Chapter 14

Be not surprised when I tell you this is the same word as _air_, for such is the fact. It signifies to inhale air, to _air ourselves_, or _breathe air_. "God _breathed_ into man the _breath of life_, and man became a _living soul_." The new born infant _inhales air_, _inflates its lungs_ with _air_, and begins to live. We all know how essential _air_ is to the preservation of life. No animal can live an instant without it. Drop a squirrel into a receiver from which all _air_ has been extracted, and it can not live. Even vegetables will die where there is no air. _Light_ is also indispensable to _life_ and _health_. _Air_ is _inhaled_ and _exhaled_, and from it life receives support. The fact being common, it is not so distinctly observed by the careless, as tho it was more rare. But did you never see the man dying of a consumption, when the pulmonary or breathing organs were nearly decayed? How he labors for breath! He asks to have the windows thrown open. At length he _suffocates_ and dies. Most persons struggle hard for _breath_ in the hour of dissolving nature. The heaving bosom, the hollow gasp for _air_, tells us that the lamp of life is soon to be extinguished, that the hour of their departure has come.

When a person faints, we carry them into the _air_, or blow _air_ upon them, that nature may be restored to its regular course. In certain cases physicians find it necessary to force air into the lungs of infants; they can after that _air_, themselves, _imbibe_ or _drink in air_, or _inspirit_ themselves with air. But I need not enlarge. Whoever has been deprived of air and labored hard for breath in a stifled or unwholesome air, can appreciate what we mean.

_We were_; _he was_.

I have said before that these words are the same, and are used in certain cases irrespective of number. I have good authority for this opinion, altho some etymologists give them different derivations.

_Were_, _wert_; _worth_, _werth_; _word_ and _werde_, are derived from the same etymon and retain a similarity of meaning. They signify _spirit_, _life_, _energy_. "In the beginning was the _word_, and the _word_ was with God." "By the _word_ of his grace."

"_They were_," they _inspirited_ themselves, _possessed_ the life, vitality, or _spirit_, the Creator gave them, and having that spirit, life, or energy, under proper regulation, in due degree, they were _worthy_ of the esteem, regard, sympathy, and good _word_ of others.

_To be._

This is considered the root of all the words we have considered, and to it all others are referred for a definition. Dictionaries give no definition to _am_, _is_, _are_, _was_, and _were_, all of them as truly principal verbs as _be_, and possessed of as distinct a meaning. It can hardly be possible that they should form so important a part of our language, and yet be incapable of definition. But such is the fact, the most significant words in our language, and those most frequently used, are undefined in the books.

Mr. Webster says =to be= signifies, "to exist, to _have_ a real _state_ or _existence_," and so say Walker and Johnson. Now if it is possible to "=have= _a state of being_ without action or passion," then may this word express neutrality. But the very definition requires activity, and an object expressed. It denotes the _act of being_, or living; to _exercise_ the powers of life, to _maintain_ a position or rank in the scale of existent things.

The name of the action is _being_, and applies to the Almighty BEING who _exists_ unchanged as the source of all inferior _beings_ and things, whose name is _Jehovah_, I AM, the Being of beings, the Fountain of _light_, _life_, and _wisdom_.

_Be_ is used in the imperative and infinitive moods correctly, by every body who employs language. "_Be_ here in ten minutes." "_Be it_ far from thee." "I will _be_ in Boston before noon." If there is any action in going from Providence to Boston at rail-road speed, in two hours, or before noon, it is all expressed by the verb _be_, which we are told expresses _no action_.

The teacher says to his scholars when out at play, "I want you _to be_ in your seats in five minutes." What would they understand him to mean? that they should stand still? or that they should _change their state of being_ from play in the yard, to a state of being in their seats? There is no word to denote such change, except the word _to be_. _Be_ off, _be_ gone, _be_ here, _be_ there, are commands frequently given and correctly understood.

The master says to a bright little lad, who has well learned his grammar, "_Be_ here in a minute."

"Yes, sir, I will _be_ there;" but he does not move.

"_Be_ here immediately."

"Yes, yes, I will _be_ there."

"Don't you understand me? I say, _be_ here instantly."

"Oh, yes, I understand you and will obey."

The good man is enraged. "You scoundrel," says he, "do you mean to disobey my orders and insult me?"

"Insult you and disobey you; I have done neither," replies the honest boy.

"Yes you have, and I will chastise you severely for it."

"No, master, I have not; I declare, I have not. I have obeyed you as well as I know how, to the very letter and spirit of your command."

"Didn't I tell you _to be_ here in a minute, and have not you _remained_ where you were? and didn't you say you would _be_ here?"

"Yes, sir; and did not I do just what you told me to?"

"Why, no, you blockhead; I told you _to be_ here."

"Well, I told you I would _be_ there."

"You _was_ not here."

"Nor did you expect I would _be_, if you have taught me to _speak_, _write_, and understand correctly."

"What do you mean, you saucy boy?"

"I mean to mind my master, and do what he tells me to."

"Why didn't you do so then?"

"I did."

"You didn't."

"I did."

"You lie, you insult me, you contradict me, you saucy fellow. You are not fit to be in school. I will punish you severely." And in a passion he starts for his ferrule, takes the boys hand, and bruises him badly; the honest little fellow all the while pleading innocence of any intended wrong.

In a short time they commence _parsing_ this sentence: "It is necessary _to be_ very particular in ascertaining the meaning of words before we use them." The master puts _to be_ to the same boy. He says it is an _active verb_, infinitive mood.

"How is that? an _active_ verb?"

"Yes, sir."

"No, it is not. It is a _neuter_ verb."

"Begging your pardon, master, it is not. It is active."

"Have I got to punish you again so soon, you impudent fellow. You are not fit to be in school. I will inform your parents of your conduct."

"What have I done that is wrong?"

"You say _to be_ is an _active_ verb, when _I_ tell you, and the _grammar_ and _dictionary_ tell you, it is _neuter_!"

"What is a _neuter_ verb, master?"

"It expresses 'neither action nor passion, but being or a state of being.' Have you forgotten it?"

"No, sir, I _thought_ that was the case."

"What did you ask me for then?"

"Because I supposed you had found another meaning for it."

"To what do you allude, you troublesome fellow, you? I'll not bear your insults much longer."

"For what did you punish me so severely just now?"

"For disobeying my orders."

"What did you order me to do?"

"_To be_ here in a minute."

"Well, did not I do what you told me?"

"No; you kept your seat, and did not come near me."

"Well, I thought and did just what you now tell me; that _to be_ is a _neuter_ verb, expressing no _action_, but _being_. I had a _state_ of _being_, and promised to keep it, and did keep it, and you punished me for doing the very thing you told me to do!!"

The master looked down, shut up his book, and began to say that grammar is a "_dry_, _cold_, and _useless_" study, hardly worth the trouble of learning it.

* * * * *

"_I am_ Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, who _is_, and who _was_, and who _is_ to come, the Almighty."--_Rev. 1: 8._

If there is any action in maintaining eternal existence, by which all things were created and are upheld, it is expressed in the verbs _am_, _is_, and _was_.

God said, "Let there _be_ light, and there _was_ light;" or more properly rendered, "Light =be=, and light =was=."

Was there no action in setting the sun, moon and stars in the firmament, and in causing them to _send_ forth the rays of light to _dispel_ the surrounding darkness? If there was, _be_ and _was_ denote that action.

"You are commanded =to be= and _appear_ before the court of common pleas," etc. A heavy penalty is imposed upon those who fail to comply with this citation--for neglecting to do what is expressed by the _neuter verb_ to _be_.

Such cases might be multiplied without number, where this verb is correctly used by all who employ language, and correctly understood by all who are capable of knowing the meaning of words. But I think you must all be convinced of the truth of our proposition, that all verbs express action, either _real_ or _relative_; and in all cases have an object, expressed or necessarily implied, which stands as the _effect_, and an agent, as the cause of action: and hence that language, as a means for the communication of thought, does not deviate from the soundest principles of philosophy, but in all cases, rightly explained, serves to illustrate them, in the plainest manner.

* * * * *

A few remarks on the "Passive Verb," and I will conclude this part of our subject, which has already occupied much more of our attention than I expected at the outset.

"_A verb passive_ expresses a passion or a suffering, or the receiving of an action; and necessarily implies an object acted upon, and an agent by which it is acted upon; as, to be loved; Penelope is loved by me."

In the explanation of this verb, grammarians further tell us that a passive verb is formed by adding the verb _to be_, which is thus made auxiliary, to a past participle; as, Portia _was loved_. Pompey _was conquered_.

It is singular how forgetful our great men sometimes are about observing their own rules. Take an instance in Mr. Walker's octavo dictionary. Look for the word _simeter_, a small sword. You will find it spelled _scimitar_. Then turn over, and you will find it _s_im_i_t_a_r, with the same definition, and the remark, "more properly _c_im_e_t_a_r." Then turn back, and find the correct word as he spells it, and there you will find it cimet_e_r.

Unsettled as to the true spelling, go to our own honored Webster. Look for "scimiter." He says, see cimit_a_r. Then look for "cimitar;" see cim_e_t_e_r. Then hunt up the true word, be it _ar_ or _er_, and you will find it still another way, cim_i_t_e_r. Here the scholar has seven different ways to spell this word, and neither of his authorities have followed their own examples. I cite this as one of a thousand instances, where our savans have laid down rules for others, and disregarded them themselves.

Portia _is loved_ and _happy_. She is _respectable_, _virtuous_, _talented_, and _respected_ by all who know her. She _is seated by the door_. Does the _door_ seat her? What agent, then, causes her _passion_ or _suffering_?

The book is printed. Will you parse _is printed_? It is a passive verb, indicative mood, _present tense_. Who _is_ printing it? causing it, in the present tense, to _suffer_ or _receive_ the action? The act of printing _was performed_ a hundred years ago. How can it be present time?

Penelope _is loved_ by me. The blow _is received_ by me. It _is given_ by me. Penelope _is seated_ by me. The earthquake _is felt_ by her. The evils _are suffered_ by her. The thunder _is heard_ by her. Does this mean that she is the agent, and the earthquake, evils, and thunder, are the objects which receive the _effects_ which she produces? That would be singular philosophy, indeed. But _to feel_, _to suffer_, and _to hear_, are active, and are constructed into passive verbs. Why is it not as correct to say she _is suffering_ by another's wrongs, _is raging_ by the operation of passion, or _is travelling_ by rail-road, are passive verbs? The fact is, our language can not _be explained_ by set rules or forms of speech. We must regard the sense. The past participle, as it is called, becomes an adjective by use, and describes her as some way affected by a previous action. She is _learned_, _handsome_, _modest_, and, of course, _beloved_ by all who know her.

To say "she _is placed_ by the water's edge," is a passive verb, and that the water's edge, as the agent, causes her "passion, suffering, or receiving of the action," is false and ridiculous, for she _placed_ herself there.

"We _are seated_ on our seats by the stove." What power is _now_ operating on us to make us suffer or receive the action of being seated on our seats? Does the stove perform this action? This is a passive verb, _present tense_, which requires an "object acted upon, and an _agent_ by which it is acted upon." But we came in and _seated ourselves_ here an hour ago.

The man _is acquitted_. He _stands acquitted_ before the public. He _is learned_, wise, and happy, very much _improved_ within a few years. He _is_ always active, studious, and _engaged_ in his own affairs. He _is renowned_, and _valorous_. She _is respected_. She _lives respected_.

If there is such a thing as a passive verb, it can never be used in the present tense, for the action expressed by the principal verb which is produced by the agent operating upon the object, is always _past_ tense, and the auxiliary, or helping verb _to be_, is always present. Let this verb be analyzed, and the true meaning of each word understood, little difficulty will be found in giving it an explanation.

I will not spend more time in exposing the futility of this attempted distinction. It depends solely on a verbal form, but can never _be explained_ so as _to be understood_ by any scholar. Most grammarians have seen the fallacy of attempting to give the meaning of this verb. They can show its _form_, but _are_ frequently _compelled_, as in the cases above, to sort out the "_passed_ participles" from a host of adjectives, and it will _be found_ exceeding troublesome to make scholars perceive any difference in the use of the words, or in the construction of a sentence. But it may be they have never thought that duty belonged to them; that they have nothing to do but to show them what the book says. Suppose they should teach arithmetic on the same principles, and learn the scholars to set down 144 as the product of 12 times 12. Let them look at the form of the figures, observe just how they appear, and make some more like them, and thus go thro the book. What would the child know of arithmetic? Just as much as they do of grammar, and no more. They would understand nothing of the science of numbers, of proportion, or addition. They would exercise the power of imitation, and make one figure look like another. Beyond that, all would be a _terra incognita_, a land unknown. So in the science of language; children may learn that the verb _to be_, joined with the past participle of an active verb, makes _a passive verb_; but what that passive verb is when made, or how to apply it, especially in the present tense, they have no means of knowing. Their knowledge is all taken on trust, and when thrown upon their own resources, they have none on which to rely.

LECTURE XII.

ON VERBS.

=Mood=.--Indicative.--Imperative.--Infinitive.--Former distinctions. --Subjunctive mood.--=Time=.--Past.--Present.--Future.--The future explained.--How formed.--Mr. Murray's distinction of time.-- Imperfect.--Pluperfect.--Second future.--How many tenses.-- =Auxiliary Verbs=.--Will.--Shall.--May.--Must.--Can.--Do.--Have.

We are now come to consider the different relations of action in reference to _manner_ and _time_. We shall endeavor to be as brief as possible upon this subject, keeping in view meanwhile that candor and perspicuity which are indispensable in all our attempts to explain new views.

_Mood_ signifies _manner_. Applied to verbs it explains _how_, in _what manner_, by what means, under what circumstances, actions are performed.

There are _three_ moods, the _indicative_ or declarative, the _imperative_ or commanding, and the _infinitive_ or unlimited.

The indicative mood declares an action to be _done_ or _doing_, _not done_, or _not doing_. It is always in the past or present tense; as, David _killed_ Goliath; scholars _learn_ knowledge; I _spoke not_ a word; they _sing not_.

The imperative mood denotes a command given from the first _person_ to the _second_, _to do_ or _not do_ an action. It expresses the wish or desire of the first person to have a certain action performed which depends on the agency of the second. The command is _present_, but the action signified by the word is _future_ to the giving of the command. The second person cannot comply with the will of the first till such will is made known; as, bring me a book; go to the door.

The _infinitive_ mood has no direct personal agent, but is produced as a necessary consequence, growing out of a certain condition of things. It is always _future_ to such condition; that is, some prior arrangement must be had before such consequences will follow. It is always _future_; as, they are collecting a force _to besiege_ the city. We study grammar _to acquire_ a knowledge of language. Windows are made _to admit_ light. The act of besieging the city depends on the previous circumstance, the collection of a force _to do_ it. Were there no windows, the light would not be admitted to the room.

These distinctions in regard to action must be obvious to every hearer. You all are aware of the fact that action necessarily implies an actor, as every effect must have an efficient cause; and such action clearly or distinctly _indicated_, must have such an agent to produce it. 2d. You are acquainted with the fact that one person can express his will to the second, directing him to do or avoid some thing. 3d. From an established condition of things, it is easy to deduce a consequence which will follow, in the nature of things, as an unavoidable result of such a combination of power, cause, and means.

With these principles you are all familiar, whether you have studied grammar or not. They are clearly marked, abundantly simple, and must be obvious to all. They form the only necessary, because the only real, distinction, in the formation and use of the verb to express action. Any minor distinctions are only calculated to perplex and embarrass the learner.

But some grammarians have passed these natural barriers, and built to themselves schemes to accord with their own vain fancies. The remarks of Mr. Murray upon this point are very appropos. He says:

"Some writers have given our moods a much greater extent than we have assigned to them. They assert that the english language may be said, without any great impropriety, to have as many moods as it has auxiliary verbs; and they allege, in support of their opinion, that the compound expression which they help to form, point out those various dispositions and actions, which, in other languages, are expressed by moods. This would be to multiply the moods without advantage. It is, however, certain, that the conjugation or variation of verbs, in the english language, is effected, almost entirely, by the means of auxiliaries. We must, therefore, accommodate ourselves to this circumstance; and do that by their assistance, which has been done in the learned languages (a few instances to the contrary excepted) in another manner, namely, by varying the form of the verb itself. At the same time, it is necessary to set proper bounds to this business, so as not to occasion obscurity and perplexity, when we mean to be simple and perspicuous. Instead, therefore, of making a separate mood for every auxiliary verb, and introducing moods _interrogative_, _optative_, _promissive_, _hortative_, _precative_, &c., we have exhibited such only as are obviously distinct; and which, whilst they are calculated to unfold and display the subject intelligibly to the learner, seem to be sufficient, and not more than sufficient, to answer all the purposes for which moods were introduced.

"From grammarians who form their ideas, and make their decisions, respecting this part of english grammar, on the principles and constructions of languages which, in these points, do not suit the peculiar nature of our own, but differ considerably from it, we may naturally expect grammatical schemes that are not very perspicuous nor perfectly consistent, and which will tend more to perplex than to inform the learner."

Had he followed this rule, he would have saved weeks and months to every student in grammar in the community. But his remarks were aimed at Mr. Harris, who was by far the most popular writer on language in England at that time. He has adopted the very rules of Mr. Murray, and carried them out. By a careful observance of the different forms and changes of the verb and its auxiliaries, he makes out quite evidently to his own mind, _fourteen_ moods, which I forbear to name.

Most grammarians contend for _five_ moods, two of which, the _potential_ or powerful, and the _subjunctive_, are predicated on the same principles as Mr. Harris' optative, interrogative, etc., which they condemn. It is impossible to explain the character of these moods so as to be understood. _If_, it is said, is the sign of the subjunctive, and _may_ and _can_ of the potential; and yet they are often found together; as, "I will go _if I can_." No scholar can determine in what mood to put this last verb. It of right belongs to both the potential and subjunctive. _If_ I _may_ be allowed to speak my mind, I _should_ say that such distinctions were false.

I will not go into an exposure of these useless and false distinctions, which are adopted to help carry out erroneous principles. The only pretence for a subjunctive mood is founded on the fact that _be_ and _were_ were formerly used in a character different from what they are at present. _Be_ was used in the indicative mood, present tense, when doubt or supposition was implied; as, If I _be_ there; if they _be_ wise. _Be_ I a man, and _receive_ such treatment? _Were_ was also used instead of _was_ in the past tense; as, "_Were_ I an American I would fight for liberty. If I _were_ to admit the fact." In this character these words are rapidly becoming obsolete. We now say, "If I _am_ there; am I a man, and _receive_ such abuses? _was_ I an American; if I was to admit," etc.

All the round about, perplexing, and tedious affair of conjugating verbs thro the different modes and tenses will appear in its true character, when we come to give you a few brief examples, according to truth and plain sense. But before doing that it will be necessary to make some remarks on time.

_Tense_ means _time_. We distinguish time according to certain events which are generally observed. In the use of the verb we express action in reference to periods of time when it is performed.

There are three tenses, or divisions of time; _past_, _present_, and _future_.

_Past tense_ applies to actions which are accomplished; as, I _wrote_ a book; he _recited_ his lesson.

_Present tense_ denotes actions commenced, but not finished, and now in operation; as, he _reads_ his book; we _sit_ on our seats and _hear_ the lecture.

_Future tense_ refers to actions, which are _to take_ place hereafter; as, I am _to go_ from the Institute; we desire _to learn_ grammar correctly.