A vast proportion of human ability is derived from knowledge. There is not a being in creation so entirely incapable of self-support, as the new-born infant; and yet, by the help of knowledge, he becomes the lord of this lower world. Bonaparte was once as helpless as any other child, and yet by dint of

can

ken

cunning

, or knowledge, he made all Europe tremble. But his knowledge was limited. He became blind to danger, bewildered by success, and he

could

no longer follow the prudent course of wisdom, but fell a sacrifice to his own unbridled ambition, and blinded folly. An enlightened people

can

govern themselves; but

power

of government is gained by a knowledge of the principles of equality, and mutual help and dependency; and whenever the people become ignorant of that fact, they

will

fall, the degraded victims of their own folly, and the wily influence of some more knowing aspirant for power.

This is a most important topic; but I dare not pursue it farther, lest I weary your patience. A few examples

must

suffice.

"Jason, she cried, for aught I

see

can

This deed," &c.

Chaucer.

A famous man,

Of every

witte

somewhat he

can

Out take

that him lacketh rule,

His own estate to guide and rule.

Gower.

Do has been called a

helping

verb; but it needs little observation to discover that it is no more so than a hundred other words. "

thy diligence to come before winter." "

the work of an evangelist."—

Paul to Timothy.

all in my power

to expose

the error and wickedness of false teaching.

afford relief.

something to afford relief.

Have has also been reckoned as an auxiliary by the "helping verb grammars," which has no other duty to perform than help conjugate other verbs thro some of their moods and tenses. It is a word in very common use, and of course must possess a very important character, which should be carefully examined and distinctly known by all who desire a knowledge of the construction of our language.

The principal difficulty in the explanation of this word, is the peculiar meaning which some have attached to it. It has been defined to denote

possession

merely. But when we say, a man

has

much

property destroyed

by fire, we do not mean that he

gains

possesses

much property by the fire; nor can we make

has

auxiliary to

destroyed

, for in that case it would stand thus: a man

has destroyed

much property by fire, which would be false, for the destruction was produced by an incendiary, or some other means wholly unknown to him.

You at once perceive that

to possess

is not the only meaning which attaches to

have

. It assumes a more important rank. It can be traced, with little change in form, back thro many generations. It is the same word as

heave

, originally, and retains nearly the same meaning. Saxon

habban

, Gothic

haban

, German

haben

, Latin

habeo

, French

avoir

, are all the same word, varied in spelling more than in sound; for

in many languages is sounded very much like

, or

. It may mean to

hold

possess

retain

sway

control

dispose of

, either as a direct or

relative

action; for a man sustains relations to his actors, duties, family, friends, enemies, and all the world, as well as to his possessions. He

has

a hard task to perform. He

has

much pain

to suffer

. He

has

suffered much unhappiness.

have written

a letter. I

have

a written letter. I

have

a letter

written

. These expressions differ very little in meaning, but the verb

have

is the same in each case. By the first expression, I signify that I have

caused

the letter to be

written

; by the second that I have a letter on which such action has been performed; and by the third, that such written letter stands in such relation to myself.

have written

a letter and sent it away.

Written

is the past participle from

write

; as an adjective it describes the letter in the condition I placed it; so that it will be defined, wherever it is found, as my letter; that is, some way

to me.

We can here account for the old

perfect tense

, which is said, "not only to refer to what is

past

, but also

to convey an allusion to the present time

." The verb is in the

present

tense, the participle is in the

past

, and hence the reason of this allusion. I

have

space allowed

me to go into a full investigation of this word, in its application to the expression of ideas. But it is necessary to

have

it well

understood

, as it

has

an important

service entrusted

to it; and I hope you will

have

clear

views presented

to your minds, strong enough to

have

former

errors eradicated

therefrom.

If you

have

leisure

granted

, and patience and disposition equal-

to the task, you have my consent to go back and read this sentence over again. You will find it

has

in it embodied much important information in relation to the use of

have

and the perfect tense.

LECTURE XIII.

ON VERBS

Person and number in the agent, not in the action. – Similarity of agents, actions, and objects. – Verbs made from nouns. – Irregular verbs. – Some examples. – Regular Verbs. –

. –

Ing

. – Conjugation of verbs. – To love. – To have. – To be. – The indicative mood varied. – A whole sentence may be agent or object. – Imperative mood. – Infinitive mood. – Is always future.

I have said before that action can never be known separate from the actor; that the verb applies to the agent in an

acting

condition, as that term has been defined and should be understood. Hence Person and Number can never attach to the verb, but to the agent with which, of course, the action must, in every respect, agree; as, "

I write

." In this case the action corresponds with myself. But to say that

write

is in the "first person, singular number," would be wrong, for no such number or person belongs to the verb, but is confined to myself as the agent of the action.

The form of the verb is changed when it agrees with the second or third person singular; more on account of habit, I apprehend, than from any reason, or propriety as to a change of meaning in the word. We say, when using the regular

second

person singular, "

thou writest

," a form rarely observed except in addresses to Deity, or on solemn occasions. In the

third

person, an

is added to the regular form; as, "

he writes

." The old form, which was in general use at the time the common version of the Bible was published, was still different, ending in

eth

; as,

he thinketh

he writeth

. This style, altho considerably used in the last century, is nearly obsolete. When the verb agrees with the plural number it is usually the same as when it agrees with the first person; as, "

We write

you write

they write

." There are few exceptions to these rules.

Some people have been very tenacious about retaining the old forms of words, and our books were long printed without alteration; but change will break thro every barrier, and book-makers must keep pace with the times, and put on the dress that is catered for them by the public taste; bearing in mind, meanwhile, that great and practical truths are more essential than the garb in which they appear. We should be more careful of our health of body and purity of morals than of the costume we put on. Many genteel coats wrap up corrupt hearts, and fine hats cover silly heads. What is the chaff to the wheat?

Even our good friends, the quakers, who have particularly labored to retain old forms—"the plain language,"—have failed in their attempt, and have substituted the

object

form of the pronoun for the

agent

, and say, "

thee thinks

," for

thou thinkest

. Their mistake is even greater than the substitution of

you

for

thou

So far as language depends on the conventional regulation of those who use it, it will be constantly changing; new words will be introduced, and the spelling of old ones altered, so as to agree with modern pronounciation. We have all lived long enough to witness the truth of this remark. The only rule we can give in relation to this matter is, to follow our own judgments, aided by our best writers and speakers.

The words which express action, are in many cases very similar to the agents which produce them; and the objects which are the direct results produced by such action, do not differ very materially. I will give you a few examples.

I give you these examples to show you the near alliance between

actors

, ( ,) and

actions

; or agents,

actions

, and objects. Such expressions as the above are inelegant, because they are uncommon; but for no other reason, for we, in numberless cases, employ the same word for agent and verb; as,

painters paint

buildings, and

artists

paint paintings;

bookbinders bind books

;

printers print

books, and other

prints

. A little observation will enable you to carry out these hints, and profit by them. You have observed the disposition in children, and foreigners, who are partially acquainted with our language, to make verbs out of almost every noun, which appears to us very aukward; but was it common, it would be just as correct as the verbs now used. There are very few verbs which have not a noun to correspond with them, for we make verbs, that is, we use words to express action, which are nearly allied to the agent with which such action agrees.

The same fact may be observed in other languages, for all people form language alike, in a way to correspond with their ideas. The following hasty examples will illustrate this point.

From botany we have made

botanize

; from Mr. McAdam, the inventor of a particular kind of road,

macadamize

, which means to make roads as he made them. Words are formed in this way very frequently. The word

church

is often used as a noun to express a building used for public worship; for the services performed in it; for the whole congregation; for a portion of believers associated together; for the Episcopal order, etc. It is also used as a verb. Mr. Webster defines it, "To perform with any one the office of returning thanks in the church after any signal deliverance." But the word has taken quite a different turn of late.

To church

a person, instead of receiving him into communion, as that term would seem to imply, signifies to deal with an offending member, to excommunicate, or turn him out.

But I will not pursue this point any farther. The brief hints I have thrown out, will enable you to discover how the meaning and forms of words are changed from their original application to suit the notions and improvements of after ages. A field is here presented which needs cultivation. The young should be taught to search for the etymology of words, to trace their changes and meaning as used at different times and by different people, keeping their minds constantly directed to the object signified by such verbal sign. This is the business of philosophy, under whatever name it may be taught; for grammar, rhetoric, logic, and the science of the mind, are intimately blended, and should always be taught in connexion. We have already seen that words without meaning are like shadows without realities. And persons can not employ language "correctly," or "with propriety," till they have acquainted themselves with the import of such language—the ideas of things signified by it. Let this course be adopted in the education of children, and they will not be required to spend months and years in the study of an "

art

" which they can not comprehend, for the simple reason that they can not apply it in practice. Grammar has been taught as a mere

art

, depending on arbitrary rules to be mechanically learned, rather than a science involving the soundest and plainest principles of philosophy, which are to be known only as developed in common practice among men, and in accordance with the permanent laws which govern human thought.

Verbs differ in the manner of forming their

past

tenses, and participles, or adjectives. Those ending in

are called

regular

; those which take any other termination are

irregular

. There are about two hundred of the latter in our language, which differ in various ways. Some of them have the

past

tense and the past participle the same; as,

Others have the past tense and participle alike, but different from the present; as,

Some have the present and past tense and participle different; as,

There are a few which are made up of different radicals, which have been wedded together by habit, to avoid the frequent and unpleasant recurrence of the same word; as,

Some which were formerly irregular, are now generally used with the regular termination, in either the past tense or participle, or both; as,

The syllable

is a contraction of the past tense of

; as, I

loved

, love

did

love, or love-

. He learn

, learn did, did learn, or learned. It signifies action,

did

, done, or accomplished. You have all lived long enough to have noticed the change in the pronounciation of this syllable. Old people sound it full and distinct; and so do most others in reading the scriptures; but not so generally as in former times. In poetry it was usually abbreviated so as to avoid the full sound; and hence we may account for the

irregular

termination of many words, such as

heard

, for

heared

;

past

, for

passed

;

learnt

, for

learned

;

built

, for

builded

. In modern poetry, however, the

is retained, tho sounded no more than formerly.

Ing

is derived from the verb to

, and signifies

being

existing

; and, attached to a verb, is used as a noun, or adjective, retaining so much of its former character as to have an object after it which is affected by it; as, "I am

writing

a lecture." Here

writing

, the present participle of

write

, describes myself in my present employment, and yet retains its action as a verb, and terminates on

lecture

as the thing written. "The man was taken in the act of

stealing

some money." In this case

stealing

names the action which the man was performing when detected, which action thus named, has

money

for the object on which it terminates.

I barely allude to this subject in this place to give you an idea of the method we adopt to explain the meaning and use of participles. It deserves more attention, perhaps, to make it plain to your minds; but as it is not an essential feature in the new system, I shall leave it for consideration in a future work. Whoever is acquainted with the formation of the present participle in other languages, can carry out the suggestions I have made, and fully comprehend my meaning.

I will present you with an example of the conjugations of a few verbs which you are requested to compare with the "

might could would should have been loved

" systems, which you were required to learn in former times. You will find the verb in every

form

or position in which it ever occurs in our language, written or spoken.

Conjugation of the regular verb to love.

INDICATIVE MOOD

IMPERATIVE MOOD

Love

INFINITIVE MOOD

To love

PARTICIPLES

Present,

Loving

Past,

Loved

The irregular verb to have, is thus conjugated.

INDICATIVE MOOD

IMPERATIVE MOOD

Have

INFINITIVE MOOD

To have

PARTICIPLES

Present,

Having

Past,

Had

The irregular verb to be, stands thus:

INDICATIVE MOOD

IMPERATIVE MOOD

INFINITIVE MOOD

To be

PARTICIPLES

Present,

Being

Past,

Been

These examples will suffice to give you an idea of the ease and simplicity of the construction of verbs, and by a comparison with old systems, you can, for yourselves, determine the superiority of the principles we advocate. The above tabular views present every form which the verb assumes, and every position in which it is found. In use, these words are frequently compounded together;

Mr. Murray says, "These compounds,"

have

shall

will

may

can

must

had

might

could

would

, and

should

, which he uses as auxiliaries to

help

conjugate

other

verbs, "are, however, to be considered as

different forms

of the

same

verb." I should like to know, if these words have any thing to do with the

principal

verbs; if they only alter the

form

of the verb which follows them. I

may

can

must

shall

will

, or

do love

. Are these only different forms of

love

? or rather, are they not distinct, important, and original verbs, pure and perfect

and

themselves? Ask for their etymons and meaning, and then decide.

but with a knowledge of the above principles, and the

meaning

of the words—a most essential consideration—you will always be able to analyze any sentence, and parse it correctly. I have not time to enlarge on this point, to show how words are connected together. Nor do I think it necessary to enable you to understand my views. To children such a work would be indispensable, and shall be attended to if we are able to publish a grammar containing the simple principles of language.

The indicative mood is varied four ways. 1st, affirmatively,

he writes

; 2d, negatively,

he writes not

; 3d, interrogatively,

does

he write? or

writes

he? 4th, suppositively, if

he writes

suppose he writes

, allow

he writes

The

first

is a simple affirmation of a fact, and is easily understood. The

second

is formed by annexing a term to express negation.

Not

is a contraction from

nought

naught

, which is a compound of

, negative, and ought or aught,

ne-aught

, meaning

no-thing

He writes not

; he writes nothing. He does

not

write; he does

nothing

to write.

Neither

is a compound of

and

either

not either

. He

can not

read; he

can

kens

knows nothing

, has no ability

to read

The third is constructed into a question by placing the verb before the agent, or by prefixing another word before the agent, and then placing the former verb as an infinitive after it; as,

Does

he write? or

writes

he? When another verb is prefixed, one is always chosen which will best decide the query. Does he

any thing

to write? Does he make any motions or show any indications to write? When the

will

or disposition of a person is concerned, we choose a word accordingly.

Will

he write? Has he the

will

or disposition to write?

Can

he write? Is he able—

knows

he how to write? A little observation will enable you to understand my meaning.

In the fourth place, a supposition is made in the imperative mood, in accordance with which the action is performed. "

love

me, keep my commandments."

Give

grant

allow

suppose

this fact—you

love

me, keep my commandments. I will go if I can. I

resolve

will

, or

determine

to go;

gif

give

, grant, allow this fact, I

can

ken

know

how, or

able

to go

. But more on this point when we come to the consideration of contractions.

In this mood the verb must have an agent and object, expressed or implied; as, "

farmers

cultivate the

soil

." But a whole sentence, that is, an idea written out, may perform this duty; as, "The study of grammar, on false principles, is productive of no good." What is productive of no good? What is the agent of

? "The

study

," our books and teachers tell us. But does such a construction give the true meaning of the sentence? I think not, for

study

is indispensable to knowledge and usefulness, and

the study

of grammar, properly directed, is a most useful branch of literature, which should never be dispensed with. It is the study of grammar

on false principles

, which

is productive of no good

. You discover my meaning, and will not question its correctness. You must also see how erroneous it would be to teach children that "

to study

is productive of no good." The force of the sentence rests on the "false principles" taught. Hence the whole statement is truly the agent of the verb.

The object on which the action terminates is frequently expressed in a similar manner; as, "He wrote to me, that he will adopt the new system of grammar, if he can procure some books to give his scholars to learn." Will you parse

wrote

? Most grammarians will call it an

intransitive

verb, and make out that "he wrote"

nothing

to me, because there is no regular objective word after it. Will you parse

that

? It is a "conjunction

copulative

." What does it connect? "

He wrote

" to the following sentence, according to Rule 18 of Mr. Murray; "conjunctions connect the

same

moods and tenses of verbs and cases of nouns and pronouns." Unluckily you have two different tenses connected in this case. Will you parse

? It is a

copulative

conjunction, connecting the two members of the sentence—

he will adopt

he can procure

: Rule, as above. How exceeding unfortunate! You have

two

different moods, and too different tenses, connected by a

copulative

conjunction which the rule says "connects

the same

moods and tenses! What nonsense! What a falsehood! What a fine thing to be a grammarian! And yet, I venture the opinion, and I judge from what I have seen in myself and others, there is not one teacher in a hundred who will not learn children to parse as above, and apply the same rule to it. "I

will go

if I

can

." "I

and

will

contend." "As it

was

in the beginning,

now,

and

ever

shall be

." "I

here and

must

remain." "He

will do

your business

has

time." "I

resolved

to expose

the errors of grammar,

and will do

it thoroly

can

In these examples you have different moods and tenses, indiscriminately, yet correctly coupled together, despite the rules of syntax which teach us to explain language "with propriety."

That

, in the sentence before us, is an adjective, referring to the following sentence, which is the

object

wrote

, or is the thing written. "He wrote to me

that

" fact, sentiment, opinion, determination, or resolution, that writing, letter, or word—"he will adopt the new system of grammar, if he can procure some books."

This subject properly belongs to that department of language called syntax; but as I shall not be able to treat of that in this course of lectures, I throw in here these brief remarks to give you some general ideas of the arrangement of words into sentences, according to their true meaning, as obtained from a knowledge of their etymology. You cannot fail to observe this method of constructing language if you will pay a little attention to it when reading; keeping all the time in view the fact that words are only the signs of ideas, derived from an observation of things. You all know that it is not merely the steam that propels the boat, but that it is steam

applied to machinery

. Steam is the more latent cause; and the engine with its complicated parts is the direct means. In the absence of either, the boat would not be propelled. In the formation of language, I may say correctly, "Solomon

built

the temple;" for he stood in that relation to the matter which supposes it would not have been built without his direction and command. To accomplish such an action, however, he need not raise a hammer or a gavel, or draw a line on the trestle board. His command made known to his ministers was sufficient to

cause

the work to be done. Hence the whole fact is

indicated

or declared by the single expression, "Solomon

built

the temple."

The Imperative mood is unchanged in form. I can say to one man,

, or to a thousand,

. The commander when drilling

one

soldier, says,

march

; and he bids the whole battalion,

march

. The agent who is

to perform

the action is understood when not expressed; as,

go thou

, or

go you

. The agent is generally omitted, because the address is given direct to the person who is expected to obey the instruction, request, or command. This verb always agrees with an agent in the

second

person. And yet our "grammars made easy" have given us

three persons

in this mood—"

Let me love

;

love

love thou

, or

thou

love

; let him love." In the name of common sense, I ask, what can children learn by such instruction? "

Let me love

," in the conjugation of the verb

to love

! To whom is this command given? To

myself

of course! I command myself to "

let me love

!" What nonsense! "Let

him

love." I stand here, you set there, and the

third

person is in Philadelphia. I utter these words, "Let

him love

." What is my meaning? Why, our books tell us, that the verb to

love

third

person. Then I command

him

let himself love

! What jargon and falsehood! You all know that we can address the

second

person only. You would call me insane if I should employ language according to the rules of grammar as laid down in the standard books. In my room alone, no person near me, I cry out, "

let me be quiet

"—imperative mood, first person of

to be

! Do I command myself to

let

myself

quiet? Most certainly, if

is the principal verb in the first person, and

let

the auxiliary. The teacher observes one of his pupils take a pencil from a classmate who sets near him. He says, "

let him have it

." To whom is the command given? It is the imperative mood, third person of the verb

to have

. Does he command the third person, the boy who

has

not the pencil? Such is the resolution of the sentence, according to the authority of standard grammars. But where is there a child five years old who does not know better. Every body knows that he addresses the second person, the boy who has the pencil, to

let

the other

have

it.

Teachers have learned their scholars the

first

and

third

persons of this mood when committing the conjugation of verbs; but not one in ten thousand ever adopted them in parsing. "

Let me love.

Let

, all parse, Mr. Murray not excepted, in the

second

person, and

love

in the infinitive mood after it, without the sign

; according to the rule, that "verbs which follow

bid

dare

feel

hear

let

needs

speak

," etc. are in the infinitive mood. It is strange people will not eat their own cooking.

There can be no trouble in understanding this mood, as we have explained it, always in the future tense, that is, future to the command or request, agreeing with the

second

person, and never varied on account of number.

The only variation in the infinitive mood is the omission of

in certain cases, which is considered as a part of the verb; tho in truth it is no more so than when used in the character of an old fashioned preposition. In certain cases, as we have before observed, it is not expressed. This is when the infinitive verb follows small words in frequent use; as, shall, will, let, can, must, may, bid, do, have, make, feel, hear, etc.

This mood is always in the future tense; that is, it is future to the circumstances or condition of things upon which it depends; as, they are making preparations

to raise

the building. Here

to raise

is future to the preparations, for if they make no preparations, the buildings will not be raised. The boy studies his book

to learn

his lesson. If he does not study, he will not be likely

to learn

his lesson.

The allied powers of Europe combined their forces

to defeat

Napoleon. In this instance the whole expression is in the past tense; nevertheless, the action expressed in the infinitive mood,

was future

to the circumstance on which it depended; that is, the

defeat

was

future

to the

combination

of the forces. Abraham raised the knife

to slay

his son. Not that he did

slay

him, as that sentence must be explained on the common systems, which teach us that

to slay

is in the

present tense

; but he raised the fatal knife for that purpose, the fulfilment of which was future; but the angel staid his hand, and averted the blow. The patriots of Poland

made

a noble attempt

to gain

their liberty. But they did not

gain it

, as our grammars would teach us

Poprzedni 1 ...11 121314 15 Kolejny

Lectures on Language, as Particularly Connected with English Grammar.

Osoby, które czytają tę książkę, przeczytały również