letter 4.

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

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

"From all regions where the best _news are_ made."----B. Johnson, Staple of News.

"And seal the news and issue _them_."----The same.

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

"A GENERAL joy at _this glad newes_ appear'd."

Cowley's Davideis, book 1.

"Now by St. Paul _this news_ is bad indeed!"

The same.

"No news so bad abroad as _this_ at home."

Rich. III. scene 1.

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

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

"But for ye speken of swiche gentillesse, As is descended out of old _richesse_."

Cant. Tales, 6691.

--"And he that ones to love doeth his homage Full oftentymes dere bought _is the richesse_."

La Belle Dame sans mercy, 323.

The word _richesse_ here is no more plural than _gentilnesse_, _distresse_, _doublenesse_, which the author uses in the same poem; and _riches_ now, in strictness of speech, is no more plural than _gentleness_, _distress_, or any other word of similar ending. When Chaucer had occasion for a plural, he wrote the word _richesses_; as in the Tale of Melibeus: "Thou hast dronke so muche hony of swete temporal _richesses_ and delices and honors of this world," &c.---- Works, vol. 4. p. 170. Bell's edit.

The word _riches_ therefore is in the singular number and merely an abbreviation of _richesse_; as _distress_ is of _distresse_; _weakness_, of _weaknesse_, &c. and the reason why the plural _richesses_ has been neglected, may be, that the idea it conveys does not admit of number any more than that of _wealth_, which is also destitute of a plural form.

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

"When love has taken all thou hast away, His strength by too much riches will decay."

Cowley.

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

"In one hour _is_ so great _riches_ come to nought."----Bible.

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

_Alms_ is also in the singular number; being a contraction of the old Norman French, _almesse_, the plural of which was _almesses_. So in Chaucer:

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

Freres Tale, 7190.

"_This almesse_ shouldest thou do of thy propre thinges," &c.---- Vol. 5. p. 217. Bell.

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

_Alms_ is used as a noun singular in the Bible; "To ask _an alms_." "He gave _much alms_;" that is, _almesse_, or charity. The plural of this word is not used.

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

_Laches_, from the French _lachesse_, is still retained in the law stile; but custom has abbreviated the word into _lache_, a single syllable.

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

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

_Wages_ is a word of the same kind.

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

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

"On valor's side the _odds_ of combat _lie_, The brave live glorious, or lamented die."

Iliad, b. 15. l. 670.

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

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

_Bellows_, _tongs_, _sheers_, _scissors_, _snuffers_, _pincers_, have no change of termination, and it is the practice to prefix to them the word _pair_. Yet notwithstanding these articles are composed of two principal parts, both are necessary to form a single indivisible instrument, and the names might have been considered as nouns in the singular.[99] _Pair_ is more properly applied to two separate articles of the same kind, and used together; a _pair of shoes_, or _gloves_. Custom, however, has sanctioned the use of it before the words just enumerated, and therefore a pair of tongs, &c. must be admitted as good English.[100]

There are many other words in our language which have the plural termination; as _billiards_, _ethics_, _metaphysics_, _mathematics_, _measles_, _hysterics_, and many others; which properly belong to the singular number. _Ethics is a science_, is better English than _ethics are_.

On the other hand, there are many words, which, without ever taking the plural termination, often belong to the plural. _Sheep_, _deer_ and _hose_, are often mentioned as belonging to this description. To these we may add many names of fish; as _trout_, _salmon_, _carp_, _tench_ and others, which are in fact names of species; but which apply equally to the individuals of the species. We say _a trout_, or _five trout_; but never _five trouts_.

POSSESSIVE CASE.

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

"_Fletcher of Salton's plan_ of a militia differs little from that of Harrington."[101]---- Home, Sketch 9.

ARTICLE.

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

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

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

"There lith on--up myn hed."

Cant. Tales, 4288.

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

"No more, _up paine_ of losing of your hed."

Ibm. 1709.

That is, _upon pain of losing your head_.

The word _up_ is undoubtedly but a corruption of _top_, or a noun derived from the same root, and this hypothesis is supported by the true theory of language; which is, that rude nations converse mostly by names. _Up myn hed_, is _top mine head_. An improvement of this phrase would be the use of _one_, _ane_ or _an_, to ascertain particular things; _uppone_, _upon_. In the progress of language, these words would be contracted into _on_, which we denominate a preposition.

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

"His brede, his ale, was alway _after on_."

Cant. Tales, 343.

So also in line 1783. In this example _on_ is allowed on all hands to be a contraction of _one_; _after one_ (way, manner) that is, _alike_, or in the same manner.

"They were _at on_;" line 4195. They were _at one_; that is, together or agreed.

"Ever _in on_;" line 1773, and 3878; ever _in one_ (way, course, &c.) that is, _continually_.

If therefore we suppose _on_ to be merely a corruption of _one_, we can easily explain all its uses. _On hunting_, or contractedly, _a hunting_, is _one hunting_. _On live_, _on life_, or _alive_, is merely _one life_. This form of expression is very natural, however childish or improper it may appear to us. It seems very obvious to resolve _ashore_, _abed_, into _on shore_, _on bed_; but even Lowth himself would be puzzled to make us believe that _adry_, _athirst_, came from _on dry_, _on thirst_; and Wallis would find equal difficulty to convince us that they came from _at dry_, _at thirst_. If we suppose _a_ to be a contraction of _one_, or the Saxon _ane_ or _an_, the solution of all these phrases is perfectly easy, and corresponds with Horne's theory of the particles. For if rude nations converse without particles, they must say _go shore_, or _go one shore_; _he is bed_, or _he is one bed_; _he is dry_, or _one dry_; _I am thirst_, or _I am one thirst_. Indeed every person who will attend to the manner of speaking among the American savages, must believe this explanation of the phrases to be probably just.

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

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

"O let my life, if thou so many deaths _a coming_ find, With thine old year its voyage take."----

Cowley's Ode to the New Year.

"But these fantastic errors of our dream, Lead us to solid wrong; We pray God, our friend's torments to prolong, And wish uncharitably for them, To be as long _a dying_ as Methusalem."

Cowley.

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

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

"He had read almost constantly, twelve or fourteen hours _a day_;" that is, _one day_.---- Bolingbroke on History, letter 4.

"To the sixteen scholars twenty pounds _a piece_."----Cowley.

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

+VERB.+

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

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

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

Grammarians have usually divided the English verbs into _active_, _passive_ and _neuter_. "_Active_ verbs," say they,[105] "express action, and necessarily imply an agent and an object acted upon." But is not a man _passive_ in _hearing_? Yet _hear_ is called an _active_ verb.

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

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

_Run_ is an _intransitive_ verb, for the action mentioned is confined to the agent; _he runs_. Yet the last is an _active_ verb, and the first, strictly speaking, is not;[106] so that there is a distinction to be made between a verb _active_ and _transitive_.

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

TIME.

Time is naturally divided into _past_, _present_ and _future_. The English verb has but two variations of ending to express time; the present, as _love_, _write_; and the past, as _loved_, _wrote_. The usual division of tenses, or combinations of words corresponding to the Latin tenses, is not wholly accurate. The definition of the second tense, in the ordinary arrangement of them in Latin grammars, may be correct, as it relates to the Roman tongue; but does not apply to the English tense, which is commonly called by the same name, the _Imperfect_. The Latin words _movebam_, _legebam_, are translated _I moved_, _I read_. Now the English words express actions _perfectly past_, and therefore the time or tense cannot be justly denominated _imperfect_. If the Latin words expressed, in the Roman tongue, actions _imperfectly past_, they should be rendered by us, _I was moving_, _was reading_, which convey ideas of actions, as taking place at some preceding period, but not then past. In this sense, the name of the tense might have been used with propriety. But the English form of expression, _he moved_, conveys the idea of an action completely past, and does not fall within the definition of the Latin _Imperfect_.

It is surprizing that the great Lowth should rank this form of the verb, _they moved_, under the head of _indefinite_ or _undetermined_ time; and yet place this form, _have moved_, or what is called the perfect tense, under the head of _definite_ or _determined_ time. The truth is, the first is the most _definite_. _I have loved_, or _moved_, expresses an action performed and completed, generally within a period of time not far distant; but leaves the particular point of time wholly _indefinite_ or _undetermined_. On the other hand, _I loved_ is necessarily employed, when a particular _period_ or _point_ of time is specified. Thus it is correct to say, _I read a book yesterday_, _last week_, _ten years ago_, &c. but it is not grammatical to say, _I have read a book yesterday_, _last week_, &c. so that, directly contrary to Lowth's rule, _I moved_, is the _definite_, and _I have moved_, the _indefinite_ time.

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

Ind. Pref. _Ich soll_, I ought or should. _Ich will_, I will.

Imp. _Ich sollt_, I ought or should. _Ich wollt_, I would.

Preter. _Ich habe gesollt_, I ought or should have. _Ich habe gewollt_, I would or would have, &c. &c.[107]

_I will go_ is really nothing more than a _present_ promise of a _future_ action. I _shall go_ is a _present_ prediction of a _future_ action. In the second and third persons, _will_ expresses the prediction; and as one cannot promise for a second or third person, _shall_, in these persons, implies a promise of the first person, that he will _command_ or _oblige_ the second or third person to do an action in some future time. The whole may be thus explained:

_I will go_,

Is my own _present_ promise to do a future action.

_Thou wilt go_--_He will go_,

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

_I shall go_,

is my _present_ prediction of a future action.

_Thou shalt go_--_He shall go_,

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

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

_Latin._ _French._ _English._

Habebo, J'aurai, I shall have. Habebimus, nous aurons, we shall have. Habebis, tu auras, thou wilt have. Habebit, il aura, he will have. Habebitis, vous aurez, you will have. Habebunt, ils auront, they will have.

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

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

MODE.

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

It is astonishing to see how long and how stupidly English grammarians have followed the Latin grammars in their divisions of time and mode; but in particular the latter. By this means, we often find _may_, _can_, _should_ and _must_ in a conditional mode, when they are positive declarations and belong to the indicative. All unconditional declarations, whether of an action, or of a _right_, _power_ or _necessity_ of doing an action, belong to the _indicative_; and the distinction between the _indicative_ and _potential_ is totally useless. _Should_ is commonly placed in the imperfect time of the subjunctive; yet is frequently used to express an unconditional obligation, as _he should go_; and belongs to the present time of the indicative, as much as _he ought_, or the French _il faut_ or _il doit_.

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

NUMBER _and_ PERSON.

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

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

AUXILIARIES.

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

The verbs, called _auxiliaries_ or _helpers_, are _do_, _be_, _have_, _shall_, _will_, _may_, _can_, _must_. The three first are often employed alone, and are therefore acknowleged to be sometimes principal verbs. That the others were so, will be made obvious by a specimen from the German, with the corresponding English.

_German._ _English._

Inf. _Wollen_, to will. Ind. Pref. Ich will, I will. Wir wollen,[109] we will. Imper. Ich wolte, I would. Preterit. Ich habe gewolt, I have would, or willed. Plup. Ich hatte gewolt, I had would. Fut. Ich werde wollen, I shall will. Imp. Wolle du, will thou. Subj. _Ich wolle_, (if) I would, &c. Inf. Wollen, to will. Gewolte haben, to have would, or willed. Part. Wollend, willing. Gewollte, having would, or willed.

_Sollen_, to shall, is inflected in the same manner. _Koennen_, to can, or be able, is inflected much in the same manner. _Ich kann_, I can, &c. Imperfect, _Ich konnte_, I could. Preterit, _Ich habe gehonnt_, I have could (or been able.) Participle, _Kænnend_, _canning_, being able. Thus _mægen_, to may, makes, in the past tenses, _Ich mochte_, I might or mought, as the vulgar sometimes pronounce it; _Ich habe gemocht_, _I have might_. _Must_ also, which in English has lost all inflection, is varied in the German; _mussen_, to must, or be obliged; Imperfect, _Ich muste_, I must, or was obliged.

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

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

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

"In the Latin language, there are no two words, we _would_ more readily take to be synonimous, than _amare_ and _diligere_."----The same, p. 83.

In these and several other instances which occur in Blair's writings, the words _will_ and _would_ are used very improperly, for _shall_ and _should_. The author means only to _foretell_ certain events, and has employed words which carry, to an English ear, the full force of a _promise_.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Priestley observes very justly, that the form of the auxiliaries, _shall_, _will_, which is generally conditional, viz. _should_ and _would_, is elegantly used to express a slight assertion, with modest diffidence.

"The royal power, _it should seem_, might be intrusted in their hands."----Hume's History, vol. 3. p. 383.

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

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

_Should_, in the second and third persons, expresses _duty_, and the idea of the author was, to express an event, under a condition, or a modest declaration; he _should_ have used _would_.

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

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

"Think what reflection _shall_ most probably arise."----Blair, Serm. 9.

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

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

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

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

"If thou _neglectest_ or _dost_ unwillingly what I command, I'll rack thee with old cramps."----Temp. act 1. s. 4.

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

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

"And if my scheme _prospers_, with joy I'll confess, What a whimsical trifle produced our success."

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

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

These should have been _grow_ or _should grow_; _become_ or _should become_.

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