CHAPTER VI.

OF THE PARTICIPLE.

A participle is a part of speech derived from a verb, agreeing with its primitive in denoting action, being, or suffering, but differing from it in this, that the participle implies no affirmation[57].

There are two participles, the present, ending in _ing_, as _reading_[58]; and the perfect or past, generally ending in _d_ or _ed_, as _heard_, _loved_.

The present participle denotes the relatively present, or the contemporary continuation of an action, or state of being. If we say, “James was building the house,” the participle expresses the continuation of the action, and the verb may be considered as active. If we say, “the house was building, when the wall fell,” the participle, the same as in the preceding example, denotes here the continuation of a state of suffering, or being acted upon; and the verb may be considered as passive. This participle, therefore, denoting either action or passion, cannot with propriety be considered, as it has been by some grammarians, as entirely an active participle. Its distinctive and real character is, that in point of time it denotes the relatively present, and may therefore be called the present participle; and, in regard to action or passion, it denotes their continuance or incompletion, and may therefore be termed imperfect. In respect to time, therefore, it is present; in respect to the action or state of being, it is continued or imperfect. But whether it express action or passion can be ascertained only by inquiring whether the subject be acting or suffering; and this is a question which judgment only can decide, the participle itself not determining the point. If we say, “the prisoner was burning,” our knowledge of the subject only can enable us to determine whether the prisoner was active or passive; whether he was employing fire to consume, or was himself consuming by fire.

The other participle, ending generally in _ed_ or _d_, has been called by some grammarians the passive participle, in contradistinction to the one which we have now been considering, and which they have termed the active participle. “This participle has been so called,” says the author of the British Grammar, “because, joined with the verb _to be_, it forms the passive voice.” If the reason here assigned justify its denomination as a passive participle, there exists the same reason for calling it an active participle; for, with the verb _to have_, it forms some of the compound tenses of the active voice. The truth is, that, as those grammarians have erred who consider the participle in _ing_ as an active participle, when it in fact denotes either action or passion, so those, on the other hand, commit a similar mistake, who regard the participle in _ed_ as purely passive. A little attention will suffice to show that it belongs to neither the one voice nor the other peculiarly: and that it denotes merely completion or perfection, in contradistinction to the other participle, which expresses imperfection or continuation. If it be true, indeed, that the participle in _ing_ does not belong to the active voice only, but expresses merely the continuation of any act, passion, or state of being, analogy would incline us to infer, that the participle in _ed_, which denotes the completion of an act or state of being, cannot belong exclusively to the passive voice; and I conceive that, on inquiry, we shall find this to be the case. If I say, “he had concealed a poniard under his coat,” the participle here would be considered as active. If I say, “he had a poniard concealed under his clothes,” the participle would be regarded as passive. Does not this prove that this participle is ambiguous, that it properly belongs to neither voice, and that the context only, or the arrangement, can determine, whether it denote the perfection of an action, or the completion of a passion or state of being? When I say, “Lucretia stabbed herself with a dagger, which she had concealed under her clothes,” it is impossible to ascertain whether the participle be active or passive, that is, whether the verb _had_ be here merely an auxiliary verb, or be synonymous with the verb _to possess_. If the former be intended, the syntactical collocation is, “she had concealed (which) dagger under her clothes:” if the latter, the grammatical order is, “she had which dagger concealed:” and it requires but little discernment to perceive that “she had concealed a dagger,” and “had a dagger concealed,” are expressions by no means precisely equivalent.

I need not here remind the classical scholar, that the Latins had two distinct forms of expression to mark this diversity; the one, _quem abdiderat_, and the other _quem abditum habebat_. The latter is the phraseology of Livy, describing the suicide of Lucretia. His words, if translated, “which she had concealed,” become ambiguous; for this is equally a translation of _quem abdiderat_. It is observable also, that the phrase _quem abdiderat_ would not imply, that the dagger was in the possession of Lucretia at the time.

The participle in _ed_, therefore, I consider to be perfectly analogous to the participle in _ing_, and used like it in either an active or passive sense; belonging, therefore, neither to the one voice nor the other exclusively, but denoting the completion of an action or state of being, while the participle in _ing_ denotes its continuation.

In exhibiting a paradigm of the conjugation of our verbs, many grammarians have implicitly and servilely copied the Latin grammar, transferring into our language the names both of tenses and moods which have formally no existence in English. “I may burn,” is denominated, by the author of the British Grammar, the present subjunctive; “I might burn,” the imperfect subjunctive; “I may have burned,” the preterperfect; and so on. This is directly repugnant to the simplicity of our language, and is in truth as absurd as it would be to call “we two love,” the dual number of the present tense; or “he shall soon be buried,” a paulo post future. Were this principle carried its full length, we should have all the tenses, moods, and numbers, which are to be found in Greek or Latin. It appears to me, that nothing but prejudice or affectation could have prompted our English grammarians to desert the simple structure of their own language, and wantonly to perplex it with technical terms, for things not existing in the language itself.

I purpose, therefore, in exhibiting the conjugation of the English verb, to give the simple tenses, as the only ones belonging to our language; and then show how, by the aid of other words combined with these, we contrive to express the requisite modifications, and various accessary ideas.

_Indicative Present._ _Preter._ _Part. Perf._ Write Wrote Written.

_Present Tense._

_S._ I write Thou writest He writes or writeth _P._ We write Ye or you write They write.

This tense is by some grammarians called the present indefinite; while by others it is considered as either definite or indefinite. When it expresses an action now present, it is termed the present definite, as,

“I write this after a severe illness.”--_Pope’s Letters._

“Saul, why persecutest thou me?”--_Bible._

“This day begins the woe, others must end.”--_Shakspeare._

If the proposition expressed be general, or true at all times, this tense is then termed the present indefinite; as, “The wicked flee, when no man pursueth.”

“Through tatter’d clothes small vices do appear; Robes and furred gowns hide all.”--_Shakspeare._

_Preterperfect._

_S._ I wrote Thou wrotest He wrote _P._ We wrote Ye or you wrote They wrote.

This tense is indefinite, no particular past time being implied.

These are the only two tenses in our language formed by varying the termination; the only two tenses, therefore, which properly belong to it.

_Present Progressive, or continued._

_S._ I am writing Thou art writing He is writing _P._ We are writing You are writing They are writing.

This tense denotes a present action proceeding. In regard to time, it has been termed definite; and, in respect to action, it differs from the other present in this, that the former has no reference either to the perfection or imperfection of the action; whereas this denotes that the action is continued and imperfect.

_Present Emphatic._

_S._ I do write Thou dost write He doth or does write _P._ We do write Ye or you do write They do write.

This form of the verb is emphatic, and generally implies doubt or contradiction on the part of the person addressed, to remove which the assertion is enforced by the auxiliary verb. In respect to time and action, it is precisely the same with _I write_.

“You cannot dread an honourable death.”

“I do dread it.”

“Excellent wretch! perdition seize my soul, but I do love thee.”

Cancel the auxiliary verb, and the expression becomes feeble and spiritless. This is one of those phraseologies, which it would be impossible to render in a transpositive language. _Di me perdant, quin te amem_, is an expression comparatively exanimate and insipid.

_Preterite, Indefinite, and Emphatic._

_S._ I did write Thou didst write He did write _P._ We did write You did write They did write.

as, “This to me in dreadful secrecy impart they did.” The emphasis here, however, may partly arise from the inverted collocation. The following example is therefore more apposite. “I have been told that you have slighted me, and said, I feared to face my enemy. You surely did not wrong me thus?” “I _did_ say so.”

This tense is indefinite, in respect both to the time, and the completion of the action.

_Preter. Imp. &c. continued._

_S._ I was writing Thou wast writing He was writing _P._ We were writing Ye were writing They were writing.

This tense denotes that an action was proceeding, or going on, at a time past either specified or implied, as “I was writing when you called.”

_Preterperfect._

_S._ I have Thou hast He has } written. _P._ We have You have They have }

This tense expresses time as past, and the action as perfect. It is compounded of the present tense of the verb denoting possession and the perfect participle. It signifies a perfect action either newly finished, or in a time of which there is some part to elapse, or an action whose consequences extend to the present. In short, it clearly refers to present time. This, indeed, the composition of the tense manifestly evinces. Thus, “I have written a letter,” means “I possess at present the finished action of writing a letter.” This phraseology, I acknowledge, seems uncouth and inelegant; but, how awkward soever it may appear, the tense is unquestionably thus resolvable.

1st. It expresses an action newly finished, as, “I understand that a messenger has arrived from Paris,” that is, “newly,” or “just now,” arrived.

2dly. An action done in a space of time, part of which is yet to elapse; as, “It has rained all this week,” “We have seen strange things this century.”

3dly. An action perfected some time ago, but whose consequences extend to the present time; as, “I have wasted my time, and now suffer for my folly.”

This tense has been termed, by some grammarians, the perfect indefinite, and “I wrote,” the perfect definite. The argument which they offer for this denomination is, that the latter admits a definitive, to specify the precise time, and the former rejects it. Those who reason in this manner seem to me not only chargeable with a perversion of terms, but also to disprove their own theory. For what is meant by a definite term? Not surely that which admits or requires a definitive to give it precision; but that which of itself is already definite. If, therefore, “I wrote,” not only admits, but even requires, the subjunction of a defining term or clause to render the time definite and precise, it cannot surely be itself a definite tense. Besides, they appear to me to reason in this case inconsistently with their own principles. For they call _I am writing_ a definite tense; and why? but because it defines the action to be imperfect, or the time to be relatively present[59]. But if they reason here as they do in respect to the preterite tenses, they ought to call this an indefinite tense, because it admits not a definitive clause. They must, therefore, either acknowledge that _I have written_ is a definite tense, and _I wrote_, indefinite; or they must, contrary to their own principles, call _I am writing_ indefinite.

Dr. Arthur Browne, in an Essay on the Greek Tenses[60], contends, that _I wrote_ is the perfect definite, and _I have written_ the perfect indefinite. “_I wrote_,” says he, “is not intelligible without referring to some precise point of time, _e.g._ when I was in France. Why, then, does Dr. Beattie say _I wrote_ is indefinite, because it refers to no particular past time? No: it is indefinite because the verb in that tense does not define whether the action be complete or not complete. And why does he say, _I have written_ is definite in respect of time? for it refers to no particular time at which the event happened. Put this example: A says to B, ‘I wish you would write to that man.’ ‘_I have written to him_,’ the sense is complete; the expression is not supposed to refer to any particular time, and does not necessarily elicit any further inquiry. But if B answers, ‘_I wrote to him_,’ he is of course supposed to have in his mind a reference to some particular time, and it naturally calls on A to ask when? It is not clear, then, that _I wrote_ refers to some particular time, and cannot have been called indefinite, as Dr. Beattie supposes, from its not doing so?”

Dr. Browne’s argument is chargeable with inconsistency. He says, that because _I have written_ elicits no farther inquiry, and renders the sense complete, it denotes no determinate time; and that _I wrote_ refers to a particular time, prompting to farther inquiry. This at least I take to be the scope of his reasoning; for if it be not from their occasioning, or not occasioning, farther interrogation, that he deduces his conclusion concerning the nature of these tenses, his argument seems nothing but pure assertion. Now, so far from calling that a definite tense, which necessarily requires, as he himself states, a defining clause to specify the point of time, I should call it an indefinite tense. He admits that _I wrote_ refers to time past in general, and that it requires some farther specification to render the time known, as _I wrote yesterday_. In this case, surely it is not the term _wrote_, but _yesterday_, which defines the precise time; the tense itself expressing nothing but past time in general.

For the same reason, if, as he acknowledges, _I have written_ elicits no farther inquiry, it is an argument that the sense is complete, and the time sufficiently understood by the hearer. Besides, is it not somewhat paradoxical to say that a tense which renders farther explanation unnecessary, and the sense complete, thus satisfying the hearer, is indefinite? and that a tense which does not satisfy the hearer, but renders farther inquiry necessary, is definite? This, to say the least, is somewhat extraordinary.

The observations of Lord Monboddo on this subject are not inapplicable to the point in question: I shall therefore transcribe them.

“There are actions,” says he, “which end in energy, and produce no work which remains after them. What shall we say of such actions? cannot we say, I have danced a dance, taken a walk, &c., and how can such actions be said in any sense to be present? My answer is, that the consequences of such actions, respecting the speaker, or some other person or thing, are present, and what these consequences are, appears from the tenor of the discourse. ‘I have taken a walk, and am much better for it.’ ‘I have danced a dance, and am inclined to dance no more.’”

The order of nature being maintained, as Mr. Harris observes, by a succession of contrarieties, the termination of one state of things naturally implies the commencement of its contrary. Hence this tense has been employed to denote an attribute the contrary to that which is expressed by the verb. Thus the Latins used _vixit_, “he hath lived,” to denote “he is dead;” _fuit Ilium_, “Troy has been,” to signify _Troy is no more_. A similar phraseology obtains in English; thus, “I _have_ been young,” is equivalent to “now I am old.”

_Preter Imperfect._

_Sing._ I have been Thou hast been He has been } writing. _Plur._ We have been You have been They have been }

This tense, in respect to time, is the same as the last, but implies the imperfection of the action, and denotes its progression.

_Preter Pluperfect._

_Sing._ I had Thou hadst He had } written. _Plur._ We had Ye or you had They had }

This tense denotes that an action was perfected before another action was done.

_Plusquam Preterite Imperfect._

_Sing._ I had been Thou hadst been He had been } writing. _Plur._ We had been Ye had been They had been }

This tense, in respect to time, is more than past, and in respect to action is imperfect. It denotes that an action was going on, or in a state of progression, before another action took place, or before it was perfected; as, “I had been writing before you arrived.”

_Future Indefinite._

_Sing._ I shall Thou shalt He shall } write. _Plur._ We shall Ye or you shall They shall } OR _Sing._ I will Thou wilt He will } write. _Plur._ We will Ye or you will They will }

These compound tenses denote the futurity of an action indefinitely, without any reference to its completion. The meaning of the several persons has been already explained.

_Future Imp. Progressive._

I shall or will be We shall or will be } Thou shalt or wilt be Ye shall or will be } writing. He shall or will be They shall or will be }

This tense agrees with the former in respect to time, but differs from it in this, that the former has no reference to the completion of the action, while the latter expresses its imperfection and progression.

_Future Perfect._

I shall have We shall have } Thou shalt have Ye shall have } written. He shall have They shall have }

This tense denotes that a future action will be perfected, before the commencement or completion of another action, or before a certain future time; as, “Before you can have an answer, I shall have written a second letter.” “By the time he shall have arrived, you will have conquered every difficulty.” In short, it denotes, that at some future time an action will be perfected.

As it has been a subject of great controversy among grammarians, what tenses should be called definite and what indefinite, I shall now offer a few observations which may serve to illustrate the point in question.

Duration, like space, is continuous and uninterrupted. It is divisible in idea only. It is past or future, merely in respect to some intermediate point, which the mind fixes as the limit between the one and the other. Present time, in truth, does not exist, any more than a mathematical line can have breadth, or a mathematical point be composed of parts. This position has, indeed, been controverted by Dr. Beattie; but, in my judgment, without the shadow of philosophical argument[61]. Harris, Reid, and several others, have incontrovertibly proved it. But though present time, philosophically speaking, has no existence, we find it convenient to assume a certain portion of the past and the future, as intermediate spaces between these extremes, and to consider these spaces as present; for example, the present day, the present week, the present year, the present century, though part of these several periods be past, and part to come. We speak of them, however, as present, as “this month,” “this year,” “this day.” Time being thus in its nature continuous, and past and future being merely relative terms, some, portion or point of time being conceived where the one begins and the other ends, it is obvious that all tenses indicative of any of these two general divisions must denote relative time, that is, time past or future, in relation to some conceived or assumed space; thus it may be past or future, in respect to the present hour, the present day, the present week.

Again. The term indefinite is applicable either to time or to action. It may, therefore, be the predicate of a tense denoting either that the precise time is left undetermined, or that the action specified is not signified, as either complete or imperfect. Hence the controversy has been partly verbal. Hence, also, the contending parties have seemed to differ, while, in fact, they were agreed; and, on the contrary, have seemed to accord, while their opinions were, in truth, mutually repugnant.

Dr. Browne confines the term to action only, and pleads the authority of Mr. Harris in his favour. It is true, indeed, that Mr. Harris calls those tenses definite which denote the beginning, the middle, or the perfection of an action: but it is obvious, from the most superficial examination of his theory, that he denominates the tenses definite or indefinite, not in respect to action, but to time. When, in the passage from Milton,

“Millions of spiritual creatures walk the earth, Unseen, both when we wake and when we sleep;”

he considers “_walk_” as indefinite, is it in regard to action? No. “It is,” says he, “because they were walking, not at that instant only, but indefinitely, at any instant whatever.” And when he terms, _Thou shalt not kill_, an indefinite tense, is it because it has no reference to the completion or the imperfection of the action? No; it is “because,” says he, “this means no particular future time, but is extended indefinitely to every part of time.” Besides, if Mr. Harris’s and Dr. Browne’s ideas coincide, how comes it that the one calls that a definite tense, which the other terms indefinite? This does not look like accordance in sentiment, or in the application of terms. Yet the tenses in such examples as these,

“The wicked flee when no man pursueth;”

“Ad pœnitendum properat, cito qui judicat;”

“God is good;” “Two and two are four;”

which Harris and Beattie properly call indefinite, Browne terms definite. Nay, he denominates them thus for the very reason for which the others call them indefinite, namely, because the sentiments are always true, and the time of their existence never perfectly past. So far in respect to Mr. Harris’s authority in favour of Browne, when he confines the terms definite and indefinite to action only[62].

But I forbear to prosecute this controversy further, or to point out the inaccuracies with which I apprehend many writers on this subject are chargeable. I therefore proceed to review and illustrate the doctrine of the tenses which I have already offered.

The present time being, as I have already observed, an assumed space, and of no definite extent, as it may be either the present minute, the present hour, the present month, the present year, all of which consist of parts, it follows that, as the present time is itself indefinite, having no real existence, but being an arbitrary conception of the mind, the tense significant of that time must be also indefinite. This, I conceive, must be sufficiently evident. Hence the present tense not only admits, but frequently requires, the definitive _now_ to limit the interval between past and future, or to note the precise point of time.

Time past and time future are conceived as infinitely more extended than the present. The tenses, therefore, significant of these two grand divisions of time, are also necessarily indefinite.

Again, an action may be expressed, either as finished, or as proceeding; or it may be the subject of affirmation, without any reference to either of these states. In English, to denote the continuation of the action we employ the present or imperfect participle; and to denote its completion we use the preterite or perfect participle. When neither is implied, the tenses significant of the three divisions of time, without any regard to the action as complete or imperfect, are uniformly employed.

The tenses, therefore, indefinite as to time and action are these:

_The Present_ I write _The Preterite_ I wrote _The Future_ I shall write.

The six following compound tenses are equally indefinite in point of time; but they denote either the completion or the progress of the action, and in this respect are definite.

_Its progress._ _Its perfection_, as I am writing I have written I was writing I had written I shall be writing I shall have written.

_I write_ _I am writing_ _I have written._

The first is indefinite as to time and action. If I say, “I write,” it is impossible to ascertain by the mere expression, whether be signified, “I write now,” “I write daily,” or, “I am a writer in general.” It is the concomitant circumstances only, either expressed or understood, which can determine what part of the present time is implied. When Pope introduces a letter to Lady M. W. Montague with these words, “I write this after a severe illness,” is it the tense which marks the time, or is it not the date of the letter, with which the writing is understood to be contemporary? If you and I should see a person writing, and either of us should say, “He writes,” the proposition would be particular, and time present with the speaker’s observation would be understood: but, is it not evident, that it is not the tense which defines the _present now_, but the obvious circumstances of the person’s writing at the time? And when the king, in Hamlet, says,

“My words fly up, my thoughts remain below: Words, without thoughts, never to heaven go,”

what renders the two first propositions particular, or confines the tenses to the time then present, while the last proposition is universally true, and the tense indefinite? Nothing, I conceive, but the circumstances of the speaker. Nay, does it not frequently happen, that we must subjoin the word _now_ to this tense, in order to define the point of time? Did the tense of itself note the precise time, this definitive would in no case be necessary. If I say, “Apples are ripe,” the proposition, considered independently on adventitious circumstances, is general and indefinite. The time may be defined by adding a specific clause, as, “in the month of October;” or, if nothing be subjoined, the ellipsis is supplied either by the previous conversation, or in some other way, and the hearer understands, “are _now_ ripe.” This tense, therefore, I consider as indefinite in point of time. That it is indefinite in regard to action, there can be no question.

_I am writing._

This tense also is indefinite in respect to time. It derives its character as a tense from the verb _am_, which implies affirmation with time, either _now_, _generally_, or _always_. Mr. Harris calls it the present definite, as I have already remarked; and in regard to action it is clearly definite. It is this, and this only, which distinguishes it from the other present, _I write_, the latter having no reference to the perfection or imperfection of the action, while _I am writing_ denotes its continuation. Hence it is, that the latter is employed to express propositions generally or universally true, the idea of perfection or incompletion being, in such cases, excluded. Thus we say, _The wicked flee when no man pursueth_; but not, as I conceive, with equal propriety, _The wicked are fleeing when no man is pursuing_.

_I have written._

As _I am writing_ denotes the present continuation of an action, so _I have written_ expresses an action completed in a time supposed to be continued to the present, or an action whose consequences extend to the present time. As a tense, it derives its character from the tense _I have_, significant of present time; while the perfection of the action is denoted by the perfect participle. But as I have shown that every tense significant of present time must be, in regard to time, indefinite, so this tense, compounded of the present tense _I have_, must, in this respect, be therefore indefinite.

Lowth, Priestley, Beattie, Harris, and several others, have assigned it the name of the preterite definite, and _I wrote_ they have termed the preterite indefinite. Browne, and one or two others, have reversed this denomination. Now, that _I wrote_ does not of itself define what part of past time is specified, appears to me very evident. This is, indeed, admitted by those who contend for the definite nature of this tense. Why, then, do they call it a definite tense? Because, they say, it admits a definitive term, by the aid of which it expresses the precise time, as, “I wrote yesterday,” “a week ago,” “last month;” whereas we cannot say, “I have written yesterday.” Now, as I remarked before, this appears to me a perversion of language; for we do not denominate that term _definite_, which requires a definitive to render it precise. Why have the terms _the_, _this_, _that_, been called definitives? Is it because they admit a defining term? or is it not because they limit or define the import of general terms? I concur, therefore, with the author of the article “Aorist,” in the “Nouvelle Encyclopédie,” when he ridicules a M. Demandre for giving the character of definite to a tense which marks past time indefinitely. This certainly is a perversion of terms.

“When we make use of the auxiliary verb,” says Dr. Priestley, “we have no idea of any certain portion of time intervening between the time of action and the time of speaking of it; the time of action being some period that extends to the present, as, ‘I have this year, this morning, written,’ spoken in the same year, the same morning; whereas, speaking of an action done in a period past, we use the preterite tense and say, ‘I wrote,’ intimating that a certain portion of time is past, between the time of action and the time of speaking of it.” To the same purpose nearly are the words of the author of the article “Grammar,” in the “Encyclopedia Britannica.” “_I have written_,” says he, “is always joined with a portion of time which includes the present _now_ or _instant_; for otherwise it could not signify, as it always does, the present possession of the finishing of an action. But the aorist, which signifies no such possession, is as constantly joined with a portion of past time, which excludes the present _now_ or _instant_. Thus we say, ‘_I have written_ a letter this day,’ ‘this week,’ &c., but ‘_I wrote_ a letter yesterday;’ and to interchange these expressions would be improper.”

The explanation which these grammarians have given of the tense _I have written_, appears to me perfectly correct, and I would add, that, though the interval between the time of action and the time of speaking of it may be considerable; yet, if the mind, in consequence of the effect’s being extended to the present time, should conceive no time to have intervened, this tense is uniformly employed.

That the aorist excludes the present instant is equally true: but that it is incapable of being joined, as the latter of these grammarians supposes, to a portion of time part of which is not yet elapsed, is an assertion by no means correct; for I can say, “I wrote to-day,” or “this day,” as well as, “_I have written_.” “I dined to-day,” says Swift, “with Mr. Secretary St. John.” “I took some good walks in the park to-day.” “I walked purely to-day about the park.” “I was this morning with Mr. Secretary about some business.” Numberless other examples might be produced in which this tense is joined with a portion of time not wholly elapsed.

What then, it may be asked, is the difference between this and the tense which is termed the preterite definite? I shall endeavour to explain it, though, in doing this, I may be chargeable with repetition.

When an action is done in a time continuous to the present instant, we employ the auxiliary verb. Thus on finishing a letter I say, “I have written my letter,” “_I possess_ (now) _the finished action of writing a letter_.”

Again: When an action is done in a space of time which the mind assumes as present, or when we express our immediate possession of things done in that space, we use the auxiliary verb. “I have this week written several letters.” “_I have now the perfection of writing several letters_, finished this week.”[63]

Again: When an action has been done long ago, but the mind is still in possession of its consequences, these having been extended to the present time, unconscious or regardless of the interval between the time of acting and the time of speaking, we use the auxiliary verb. Thus, “I, like others, have, in my youth, trifled with my health, and old age now prematurely assails me.” In all these cases, there is a clear reference to present time. _I have_ must imply present possession, and that the action, either as finished or proceeding, is present to the speaker. This must be admitted, unless we suppose that the term _have_ has no appropriate or determinate meaning.

On the other hand, the aorist excludes all idea of the present instant. It supposes an interval to have elapsed between the time of the action and the time of speaking of it; the action is represented as leaving nothing behind it which the mind conceives to have any relation to its present circumstances, as “Three days ago I lodged in the Strand.”

But, though it unquestionably excludes the present instant, or the moment of speaking, which the verb _have_ embraces, yet it does not exclude that portion of present time which is represented as passing. All that is necessary to the use of this tense is, that the present _now_ be excluded, that an interval have elapsed between the time of action and the time of speaking of it, and that these times shall not appear to be continuous. When Swift says, “It has snowed terribly all night, and is vengeance cold,” it is to be observed, that though the former of these events took place in a time making no part of the day then passing, yet its effects extended to that day; he therefore employs the auxiliary verb. When he says, “I have been dining to-day at Lord Mountjoy’s, and am come home to study,” he, in like manner, connects the two circumstances as continuous.

But when he says, “It snowed all this morning, and was some inches thick in three or four hours,” it is to be observed that, contrary to the opinion of the author[64] I have quoted, he joins the aorist with a portion of time then conceived as present or passing, but the circumstances which had taken place were nowise connected with the time of his writing, or conceived as continuous to the date of his letter. If he had said, “It _has_ snowed all this morning, and is now two inches thick,” the two times would have appeared as continuous, their events being connected as cause and effect.

_I wrote_ _I was writing_ _I had written._

The first of these, as a tense, has been already explained; it remains, therefore, to inquire, whether it be definite or indefinite in respect to action.

I observe, then, that a tense may frequently, by inference, denote the perfection of an action, and thus appear to be definite; though, in its real import, it be significant neither of completion nor imperfection, and therefore, in regard to action, is indefinite. This seems to be the character of the tenses, _I write_, _I wrote_, _I shall write_.

“Mr. Harris,” says Browne, “truly calls _I wrote_ and _I write_ indefinites, although the man _who wrote_, _has written_, that is, the action is perfected, and the man _who writes_, _is writing_, that is, the action is imperfect; but the perfection and imperfection, though it be implied, not being expressed, not being brought into view, (to do which the auxiliary verb is necessary,) nor intended to be so, such tenses are properly called indefinites.”

Though I am persuaded that Harris and Browne, though they concur in designing certain tenses indefinite, are in principle by no means agreed, yet the observations of the latter, when he confines the terms to action, appear to me incontrovertible. I would only remark, that it is not the presence of the auxiliary, as Browne conceives, which is necessary to denote the completion of the action, but the introduction of the perfect participle. Nay, I am persuaded, that, as it is the participle in _ing_, and this only, which denotes the progression or continuation of the action, this circumstance in every other phraseology being inferred, not expressed, so I am equally convinced, that it is the perfect participle only which denotes the completion of the action; and that, if any tense not compounded of this participle, express the same idea, it is by inference, and not directly. According to this view of the matter, a clear and simple analogy subsists among the tenses; thus,

_First class._ _Second._ _Third._ I write I am writing I have written I wrote I was writing I had written I shall write I shall be writing I shall have written.

Now, if the progression or the perfection of an action, as present, past, or future, be all the possible variations, and if these be expressed by the second and third classes, it follows that, if there be any precise distinction between these and the first class, or unless the latter be wholly supernumerary, it differs in this from the second and third, that while _they_ express, either that the action is progressive, or that it is complete, the first has no reference to its perfection, or imperfection.

_I was writing._

This tense, like _I wrote_, is, in point of time, indefinite; but, in respect to action, it is definite. It denotes that an action was proceeding in a time past, which time must be defined by some circumstance expressed or understood.

_I had written._

This, as a tense, derives its character from the preterite of the verb _to have_, implying past possession. _Had_ being an aorist, this tense, in regard to time, must therefore be indefinite. In respect to action it is definite, implying, that the action was finished. As the aorist expresses time past, and by inference the perfection of the action, while the latter circumstance is additionally denoted by the participle, this compound tense is employed to denote, that an action was perfected before another action or event, now also past, took place.

The character of the remaining tenses seems to require no farther explanation. I proceed therefore to consider how we express interrogations, commands, necessity, power, liberty, will, and some other accessary circumstances.

An interrogation is expressed by placing the nominative after the concordant person of the tense; thus, “Thou comest” is an affirmation; “Comest thou?” is an interrogation. If the tense be compound, the nominative is placed after the auxiliary, as “Dost thou come?” “Hast thou heard?”

A command, exhortation, or entreaty, is expressed by placing the pronoun of the second person after the simple form of the verb; as,

Write thou Write ye or or Do thou write Do ye write:

and sometimes by the verb simply, the person being understood; as, _write_, _run_, _be_, _let_[65]. By the help of the word _let_, which is equivalent to “permit thou,” or “permit ye,” we express the persons of the Latin and Greek imperatives; thus, _let me, let us, let him, let them, write_.

_Present necessity_ is denoted by the verb _must_, thus,

I must Thou must He must } write[66]. We must Ye must They must }

This verb having only one tense, namely, the present, _past_ necessity is expressed by the preterite definite of the verb, significant of the thing necessary, as,

I must have Thou must have, &c. } written. We must have Ye must have, &c. }

_Present Liberty._

I may Thou mayest He may } write. We may Ye may They may }

_Past Liberty._

I might Thou mightest He might } write. We might Ye might They might }

_Or_,

I might have Thou mightest have, &c. } written. We might have Ye might have, &c. }

_Present Ability._

I can Thou canst He can } write. We can Ye can They can }

_Past Ability._

I could Thou couldst He could } write. We could Ye could They could }

_Or_,

I could have Thou couldst have, &c. } written. We could have Ye could have, &c. }

_Could_, the preterite of the verb _can_, expressing past power or ability, is, like the tense _might_ of the verb _may_, frequently employed to denote present time. Of their denoting past time the following may serve as examples.

“Can you construe Lycophron now? No; but once I could.”

“May you speak your sentiments freely? No; but once I might.”

That they likewise denote present time, I have already adduced sufficient evidence. _Might_ and _could_, being frequently used in conjunction with other verbs, to express present time, past liberty and ability are generally denoted by the latter phraseology; thus, “I might have written,” “I could have written.” Some farther observations respecting the nature of these tenses I purpose to make, when I come to consider what has been termed the subjunctive or conjunctive mood.

_Present Duty or Obligation._

I ought Thou oughtest He ought } to write. We ought Ye ought They ought }

_Past Duty._

I ought Thou oughtest He ought } to have We ought Ye ought They ought } written.

The same is expressed by the verb _should_. _Ought_ being now always considered as a present tense, past duty is expressed by taking the preterite definitive of the following verb.

Having shown how most of the common accessary circumstances are signified in our language, I proceed to explain how we express the circumstance of suffering, or being acted upon.

The manner of denoting this in English is simple and easy. All that is necessary is to join the verb _to be_ with the present participle, if the state of suffering be imperfect or proceeding; and with the perfect participle, if it be complete; thus,

I am Thou art He is } written to. We are Ye are They are }

_Preterite._

I was Thou wast He was } written to. We were Ye were They were }

I have been I had been I shall be } written to. I may be I might be I could be }

If the state be imperfect, the participle in _ing_ must be substituted; thus,

The house is building } The house was building } Progressive. The house shall be building }

The house is built } The house was built } Perfect. The house shall be built }

Neuter verbs, expressing neither action nor passion, admit, without altering their signification, either phraseology; thus, _I have arisen_, or _I am arisen_; _I was come_, or _I had come_.

I conclude this part of the subject with a few observations concerning the subjunctive or potential mood.

Various disputes have arisen respecting the existence and the use of this mood; nor is there, perhaps, any other point in grammar, on which respectable authorities are so much divided.

That there is not in English, as in Latin, a potential mood properly so called, appears to me unquestionable. _Amarem_ signifies ability or liberty[67], involving the verbs _possum_ and _licet_, and may therefore be termed a potential mood; but in English these accessary circumstances are denoted by the preterites of the verbs _may_ and _can_; as, _I might_ or _could love_.

That there is no subjunctive mood, we have, I conceive, equal authority to assert. If I say in Latin, _cum cepisset_, “when he had taken,” the verb is strictly in the subjunctive mood; for, were not the verb subjoined to _cum_, it must have taken the indicative form; but I hesitate not to assert, that no example can be produced in English, where the indicative form is altered _merely_ because the verb is preceded by some conjunctive particle. If we say, “though he were rich, he would not despise the poor,” _was_ is not here turned into _were_ because subjoined to _though_; for _though_ is joined to the indicative mood, when the sentiment requires it; the verb therefore is not in the subjunctive mood.

In respect to what has been denominated the conditional form of the verb, I observe, that the existence of this form appears to me highly questionable. My reasons are these:

1st. Several of our grammarians have not mentioned it; among these are the celebrated Dr. Wallis, and the author of the British Grammar.

2dly. Those, who admit it, are not agreed concerning its extent. Lowth and Johnson confine it to the present tense, while Priestley extends it to the preterite.

3dly. The example which Priestley adduces of the conditional preterite, _if thou drew_, with a few others which might be mentioned, are acknowledged by himself to be so stiff and so harsh, that I am inclined to regard them rather as anomalies, than as constituting an authority for a general rule.

4thly. If then this form be, agreeably to the opinions of Lowth and Johnson, confined to the present tense, I must say that I have not been able to find a single example, in which the present conditional, as it is termed, is anything but an ellipsis of the auxiliary verb.

5thly. Those who admit this mood make it nothing but the plural number of the correspondent indicative tense without variation; as _I love_, _thou love_, _he love_, &c. Now as this is, in fact, the radical form of the verb, or what may be deemed the infinitive, as following an auxiliary, it forms a presumption that it is truly an infinitive mood, the auxiliary being suppressed.

The opinion here given will, I think, be confirmed by the following examples.

“If he say so, it is well,” _i.e._ “if he shall say so.”

“Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him,” (_Bible_) _i.e._ “though he should slay.”

“Though thou detain me, I will not eat,” (_Ibid._) _i.e._ “shouldst detain me.”

“If thy brother trespass against thee,” (_Ibid._) _i.e._ “should trespass.”

“Though he fall, he shall not utterly be cast down,” (_Ibid._) _i.e._ “though he should fall.”

“Remember that thou keep holy the sabbath day,” (_Ibid._) _i.e._ “thou shouldst keep.”

There are a few examples in the use of the auxiliaries _do_ and _have_, in which, when the ellipsis is supplied, the expression appears somewhat uncouth; but I am persuaded that a little attention will show, that these examples form no exception to this theory.

“If now thou do prosper my way.”--_Bible._ It is here obvious, that the event supposed was future; the appropriate term, therefore, to express that idea, is either _shall_ or _will_. If the phrase were, “if thou prosper my way,” it would be universally admitted that the auxiliary is suppressed, thus, “if thou shalt or wilt prosper my way.” Again, when we say, “if thou do it, I shall be displeased,” it is equally evident that the auxiliary is understood, thus, “if thou shalt do it.” Now, if these examples be duly considered, and if the import of the verb _to do_, as formerly explained, be remembered, I think it will appear that the expression is elliptical, and truly proceeds thus, “if thou (shalt) do prosper my way.” The same observations are applicable to Shakspeare’s phraseology, when he says, “if thou do pardon, whosoever pray.” Again; when Hamlet says, “if damned custom have not brazed it so,” it is obvious that the auxiliary verb _may_ is understood; for, if the expression be cleared of the negative, the insertion of the auxiliary creates no uncouthness; thus, “if damned custom may have brazed it so.”

I am therefore inclined to think, that the conditional form, unless in the verb _to be_[68], has no existence in our language.

Though this be not strictly the proper place, I would beg the reader’s attention to a few additional observations.

Many writers of classic eminence express future and contingent events by the present tense indicative. In colloquial language, or where the other form would render the expression stiff and awkward, this practice cannot justly be reprehended. But where this is not the case, the proper form, in which the note of contingency or futurity is either expressed or understood, is certainly preferable. Thus,

“If thou neglectest, or doest unwillingly, what I command thee, I will rack thee with old cramps.”--_Shakspeare._ Better, I think, “if thou shalt neglect or do.”

“If any member absents himself, he shall forfeit a penny for the use of the club.”--_Spectator._ Better, “if any member absent, or shall absent.”

“If the stage becomes a nursery of folly and impertinence, I shall not be afraid to animadvert upon it.”--_Spectator._ Preferably thus, “If the stage become, or shall become.”

I observe also, that there is something peculiar and deserving attention in the use of the preterite tense[69]. To illustrate the remark, I shall take the following case. A servant calls on me for a book; if I am uncertain whether I have it or not, I answer, “if the book _be_ in my library, or if I _have_ the book, your master shall be welcome to it:” but if I am certain that I have not the book, I say, “if the book _were_ in my library, or if I had the book, it should be at your master’s service.” Here it is obvious that when we use the present tense it implies uncertainty of the fact; and when we use the preterite, it implies a negation of its existence. Thus also, a person at night would say to his friend, “if it _rain_, you shall not go,” being uncertain at the time whether it did or did not rain; but if, on looking out, he perceived it did not rain, he would then say, “if it _rained_, you should not go,” intimating that it did not rain.

“Nay, and the villains march wide between the legs, as if they had gyves on.”--_Shakspeare._ Where _as if they had_ implies that “they had not.”

In the same manner, if I say, “I will go, if I can,” my ability is expressed as uncertain, and its dependent event left undetermined. But if I say, “I would go, if I could,” my inability is expressly implied, and the dependent event excluded. Thus also, when it is said, “if I may, I will accompany you to the theatre,” the liberty is expressed as doubtful; but when it is said, “if I might, I would accompany you,” the liberty is represented as not existing.

In thus expressing the negation of the attribute, the conjunction is often omitted, and the order inverted; thus, “if I had the book,” or “had I the book.” “Were I Alexander,” said Parmenio, “I would accept this offer;” or, “if I were Alexander, I would accept.” _Were_ is frequently used for _would be_, and _had_ for _would have_; as, “it _were_ injustice to deny the execution of the law to any individual;” that is, “it would be injustice.” “Many acts, which _had_ been blameable in a peaceable government, were employed to detect conspiracies;” where _had_ is put for _would have_[70].--_Hume’s History of England._

Ambiguity is frequently created by confounding fact with hypothesis, or making no distinction between dubitative and assertive phraseologies. Thus, if we employ such expressions as these, “if thou knewest,” “though he was learned,” not only to express the certainty of a fact, but likewise to denote a mere hypothesis as opposed to fact, we necessarily render the expression ambiguous. It is by thus confounding things totally distinct, that writers have been betrayed not into ambiguity only, but even into palpable errors. In evidence of this, I give the following example: “Though he were divinely inspired, and spoke therefore as the oracles of God, with supreme authority; though he were endowed with supernatural powers, and could, therefore, have confirmed the truth of what he asserted by miracles; yet in compliance with the way in which human nature and reasonable creatures are usually wrought upon, he reasoned.”--_Atterbury’s Sermons._

Here the writer expresses the inspiration and the supernatural powers of Jesus, not as properties or virtues which he really did possess, but which, though not possessing them, he might be supposed to possess. Now, as his intention was to ascribe these virtues to Jesus, as truly belonging to him, he should have employed the indicative form _was_, and not _were_, as in the following sentence: “though he _was_ rich, yet for our sakes he became poor.” “Though he _were_ rich,” would imply the non-existence of the attribute; in other words, “that he was _not_ rich.”

A very little attention would serve to prevent these ambiguities and errors. If the attribute be conceived as unconditionally certain, the indicative form without ellipsis must be employed, as, “I teach,” “I had taught,” “I shall teach.” If futurity, hypothesis, or uncertainty, be intended, with the concessive term, the auxiliary may be either expressed or understood, as perspicuity may require, and the taste and judgment of the writer may dictate; thus, “if any man teach strange doctrines, he shall be severely rebuked.” In the former clause the auxiliary verb _shall_ is unnecessary, and is therefore, without impropriety, omitted. “Then hear thou in heaven, and forgive the sin of thy servants, and of thy people Israel, that thou teach them the good way wherein they should walk.”--_Bible._ In this example the suppression of the auxiliary verb is somewhat unfavourable to perspicuity, and renders the clause stiff and awkward. It would be better, I think, “thou mayest teach them the good way.” Harshness, indeed, and the appearance of affectation, should be particularly avoided. Where there is no manifest danger of misconception, the use of the assertive for the dubitative form is far preferable to those starched and pedantic phraseologies which some writers are fond of exhibiting. For this reason, such expressions as the following appear to me highly offensive: “if thou have determined, we must submit;” “unless he have consented, the writing will be void;” “if this have been the seat of their original formation;” “unless thou shall speak, we cannot determine.” The last I consider as truly ungrammatical. In such cases, if the dubitative phraseology should appear to be preferable, the stiffness and affectation here reprehended may frequently be prevented by inserting the note of doubt or contingency.

I observe farther, that the substitution of _as_ for _if_ when the affirmation is unconditional, will often serve to prevent ambiguity[71]. Thus, when the ant in the fable says to the grasshopper who had trifled away the summer in singing, “if you sung in summer, dance in winter;” as the first clause, taken by itself, leaves the meaning somewhat ambiguous, “as you sung,” would be the better expression.

IRREGULAR VERBS.

The general rule for the formation of the preterite tense, and the perfect participle, is to add to the present the syllable _ed_, if the verb end with a consonant, or _d_, if it end with a vowel, as

Turn, Turned, Turned; Love, Loved, Loved.

Verbs, which depart from this rule, are called irregular, of which I believe the subsequent enumeration to be nearly complete[72].

_Present._ _Preterite._ _Perfect Participle._ Abide Abode Abode Am Was Been Arise Arose Arisen Awake Awoke R Awaked

Bake Baked Baken R Bear, to bring forth Bore, or Bear Born[73] Bear, to carry Bore, or Bear Borne Beat Beat Beaten Begin Began Begun Become Became Become Behold Beheld Beheld, or Beholden[74] Bend Bent R Bent R Bereave Bereft R Bereft R Beseech Besought Besought Bid Bade, or Bid Bidden Bind Bound Bound Bite Bit Bitten, Bit[75] Bleed Bled Bled Blow Blew Blown Break Broke, or Brake Broken[76] Breed Bred Bred Bring Brought Brought Build Built R Built[77] R Burst Burst Burst Buy Bought Bought

Can Could Cast Cast Cast Catch Caught R Caught R Chide Chid[78] Chidden Choose Chose Chosen Cleave, to stick Clave R Cleaved or adhere Cleave, to split Clove, or Clave, Cloven, or Cleft or Cleft Cling Clung Clung Climb Clomb[79] R Climbed Clothe Clad[80] R Clad R Come Came Come Cost Cost Cost Crow Crew R Crowed Creep Crept Crept Cut Cut Cut

Dare, to venture Durst R Dared Dare, to challenge, is regular. Deal Dealt R Dealt R Dig Dug R Dug R Do Did Done Draw Drew Drawn Drive Drove Driven Drink Drank Drunk Dwell Dwelt R Dwelt R

Eat Ate Eaten

Fall Fell Fallen Feed Fed Fed Feel Felt Felt Fight Fought Fought Find Found Found Flee Fled Fled Fly Flew Flown Fling Flung Flung Forget Forgot Forgotten Forgo[81] Forgone Forsake Forsook Forsaken Freeze Froze Frozen Freight Freighted Freighted, or Fraught[82]

Get Gat, or Got Gotten, or Got Gild Gild R Gilt R Gird Girt R Girt R Give Gave Given Go Went Gone Grave Graved Graven R Grind Ground Ground Grow Grew Grown

Have Had Had Hang[83] Hung R Hung R Hear Heard Heard Heave Hove[84] R Hoven R Help Helped Holpen[85] R Hew Hewed Hewn R Hide Hid Hidden[86], or Hid Hit Hit Hit Hold Held Holden[87], or Held Hurt Hurt Hurt

Keep Kept Kept Kneel Knelt Knelt Knit Knit, or Knitted Knit, or Knitted Know Knew Known

Lade Laded Laden[88] Lay Laid Laid[89] Lead Led Led Leave Left Left Lend Lent Lent Let Let Let Lie, to lie down Lay Lien, or Lain[90] Lift Lifted, or Lift Lifted, or Lift Light Lighted, or Lit[91] Lighted, or Lit Load Loaded Loaden, or Loaded Lose Lost Lost

Make Made Made May Might Mean Meant R Meant R Meet Met Met Mow Mowed Mown[92] R Must

Pay Paid Paid Put Put Put

Quit Quit, or Quitted[93] Quit

Read Read Read Rend Rent Rent Ride Rode, or Rid Rid[94], or Ridden Rid Rid Rid Ring Rang, or Rung Rung Rise Rose Risen Rive Rived Riven Roast Roasted Roasted, or Roast[95] Rot Rotted Rotten R Run Ran Run

Saw Sawed Sawn R Say Said Said See Saw Seen Seek Sought Sought Seethe Seethed, or Sod Sodden Sell Sold Sold Send Sent Sent Set Set Set Shake Shook Shaken[96] Shall Should Shape Shaped Shapen R Shave Shaved Shaven R Shear Shore Shorn Shed Shed Shed Shine Shone R Shone R Shew Shewed Shewn Show Showed Shown Shoe Shod Shod Shoot Shot Shot Shrink Shrank[97], or Shrunk Shrunk Shred Shred Shred Shut Shut Shut Sing Sang[98], or Sung Sung Sink Sank, or Sunk Sunk Sit Sat Sitten[99], or Sat Slay Slew Slain Sleep Slept Slept Slide Slid Slidden Sling Slang, or Slung Slung Slink Slank, or Slunk Slunk Slit Slit R Slit, or Slitted Smite Smote Smitten Sow Sowed Sown R Speak Spoke, or Spake Spoken Speed Sped Sped Spend Spent Spent Spill Spilt R Spilt R Spin Spun, or Span Spun Spit Spat, or Spit Spitten, or Spit Split Split, or Splitted Split, Splitted Spread Spread Spread Spring Sprang, or Sprung Sprung Stand Stood Stood Steal Stole Stolen Stick Stuck Stuck Sting Stung Stung Stink Stank, or Stunk Stunk Stride Strode, or Strove Stridden Strike Struck Struck, or Stricken String Strung Strung Strive Strove Striven Strew, or Strewed, or } Strown Strow Strowed } Swear Swore, or Sware Sworn Sweat Sweat Sweat Sweep Swept Swept Swell Swelled Swelled, or Swollen Swim Swam, or Swum Swum Swing Swang Swung

Take Took Taken Teach Taught Taught Tear Tore, or Tare Torn Tell Told Told Think Thought Thought Thrive Throve[100] Thriven Throw Through Thrown Thrust Thrust Thrust Tread Trod Trodden

Wax Waxed Waxen R Wash Washed Washed[101] Wear Wore Worn Weave Wove Woven Weep Wept Wept Will Would Win Won Won Wind Wound[102] R Wound Work Wrought R Wrought R Wring Wrung R Wrung Write Wrote Written[103] Writhe Writhed Writhen.

DEFECTIVE VERBS.

These, as Lowth observes, are generally not only defective, but also irregular, and are chiefly auxiliary verbs.

_Present._ _Preterite._ _Perfect Participle._

Must May Might Quoth Quoth Can Could Shall Should Wit[104], or Wot Wot Will[105] Would Wis[106] Wist Ought[107]

OF IMPERSONAL VERBS.

The distinctive character of impersonal verbs has been a subject of endless dispute among grammarians. Some deny their existence in the learned languages, and others as positively assert it. Some define them to be verbs devoid of the two first persons; but this definition is evidently incorrect: for, as Perizonius and Frischlinus observe, this may be a reason for calling them defective, but not for naming them impersonal verbs. Others have defined them to be verbs, to which no certain person, as the subject, can be prefixed. But with the discussion of this question, as it respects the learned languages, the English grammarian has no concern. I proceed, therefore, to observe, that impersonal verbs, as the name imports, are those which do not admit a person as their nominative. Their real character seems to be, that they assert the existence of some action or state, but refer it to no particular subject. In English we have very few impersonal verbs. To this denomination, however, may certainly be referred, _it behoveth_, _it irketh_; equivalent to, _it is the duty_, _it is painfully wearisome_. That the former of these verbs was once used personally, we have sufficient evidence; and it is not improbable that the latter also was so employed, though I have not been able to find an example of its junction with a person. They are now invariably used as impersonal verbs. We cannot say, _I behove_, _thou behovest_, _he behoves_; _we irk_, _ye irk_, _they irk_.

There are one or two others, which have been considered as impersonal verbs, in which the personal pronoun in the objective case is prefixed to the third person singular of the verb, as _methinks_, _methought_, _meseems_, _meseemed_; analogous to the Latin expressions _me pœnitet_, _me pœnituit_. _You thinketh_, _him liketh_, _him seemeth_, have long been entirely obsolete. _Meseems_ and _meseemed_ occur in Sidney, Spenser, and other contemporary writers; but are now universally disused. Addison sometimes says _methoughts_, contrary, I conceive, to all analogy.