Page images
PDF
EPUB

comes back half way on the other side. "I had written the letter before you came," is the simple past tense, commonly, but improperly, called the imperfect. Had is a transitive verb, and letter is the object of it. Written is an adjective, describing the letter by its condition. I had the letter written: it was, at that time, a written letter.

252. Concerning any mood in addition to the three which have already been explained, very little need be said. Whether under the name of optative, conjunctive, potential, hortative, conditional, or whatever name, no man has yet succeeded in showing a distinctive character, or separating line, for any of them. If can is a sign of the potential mood, then dare, is on precisely the same philosophic and grammatical principle, a sign of the courageous, and need, of the indigent mood.

The following is Mr. Murray's closing illustration of the subjunctive mood:

"Some grammarians apply, what is called the conjunctive termination, to the three persons of the principal verb, and to its auxiliaries, through all the tenses of the subjunctive mood. But this is certainly contrary to the practice of good writers. Johnson applies this termination to the present and perfect tenses only. Lowth restricts it entirely to the present tense; and Priestly confines it to the present and imperfect tenses. This difference of opinion amongst grammarians of such eminence, may have contributed to that diversity of practice, so observable in the use of the subjunctive mood. Uniformity in this point is highly desirable. It would materially assist both teachers and learners, and would constitute a considerable improvement in our language. On this subject, we adopt the opinion of Dr. Lowth, and conceive we are fully

warranted by his authority, and that of the most correct and elegant writers, in limiting the conjunctive termination of the principal verb, to the second and third persons singular of the present tense."

253. The opinion of the three eminent doctors, mentioned by Mr. Murray in the foregoing paragraph, is certainly entitled to great consideration, on any subject in which they could agree. That they should differ in their conjectures respecting an English subjunctive mood, is not so much to be wondered at, as it is that men of their literary standing, and acquaintance with the language, should have so misemployed their time. They might as well have agreed in giving the correct natural history of Bellerophon's chimera, or the precise form, dimensions, and constituent materials of Charon's ferry boat. Among the numerous grammatical errors, there is no one, which, according to its extent, has led to more inconsistency in practice, than the vain attempt to create an English subjunctive mood. If there was any such mood, it would certainly be in the power of some one to find out in what its distinctive character consisted.

254. It is agreed on all hands, that the verb is the most important part of speech, and the only one without which no idea can possibly be affirmed, nor any sentence framed. Dr. Johnson's acknowledged pre-eminence over all other British lexicographers, and his just merit as a moral writer, have thrown a sanctity around his name, which renders it a kind of literary profanation to attempt the exposure of his errors. If, then, it should be made apparent, that this standard expounder of English had no just conception of the meaning of

the words, most essential to the structure of language, and most important in its practical application, and that all English grammarians have built their systems upon a false foundation, the inference is clear, that millions in American colleges and schools should not continue to be led on in a course which is radically wrong.

255. To show how little dependence is to be placed on British explanations of " auxiliaries," I have drawn some of the principal "definitions" from Dr. Johnson's dictionary, London edition of 1756, printed under his own immediate inspection. His explanations have hitherto been the standard for all subsequent writers.

"Can, v. n. To be able to have power. It expresses the potential mood; as, I can do it."

Can, con, cunning. Scotch ken, German kann, Dutch konnen, Saxon canne, connan, cunnan, Gaelic cennen.

In all these words, and many others, in different tongues, the meaning is, to know, or know how; as, I can write short hand; that is, I know how to write. The same idiom, in a more modern form, also runs through most European languages.

"Je ne saurais y aller aujourdhui." I do not know how to go there to-day. This is more polite than to answer to an invitation, I can not go. The idea of power, in all the applications of can, is the secondary or inferential meaning.

Conor, Latin; to exert knowledge, cunning, or skill. "To con thanks." Shakspeare.

In most languages derived from the Teutonic, as, Dutch, German, Danish, Swedish, Icelandic, &c. can is retained as an acknowledged principal verb. Thus, we find the forms answering to, canned, can

ning, to can, I canned, I have canned, I shall, must, or ought to can; through all the moods and ten

ses.

256. "Shall. Defective. It has no tenses, but shall, future, and should, imperfect. See been."

If shall is future, and should, imperfect, then should is necessarily the imperfect of the future, which is a tense not explained in any one of Dr. Beattie's thirty-six.

"Should. This is a kind of auxiliary verb, used in the conjunctive mood, of which the signification is not easily fixed."

This is the abortive attempt of the eminent Dr. Johnson, to explain one of the most familiar words in the language, a word correctly used by the American people, as a nation, which it could not be, if the "signification" was not "fixed," in their minds. The giant of English literature was entangled in his own grammatical net. It was the absurd doctrine of helping verbs, which led the man, who did as much as forty French academicians had done in forty years," to suppose that a word used every day by every Englishman, had no meaning of its own.

257. It is needless to give the numerous synonyms and etymons of shall, as they extend through various northern tongues, ancient and modern. The following is a good example of what was the language, in the national church of England twelve hundred years ago. It is taken from the homilies or form of worship.

To him anum pe sceolan ur gebiddan. he ana ir rob hlafond y rop Lod. pe biddaþ þingunga æt halgum mannum hi rceolan ur pingian to heona onihtne to urum nihtne. Ne gebidde pe na deah hpæbene ur to him rpa rpa pe to Lode dop -Bede's Life of St. Cuthbert, p. 291.

For the convenience of those unacquainted with the Saxon alphabet, the same is copied in Roman print.

To him anum we sceolan us gebiddan. he ana is soth hlaford and soth God. we biddath thingunga aet halgum mannum that hi sceolan us thingian to heora drihtne and to urum drihtne. Ne gebidde we na theah hwaethere us to him swa. swa we to Gode doth.

Translation.

To him only we shall us to devote ourselves. He alone is truth Lord and truth God. We proffer worship to holy men, that they shall us to think [address pious thoughts or exercises] to their Ruler and our Ruler. But, nevertheless, we do not pray to them as we do to God.

Shall and must both signify to bind, constrain, or obligate; but with this difference. Must signifies compliance with the obligations of strong necessity, or mere physical binding force; and shall includes the idea of debt, just obligation, or duty. The same idiom is contained in the ordinary form of a penal bond: I A. B. am held and firmly bound, and hereby obligate and bind myself, heirs and executors, unto C. D. The air in a cask is musty, or mustied, because it is bound or confined.

In the two first Saxon sentences above quoted, it will be seen that shall is twice used as a transitive verb, with the pronoun us as its governed object, immediately following it.

A great number of most absurd, complicated,

« PreviousContinue »