CHAPTER XXIII.

ON THE AUXILIARY VERBS.

s. 578. The auxiliary verbs, in English, play a most important part in the syntax of the language. They may be classified upon a variety of principles. The following, however, are all that need here be applied.

A. _Classification of auxiliaries according to their inflectional or non-inflectional powers._--Inflectional auxiliaries are those that may either replace or be replaced by an inflection. Thus--_I am struck_=the Latin _ferior_, and the Greek [Greek: tuptomai]. These auxiliaries are in the same relation to verbs that prepositions are to nouns. The inflectional auxiliaries are,--

1. _Have_; equivalent to an inflection in the way of tense--_I have bitten=mo-mordi_.

2. _Shall_; ditto. _I shall call_=_voc-abo_.

3. _Will_; ditto. _I will call_=_voc-abo_.

4. _May_; equivalent to an inflection in the way of mood. _I am come that I may see_=_venio ut vid-eam_.

5. _Be_; equivalent to an inflection in the way of voice. _To be beaten_=_verberari_, [Greek: tuptesthai].

6. _Am, art, is, are_; ditto. Also equivalent to an inflection in the way of tense. _I am moving_=_move-o_.

7. _Was, were_; ditto, ditto. _I was beaten_=[Greek: e-tuphthen]. _I was moving_=_move-bam_.

_Do_, _can_, _must_, and _let_, are non-inflectional auxiliaries.

B. _Classification of auxiliaries according to their non-auxiliary significations._--The power of the word _have_ in the combination of _I have a horse_ is clear enough. It means possession. The power of the same word in the combination _I have been_ is not so clear; nevertheless it is a power which has grown out of the idea of possession. This shows that {460} the power of a verb as an auxiliary may be a modification of its original power; _i. e._, of the power it has in non-auxiliary constructions. Sometimes the difference is very little: the word _let_, in _let us go_, has its natural sense of permission unimpaired. Sometimes it is lost altogether. _Can_ and _may_ exist only as auxiliaries.

1. Auxiliary derived from the idea of possession--_have_.

2. Auxiliaries derived from the idea of existence--_be_, _is_, _was_.

3. Auxiliary derived from the idea of future destination, dependent upon circumstances external to the agent--_shall_. There are etymological reasons for believing that _shall_ is no present tense, but a perfect.

4. Auxiliary derived from the idea of future destination, dependent upon the volition of the agent--_will_. _Shall_ is simply predictive; _will_ is predictive and promissive as well.

5. Auxiliary derived from the idea of power, dependent upon circumstances external to the agent--_may_.

6. Auxiliary derived from the idea of power, dependent upon circumstances internal to the agent--_can_. _May_ is simply permissive; _can_ is potential. In respect to the idea of power residing in the agent being the cause which determines a contingent action, _can_ is in the same relation to _may_ as _will_ is to _shall_.

"_May_ et _can_, cum eorum praeteritis imperfectis, _might_ et _could_, potentiam innuunt: cum hoc tamen discrimine: _may_ et _might_ vel de jure vel saltem de rei possibilitate dicuntur, at _can_ et _could_ de viribus agentis."--WALLIS, p. 107.

7. Auxiliary derived from the idea of sufferance--_let_.

8. Auxiliary derived from the idea of necessity--_must_.

"_Must_ necessitatem innuit. Debeo, oportet, necesse est urere, _I must burn_. Aliquando sed rarius in praeterito dicitur _must_ (quasi ex _must'd_ seu _must't_ contractum). Sic, si de praeterito dicatur, _he must_ (seu _must't_) _be burnt_, oportebat uri seu necesse habuit ut ureretur."--WALLIS, 107.

9. Auxiliary derived from the idea of action--_do_.

C. _Classification of auxiliary verbs in respect to their mode_ {461} _of construction._--Auxiliary verbs combine with others in three ways.

1. _With participles._--_a_) With the present, or active, participle--_I am speaking_: _b_) With the past, or passive, participle--_I am beaten_, _I have beaten_.

2. _With infinitives._--_a_) With the objective infinitive--_I can speak_: _b_) With the gerundial infinitive--_I have to speak_.

3. _With both infinitives and participles._--_I shall have done, I mean to have done._

D. _Auxiliary verbs may be classified according to their effect._--Thus--_have_ makes the combination in which it appears equivalent to a tense; _be_ to a passive form; _may_ to a sign of mood, &c.

This sketch of the different lights under which auxiliary verbs may be viewed, has been written for the sake of illustrating, rather than exhausting, the subject.

s. 579. The following is an exhibition of some of the _times_ in which an action may take place, as found in either the English or other languages, expressed by the use of either an inflection or a combination.

_Time considered in one point only_--

1. _Present._--An action taking place at the time of speaking, and incomplete.--_I am beating_, _I am being beaten_. _Not_ expressed, in English, by the simple present tense; since _I beat_ means _I am in the habit of beating_.

2. _Aorist._--An action that took place in past time, or previous to the time of speaking, and which has no connection with the time of speaking.--_I struck_, _I was stricken_. Expressed, in English, by the praeterite, in Greek by the aorist. The term aorist, from the Greek [Greek: a-oristos]=_undefined_, is a convenient name for this sort of time.

3. _Future._--An action that has neither taken place, nor is taking place at the time of speaking, but which is stated as one which _will_ take place.--Expressed, in English, by the combination of _will_ or _shall_ with an infinitive mood. In Latin and Greek by an inflection. _I shall_ (or _will_) _speak_, [Greek: lek-so], _dica-m_. {462}

None of these expressions imply more than a single action; in other words, they have no relation to any second action occurring simultaneously with them, before them, or after them.--_I am speaking now_, _I spoke yesterday_, _I shall speak to-morrow_. Of course, the act of mentioning them is not considered as an action related to them in the sense here meant.

By considering past, present, or future actions not only by themselves, but as related to other past, present, or future actions, we get fresh varieties of expression. Thus, an act may have been going on, when some other act, itself an act of past time, interrupted it. Here the action agrees with a present action, in being incomplete; but it differs from it in having been rendered incomplete by an action that has past. This is exactly the case with the--

4. _Imperfect._--_I was reading when he entered._ Here we have two acts; the act of _reading_ and the act of _entering_. Both are past as regards the time of speaking, but both are present as regards each other. This is expressed, in English, by the past tense of the verb substantive and the present participle, _I was speaking_; and in Latin and Greek by the imperfect tense, _dicebam_, [Greek: etupton].

5. _Perfect._--Action past, but connected with the present by its effects or consequences.--_I _have_ written, and here is the letter._ Expressed in English by the auxiliary verb _have_, followed by the _participle passive in the accusative case and neuter gender of the singular number_. The Greek expresses this by the reduplicate perfect: [Greek: te-tupha]=_I have beaten._

6. _Pluperfect._--Action past, but connected with a second action, subsequent to it, _which is also past_.--_I _had_ written when he _came_ in._

7. _Future present._--Action future as regards the time of speaking, present as regards some future time.--_I shall _be speaking_ about this time to-morrow._

8. _Future praeterite._--Action future as regards the time of speaking, past as regards some future time.--_I shall _have spoken_ by this time to-morrow._ {463}

These are the chief expressions which are simply determined by the relations of actions to each other, and to the time of speaking, either in the English or any other language. But over and above the simple idea of _time_, there may be others superadded: thus, the phrase, I do _speak_ means, not only that _I am in the habit of speaking_, but that I also _insist_ upon it being understood that I am so.

Again, an action that is mentioned as either taking place, or as having taken place at a given time, may take place again and again. Hence the idea of _habit_ may arise out of the idea of either present time or aorist time.

[alpha]. In English, the present form expresses _habit_. See p. 455.

[beta]. In Greek the aorist expresses habit.

Again, one tense, or one combination, may be used for another. _I was speaking when he enters._

The results of these facts may now be noticed:

1. The _emphatic present and praeterite._--Expressed by _do_ (or _did_), as stated above. A man says _I do_ (or _did_) _speak_, _read_, &c., when, either directly or by implication, it is asserted or implied that he does not. As a question implies doubt, _do_ is used in interrogations.

"_Do_ et _did_ indicant emphatice tempus praesens, et praeteritum imperfectum. _Uro_, _urebam_; _I burn_, _I burned_: vel (emphatice) _I do burn_, _I did burn_."--WALLIS, p. 106.

2. _The predictive future._--_I shall be there to-morrow._ This means simply that the speaker will be present. It gives no clue to the circumstances that will determine his being so.

3. The _promissive future._--_I will be there to-morrow._--This means not only that the speaker will be present, but that he _intends_ being so. For further observations on _shall_ and _will_, see pp. 471-474.

4. That the power of the present tense is, in English, not present, but habitual, has already been twice stated.

s. 580. _The representative expression of past and future time._--An action may be past; yet, for the sake of bringing it more vividly before the hearers, we may make it present. {464} _He walks (_for_ walked) up to him, and knocks (_for_ knocked) him down._ This denotes a single action; and is by no means the natural habitual power of the English present. So, in respect to a future, _I beat you if you don't leave off_, for _I will beat you_. This use of the present tense is sometimes called the _historic_ use of the present tense. I find it more convenient to call it the representative use; inasmuch as it is used more after the principles of painting than of history; the former of which, necessarily, _represents_ things as present, the latter, more naturally, describes them as _past_.

The use of the representative present to express simple actions is unequivocally correct. To the expression, however, of complex actions it gives an illogical character,--_As I was doing this he enters_ (for _entered_). Nevertheless, such a use of the present is a fact in language, and we must take it as it occurs.

s. 581. The present tense can be used instead of the future; and that on the principle of representation. Can a future be used for a present? No.

The present tense can be used instead of the aorist; and that on the principle of representation. Can a past tense, or combination, be used for a present?

In respect to the perfect tense there is no doubt. The answer is in the affirmative. For all purposes of syntax a perfect tense, or a combination equivalent to one, is a present tense. Contrast the expression, _I come that I may see_; with the expression, _I came that I might see_; _i.e._, the present construction with the aorist. Then, bring in the perfect construction, _I have come_. It differs with the aorist, and agrees with the present. _I have come that I may see._ The reason for this is clear. There is not only a present element in all perfects, but for the purposes of syntax, the present element predominates. Hence expressions like _I shall go_, need give us no trouble; even though _shall_ be considered as a perfect tense. Suppose the root, _sk-ll_ to mean _to be destined_ (or _fated_). Provided we consider the effects of the action to be continued up to the time of speaking, we may say _I _have been_ destined to go_, just as well as we can say _I _am_ destined to go_. {465}

The use of the aorist as a present (except so far as both the tenses agree in their power of expressing _habitual_ actions) is a more difficult investigation. It bears upon such expressions as _I ought to go_, &c., and will be taken up in p. 475.

s. 582. Certain adverbs, _i.e._, those of time, require certain tenses. _I am then_, _I was now_, _I was hereafter_, &c., are contradictory expressions. They are not so much bad grammar as impossible nonsense. Nevertheless, we have in Latin such expressions as

"Ut _sumus_ in ponto ter frigore constitit Ister."

Here the connection of the present and perfect ideas explains the apparent contradiction. The present state may be the result of a previous one; so that a preterite element may be involved in a present expression. _Ut sumus_=_since I have been where I am_.

It is hardly necessary to remark that such expressions as _since I am here_ (where _since_=_inasmuch as_) do not come under this class.

s. 583. Two fresh varieties in the use of tenses and auxiliary verbs may be arrived at by considering the following ideas, which may be superadded to that of simple time.

1. _Continuance in the case of future actions._--A future action may not only take place, but continue: thus, a man may, on a given day, not only be called by a particular name, but may _keep_ that name. When Hesiod says that, notwithstanding certain changes which shall have taken place, good shall _continue_ to be mixed with bad, he does not say, [Greek: esthla michthesetai kakoisin], but,

[Greek: All' empes kai toisi memixetai esthla kakoisin].

_Opera et Dies._

Again,--

[Greek: Epeith' ho polites entetheis en katalogoi] [Greek: Oudeis kata spoudas metengraphesetai], [Greek: All' hosper en to protun engegrapsetai].

ARISTOPH. _Equites_, 1366.

{466}

Here [Greek: metengraphesetai] means _change from one class to another_, [Greek: engegrapsetai] _continuance in the same_.--See Mathiae, ii. s. 498.

Upon the lines,--

[Greek: Hothen pros andron husteron keklesetai] [Greek: Doureios hippos].

_Troades_, 13, 14.

Seidler remarks that [Greek: klethesetai], est _nomen accipiet_; [Greek: keklesetai], _nomen geret_.

Now it is quite true that this Greek tense, the so-called _paulo-post-futurum_, "bears the same relation to the other futures as, among the tenses of past time, the perfectum does to the aorist."--(Mathiae.) And it is also true that it by no means answers to the English _shall have been_. Yet the logical elements of both are the same. In the English expression, the _past_ power of the perfect predominates, in the Greek its _present_ power.

2. _Habit in the case of past actions._--_I had dined when I rode out._ This may apply to a particular dinner, followed by a particular ride. But it may also mean that when the speaker _had dined, according to habit, he rode out, according to habit also_. This gives us a variety of pluperfect; which is, in the French language, represented by separate combination--_j'avais din['e]_, _j'eus din['e]_.

s. 584. It is necessary to remember that the connection between the present and the past time, which is involved in the idea of a perfect tense ([Greek: tetupha]), or perfect combination (_I have beaten_), is of several sorts.

It may consist in the _present proof_ of the _past_ fact,--_I have written, and here is the evidence_.

It may consist in the _present effects_ of the _past_ fact,--_I have written, and here is the answer_.

Without either enumerating or classifying these different kinds of connexion, it is necessary to indicate two sorts of _inference_ to which they may give origin.

1. _The inference of continuance._--When a person says, _I have learned my lesson_, we presume that he can say it, _i. e._, that, _he has a present knowledge of it_. Upon this principle {467} [Greek: kektemai]=_I have earned_=_I possess_. The past action is assumed to be continued in its effects.

2. _The inference of contrast._--When a person says, _I have been young_, we presume that he is so no longer. The action is past, but it is continued up to the time of speaking by the contrast which it supplies. Upon this principle, _fuit Ilium_ means _Ilium is no more_.

In speaking, this difference can be expressed by a difference of accent. _I _have_ learned my lesson_, implies that _I don't mean to learn it again_. _I have _learned_ my lesson_, implies that _I can say it_.

s. 585. The construction of the auxiliary, _may_, will be considered in the Chapter on Conjunctions; that of _can_, _must_, and _let_, offer nothing remarkable. The combination of the auxiliary, _have_, with the past participle requires notice. It is, here, advisable to make the following classifications.

1. The combination with the participle of a _transitive verb_.--_I have ridden the horse_; _thou hast broken the sword_; _he has smitten the enemy_.

2. The combination with the participle of an _intransitive_ verb,--_I have waited_; _thou hast hungered_; _he has slept_.

3. The combination with the participle of the verb substantive,--_I have been_; _thou hast been_; _he has been_.

It is by examples of the first of these three divisions that the true construction is to be shown.

For an object of any sort to be in the possession of a person, it must previously have existed. If I possess a horse, that horse must have had a previous existence.

Hence, in all expressions like _I have ridden a horse_, there are two ideas, a past idea in the participle, and a present idea in the word denoting possession.

For an object of any sort, affected in a particular manner, to be in the possession of a person, it must previously have been affected in the manner required. If I possess a horse that has been ridden, the riding must have taken place before I mention the fact of the ridden horse being in my possession; inasmuch as I speak of it as a thing already done,--the participle, _ridden_, being in the past tense. {468}

_I have ridden a horse_=_I have a horse ridden_=_I have a horse as a ridden horse_, or (changing the gender and dealing with the word _horse_ as a thing)=_I have a horse as a ridden thing_.

In this case the syntax is of the usual sort. (1) _Have_=_own_=_habeo_=_teneo_; (2) _horse_ is the accusative case=_equum_; (3) _ridden_ is a past participle agreeing either with _horse_, or _with a word in apposition with it understood_.

Mark the words in italics. The word _ridden_ does not agree with _horse_, since it is of the neuter gender. Neither if we said _I have ridden the horses_, would it agree with _horses_; since it is of the singular number.

The true construction is arrived at by supplying the word _thing_. _I have a horse as a ridden thing_=_habeo equum equitatum_ (neuter). Here the construction is the same as _triste lupus stabulis_.

_I have horses as a ridden thing_=_habeo equos equitatam_ (singular, neuter). Here the construction is--

"Triste ... maturis frugibus imbres, Arboribus venti, nobis Amaryllides irae."

or in Greek--

[Greek: Deinon gunaixin hai di' odinon gonai].

The classical writers supply instances of this use of _have_. _Compertum habeo_, milites, verba viris virtutem non addere=_I have discovered_=_I am in possession of the discovery_. Quae cum ita sint, satis de Caesare hoc _dictum habeo_.

2. The combination of _have_ with an intransitive verb is irreducible to the idea of possession: indeed, it is illogical. In _I have waited_, we cannot make the idea expressed by the word _waited_ the object of the _verb_ have or _possess_. The expression has become a part of language by means of the extension of a false analogy. It is an instance of an illegitimate imitation.

3. The combination of _have_ with _been_ is more illogical still, and is a stronger instance of the influence of an illegitimate imitation. In German and Italian, where even _intransitive_ verbs are combined with the equivalents to the English _have_ {469} (_haben_ and _avere_), the verb substantive is not so combined; on the contrary, the combinations are

Italian; _io sono stato_=_I am been_. German; _ich bin gewesen_=_ditto_.

which is logical.

s. 586. _I am to speak._--Three facts explain this idiom.

1. The idea of _direction towards an object_ conveyed by the dative case, and by combinations equivalent to it.

2. The extent to which the ideas of necessity, obligation, or intention are connected with the idea of _something that has to be done_, or _something towards which some action has a tendency_.

3. The fact that expressions like the one in question historically represent an original dative case, or its equivalent; since _to speak_ grows out of the Anglo-Saxon form _to sprecanne_, which, although called a gerund, is really a dative case of the infinitive mood.

When Johnson (see Mr. Guest, _Phil. Trans._ No. 44) thought that, in the phrase _he is to blame_, the word _blame_ was a noun, if he meant a noun in the way that _culpa_ is a noun, his view was wrong. But if he meant a noun in the way that _culpare_, _ad culpandum_, are nouns, it was right.

s. 587. _I am to blame._--This idiom is one degree more complex than the previous one; since _I am to blame_=_I am to be blamed_. As early, however, as the Anglo-Saxon period the gerunds were liable to be used in a passive sense: _he is to lufigenne_=not _he is to love_, but _he is to be loved_.

The principle of this confusion may be discovered by considering that _an object to be blamed_, is _an object for some one to blame_, _an object to be loved_ is _an object for some one to love_.

s. 588. _Shall_ and _will._--The simply predictive future verb is _shall_. Nevertheless, it is only used in the first person. The second and third persons are expressed by the promissive verb _will_.

The promissive future verb is _will_. Nevertheless, it is only used in the first person. The second and third persons are expressed by the predictive verb _shall_. {470}

"In _primis_ personis _shall_ simpliciter praedicentis est; _will_, quasi promittentis aut minantis.

"In secundis et tertiis personis, _shall_ promittentis est aut minantis: _will_ simpliciter praedicentis.

"Uram=_I shall burn_. Ures=_Thou wilt burn_. Uret=_He will burn_. Uremus=_We shall burn_. Uretis=_Ye will burn_. Urent=_They will burn_.

nempe, hoc futurum praedico.

"_I will burn._ _Thou shalt burn._ _He shall burn._ _We will burn._ _Ye shall burn._ _They shall burn._

nempe, hoc futurum spondeo, vel faxo ut sit."

Again--"_would_ et _should_ illud indicant quod erat vel esset futurum: cum hoc tantum discrimine: _would_ voluntatem innuit, seu agentis propensionem: _should_ simpliciter futuritionem."--Wallis, p. 107.

s. 589. Archdeacon Hare explains this by a _usus ethicus_. "In fact, this was one of the artifices to which the genius of the Greek language had recourse, to avoid speaking presumptuously of the future: for there is an awful, irrepressible, and almost instinctive consciousness of the uncertainty of the future, and of our own powerlessness over it, which, in all cultivated languages, has silently and imperceptibly modified the modes of expression with regard to it: and from a double kind of _litotes_, the one belonging to human nature generally, the other imposed by good-breeding on the individual, and urging him to veil the manifestations of his will, we are induced to frame all sorts of shifts for the sake of speaking with becoming modesty. Another method, as we know, frequently adopted by the Greeks was the use of the conditional moods: and as sentiments of this kind always imply some degree of intellectual refinement, and strengthen with its increase, this is called an Attic usage. The same name too has often been given to the above-mentioned middle forms of the future; not that in either case the practice was peculiar to the Attic dialect, but that it was more general where the feelings which produced it were {471} strong and more distinct. Here again our own language supplies us with an exact parallel: indeed this is the only way of accounting for the singular mixture of the two verbs _shall_ and _will_, by which, as we have no auxiliary answering to the German _werde_, we express the future tense. Our future, or at least what answers to it, is, _I shall_, _thou wilt_, _he will_. When speaking in the first person, we speak submissively: when speaking to or of another, we speak courteously. In our older writers, for instance in our translation of the Bible, _shall_ is applied to all three persons: we had not then reacht that stage of politeness which shrinks from the appearance even of speaking compulsorily of another. On the other hand the Scotch use _will_ in the first person: that is, as a nation they have not acquired that particular shade of good-breeding which shrinks from thrusting itself[61] forward."

{472}

s. 590. _Notice of the use of _will_ and _shall_, by Professor De Morgan._--"The matter to be explained is the synonymous character of _will_ in the first person with _shall_ in the second and third; and of _shall_ in the first person with _will_ in the second and third: _shall_ (1) and _will_ (2, 3) are called _predictive_: _shall_ (2, 3) and _will_ (1) _promissive_. The suggestion now proposed will require four distinctive names.

"Archdeacon Hare's _usus ethicus_ is taken from the brighter side of human nature:--'When speaking in the first person we speak submissively; when speaking to or of another, we speak courteously.' This explains _I shall_, _thou wilt_; but I cannot think it explains _I will_, _thou shalt_. It often happens {473} that _you will_, with a persuasive tone, is used courteously for something next to, if not quite, _you shall_. The present explanation is taken from the darker side; and it is to be feared that the _[`a] priori_ probabilities are in its favour.

"In introducing the common mode of stating the future tenses, grammar has proceeded as if she were more than a formal science. She has no more business to collect together _I shall_, _thou wilt_, _he will_, than to do the same with _I rule_, _thou art ruled_, _he is ruled_.

"It seems to be the natural disposition of man to think of his own volition in two of the following catagories, and of another man's in the other two:

Compelling, non-compelling; restrained, non-restrained.

{474}

"The _ego_, with reference to the _non-ego_, is apt, thinking of himself, to propound the alternative, 'Shall I compel, or shall I leave him to do as he likes?' so that, thinking of the other, the alternative is, 'shall he be restrained, or shall he be left to his own will?' Accordingly, the express introduction of his own will is likely to have reference to compulsion, in case of opposition: the express introduction of the will of another, is likely to mean no more than the gracious permission of the _ego_ to let _non-ego_ do as he likes. Correlatively, the suppression of reference to his own will, and the adoption of a simply predictive form on the part of the _ego_, is likely to be the mode with which, when the person is changed, he will associate the idea of another having his own way; while the suppression of reference to the will of the _non-ego_ is likely to infer restraint produced by the predominant will of the _ego_.

"Occasionally, the will of the _non-ego_ is referred to as under restraint in modern times. To _I will not_, the answer is sometimes _you shall_, meaning, in spite of the will--sometimes _you will_, meaning that the will will be changed by fear or sense of the inutility of resistance."[62]

s. 591. _I am beaten._--This is a present combination, and it is present on the strength of the verb _am_, not on the strength of the participle _beaten_, which is praeterite.

The following table exhibits the _expedients_ on the part of the different languages of the Gothic stock, since the loss of the proper passive form of the Moeso-Gothic.

_Language._ Latin _datur_. Latin _datus est_.

_Moeso-Gothic_ gibada, ist, vas, varth gibans. _Old High German_ ist, wirdit kepan, was, warth kepan. _Notker_ wirt keben, ist keben. _Middle High German_ wirt geben, ist geben. _New High German_ wird gegeben, ist gegeben worden. _Old Saxon_ is, wirtheth gebhan, was, warth gebhan. _Middle Dutch_ es, bl[^i]ft ghegheven, waert, bl[^e]f ghegeven. _New Dutch_ wordt gegeven, es gegeven worden. _Old Frisian_ werth ejeven, is ejeven. {475} _Anglo-Saxon_ weorded gifen, is gifen. _English_ is given, has been given. _Old Norse_ er gefinn, hefr verit gefinn. _Swedish_ gifves, har varit gifven. _Danish_ bliver, vorder given, har varet given.

Deutsche Grammatik, iv. 19.

s. 592. _Ought, would, &c., used as presents._--These words are not in the predicament of _shall_.

They are _present_ in power, and _past_ in form. So, perhaps, is _shall_.

But they are not, like _shall_, perfect forms; _i. e._, they have no natural present element in them.

They are _aorist_ praeterites. Nevertheless, they have a present sense.

So had their equivalents in Greek: [Greek: echren]=[Greek: chre], [Greek: edei]=[Greek: dei], [Greek: proseken]=[Greek: prosekei].

In Latin, too, _would_ was often not represented by either _volo_ or _volebam_, but by _velim_.

I believe that the _usus ethicus_ is at the bottom of this construction.

The assertion of _duty_ or _obligation_ is one of those assertions which men like to soften in the expression: _should_, _ought_.

So is the expression of power, as denoted by _may_ or _can_--_might_, _could_.

Very often when we say _you should_ (or _ought to_) _do this_, we leave to be added by implication--_but you do not_.

Very often when we say _I could_ (or _might_) _do this_, we leave to be added by implication--_but I do not exert my power_.

Now, if what is left undone be the _present_ element in this assertion, the duty to do it, or the power of doing it, constitutes a past element in it; since the power (or duty) is, in relation to the performance, a cause--insufficient, indeed, but still antecedent. This hypothesis is suggested rather than asserted.

s. 593. By substituting the words _I am bound_ for _I ought_, {476} we may see the expedients to which this present use of the praeterite forces us.

_I_ am bound _to do this_ now = _I_ owe _to do this_ now. However, we do not say _owe_, but _ought_.

Hence, when we wish to say _I_ was bound _to do this_ two years ago, we cannot say _I ought_ (_owed_) _to do this_, &c., since _ought_ is already used in a present sense.

We therefore say, instead, _I_ ought to have done _this_ two years ago; which has a similar, but by no means an identical meaning.

_I was bound to pay two years ago, _means_ two years ago I was under an obligation to make a payment, either then or at some future time._

_I was bound to have paid, _&c., means_ I was under an obligation to have made a payment._

If we use the word _ought_, this difference cannot be expressed.

Common people sometimes say, _you had not ought to do so and so_; and they have a reason for saying it.

The Latin language is more logical. It says not _debet factum fuisse_, but _debuit fieri_.

* * * * *

{477}