mightst, couldst, wouldst, or shouldst love; Thou mayst, canst, or must have loved; Thou mightst, couldst, wouldst or shouldst have loved. SUBJ. If thou love, If thou loved. IMP. Love [thou,] or Do thou love.

THIRD PERSON SINGULAR.

IND. He loves or does love, He loved or did love, He has loved, He had loved, He shall or will love, He shall or will have loved. POT. He may, can, or must love; He might, could, would, or should love; He may, can, or must have loved; He might, could, would, or should have loved. SUBJ. If he love, If he loved.

FIRST PERSON PLURAL.

IND. We love or do love, We loved or did loved, We have loved, We had loved, We shall or will love, We shall or will have loved. POT. We may, can, or must love, We might, could, would, or should love; We may, can, or must have loved; We might, could, would, or should have loved. SUBJ. If we love, If we loved.

SECOND PERSON PLURAL.

IND. You love or do love, You loved or did love, You have loved, You had loved, You shall or will love, You shall or will have loved. POT. You may, can, or must love; You might, could, would, or should love; You may, can, or must have loved; You might, could, would, or should have loved. SUBJ. If you love, If you loved. IMP. Love [ye or you,] or Do you love.

THIRD PERSON PLURAL.

IND. They love or do love, They loved or did love, They have loved, They had loved, They shall or will love, They shall or will have loved. POT. They may, can, or must love; They might, could, would, or should love; They may, can, or must have loved; They might, could, would, or should have loved. SUBJ. If they love, If they loved.

FAMILIAR FORM WITH 'THOU.'

NOTE.—In the familiar style, the second person singular of this verb, is usually and more properly formed thus:

IND. Thou lov'st or dost love, Thou loved or did love, Thou hast loved, Thou had loved, Thou shall or will love, Thou shall or will have loved. POT. Thou may, can, or must love; Thou might, could, would, or should love; Thou may, can, or must have loved; Thou might, could, would, or should have loved. SUBJ. If thou love, If thou loved. IMP. Love [thou,] or Do thou love.

SECOND EXAMPLE.

The irregular active verb SEE, conjugated affirmatively.

PRINCIPAL PARTS.

Present. Preterit. Imp. Participle. Perf. Participle. See. Saw. Seeing. Seen.

INFINITIVE MOOD.

PRESENT TENSE. To See.

PERFECT TENSE. To have seen.

INDICATIVE MOOD.

PRESENT TENSE.

Singular. 1. I see, 2. Thou seest, 3. He sees;

Plural. 1. We see, 2. You see, 3. They see.

IMPERFECT TENSE.

Singular. 1. I saw, 2. Thou sawest, 3. He saw;

Plural. 1. We saw, 2. You saw, 3. They saw.

PERFECT TENSE.

Singular. 1. I have seen, 2. Thou hast seen, 3. He has seen;

Plural. 1. We have seen, 2. You have seen, 3. They have seen.

PLUPERFECT TENSE.

Singular. 1. I had seen, 2. Thou hadst seen, He had seen;

Plural. 1. We had seen, 2. You had seen, 3. They had seen.

FIRST-FUTURE TENSE.

Singular. 1. I shall see, 2. Thou wilt see, He will see;

Plural. 1. We shall see, 2. You will see, 3. They will see.

SECOND-FUTURE TENSE.

Singular. 1. I shall have seen, 2. Thou wilt have seen, 3. He will have seen;

Plural. 1. We shall have seen, 2. You will have seen, 3. They will have seen.

POTENTIAL MOOD.

PRESENT TENSE.

Singular. 1. I may see, 2. Thou mayst see, 3. He may see;

Plural. 1. We may see, 2. You may see, 3. They may see.

IMPERFECT TENSE.

Singular. 1. I might see, 2. Thou mightst see, 3. He might see;

Plural. 1. We might see, 2. You might see, 3. They might see.

PERFECT TENSE.

Singular. 1. I may have seen, 2. Thou mayst have seen, 3. He may have seen;

Plural. 1. We may have seen, 2. You may have seen, 3. They may have seen.

PLUPERFECT TENSE.

Singular. 1. I might have seen, 2. Thou mightst have seen, 3. He might have seen;

Plural. 1. We might have seen, 2. You might have seen, 3. They might have seen.

SUBJUNCTIVE MOOD.

PRESENT TENSE.

Singular. 1. If I see, 2. If thou see, 3. If he see;

Plural. 1. If we see, 2. If you see, 3. If they see.

IMPERFECT TENSE.

Singular. 1. If I saw, 2. If thou saw, 3. If he saw;

Plural. 1. If we saw, 2. If you saw, 3. If they saw.

IMPERATIVE MOOD.

PRESENT TENSE.

Singular. 2. See [thou,] or Do thou see; Plural. 2. See [ye or you,] or Do you see.

PARTICIPLES.

1. The Imperfect. 2. The Perfect. 3. The Preperfect.

Seeing. Seen. Having seen.

NOTES.

NOTE I—The student ought to be able to rehearse the form of a verb, not only according to the order of the entire conjugation, but also according to the synopsis of the several persons and numbers. One sixth part of the paradigm, thus recited, gives in general a fair sample of the whole: and, in class recitations, this mode of rehearsal will save much time: as, IND. I see or do see, I saw or did see, I have seen, I had seen, I shall or will see, I shall or will have seen. POT. I may, can, or must see; I might, could, would, or should see; I may, can, or must have seen; I might, could, would, or should have seen. SUBJ. If I see, If I saw.

NOTE II.—In the familiar style, the second person singular of this verb is usually and more properly formed thus: IND. Thou seest or dost see, Thou saw or did see, Thou hast seen, Thou had seen, Thou shall or will see, Thou shall or will have seen. POT. Thou may, can, or must see; Thou might, could, would, or should see; Thou may, can, or must have seen; Thou might, could, would, or should have seen. SUBJ. If thou see, If thou saw. IMP. See [thou,] or Do thou see.

THIRD EXAMPLE.

The irregular neuter verb BE, conjugated affirmatively.

PRINCIPAL PARTS.

Present. Preterit. Imp. Participle. Perf. Participle. Be. Was. Being. Been.

INFINITIVE MOOD.

PRESENT TENSE. To be.

PERFECT TENSE. To have been.

INDICATIVE MOOD.

PRESENT TENSE.

Singular. Plural. 1. I am, 1. We are, 2. Thou art, 2. You are, 3. He is; 3. They are.

IMPERFECT TENSE.

Singular. Plural. 1. I was, 1. We were, 2. Thou wast, (or wert,)[262] 2. You were, 3. He was; 3. They were.

PERFECT TENSE.

Singular. Plural. 1. I have been, 1. We have been, 2. Thou hast been, 2. You have been, 3. He has been; 3. They have been.

PLUPERFECT TENSE.

Singular. Plural. 1. I had been, 1. We had been, 2. Thou hadst been, 2. You had been, 3. He had been; 3. They had been.

FIRST-FUTURE TENSE.

Singular. Plural. 1. I shall be, 1. We shall be, 2. Thou wilt be, 2. You will be, 3. He will be; 3. They will be.

SECOND-FUTURE TENSE.

Singular. Plural. 1. I shall have been, 1. We shall have been, 2. Thou wilt have been, 2. You will have been, 3. He will have been; 3. They will have been.

POTENTIAL MOOD.

PRESENT TENSE.

Singular. Plural. 1. I may be, 1. We may be, 2. Thou mayst be, 2. You may be, 3. He may be, 3. They may be.

IMPERFECT TENSE.

Singular. Plural. 1. I might be, 1. We might be, 2. Thou mightst be, 2. You might be, 3. He might be; 3. They might be.

PERFECT TENSE.

Singular. Plural. 1. I may have been, 1. We may have been, 2. Thou mayst have been, 2. You may have been, 3. He may have been; 3. They may have been.

PLUPERFECT TENSE.

Singular. Plural. 1. I might have been, 1. We might have been, 2. Thou mightst have been, 2. You might have been, 3. He might have been; 3. They might have been.

SUBJUNCTIVE MOOD.

PRESENT TENSE.

Singular. Plural. 1. If I be, 1. If we be, 2. If thou be, 2. If you be, 3. If he be; 3. If they be.

IMPERFECT TENSE.

Singular. Plural. 1. If I were,[263] 1. If we were, 2. If thou were, or wert,[264] 2. If you were, 3. If he were; If they were.

IMPERATIVE MOOD.

PRESENT TENSE.

Singular. 2. Be [thou,] or Do thou be; Plural. 2. Be [ye or you,] or Do you be.

PARTICIPLES.

1. The Imperfect. 2. The Perfect. 3. The Preperfect. Being. Been. Having been.

FAMILIAR FORM WITH 'THOU.'

NOTE.—In the familiar style, the second person singular of this verb, is usually and more properly formed thus: IND. Thou art, Thou was, Thou hast been, Thou had been, Thou shall or will be, Thou shall or will have been. POT. Thou may, can, or must be; Thou might, could, would, or should be; Thou may, can, or must have been; Thou might, could, would, or should have been. SUBJ. If thou be, If thou were. IMP. Be [thou,] or Do thou be.

OBSERVATIONS.

OBS. 1.—It appears that be, as well as am, was formerly used for the indicative present: as, "I be, Thou beest, He be; We be, Ye be, They be." See Brightland's Gram., p. 114. Dr. Lowth, whose Grammar is still preferred at Harvard University, gives both forms, thus: "I am, Thou art, He is; We are, Ye are, They are. Or, I be, Thou beest, He is; We be, Ye be, They be." To the third person singular, he subjoins the following example and remark: "'I think it be thine indeed, for thou liest in it.' Shak. Hamlet. Be, in the singular number of this time and mode, especially in the third person, is obsolete; and is become somewhat antiquated in the plural."—Lowth's Gram., p. 36. Dr. Johnson gives this tense thus: "Sing. I am; thou art; he is; Plur. We are, or be; ye are, or be; they are, or be." And adds, "The plural be is now little in use."—Gram. in Johnson's Dict., p. 8. The Bible commonly has am, art, is, and are, but not always; the indicative be occurs in some places: as, "We be twelve brethren."—Gen., xlii, 32. "What be these two olive branches?"—Zech., iv, 12. Some traces of this usage still occur in poetry: as,

"There be more things to greet the heart and eyes In Arno's dome of Art's most princely shrine, Where Sculpture with her rainbow sister vies; There be more marvels yet—but not for mine." —Byron's Childe Harold, Canto iv, st. 61.

OBS. 2.—Respecting the verb wert, it is not easy to determine whether it is most properly of the indicative mood only, or of the subjunctive mood only, or of both, or of neither. The regular and analogical form for the indicative, is "Thou wast;" and for the subjunctive, "If thou were." Brightland exhibits, "I was or were, Thou wast or wert, He was or were," without distinction of mood, for the three persons singular; and, for the plural, were only. Dr. Johnson gives us, for the indicative, "Thou wast, or wert;" with the remark, "Wert is properly of the conjunctive mood, and ought not to be used in the indicative."—Johnson's Gram., p. 8. In his conjunctive (or subjunctive) mood, he has, "Thou beest," and "Thou wert." So Milton wrote, "If thou beest he."—P. Lost, B. i, l. 84. Likewise Shakspeare: "If thou beest Stephano."—Tempest. This inflection of be is obsolete: all now say, "If thou be." But wert is still in use, to some extent, for both moods; being generally placed by the grammarians in the subjunctive only, but much oftener written for the indicative: as, "Whate'er thou art or wert."—Byron's Harold, Canto iv, st. 115. "O thou that wert so happy!"—Ib., st. 109. "Vainly wert thou wed."—Ib., st. 169.

OBS. 3.—Dr. Lowth gave to this verb, BE, that form of the subjunctive mood, which it now has in most of our grammars; appending to it the following examples and questions: "'Before the sun, Before the Heavens, thou wert.'—Milton. 'Remember what thou wert.'—Dryden. 'I knew thou wert not slow to hear.'—Addison. 'Thou who of old wert sent to Israel's court.'—Prior. 'All this thou wert.'—Pope. 'Thou, Stella, wert no longer young.'—Swift. Shall we, in deference to these great authorities," asks the Doctor, "allow wert to be the same with wast, and common to the indicative and [the] subjunctive mood? or rather abide by the practice of our best ancient writers; the propriety of the language, which requires, as far as may be, distinct forms, for different moods; and the analogy of formation in each mood; I was, thou wast; I were, thou wert? all which conspire to make wert peculiar to the subjunctive mood."—Lowth's Gram., p. 37; Churchill's, p. 251. I have before shown, that several of the "best ancient writers" did not inflect the verb were, but wrote "thou were;" and, surely, "the analogy of formation," requires that the subjunctive be not inflected. Hence "the propriety which requires distinct forms," requires not wert, in either mood. Why then should we make this contraction of the old indicative form werest, a solitary exception, by fixing it in the subjunctive only, and that in opposition to the best authorities that ever used it? It is worthier to take rank with its kindred beest, and be called an archaism.

OBS. 4.—The chief characteristical difference between the indicative and the subjunctive mood, is, that in the latter the verb is not inflected at all, in the different persons: IND. "Thou magnifiest his work." SUBJ. "Remember that thou magnify his work."—Job, xxxvi, 24. IND. "He cuts off, shuts up, and gathers together." SUBJ. "If he cut off, and shut up, or gather together, then who can hinder him?"—Job, xl, 10. There is also a difference of meaning. The Indicative, "If he was," admits the fact; the Subjunctive, "If he were," supposes that he was not. These moods may therefore be distinguished by the sense, even when their forms are alike: as, "Though it thundered, it did not rain."—"Though it thundered, he would not hear it." The indicative assumption here is, "Though it did thunder," or, "Though there was thunder;" the subjunctive, "Though it should thunder," or, "Though there were thunder." These senses are clearly different. Writers however are continually confounding these moods; some in one way, some in an other. Thus S. R. Hall, the teacher of a Seminary for Teachers: "SUBJ. Present Tense. 1. If I be, or am, 2. If thou be, or art, 3. If he be, or is; 1. If we be, or are, 2. If ye or you be, or are, 3. If they be, or are. Imperfect Tense. 1. If I were, or was, 2. If thou wert, or wast, 3. If he were, or was; 1. If we were, 2. If ye or you were, 3. If they were."—Hall's Grammatical Assistant, p. 11. Again: "SUBJ. Present Tense. 1. If I love, 2. If thou lovest, 3. If he love," &c. "The remaining tenses of this mode, are, in general, similar to the correspondent tenses of the Indicative mode, only with the conjunction prefixed."—Ib., p. 20. Dr. Johnson observes, "The indicative and conjunctive moods are by modern writers frequently confounded; or rather the conjunctive is wholly neglected, when some convenience of versification does not invite its revival. It is used among the purer writers of former times; as, 'Doubtless thou art our father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not.'"—Gram. in Joh. Dict., p. 9. To neglect the subjunctive mood, or to confound it with the indicative, is to augment several of the worst faults of the language.

II. COMPOUND OR PROGRESSIVE FORM.

Active and neuter verbs may also be conjugated, by adding the Imperfect Participle to the auxiliary verb BE, through all its changes; as, "I am writing a letter."—"He is sitting idle."—"They are going." This form of the verb denotes a continuance of the action or state of being, and is, on many occasions, preferable to the simple form of the verb.

FOURTH EXAMPLE.

The irregular active verb READ, conjugated affirmatively, in the Compound Form.

PRINCIPAL PARTS OF THE SIMPLE VERB.

Present. Preterit. Imp. Participle. Perf. Participle. R=ead. R~ead. R=eading. R~ead.

INFINITIVE MOOD.

PRESENT TENSE. To be reading.

PERFECT TENSE. To have been reading.

INDICATIVE MOOD.

PRESENT TENSE.

Singular. Plural. 1. I am reading, 1. We are reading, 2. Thou art reading, 2. You are reading, 3. He is reading; 3. They are reading.

IMPERFECT TENSE.

Singular. Plural. 1. I was reading, 1. We were reading, 2. Thou wast reading, 2. You were reading, 3. He was reading; 3. They were reading.

PERFECT TENSE.

Singular. Plural. 1. I have been reading, 1. We have been reading, 2. Thou hast been reading, 2. You have been reading, 3. He has been reading; 3. They have been reading.

PLUPERFECT TENSE.

Singular. Plural. 1. I had been reading, 1. We had been reading, 2. Thou hadst been reading, 2. You had been reading, 3. He had been reading; 3. They had been reading.

FIRST-FUTURE TENSE.

Singular. Plural. 1. I shall be reading, 1. We shall be reading, 2. Thou wilt be reading, 2. You will be reading, 3. He will be reading; 3. They will be reading.

SECOND-FUTURE TENSE.

Singular. Plural. 1. I shall have been reading, 1. We shall have been reading, 2. Thou wilt have been reading, 2. You will have been reading, 3. He will have been reading; 3. They will have been reading.

POTENTIAL MOOD.

PRESENT TENSE.

Singular. Plural. 1. I may be reading, 1. We may be reading, 2. Thou mayst be reading, 2. You may be reading, 3. He may be reading; 3. They may be reading.

IMPERFECT TENSE.

Singular. Plural. 1. I might be reading, 1. We might be reading, 2. Thou mightst be reading, 2. You might be reading, 3. He might be reading; 3. They might be reading.

PERFECT TENSE.

Singular. Plural. 1. I may have been reading, 1. We may have been reading, 2. Thou mayst have been reading, 2. You may have been reading, 3. He may have been reading; 3. They may have been reading.

PLUPERFECT TENSE.

Singular. Plural. 1. I might have been reading, 1. We might have been reading, 2. Thou mightst have been reading, 2. You might have been reading, 3. He might have been reading; 3. They might have been reading.

SUBJUNCTIVE MOOD.

PRESENT TENSE.

Singular. Plural. 1. If I be reading, 1. If we be reading, 2. If thou be reading, 2. If you be reading, 3. If he be reading; 3. If they be reading.

IMPERFECT TENSE.

Singular. Plural. 1. If I were reading, 1. If we were reading, 2. If thou were reading, 2. If you were reading, 3. If he were reading; 3. If they were reading.

IMPERATIVE MOOD.

Sing. 2. Be [thou] reading, or Do thou be reading; Plur. 2. Be [ye or you] reading, or Do you be reading.

PARTICIPLES.

1. The Imperfect. 2. The Perfect. 3. The Preperfect. Being reading. ————- Having been reading.

FAMILIAR FORM WITH 'THOU.'

NOTE.—In the familiar style, the second person singular of this verb, is usually and more properly formed thus: IND. Thou art reading, Thou was reading, Thou hast been reading, Thou had been reading, Thou shall or will be reading, Thou shall or will have been reading. POT. Thou may, can, or must be reading; Thou might, could, would, or should be reading; Thou may, can, or must have been reading; Thou might, could, would, or should have been reading. SUBJ. If thou be reading, If thou were reading. IMP. Be [thou,] reading, or Do thou be reading.

OBSERVATIONS.

OBS. 1.—Those verbs which, in their simple form, imply continuance, do not admit the compound form: thus we say, "I respect him;" but not, "I am respecting him." This compound form seems to imply that kind of action, which is susceptible of intermissions and renewals. Affections of the mind or heart are supposed to last; or, rather, actions of this kind are complete as soon as they exist. Hence, to love, to hate, to desire, to fear, to forget, to remember, and many other such verbs, are incapable of this method of conjugation.[265] It is true, we often find in grammars such models, as, "I was loving, Thou wast loving, He was loving," &c. But this language, to express what the authors intend by it, is not English. "He was loving," can only mean, "He was affectionate:" in which sense, loving is an adjective, and susceptible of comparison. Who, in common parlance, has ever said, "He was loving me," or any thing like it? Yet some have improperly published various examples, or even whole conjugations, of this spurious sort. See such in Adam's Gram., p. 91; Gould's Adam, 83; Bullions's English Gram., 52; his Analyt. and Pract. Gram., 92; Chandler's New Gram., 85 and 86; Clark's, 80; Cooper's Plain and Practical, 70; Frazee's Improved, 66 and 69; S. S. Greene's, 234; Guy's, 25; Hallock's, 103; Hart's, 88; Hendrick's, 38; Lennie's, 31; Lowth's, 40; Harrison's, 34; Perley's, 36; Pinneo's Primary, 101.

OBS. 2.—Verbs of this form have sometimes a passive signification; as, "The books are now selling."—Allen's Gram., p. 82. "As the money was paying down."—Ainsworth's Dict., w. As. "It requires no motion in the organs whilst it is forming."—Murray's Gram., p. 8. "Those works are long forming which must always last."—Dr. Chetwood. "While the work of the temple was carrying on."—Dr. J. Owen. "The designs of Providence are carrying on."—Bp. Butler. "A scheme, which has been carrying on, and is still carrying on."—Id., Analogy, p. 188. "We are permitted to know nothing of what is transacting in the regions above us."—Dr. Blair. "While these things were transacting in Germany."—Russell's Modern Europe, Part First, Let. 59. "As he was carrying to execution, he demanded to be heard."—Goldsmith's Greece, Vol. i, p. 163. "To declare that the action was doing or done."—Booth's Introd., p. 28. "It is doing by thousands now."—Abbott's Young Christian, p. 121. "While the experiment was making, he was watching every movement."—Ib., p. 309. "A series of communications from heaven, which had been making for fifteen hundred years."—Ib., p. 166. "Plutarch's Lives are re-printing."—L. Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 64. "My Lives are reprinting."—DR. JOHNSON: Worcester's Univ. and Crit. Dict., p. xlvi. "All this has been transacting within 130 miles of London."—BYRON: Perley's Gram., p. 37. "When the heart is corroding by vexations."—Student's Manual, p. 336. "The padlocks for our lips are forging."—WHITTIER: Liberator, No. 993. "When his throat is cutting."—Collier's Antoninus. "While your story is telling."—Adams's Rhet., i, 425. "But the seeds of it were sowing some time before."—Bolingbroke, on History, p. 168. "As soon as it was formed, nay even whilst it was forming."—Ib., p. 163. "Strange schemes of private ambition were formed and forming there."—Ib., p. 291. "Even when it was making and made."—Ib., 299. "Which have been made and are making."—HENRY CLAY: Liberator, ix, p. 141. "And they are in measure sanctified, or sanctifying, by the power thereof."—Barclay's Works, i, 537. "Which is now accomplishing amongst the uncivilized countries of the earth."—Chalmers, Sermons, p. 281. "Who are ruining, or ruined, [in] this way."—Locke, on Ed., p. 155. "Whilst they were undoing."—Ibid. "Whether he was employing fire to consume [something,] or was himself consuming by fire."—Crombie, on Etym. and Syntax, p. 148. "At home, the greatest exertions are making to promote its progress."—Sheridan's Elocution, p. iv. "With those [sounds] which are uttering."—Ib., p. 125. "Orders are now concerting for the dismissal of all officers of the Revenue marine."—Providence Journal, Feb. 1, 1850. Expressions of this kind are condemned by some critics, under the notion that the participle in ing must never be passive; but the usage is unquestionably of far better authority, and, according to my apprehension, in far better taste, than the more complex phraseology which some late writers adopt in its stead; as, "The books are now being sold."—"In all the towns about Cork, the whiskey shops are being closed, and soup, coffee, and tea houses [are] establishing generally."—Dublin Evening Post, 1840.

OBS. 3.—The question here is, Which is the most correct expression, "While the bridge was building,"—"While the bridge was a building,"—or, "While the bridge was being built?" And again, Are they all wrong? If none of these is right, we must reject them all, and say, "While they were building the bridge;"—"While the bridge was in process of erection;"—or resort to some other equivalent phrase. Dr. Johnson, after noticing the compound form of active-intransitives, as, "I am going"—"She is dying,"—"The tempest is raging,"—"I have been walking," and so forth, adds: "There is another manner of using the active participle, which gives it a passive signification:[266] as, The grammar is now printing, Grammatica jam nunc chartis imprimitur. The brass is forging, Æra excuduntur. This is, in my opinion," says he, "a vitious expression, probably corrupted from a phrase more pure, but now somewhat obsolete: The book is a printing, The brass is a forging; a being properly at, and printing and forging verbal nouns signifying action, according to the analogy of this language."—Gram. in Joh. Dict., p. 9.

OBS. 4.—A is certainly sometimes a preposition; and, as such, it may govern a participle, and that without converting it into a "verbal noun." But that such phraseology ought to be preferred to what is exhibited with so many authorities, in a preceding paragraph, and with an example from Johnson among the rest, I am not prepared to concede. As to the notion of introducing a new and more complex passive form of conjugation, as, "The bridge is being built," "The bridge was being built," and so forth, it is one of the most absurd and monstrous innovations ever thought of. Yet some two or three men, who seem to delight in huge absurdities, declare that this "modern innovation is likely to supersede" the simpler mode of expression. Thus, in stead of, "The work is now publishing," they choose to say, "The work is now being published."—Kirkham's Gram., p. 82. This is certainly no better English than, "The work was being published, has been being published, had been being published, shall or will be being published, shall or will have been being published;" and so on, through all the moods and tenses. What a language shall we have when our verbs are thus conjugated!

OBS. 5.—A certain Irish critic, who even outdoes in rashness the above-cited American, having recently arrived in New York, has republished a grammar, in which he not only repudiates the passive use of the participle in ing, but denies the usual passive form of the present tense, "I am loved, I am smitten" &c., as taught by Murray and others, to be good English; and tells us that the true form is, "I am being loved, I am being smitten," &c. See the 98th and 103d pages of Joseph W. Wright's Philosophical Grammar, (Edition of 1838,) dedicated "TO COMMON SENSE!" [267] But both are offset, if not refuted, by the following observations from a source decidedly better: "It has lately become common to use the present participle passive [,] to express the suffering of an action as continuing, instead of the participle in -ing in the passive sense; thus, instead of, 'The house is building,' we now very frequently hear, 'The house is being built.' This mode of expression, besides being awkward, is incorrect, and does not express the idea intended. This will be obvious, I think, from the following considerations.

"1. The expression, 'is being,' is equivalent to 'is,' and expresses no more; just as, 'is loving,' is equivalent to, 'loves.' Hence, 'is being built,' is precisely equivalent to, 'is built.'

"2. 'Built,' is a perfect participle; and therefore cannot, in any connexion, express an action, or the suffering of an action, now in progress. The verb to be, signifies to exist; 'being,' therefore, is equivalent to 'existing.' If then we substitute the synonyme, the nature of the expression will be obvious; thus, 'the house is being built,' is, in other words, 'the house is existing built,' or more simply as before, 'the house is built;' plainly importing an action not progressing, but now existing in a finished state.

"3. If the expression, 'is being built,' be a correct form of the present indicative passive, then it must be equally correct to say in the perfect, 'has been being built;' in the past perfect, 'had been being built;' in the present infinitive,'to be being built;' in the perfect infinitive,'to have been being built;' and in the present participle, 'being being built;' which all will admit to be expressions as incorrect as they are inelegant, but precisely analogous to that which now begins to prevail."—Bullions's Principles of English Gram., p. 58.

OBS. 6.—It may be replied, that the verbs to be and to exist are not always synonymous; because the former is often a mere auxiliary, or a mere copula, whereas the latter always means something positive, as to be in being, to be extant. Thus we may speak of a thing as being destroyed, or may say, it is annihilated; but we can by no means speak of it as existing destroyed, or say, it exists annihilated. The first argument above is also nugatory. These drawbacks, however, do not wholly destroy the force of the foregoing criticism, or at all extenuate the obvious tautology and impropriety of such phrases as, is being, was being, &c. The gentlemen who affirm that this new form of conjugation "is being introduced into the language," (since they allow participles to follow possessive pronouns) may very fairly be asked, "What evidence have you of its being being introduced?" Nor can they, on their own principles, either object to the monstrous phraseology of this question, or tell how to better it![268]

OBS. 7.—D. H. Sanborn, an other recent writer, has very emphatically censured this innovation, as follows: "English and American writers have of late introduced a new kind of phraseology, which has become quite prevalent in the periodical and popular publications of the day. Their intention, doubtless, is, to supersede the use of the verb in the definite form, when it has a passive signification. They say, 'The ship is being built,'—'time is being wasted,"—'the work is being advanced,' instead of, 'the ship is building, time is wasting, the work is advancing.' Such a phraseology is a solecism too palpable to receive any favor; it is at war with the practice of the most distinguished writers in the English language, such as Dr. Johnson and Addison. "When an individual says, 'a house is being burned,' he declares that a house is existing, burned, which is impossible; for being means existing, and burned, consumed by fire. The house ceases to exist as such, after it is consumed by fire. But when he says, 'a house is burning,' we understand that it is consuming by fire; instead of inaccuracy, doubt, and ambiguity, we have a form of expression perfectly intelligible, beautiful, definite, and appropriate."—Sanborn's Analytical Gram., p. 102.

OBS. 8.—Dr. Perley speaks of this usage thus: "An attempt has been made of late to introduce a kind of passive participial voice; as, 'The temple is being built.' This ought not to be encouraged. For, besides being an innovation, it is less convenient than the use of the present participle in the passive sense. Being built signifies action finished; and how can, Is being built, signify an action unfinished?"—Perley's Gram., p. 37.

OBS. 9.—The question now before us has drawn forth, on either side, a deal of ill scholarship and false logic, of which it would be tedious to give even a synopsis. Concerning the import of some of our most common words and phrases, these ingenious masters,—Bullions, Sanborn, and Perley,—severally assert some things which seem not to be exactly true. It is remarkable that critics can err in expounding terms so central to the language, and so familiar to all ears, as "be, being, being built, burned, being burned, is, is burned, to be burned," and the like. That to be and to exist, or their like derivatives, such as being and existing, is and exists, cannot always explain each other, is sufficiently shown above; and thereby is refuted Sanborn's chief argument, that, "is being burned," involves the contradiction of "existing, burned," or "consumed by fire." According to his reasoning, as well as that of Bullions, is burned must mean exists consumed; was burned, existed consumed; and thus our whole passive conjugation would often be found made up of bald absurdities! That this new unco-passive form conflicts with the older and better usage of taking the progressive form sometimes passively, is doubtless a good argument against the innovation; but that "Johnson and Addison" are fit representatives of the older "practice" in this case, may be doubted. I know not that the latter has anywhere made use of such phraseology; and one or two examples from the former are scarcely an offset to his positive verdict against the usage. See OBS. 3rd, above.

OBS. 10.—As to what is called "the present or the imperfect participle passive,"—as, "being burned," or "being burnt,"—if it is rightly interpreted in any of the foregoing citations, it is, beyond question, very improperly thus named. In participles, ing denotes continuance: thus being usually means continuing to be; loving, continuing to love; building, continuing to build,—or (as taken passively) continuing to be built: i. e., (in words which express the sense more precisely and certainly,) continuing to be in process of construction. What then is "being built," but "continuing to be built," the same, or nearly the same, as "building" taken passively? True it is, that built, when alone, being a perfect participle, does not mean "in process of construction," but rather, "constructed" which intimates completion; yet, in the foregoing passive phrases, and others like them, as well as in all examples of this unco-passive voice, continuance of the passive state being first suggested, and cessation of the act being either regarded as future or disregarded, the imperfect participle passive is for the most part received as equivalent to the simple imperfect used in a passive sense. But Dr. Bullions, who, after making "is being built precisely equivalent to is built," classes the two participles differently, and both erroneously,—the one as a "present participle," and the other, of late, as a "past,"—has also said above, "'Built,' is a perfect participle: and THEREFORE cannot, in any connexion, express an action, or the suffering of an action, now in progress." And Dr. Perley, who also calls the compound of being a "present participle," argues thus: "Being built signifies an action, finished; and how can Is being built, signify an action unfinished?" To expound a passive term actively, or as "signifying action," is, at any rate, a near approach to absurdity; and I shall presently show that the fore-cited notion of "a perfect participle," now half abandoned by Bullions himself, has been the seed of the very worst form of that ridiculous neology which the good Doctor was opposing.

OBS. 11.—These criticisms being based upon the meaning of certain participles, either alone or in phrases, and the particular terms spoken of being chiefly meant to represent classes, what is said of them may be understood of their kinds. Hence the appropriate naming of the kinds, so as to convey no false idea of any participle's import, is justly brought into view; and I may be allowed to say here, that, for the first participle passive, which begins with "being," the epithet "Imperfect" is better than "Present," because this compound participle denotes, not always what is present, but always the state of something by which an action is, or was, or will be, undergone or undergoing—a state continuing, or so regarded, though perhaps the action causative may be ended—or sometimes perhaps imagined only, and not yet really begun. With a marvellous instability of doctrine, for the professed systematizer of different languages and grammars, Dr. Bullions has recently changed his names of the second and third participles, in both voices, from "Perfect" and "Compound Perfect," to "Past" and "Perfect." His notion now is, that, "The Perfect participle is always compound; as, Having finished, Having been finished."—Bullions's Analyt. and Pract. Grammar, 1849, p. 77. And what was the "Perfect" before, in his several books, is now called the "Past;" though, with this change, he has deliberately made an other which is repugnant to it: this participle, being the basis of three tenses always, and of all the tenses sometimes, is now allowed by the Doctor to lend the term "perfect" to the three,—"Present-perfect, Past-perfect, Future-perfect,"—even when itself is named otherwise!

OBS. 12.—From the erroneous conception, that a perfect participle must, in every connexion, express "action finished," action past,—or perhaps from only a moiety of this great error,—the notion that such a participle cannot, in connexion with an auxiliary, constitute a passive verb of the present tense,—J. W. Wright, above-mentioned, has not very unnaturally reasoned, that, "The expression, 'I am loved,' which Mr. Murray has employed to exhibit the passive conjugation of the present tense, may much more feasibly represent past than present time."—See Wright's Philosophical Gram., p. 99. Accordingly, in his own paradigm of the passive verb, he has formed this tense solely from what he calls the participle present, thus: "I am being smitten, Thou art being smitten," &c.—Ib., p. 98. His "Passed Tense," too, for some reason which I do not discover, he distinguishes above the rest by a double form, thus: "I was smitten, or being smitten; Thou wast smitten, or being smitten;" &c.—P. 99. In his opinion, "Few will object to the propriety of the more familiar phraseology, 'I am in the ACT,—or, suffering the ACTION of BEING SMITTEN;' and yet," says he, "in substance and effect, it is wholly the same as, 'I am being smitten,' which is THE TRUE FORM of the verb in the present tense of the passive voice!"—Ibid. Had we not met with some similar expressions of English or American blunderers, "the act or action of being smitten," would be accounted a downright Irish bull; and as to this ultra notion of neologizing all our passive verbs, by the addition of "being,"—with the author's cool talk of "the presentation of this theory, and [the] consequent suppression of that hitherto employed,"—there is a transcendency in it, worthy of the most sublime aspirant among grammatical newfanglers.

OBS. 13.—But, with all its boldness of innovation, Wright's Philosophical Grammar is not a little self-contradictory in its treatment of the passive verb. The entire "suppression" of the usual form of its present tense, did not always appear, even to this author, quite so easy and reasonable a matter, as the foregoing citations would seem to represent it. The passive use of the participle in ing, he has easily disposed of: despite innumerable authorities for it, one false assertion, of seven syllables, suffices to make it quite impossible.[269] But the usual passive form, which, with some show of truth, is accused of not having always precisely the same meaning as the progressive used passively,—that is, of not always denoting continuance in the state of receiving continued action,—and which is, for that remarkable reason, judged worthy of rejection, is nevertheless admitted to have, in very many instances, a conformity to this idea, and therefore to "belong [thus far] to the present tense."—P. 103. This contradicts to an indefinite extent, the proposition for its rejection. It is observable also, that the same examples, 'I am loved' and 'I am smitten,'—the same "tolerated, but erroneous forms," (so called on page 103,) that are given as specimens of what he would reject,—though at first pronounced "equivalent in grammatical construction," censured for the same pretended error, and proposed to be changed alike to "the true form" by the insertion of "being,"—are subsequently declared to "belong to" different classes and different tenses. "I am loved," is referred to that "numerous" class of verbs, which "detail ACTION of prior, but retained, endured, and continued existence; and therefore, in this sense, belong to the present tense." But "I am smitten," is idly reckoned of an opposite class, (said by Dr. Bullions to be "perhaps the greater number,") whose "ACTIONS described are neither continuous in their nature, nor progressive in their duration; but, on the contrary, completed and perfected; and [which] are consequently descriptive of passed time and ACTION."—Wright's Gram., p. 103. Again: "In what instance soever this latter form and signification can be introduced, their import should be, and, indeed, ought to be, supplied by the perfect tense construction:—for example, 'I am smitten,' [should] be, 'I have been smitten.'"—Ib. Here is self-contradiction indefinitely extended in an other way. Many a good phrase, if not every one, that the author's first suggestion would turn to the unco-passive form, his present "remedy" would about as absurdly convert into "the perfect tense."

OBS. 14.—But Wright's inconsistency, about this matter, ends not here: it runs through all he says of it; for, in this instance, error and inconsistency constitute his whole story. In one place, he anticipates and answers a question thus: "To what tense do the constructions, 'I am pleased;' 'He is expected;' 'I am smitten;' 'He is bound;' belong?" "We answer:—So far as these and like constructions are applicable to the delineation of continuous and retained ACTION, they express present time; and must be treated accordingly."—P. 103. This seems to intimate that even, "I am smitten," and its likes, as they stand, may have some good claim to be of the present tense; which suggestion is contrary to several others made by the author. To expound this, or any other passive term, passively, never enters his mind: with him, as with sundry others, "ACTION," "finished ACTION," or "progressive ACTION," is all any passive verb or participle ever means! No marvel, that awkward perversions of the forms of utterance and the principles of grammar should follow such interpretation. In Wright's syntax a very queer distinction is apparently made between a passive verb, and the participle chiefly constituting it; and here, too, through a fancied ellipsis of "being" before the latter, most, if not all, of his other positions concerning passives, are again disastrously overthrown by something worse—a word "imperceptibly understood." "'I am smitten;' 'I was smitten;' &c., are," he says, "the universally acknowledged forms of the VERBS in these tenses, in the passive voice:—not of the PARTICIPLE. In all verbal constructions of the character of which we have hitherto treated, (see page 103) and, where the ACTIONS described are continuous in their operations,—the participle BEING is imperceptibly omitted, by ellipsis."—P. 144.

OBS. 15.—Dr. Bullions has stated, that, "The present participle active, and the present participle passive, are not counterparts to each other in signification; [,] the one signifying the present doing, and the other the present suffering of an action, [;] for the latter always intimates the present being of an ACT, not in progress, but completed."—Prin. of Eng. Gram., p. 58. In this, he errs no less grossly than in his idea of the "action or the suffering" expressed by "a perfect participle," as cited in OBS. 5th above; namely, that it must have ceased. Worse interpretation, or balder absurdity, is scarcely to be met with; and yet the reverend Doctor, great linguist as he should be, was here only trying to think and tell the common import of a very common sort of English participles; such as, "being loved" and "being seen." In grammar, "an act," that has "present being," can be nothing else than an act now doing, or "in progress;" and if, "the present being of an ACT not in progress," were here a possible thought, it surely could not be intimated by any such participle. In Acts, i, 3 and 4, it is stated, that our Saviour showed himself to the apostles, "alive after his passion, by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God; and, being assembled together with them commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem." Now, of these misnamed "present participles," we have here one "active," one "passive," and two others—(one in each form—) that are neuter; but no present time, except what is in the indefinite date of "pertaining." The events are past, and were so in the days of St. Luke. Yet each of the participles denotes continuance: not, indeed, in or to the present time, but for a time. "Being seen" means continuing to be seen; and, in this instance, the period of the continuance was "forty days" of time past. But, according to the above-cited "principle of English Grammar," so long and so widely inculcated by "the Rev. Peter Bullions, D. D., Professor of Languages," &c.,—a central principle of interpretation, presumed by him to hold "always"—this participle must intimate "the present being of an act, not in progress, but completed;"—that is, "the present being of" the apostles' act in formerly seeing the risen Saviour!

OBS. 16.—This grammarian has lately taken a deal of needless pains to sustain, by a studied division of verbs into two classes, similar to those which are mentioned in OBS. 13th above, a part of the philosophy of J. W. Wright, concerning our usual form of passives in the present tense. But, as he now will have it, that the two voices sometimes tally as counterparts, it is plain that he adheres but partially to his former erroneous conception of a perfect or "past" participle, and the terms which hold it "in any connexion." The awkward substitutes proposed by the Irish critic, he does not indeed countenance; but argues against them still, and, in some respects, very justly. The doctrine now common to these authors, on this point, is the highly important one, that, in respect to half our verbs, what we commonly take for the passive present, is not such—that, in "the second class, (perhaps the greater number,) the present-passive implies that the act expressed by the active voice has ceased. Thus, 'The house is built.' * * * Strictly speaking, then," says the Doctor, "the PAST PARTICIPLE with the verb TO BE is not the present tense in the passive voice of verbs thus used; that is, this form does not express passively the doing of the act."—Bullions's Analyt. and Pract. Grammar, Ed. of 1849, p. 235. Thus far these two authors agree; except that Wright seems to have avoided the incongruity of calling that "the present-passive" which he denies to be such. But the Doctor, approving none of this practitioner's "remedies," and being less solicitous to provide other treatment than expulsion for the thousands of present passives which both deem spurious, adds, as from the chair, this verdict: "These verbs either have no present-passive, or it is made by annexing the participle in ing, in its passive sense, to the verb to be; as, 'The house is building.'"—Ib., p. 236.

OBS. 17.—It would seem, that Dr. Bullions thinks, and in reality Wright also, that nothing can be a present passive, but what "expresses passively the DOING of the act." This is about as wise, as to try to imagine every active verb to express actively the receiving of an act! It borders exceedingly hard upon absurdity; it very much resembles the nonsense of "expressing receptively the giving of something!" Besides, the word "DOING," being used substantively, does not determine well what is here meant; which is, I suppose, continuance, or an unfinished state of the act received—an idea which seems adapted to the participle in ing, but which it is certainly no fault of a participle ending in d, t, or n, not to suggest. To "express passively the doing of the act," if the language means any thing rational, may be, simply to say, that the act is or was done. For "doings" are, as often as any-wise, "things done," as buildings are fabrics built; and "is built," and "am smitten," the gentlemen's choice examples of false passives, and of "actions finished,"—though neither of them necessarily intimates either continuance or cessation of the act suffered, or, if it did, would be the less or the more passive or present,—may, in such a sense, "express the doing of the act," if any passives can:—nay, the "finished act" has such completion as may be stated with degrees of progress or of frequency; as, "The house is partly built."—"I am oftener smitten." There is, undoubtedly, some difference between the assertions, "The house is building,"—and, "The house is partly built;" though, for practical purposes, perhaps, we need not always be very nice in choosing between them. For the sake of variety, however, if for nothing else, it is to be hoped, the doctrine above-cited, which limits half our passive verbs of the present tense, to the progressive form only, will not soon be generally approved. It impairs the language more than unco-passives are likely ever to corrupt it.

OBS. 18.—"No startling novelties have been introduced," says the preface to the "Analytical and Practical Grammar of the English Language." To have shunned all shocking innovations, is only to have exercised common prudence. It is not pretended, that any of the Doctor's errors here remarked upon, or elsewhere in this treatise, will startle any body; but, if errors exist, even in plausible guise, it may not be amiss, if I tell of them. To suppose every verb or participle to be either "transitive" or "intransitive," setting all passives with the former sort, all neuters with the latter; (p. 59;)—to define the transitive verb or participle as expressing always "an act DONE by one person or thing to another;" (p. 60;)—to say, after making passive verbs transitive, "The object of a transitive verb is in the objective case," and, "A verb that does not make sense with an objective after it, is intransitive;" (p. 60;)—to insist upon a precise and almost universal identity of "meaning" in terms so obviously contrasted as are the two voices, "active" and "passive;" (pp. 95 and 235;)—to allege, as a general principle, "that whether we use the active, or the passive voice, the meaning is the same, except in some cases in the present tense;" (p. 67;)—to attribute to the forms naturally opposite in voice and sense, that sameness of meaning which is observable only in certain whole sentences formed from them; (pp. 67, 95, and 235;)—to assume that each "VOICE is a particular form of the verb," yet make it include two cases, and often a preposition before one of them; (pp. 66, 67, and 95;)—to pretend from the words, "The PASSIVE VOICE represents the subject of the verb as acted upon," (p. 67,) that, "According to the DEFINITION, the passive voice expresses, passively, the same thing that the active does actively;" (p. 235;)—to affirm that, "'Cæsar conquered Gaul,' and 'Gaul was conquered by Cæsar,' express precisely the same idea,"—and then say, "It will be felt at once that the expressions, 'Cæsar conquers Gaul,' and 'Gaul is conquered by Cæsar,' do not express the same thing;" (p. 235;)—to deny that passive verbs or neuter are worthy to constitute a distinct class, yet profess to find, in one single tense of the former, such a difference of meaning as warrants a general division of verbs in respect to it; (ib.;)—to announce, in bad English, that, "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:" (ib.;)—to do these several things, as they have been done, is, to set forth, not "novelties" only, but errors and inconsistencies.

OBS. 19.—Dr. Bullions still adheres to his old argument, that being after its own verb must be devoid of meaning; or, in his own words, "that is being built, if it mean anything, can mean nothing more than is built, which is not the idea intended to be expressed."—Analyt. and Pract. Gram., p. 237. He had said, (as cited in OBS. 5th above,) "The expression, 'is being,' is equivalent to is, and expresses no more; just as, 'is loving,' is equivalent to 'loves.' Hence, 'is being built,' is precisely equivalent to 'is built.'"—Principles of E. Gram., p. 58. He has now discovered "that there is no progressive form of the verb to be, and no need of it:" and that, "hence, there is no such expression in English as is being."—Analyt. and Pract. Gram., p. 236. He should have noticed also, that "is loving" is not an authorized "equivalent to loves;" and, further, that the error of saying "is being built," is only in the relation of the first two words to each other. If "is being," and "is loving," are left unused for the same reason, the truth may be, that is itself, like loves, commonly denotes "continuance;" and that being after it, in stead of being necessary or proper, can only be awkwardly tautologous. This is, in fact, THE GRAND OBJECTION to the new phraseology—"is being practised"—"am being smitten"—and the like. Were there no danger that petty writers would one day seize upon it with like avidity, an other innovation, exactly similar to this in every thing but tense—similar in awkwardness, in tautology, in unmistakeableness—might here be uttered for the sake of illustration. Some men conceive, that "The perfect participle is always compound; as, having seen, having written;"—and that the simple word, seen or written, had originally, and still ought to have, only a passive construction. For such views, they find authorities. Hence, in lieu of the common phrases, "had we seen," "we have written," they adopt such English as this; "Had we having seen you, we should have stopped."—"We have having written but just now, to our correspondent." Now, "We are being smitten," is no better grammar than this;—and no worse: "The idea intended" is in no great jeopardy in either case.

OBS. 20.—J. R. Chandler, of Philadelphia, in his Common School Grammar of 1847, has earnestly undertaken the defence of this new and much-mooted passive expression: which he calls "the Definite Passive Voice," or "the Passive Voice of the Definite Form." He admits it, however, to be a form that "does not sound well,"—a "novelty that strikes the ear unpleasantly;" but he will have the defect to be, not in the tautologous conceit of "is being," "was being," "has been being," and the like, but in everybody's organ of hearing,—supposing all ears corrupted, "from infancy," to a distaste for correct speech, by "the habit of hearing and using words ungrammatically!"—See p. 89. Claiming this new form as "the true passive," in just contrast with the progressive active, he not only rebukes all attempts "to evade" the use of it, "by some real or supposed equivalent," but also declares, that, "The attempt to deprive the transitive definite verb of [this] its passive voice, is to strike at the foundation of the language, and to strip it of one of its most important qualities; that of making both actor and sufferer, each in turn and at pleasure, the subject of conversation."—Ibid. Concerning equivalents, he evidently argues fallaciously; for he urges, that the using of them "does not dispense with the necessity of the definite passive voice."—P. 88. But it is plain, that, of the many fair substitutes which may in most cases be found, if any one is preferred, this form, and all the rest, are of course rejected for the time.

OBS. 21.—By Chandler, as well as others, this new passive form is justified only on the supposition, that the simple participle in ing can never with propriety be used passively. No plausible argument, indeed, can be framed for it, without the assumption, that the simpler form, when used in the same sense, is ungrammatical. But this is, in fact, a begging of the main question; and that, in opposition to abundant authority for the usage condemned. (See OBS. 3d, above.) This author pretends that, "The RULE of all grammarians declares the verb is, and a present participle (is building, or is writing), to be in the active voice" only.—P. 88. (I add the word "only," but this is what he means, else he merely quibbles.) Now in this idea he is wrong, and so are the several grammarians who support the principle of this imaginary "RULE." The opinion of critics in general would be better represented by the following suggestions of the Rev. W. Allen: "When the English verb does not signify mental affection, the distinction of voice is often disregarded: thus we say, actively, they were selling fruit; and, passively, the books are now selling. The same remark applies to the participle used as a noun: as, actively, drawing is an elegant amusement, building is expensive; and, passively, his drawings are good, this is a fine building."—Allen's Elements of E. Gram., p. 82.

OBS. 22.—Chandler admits, that, "When it is said, 'The house is building,' the meaning is easily obtained; though," he strangely insists, "it is exactly opposite to the assertion."—P. 89. He endeavours to show, moreover, by a fictitious example made for the purpose, that the progressive form, if used in both voices, will be liable to ambiguity. It may, perhaps, be so in some instances; but, were there weight enough in the objection to condemn the passive usage altogether, one would suppose there might be found, somewhere, an actual example or two of the abuse. Not concurring with Dr. Bullions in the notion that the active voice and the passive usually "express precisely the same thing," this critic concludes his argument with the following sentence: "There is an important difference between doing and suffering; and that difference is grammatically shown by the appropriate use of the active and passive voices of a verb."—Chandler's Common School Gram., p. 89.

OBS. 23.—The opinion given at the close of OBS. 2d above, was first published in 1833. An opposite doctrine, with the suggestion that it is "improper to say, 'the house is building,' instead of 'the house is being built,'"—is found on page 64th of the Rev. David Blair's Grammar, of 1815,—"Seventh Edition," with a preface dated, "October 20th, 1814." To any grammarian who wrote at a period much earlier than that, the question about unco-passives never occurred. Many critics have passed judgement upon them since, and so generally with reprobation, that the man must have more hardihood than sense, who will yet disgust his readers or hearers with them.[270] That "This new form has been used by some respectable writers," we need not deny; but let us look at the given "instances of it: 'For those who are being educated in our seminaries.' R. SOUTHEY.—'It was being uttered.' COLERIDGE.—'The foundation was being laid.' BRIT. CRITIC."—English Grammar with Worcester's Univ. and Crit. Dict., p. xlvi. Here, for the first example, it would be much better to say, "For those who are educated," [271]—or, "who are receiving their education;" for the others, "It was uttering,"—"was uttered,"—or, "was in uttering."—"The foundation was laying,"—"was laid,"—or, "was about being laid." Worcester's opinion of the "new form" is to be inferred from his manner of naming it in the following sentence: "Within a few years, a strange and awkward neologism has been introduced, by which the present passive participle is substituted, in such cases as the above, for the participle in ing."—Ibid. He has two instances more, in each of which the phrase is linked with an expression of disapprobation; "' It [[Greek: tetymmenos]] signifies properly, though in uncouth English, one who is being beaten.' ABP. WHATELY.—'The bridge is being built, and other phrases of the like kind, have pained the eye.' D. BOOTH."—Ibid.[272]

OBS. 24.—Richard Hiley, in the third edition of his Grammar, published in London, in 1840, after showing the passive use of the participle in ing, proceeds thus: "No ambiguity arises, we presume, from the use of the participle in this manner. To avoid, however, affixing a passive signification to the participle in ing, an attempt has lately been made to substitute the passive participle in its place. Thus instead of 'The house was building,' 'The work imprinting,' we sometimes hear, 'The house was being built,' 'The work is being printed.' But this mode is contrary to the English idiom, and has not yet obtained the sanction of reputable authority."—Hiley's Gram., p. 30.

OBS. 25.—Professor Hart, of Philadelphia, whose English Grammar was first published in 1845, justly prefers the usage which takes the progressive form occasionally in a passive sense; but, in arguing against the new substitute, he evidently remoulds the early reasoning of Dr. Bullions, errors and all; a part of which he introduces thus: "I know the correctness of this mode of expression has lately been very much assailed, and an attempt, to some extent successful, has been made [,] to introduce the form [,] 'is being built.' But, in the first place, the old mode of expression is a well established usage of the language, being found in our best and most correct writers. Secondly, is being built does not convey the idea intended, [;] namely [,] that of progressive action. Is being, taken together, means simply is, just as is writing means writes; therefore, is being built means is built, a perfect and not a progressive ACTION. Or, if being [and] built be taken together, they signify an ACTION COMPLETE, and the phrase means, as before, the house is (EXISTS) being built."—Hart's Gram., p. 76. The last three sentences here are liable to many objections, some of which are suggested above.

OBS. 26.—It is important, that the central phraseology of our language be so understood, as not to be misinterpreted with credit, or falsely expounded by popular critics and teachers. Hence errors of exposition are the more particularly noticed in these observations. In "being built," Prof. Hart, like sundry authors named above, finds nothing but "ACTION COMPLETE." Without doubt, Butler interprets better, when he says, "'The house is built,' denotes an existing state, rather than a completed action." But this author, too, in his next three sentences, utters as many errors; for he adds: "The name of the agent cannot be expressed in phrases of this kind. We cannot say, 'The house is built by John.' When we say, 'The house is built by mechanics,' we do not express an existing state."—Butler's Practical Gram., p. 80. Unquestionably, "is built by mechanics," expresses nothing else than the "existing state" of being "built by mechanics," together with an affirmation:—that is, the "existing state" of receiving the action of mechanics, is affirmed of "the house." And, in my judgement, one may very well say, "The house is built by John;" meaning, "John is building the house." St. Paul says, "Every house is builded by SOME MAN."—Heb., iii, 4. In this text, the common "name of the agent" is "expressed."

OBS. 27.—Wells and Weld, whose grammars date from 1846, being remarkably chary of finding anything wrong in "respectable writers," hazard no opinion of their own, concerning the correctness or incorrectness of either of the usages under discussion. They do not always see absurdity in the approbation of opposites; yet one should here, perhaps, count them with the majorities they allow. The latter says, "The participle in ing is sometimes used passively; as, forty and six years was this temple in building; not in being built."—Weld's English Gram., 2d Ed., p. 170. Here, if he means to suggest, that "in being built" would "not" be good English, he teaches very erroneously; if his thought is, that this phrase would "not" express the sense of the former one, "in building," he palpably contradicts his own position! But he proceeds, in a note, thus: "The form of expression, is being built, is being committed, &c., is almost universally condemned by grammarians; but it is sometimes met with in respectable writers. It occurs most frequently in newspaper paragraphs, and in hasty compositions."—Ibid. Wells comments thus: "Different opinions have long existed among critics respecting this passive use of the imperfect participle. Many respectable writers substitute the compound passive participle; as, 'The house is being built;' 'The book is being printed.' But the prevailing practice of the best authors is in favor of the simple form; as, 'The house is building.'"—Wells's School Gram., 1st Ed., p. 148; 113th Ed., p. 161.[273]