not translate. But they proceeded in the same manner with these new Participles, as with the new Adjectives I before mentioned to you: they did not abbreviate their own language in imitation of the others; but took from other languages their abbreviations ready made. And thus again the foreigner, after having learned all our English verbs, must again have recourse to other languages in order to understand the meaning of many of our Participles.

I cannot however much blame my countrymen for the method they pursued, because the very nations who enjoyed these advantages over us, were not themselves aware of the nature of what they possessed: at least so it appears by all the accounts which they have left us of the nature of Speech; and by their distribution and definitions of the parts of which it is composed and their posterity (the modern Greeks and the Italians) have been punished for the ignorance or carelessness of their ancestors, by the loss of great part of these advantages: which I suppose they would not have lost, had they known what they were.

:

As for the term PARTICIPLE, I should very willingly get rid of it for it never was the proper denomination of this sort of word. Aud this improper title, I believe, led the way to its faulty definition: and both together have caused the obstinate and still unsettled disputes concerning it; and have prevented the improvement of language, in this particular, generally through the world.

The elder Stoics called this word-" Modum Verbi casualem." And in my opinion they called it well: except only that, instead of Casualem, they should have said Adjectivum; for the circumstance of its having Cases was only a consequence of its Adjection. But this small error of theirs cannot be wondered at in them, who, judging from their own transposed language, had no notion of a Noun, much less of an Adjective of any kind, without Cases.

I desire therefore, instead of PARTICIPLE, to be permitted to call this word generally a Verb adjective. And I call it by this new name, because I think it will make more easily intelligible what I conceive to be its office and nature.

This kind of word, of which we now speak, is a very useful

Abbreviation for we have the same occasion to adjective the VERB as we have to adjective the NOUN. And, by means of a distinguishing termination, not only the simple Verb itself, but every Mood, and every Tense of the verb, may be made adjectire, as well as the Noun. And accordingly some languages have adjectived more, and some languages have adjectived fewer of these Moods and Tenses.

And here I must observe that the Moods and Tenses themselves are merely Abbreviations: I mean that they are nothing more than the circumstances of Manner and Time, added to the Verb in some languages by distinguishing terminations.

When it is considered that our language has made but small progress, compared either with the Greek or with the Latin (or some other languages) even in this Modal and Temporal abbreviation: (for we are forced to perform the greatest part of it by what are called Auxiliaries, i. e. separate words signifying the added circumstances;) when this is considered, it will not be wondered at, that the English, of itself, could not proceed to the next abbreviating step, viz. of adjectiving those first Abbreviations of Mood and Tense, which our language had not: and that it has therefore been obliged to borrow many of the advantages of this kind which it now enjoys, either mediately or immediately from those two first-mentioned languages. And when it is considered, that the nature of these advantages was never well understood, or at least not delivered down to us, even by those who enjoyed them; it will rather be matter of wonder that we have adopted into our language so many, than that we have not taken all.

This sort of word is therefore by no means the same with a Noun adjective (as Sanctius, Perizonius and others after them have asserted). But it is a Verb adjective. And yet what Perizonius says, is true-"Certe omnia quæ de Nomine adjectivo affirmantur, habet Participium." This is true. The Participle has all that the Noun adjective has and for the same reason, viz. for the purpose of Adjection. But it has likewise something more than the Noun adjective has: because the Verb has something more than the Noun. And that something more, is not (as Perizonius proceeds to assert) only the adsignification of Time. For every Verb has a signification of

And language has

its own, distinct from Manner and Time. as much occasion to adjective the distinct signification of the Verb, and to adjective also the Mood, as it has to adjective the Time. And it has therefore accordingly adjectived all three; —the distinct signification of the simple Verb; and the Verb with its Moods; and the Verb with its Tenses. I shall at present notice only Six of these Verb adjectives which we now employ in English: viz. The simple Verb itself adjective; two Adjective Tenses; and three Adjective Moods.

Bear patiently with my new terms. I use them only by compulsion. I am chiefly anxious that my opinion may be clearly understood: and that my errors (if they are such) may plainly appear without any obscurity or ambiguity of expression by which means even my errors may be useful.

We had formerly in English only the simple Verb Adjective: and the Past Tense Adjective. In addition to these two, we have now the convenience of four others. Which I must call,

The Potential Mood Active, Adjective;
The Potential Mood Passive, Adjective;
The Official Mood Passive, Adjective;
And The Future Tense Active, Adjective.

Still have patience with me; and, I trust, I shall finally make myself clearly understood.

And first for our simple Verb Adjective. It was formerly known in our language by the termination and. It is now known by the termination -ing.

As the Noun Adjective always significs ALL that the unadjectived Noun signifies, and no more; (except the circumstance of adjection) so must the Verb Adjective signify ALL that the unadjectived Verb signifies, and no more (except the circumstance of adjection.)-But it has been usual to suppose that with the Indicative Mood (as it is called) is conjoined also the signification of the Present Time, and therefore to call it the Indicative Mood, Present Tense. And if it were so, then indeed the word we are now considering, besides the signification of the Verb, must likewise adsignify some Manner and the Present Time: for it would then be the Present Tense Adjective, as well as the Indicative Mood Adjective. But I deny it to be either. I deny that the Present Time (or any Time) or any

Manner, is signified by that which is called (improperly) the Indicative Mood Present Tense. And therefore its proper name is merely the Verb-Indicative, if you please: i. e. Indicative merely of being a Verb.

And in this opinion (viz. that there is no adsignification of Manner or Time in that which is called the Indicative Mood: and no adsignification of Time in that which is called the Present Participle) I am neither new nor singular: for Sanctius both asserted and proved it by numerous instances in the Latin. Such as,

"Et abfui proficiscens in Græciam."

"Sed postquam amans accessit pretium pollicens."

"Ultro ad eam venies indicans te amare."

Cic. Terent.

Ibid.

Tum apri inter se dimicant indurantes attritu arborum costas." Plin.
Turnum fugientem hæc terra videbit."

In the same manner we say,

"The sun rises every day in the year."

"Justice is at all times Mercy."

Virg.

"Truth is always one and the same from the beginning of the world to the end of it."

Neither Time nor Manner is signified by the Indicative in these sentences.

Again,

"The rising sun always gladdens the earth."

"Do justice, justice being at all times Mercy."

'My argument is of no age nor country, truth being always the same, from the beginning of the world to the end of it."

In rising and being (though called Present Participles) there is evidently here no adsignification of Time.

Scaliger saw plainly the same. He says " Modus non fuit necessarius: unus enim tantum exigitur ob veritatem, Indicativus. Cæteri autem ob commoditatem potius."

And even Perizonius and others who maintain a contrary opinion, are compelled to acknowledge, that-" Indicativus adhibetur ad indicandam simpliciter rem ipsam."

"Horum autem participiorum magis promiscuus aliquando est usus; tum quia nomina sunt, et sæpe adhibentur sine ullo

temporis respectu aut designatione; quando scil. ejus distinctio non requiritur."

"Hæc ipsa autem res, h. e. adsignificatio temporis, ne quis præcipuam putet, sæpissime reperitur neglecta, immo plane extincta."

"Animadvertendum est, uno in commate sæpe diversa notari tempora, atque adeo Præsens vere Participium posse accedere omnibus omnino periodis, in quibus etiam de præterita et futura re agitur. QUIA "-(Having by compulsion admitted the fact, now come the shallow and shuffling pretences) "QUIA in præterita illa re, quum gesta est, Præsens Fuit: et in futura, item Præsens Erit."

“Recurrendum denique ad illud etiam,—Præsens haberi pro extremo Præteriti temporis puncto, et primo Futuri.”

"Advenientes dicuntur, non illi tantum qui in itinere sunt, sed et qui jam pervenerunt in locum ad quem tendebant, et speciem advenientis adhuc retinent."

Præsens-quia præsens Fuit, et præsens Erit!

Præsens-extremum præteriti punctum, et primum futuri!
Advenientes qui pervenerunt !

These shabby evasions are themselves sufficient argument against those who use them. A common termination (i. e. a coalesced word), like every other word, must always convey the same distinct meaning; and can only then be properly used, quando Distinctio requiritur. What sort of word would that be, which, (used too with propriety,) sometimes had a meaning, and sometimes had not a meaning, and sometimes a different meaning?

Thus stands the whole matter. Case, Gender, Number, are no parts of the NOUN. But as these same circumstances frequently accompany the Noun, these circumstances are signified by other words expressive of these circumstances: and in some languages these words by their perpetual use have coalesced with the Noun; their separate signification has been lost sight of (except in their proper application;) and these words have been considered as mere artificial terminations of the NOUN.

So, Mood, Tense, Number, Person, are no parts of the VERB. But these same circumstances frequently accompanying the Verb, are then signified by other words expressive of these