is taken abstractedly, without attending to the agent. The Romans expressed the same ideas by means of the passive voice, “domus ædificatur," and "domus ædificabatur." Every language has its idioms, which pedants only would attempt to change. For some time past, "the bridge is being built," "the tunnel is being excavated," and other expressions of a like kind, have pained the eye and stunned the ear. Instead of "The stone is falling," and "The man is dying," we shall next be taught to say, The stone is being fallen," and "The man is being dead."

Viewing the present participle solely in its verbal state, it becomes assimilated to the infinitive, and is a general name for the whole class of continuous exertions. The Latins changed its termination, and called it a GERUND, from gero, I carry on. They treated it as a noun, and accommodated it with cases. The gerund, however, is not purely abstract, for it is so far verbal as to connect itself with the time and manner of an action. The idioms of two languages are seldom the same, but there is a certain resemblance between the Latin gerund and that usage of the English participle above quoted, such as we shall afterwards find to exist between the supines of the one and the infinitive of the other. In the sentences" He fell asleep in the reading," "he is sick of writing," the words reading and writing are used substantively, but not as nominatives. "The house is a building," "The man is a dying," although nearly obsolete, are legitimate phrases, from which the a is now generally excluded; but, in the following, "He has gone a hunting,' He has gone a hunting," "He went a begging," "He is out an airing," and many others, if the expressions are allowed at all, the article appears to be indispensible: without it, the words hunting, begging, airing, &c. would cease to be general, and would each require an objective word, or sentence, on which the action might fall.

The substantive verb To be is also compounded with the past participle, and thereby forms the whole of what, in other languages, is termed the passive voice, which, in English, exists nowhere except in that participle. In the form of conjugation,

the verbal adjective (or participle) loved is a quality or state of the nominatives I, thou, he, &c. as marked by the different parts of the verb To be, in a similar manner as if we were to make a conjugation of

The analogy will appear more perfect if we advert to the etymology of the adjective STRONG, which is a varied orthography of the past participle (strung) of the verb To string, (or tie,) alluding to the tension of the ligaments of the joints in the human body. In the same metaphor, we say that a man is well knit thus, in Scott's "Lady of the Lake :"

"Of stature tall, and slender frame,

But firmly knit was Malcolm Græme."

And more directly to our purpose in Dryden

"By chace our long-lived fathers earn'd their food;
Toil strung the nerves, and purified the blood."

The apparent conjugation, by means of the substantive verb, is not confined to participles and participial adjectives. Every adjective whatever, and even substantives, may be so combined. We may write, "I am wise," "Thou art wise," or "I am the man," "Thou art the man," &c. either of which expressions might as well be termed a simple verb as the phrase "I am loved," an assertion which, although written in one word (amor) in Latin, is made up of three separate words in English, and of these am only is the verb. The substantive verb To be unites the noun to its adjective, the substance to its quality,—gives them existence, and endows them with power.

OF AUXILIARY VERBS.

What we have said of the terminations of regular verbs is equally applicable to those that are irregular; but we have now to speak of the other circumlocutions that form, in English, the almost infinite variety of moods and tenses of general Grammar, and part of which are expressed by means of terminations in the languages of Greece and Rome.

A verb may be modified in numerous ways, and particularly by the conjunction of another verb. "I love to ride," and "I like to write," specify that the

actions of riding and of writing are agreeable to me. The infinitives "To ride” and “To write" are the names of actions, and may, therefore, be considered as nouns in the accusative case, as much as if I had said "I love Mary" and "I like money." It is this kind of union of words that grammarians allude to in their rule, "One verb governs another in the infinitive.”

There are certain verbs called Auxiliaries, because they are seldom used, except to precede the names of action, or states of being, that is, they modify other verbs. Two of these, To do and To be, have been already considered, and we have now to treat of the others.

TO HAVE (Latin habere, and Saxon habban,) is to hold or keep in our possession the thing of which we speak. The word is unlimited in its metaphorical usage. Less permanent in duration and power than the verb To possess, (Latin possidere, from potis and sedere,) it holds dominion, for the time, not only over every thing that exists, but over the most evanescent shades of memory and imagination. A man, for example, has been puzzling you with a metaphysical subtlety which eludes your grasp, when, all at once, you exclaim “I have you," you get possession of him, that is, you catch his thought, for which you had so long followed him in vain. The had (haved), at the close of the sentence, is an additional metaphor: he was followed, and that action was yours:-you had it.

As an auxiliary, To have is almost always conjoined with the past participle, and denotes being in possession of the action, which, in consequence, is understood to be completely finished. "I loved" is in the past tense, but the action might have been left as unfinished or continuing: "I have loved" states the action to be over, because in the possession of the speaker. "I was" and "I have been" are tenses of a like import. In the same manner, the verb is compounded with its own participle: thus, "I had" means that I possessed at a certain time, which is left indefinite; but "I have had" relates the past circumstance, when the object once in possession is now leaving me, or is already gone.

Thus far the writers of grammars have treated the verb To have as an auxiliary. It has, however, other usages, and is prefixed to infinitives like ordinary verbs. For example, the expressions

"I have to see him to-morrow," and

66

Having to see them to-morrow, I will mention your case,'

consider the speaker as holding the right of "seeing them to-morrow,”—that the interview, notwithstanding its being at present only prospective, is real property, and belongs to him.

express the speaker's having, at one time, possessed an anticipated property over what is now also past. "I had had" denotes that I had possession at a past time, prior to another definite period.

With the termination ilis and habere, to have, was formed the Latin habilis, and from hence the old English habile, which signified having or possessing any quality that might be requisite. This, by contraction, has originated the adjective ABLE, that is, having the power or quality necessary for any specific purpose. Taking the phrase to be able as an auxiliary verb, we can thereby form all the tenses of what, in other languages, is termed the POTENTIAL MOOD (Latin potens), the expression of power.

I am able to walk,
Thou art able to walk,

He is able to walk,

&c.

As

We are able to walk,

Ye are able to walk,
They are able to walk,
&c.

Another form of the expression of power is by means of the defective verb CAN,-Saxon cunnan and German können, to be able. The infinitive, To can, is out of use in modern English, but the Scotch dialect has the substantive Can for ability: "He has no can," meaning that the man is deficient in power, -that he is unable to do what is requisite.

We cannot too often repeat, that no two words, or expressions, are completely synonymous; but, often, the nice shades of distinction vary with circumstances so as to be appreciable by no general rule, except, what is necessary in all cases, a strict discrimination of the precise idea that we wish to express, with an habitual and critical (not slavish) attention to the practice of the most approved authors. In a general usage,

I can walk
Thou canst walk

He can walk
&c.

is equivalent to

I am able to walk,

Thou art able to walk,
He is able to walk,

&c.

i

but we should use the first form in the case of a general assertion, and the second when the question of ability is intended to be particularly kept in view. We shall afterwards have occasion to notice other distinctions.

The Saxon cunnan, in its more direct meaning, signified To know, and CUNNING, (which had not then a suspected character,) denoted knowledge in general, and, particularly, that kind which is obtained by a sound judgment from experience. That sort of cunning gave a superiority to its possessors over other minds,-thus adding an etymological confirmation of the aphorism that "Knowledge is Power."

The imperfect tense COULD is dependent, and, in its modern usage, might be properly termed the conditional. It asserts the possession of power at a specified time, but leaves us to enquire the reason why that power was, or is not, exerted.

"I could have lent you the money yesterday, but I cannot now."

"I could even now give you the money, but I will not."

In the latter example, could appears as a present tense, and yet we could not with propriety write can. "I can give you the money, but I will not" is a solecism; because the word can denotes unlimited power, which would not be so if I had not the will. Could is truly contingent, for its exertion may be dependent on other circumstances than the will of the speaker, as in the following sentences:

"I could sing a good song, if I had not such a bad cold."

"I could tell you a long story, but, at present, I am too much engaged with other matters."

The Saxon magan, to be able, was more particularly allusive to physical than to mental power. Mighty is powerful, and might is bodily strength. The English derivative MAY denotes power to act, whether that power be intrinsic in the actor, or derived from another. May might be by permission, (and indeed this is its more usual acceptation,) a circumstance which can never contemplates. When a person says, "I may walk," he announces his possession of a power which is left dependent on his will. "I can walk❞ alludes to ability alone. "You may do so; I give you liberty." "You can do so; I have not the power to prevent you.'

MIGHT is the conditional of may, as could is of can; and may be explained and exemplified in a similar manner:

"You might do what I desire: why, then, do you not do so?"-That is, "There is nothing to hinder you from doing what I wish; why then? &c."

"I might have put a hundred guineas in my pocket, had I taken his advice,"