Εικόνες σελίδας
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

is always masculine, on account of its mighty may remain; but what utility is there in actress, efficacy. Virtue is feminine from its beauty, and arbitress, benefactress, conductress, huntress, its being the object of love. Fortune and the patroness, poetess, protectress, tutoress, votaress! church are generally put in the feminine gender! Even the eyes and ears (by which grammarians This is the sublime of metaphoric gender, and are wont to judge) are surely better pleased with sexual distinction, and grammatic sentimen- the expressions, she is a clever actor, she is the tality! There is, indeed, something of the arbiter, benefactor, conductor, patron, poet, prowhimsical in metaphoric gender and matrimony; tector, &c., than she is a clever actress, she is for with our old, rude, ancestors, the Saxons, the the arbitress, &c. moon was not the wife, but the husband of the To perspicuity, such feminine terminations sun.

contribute nothing, because the pronoun she, It must be matter of self-gratulation to the which accompanies the noun, indicates the femisentimental French, that they are not driven to nine gender as definitely as it is possible for any the necessity of figurative genders; as all their termination to indicate the same thing : and as nouns are either masculine or feminine; so that to conciseness; that, in most cases, is better they can appear to talk about ladies and gentle- effected by one termination than by several. men when speaking of battles and spectacles, Thus, to say, Attend, ye actors, is more concise, plays and operas, metaphysical entities and than, Attend ye actors and actresses: ye adulternonentities.

ers, is more concise than, ye adulterers and The business of gender is a very serious affair adulteresses, &c. in Greek, Latin, and even in Italian, French, We have much reason for congratulation con&c.; but nothing can be more simple in English; cerning gender in reference to English nouns; for, except in a few instances, it is left, as it for they have fortunately escaped the troubleshould be, to the meaning of words as indicative some incumbrance of variable termination; and, of the natures of objects, and not distinguished however the grammarians may lament their rude by different sets of terminations; which are simplicity, there is not much danger that they more troublesome than useful. The grammari- will ever be changed into the likeness of Greek ans, indeed, assert, . nouns, with variable termic and Latin substantives. nations, contribute to conciseness and perspicu- As to number; the only change of termination ity of expression. We have only a sufficient in English nouns, besides the affix 's, to denote number of them to make us feel our want; for of, is that which is employed to indicate the when we say of a woman, she is a philosopher, plural; or, that more than one is meant. The an astronomer, a builder, a weaver, we perceive plural affix has been already explained in treatan impropriety in the termination which we ing of pronouns. There can be little doubt that cannot avoid ; but we can say, that she is a the two terminations of singular and plural imbotanist, a student, a witness, a scholar, an port have some utility; yet, that it is much less orphan, a companion, because these terminations than we are apt to imagine, is abundantly evihave not annexed to them the notion of sex.? dent from the number of nouns which we have

If all these assertions were admitted, still the with only one termination, without experiencing advantage of variable terminations might be de- any inconvenience; as sheep, deer, swine, &c. nied; for it could be proved, that they produce In these cases, if it be intended to indicate the a preponderance of inconvenience : but though singular number, or that one is meant, the purthey contribute to conciseness and perspicuity pose is fully accomplished by prefixing a; which, in such languages as Greek and Latin, in which as already shown, is a contraction of an, i. e. f the personal pronouns are seldom expressed ; ane, i. e. one. In such a connexion, what is they are not necessary to perspicuity, and would called (very absurdly) the indefinite article, ancontribute very little to conciseness, in English swers a useful purpose; whereas, in ninety-nine composition; and if the question be fairly tried, applications out of 100, it is wbolly useless ; by a sufficient number of instances, the English only, having been always accustomed to this, as will be found equal to any language (however to many other insignificant expletives, we should incumbered with inflection) in conciseness and think composition strange and incomplete withperspicuity.

out it. In all such expressions as a book, a What impropriety is there in saying of a fe- house, a horse, a table, &c., a might very promale, that she is an astronomer, philosopher, perly be termed the insignificant article; which &c., any more than in saying, she is a botanist, was probably the meaning intended by the scholar, &c.? The truth is, that having, very phrase--indefinite article. The expression a unnecessarily, adopted a number of foreign dis sheep is as definite as two sheep, three sheep, tinctions of gender, we are apt to fancy that they several sheep, many sheep, the sheep, these are very necessary, or would be extremely de- sheep, those sheep, &c. So also, when the sirable to all nouns; just as a little indulgence illiterate say, a shilling, two shilling; a foot, is apt to produce a restless longing after useless two foot, &c.; and we have not the least doubt, or hurtful luxuries: so that, instead of saying, that, if all nouns had thus possessed only one • We have only a sufficient number of variable termination, the advantage would have been conterminations to make us feel our want;' we siderable, not only as to simplicity and facility ought rather to say, we have a sufficient number (for the distinctions of singular and plural, freof them to produce false notions and fantastic quently cause an embarrassment), but also sigdesires; and it would be much wiser to discard nificancy. some we have, than long for more. Such titles A question long perplexed the author, which as countess, duchess, empress, princess, &c., seems now to admit of an easy answer. Whence

originated the perpetual recurrence and useless 4. “ Nouns which have y in the singular, with application of what is called the indefinite arti- no other vowel in the same syllable, change it cle not only in English, but also in most, or in into ies in the plural; as beauty, beauties; fly, all of the modern languages ? For if a, an, un flies,' &c. But why should these not be (It. Fr. & Sp.) ein (Ger.) be, as they manifestly beautys, flys, dutys, &c.; like key, keys; delay, are, one, (un-us, en,) how, in the name of signi- delays, &c.? ficancy, should they be connected with almost This is one of the evils of having more than every singular noun ? If singular mean one, one alphabetic sign for one sound; and it is of why commit the tautology in almost every sen recent introduction like many other anomalies. tence of adding the adjective one ?

5. Such irregularities as the following seem The sole reason of this fact is, we believe, to have originated in the Saxon antipathy to that the practice originated when the distinction polysyllables, so discernible in many words, of singular and plural did not exist; or, at least, which are reduced to the favorite monosyllable : did not generally prevail among nouns; and foot, feet; goose, geese ; tooth, teeth; louse, when it was as necessary to say a horse, or one lice; mouse, mice; penny, pence; die, dice. horse, as a sheep, or one sheep: the habit of apply But why not follow analogy, as children and ing the numeral adjective i ane (now one), ein, foreigners do in learning our language; and say, un, like many other habits, remained, after the foots, gooses, tooths, louses, mouses, pennys, reason on which it was founded had ceased. dies, &c. ? But how strange and ridiculous such Many Latin nouns have no distinction of singu- words sound ! exclaim all the dutiful subjects of lar and plural in the nominative case, (and their established usage. But is it not much more ridiaccusative plural is the same as the nominative); culous to be the slaves of mere custom, however and a very great proportion of Saxon nouns absurd ? Only accustom your eyes and ears have, in spite of Saxon grammatists, manifestly and mouths for a single month, to the analogies no distinction of number. Like the nouns of your own language, in those insta..ces in sheep, deer, swine, &c., if not restricted, they which the strangest blunders have been consesuggest more than one of a sort or kind to the crated into grammatic proprieties, and you will understanding; and therefore it was necessary to

be reconciled to them for ever. join to them ane or one, when one was intended to It is the custom at present, in adopting words be indicated ; just as it was necessary to employ from the learned languages, to preserve their the numeral adjectives two, three, four, &c., learned plural termination. In this we act more when two, three, four, were to be denoted. strangely than our neighbours; for how are

If, however, there were one regular plural mere English scholars to know the meaning and affix to English nouns, we might felicitate our use of foreign terminations? Why not make selves in the possession of it as an important the plural of automaton, automatons; criterion, addition to our grammatic treasure ; but, unfor- criterions; appendix, appendixes; medium, metunately, instead of being simple and uniform, it diums; memorandum, memorandums; stratum, is such a jumble of anomaly as sets all principle stratums; vortex, vortexes, &c. ? Surely good and rule at defiance. The principal irregu- sense is better than learned pedantry; and it is larities may be arranged under the following manifestly more pedantic than judicious to graft beads.

foreign peculiarities on a vernacular language; 1. Some nouns have the obsolete plural affix or, in naturalising learned strangers, not to make en : as oxen instead of oxes; men, women, i. e. them conform to the manners of the natives. contraction of manen, womanen; which ought

Secr. IX.-OF THE VERB. now to be mans, womans; children and brethren have two obsolete affixes, viz. er and en; each This is the most difficult of all the grammatic of which is, we believe, for es, adopted from the entities. The name verb (verbum) means third declension of Latin nouns; and which we word; which latter is merely a corruption of still retain, but generally contract it into s. the former. We have only to suppose, then,

2. Nouns ending in o, have the irregularity of that this very formidable part of speech was sometimes contracting the affix es, and some designated the word, by way of eminence, on times not; as folio, folios; nuncio, nuncios; account of its vast importance. Nor is it worth punctilio, punctilios; seraglio, seraglios; cargo, while to quarrel with a name, when it does not cargoes; echo, echoes; hero, heroes ; negro, indicate some egregious error or absurdity. If, negroes; manifesto, manifestoes, &c.

then, a verb be a word, what is that word when This is such a petty irregularity, and at the considered as a part of speech? What is its same time so easily remedied, that it ought not, grammatic character ? Lindley Murray must surely, to remain : let the e be uniformly reply : 'a verb is a word which signifies lo be, dropped, or uniformly retained: the former to do, or to suffer, as, “I am, I rule. I am ruled.' seems the more advisable measure.

Other grammatists have attempted greater accu3. Most nouns ending in f or fe, are render racy of definition; but their attempts have not ed plural by changing f or fe into ves; as, been sufficiently successful to deserve notice. loaf, loaves; half, halves; wife, wives: but why It will probably appear to the reader very should not these be loafs, halfs, wifes, staffs; extraordinary, that the grammatist should define like griefs, reliefs, reproofs, ruffs, &c.? If gram- the verb to be a word; and instantly exemplify matic authority serve only to establish anomaly, his definition by giving, not one word, but two it is itself a nuisance; and our understandings or more words: as, “I am, I rule, I am ruled.' and our practice are more honored in breach, The blunder is easily explained definition than in the observance of its tyrannic laws. was not made for the English, or, indeed, for

any modern language, but for the Greek and the 'to hand, to face, to back,' &c.; 'I hand, we Latin; in which it can be strictly exemplified: hand, they hand ;' brave men back their friends as, sum, I am; rego, I rule; regor, I am ruled: and face their enemies.' In such instances, all so, also, if we take what is called the infinitive: that is necessary is to join two nouns; or a proesse, to be; regere, to rule ; regi, to be ruled. noun and a noun, or to prefix the preposition In all these Latin instances the verb is one word; to, to convey the notion of agency. but each of the English instances consists of, at Mr. Horne Tooke (as already noticed) holds, least, two words. This is another proof of the that every verb is properly a noun; and that it absurdity of transferring grammatic definitions, is something more than a noun: he intimates, distinctions, and rules, from Greek and Latin to moreover, that he agrees with the Stoics in conthe English language; which is as truly ridi- sidering the infinitive the proper verb, free from culous as it would be to give the history of all incumbrance of number and person. It is Greece or Rome, with a few slight changes of difficult to conjecture what he really intended; names and dates, as a correct history of Eng- but he seems to have considered the affix of the land. But how insignificantly diminutive Greek, Latin, Saxon, &c. (in what is called the would a vernacular grammar appear without the infinitive mood), as well as to, in the English, lucubrations of old Lily, or of Crates Mellotes, to be equivalent to do, or act ; as if the expresdone into English! Hence that mass of absurdity sion, to back a friend, to face an enemy, were, which has been dignified with the name of do back a friend, do face an enemy. If such grammar. Most of it was from its first exist were the case then, to, and the Latin affix are, ence (perhaps in Egypt or Babylon) dark and &c., are to be considered as properly the verb; chaotic; and all of it as applied to the modern and the proper enquiry would be, what is the languages, especially to the English (so dissi- nature of that which is thus connected with a milar to Greek and Latin), is as devoid of rea noun to convert it into a verb? After the fullest sonableness and utility as the philosophy of enquiry and reflection, we are convinced that the Aristotle. To many persons such statements verbal affixes, to what is called the infinitive are redundant; and for the sake of brevity, as mood, in Latin, Greek, Saxon, &c., are the very also of intelligibleness, to mere English scho- same as the simple adjective affixes : are is the lars, we adhere as closely as possible to the same word, whether it appear in amare, to love, English language.

or cellare, of a cell: en (ein, Gr.) is the saine The question then is, What is a verb? We word, whether it appear in loven, to love, or deny that there is any such entity as a verb in golden, of gold. In all such cases the atix the sense of the grammatists : i. e. one, single, merely serves to connect the word going before separate, uncompounded word, which signifies with the word coming after; or to give notice to be, to do, or to suffer. But it may be replied, that the word to which it is attached is to be Have you not just admitted, that in Latin the taken in connexion with some other word for the definition holds, • a verb is a word;' for sum, purpose of conveying a particular meaning. In is one word ; as also rego. True; but each of short, the affix in such cases answers the same these is properly a compound word: i. e. two purpose as our preposition to; which also indior more words joined together; just as if we cates that one word is to be taken in connexion were to write, sam, Irule, Iamruled; or, tobe, with another; and which, like the forementioned torule, toberuled. The movable affix, in the affixes, is doubtless a mere particle or fragment Latin words, is as properly a distinct word as of a compound word. the prefix is in the instances Irule, torule.

If, then, the common definition, a verb is a Though, then, the definition ' a verb is a word word which signifies to be, to do, and to suffer, which signifies to be, to do, or to suffer,' does be wrong; what definition is to be received as hold as to Latin and Greek; it is not true, as to correct? But though we point out the falsenese any language whatever, that one simple or un or absurdness of an old 'doctrine, it does no compounded word can signify, to be, to do, or follow that we must forthwith supply its place to suffer. The error of the grammarians origi- with a new one. It is jinpossible to put any nated in mistaking syntactic for verbal meaning; thing sound and solid in the place of baseless i. e. in supposing that one word can convey a theories; and the purpose of enquiry is genemeaning which requires two or more words. rally answered when they are made to vanish This error, productive of other errors, originated away like dreams when men awake. We have in ignorance concerning the elliptic or abridged just seen that there is no such thing, in the Enstate of language, as found existing among every glish language, as a verb; i. e. a word which people; for nothing was more calculated to signifies to be, to do, or to suffer; for, to express deceive theorists, who would naturally suppose existence, possession, relation, agency, &c., two that one word performed the office of several; or more words are necessary; and whenever as if there could be existence without some ex one word seems competent to the business as istent concerning whom the affirmation is made; in Latin, &c.), it is not a simple, but a comor action, apart from an agent.

pound word, i. e. two or more words joined We have already considered the difficulty at together. tending the origin of language, and the origin of • Verbs,' we are told, are of three kinds; some words called verbs : and it would answer active, passive, and neuter.' The sole reason no useful purpose to detain the reader with ano- why such distinctions were ever applied to the ther discussion of the same troublesome ques- English language, is, that they previously existed tion. In all those words called verbs, which in connexion with Latin; but to suppose that are manifestly nouns, there is no difficulty: as, the same distinctions will equally suit all lan

guages, is as unreasonable as to attempt to make of the verb perform the office of the pronouns a coat to fit the moon in all her changes. We in our language. say nothing at present of the original character 'In each number,' we are told, there are of such distinctions; for if they had been dis- three persons; as, tinguished in their first application by absolute


Plural. wisdom, they might be perverted into utter folly by being transferred to the English language.

First Person, I love;

We love ; The distinctions in question have been discarded Second Person, Thou lovest; Ye or You love; by the more sensible grammarians; who, instead Third Person, He loves. They love. of saying verbs are active, passive, or neuter,

Thus the verb, in some parts of it, varies its Jistinguish them into transitive and intransitive. endings, to express or agree with different perThe only conceivable utility in this distinction sons of the same number. In the plural number is, its subserviency to a grammatic rule; which of the verb there is no variation of ending to says, verbs active or verbs transitive govern the express the different persons; and the verb, in objective case : aș, truth ennobles her, she com- the three persons plural, is the same as in the forts me, &c. Here ennobles is considered a first person singular. Yet this scanty provision verb transitive, because the action passes over of terminations is sufficient for all the purposes to the object; and if that be represented by a' of discourse, and no ambiguity arises from it: pronoun, it must be in what is called the ob- the verb being always attended, either with the jective or accusative case: but such instances as, noun, expressing the subject acting or acted I sit, he lives, they sleep, are denominated in- upon, or with the pronoun representing it.' transitive, because the effect is confined within It appears, then, that diversities of termination the subject or nominative of the verb, and does are not necessary to the English verb, as it is not pass over to any object.

always attended either with a noun or pronoun; This distinction, however, might be very well which noun or pronoun answers the purpose acdispensed with ; for it would answer every pur- complished by termination in Greek and Latin : pose, to say, when a pronoun is the object of a and for the same reason that the verb is without verb, or that in which the action of a verb ter- any variation in connexion with I, We, You, minates, it must be in the objective case: as, “I They, it might also have been without any love her;' she loves me,' &c.; not,' I love she;' variation in connexion with Thou, He, She, It: • she loves I.'

as, I love; Thou love; He, She, or It love ; We With all that avidity for multiplicity of dis- love, &c. It is evident that the terminations or tinction which characterises grammatists, there affix est, after Thou, and eth changed into es, s, is a distinction which has wholly escaped them; after He, She, or It, answer no necessary or though it seems of some use, and has long ob- useful purpose; but occasion much embarrasstained the patronage of Hebrew grammar : it ment. "Disuse these needless diversities of termay be denominated the verb causative; and mination, and you discard at once nearly all the all we intend is elucidation. Lay is manifestly rules of syntax, or render them needless. the causative of lie; for it is equivalent to, cause Whatever may have been the origin of the or make to lie : thus, also, sit and set; rise, affixes est, eth, es—they are, evidently, nuisances raise, rouse; see, show, &c. &c. In this manner in the English language; but perhaps the curia great number of words are employed causa- osity of the reader, respecting their adoption, tively, to avoid a lengthy mode of expression : may call for some explication. . We find, in our as, to run a hare, for, to make a hare run; show, olden literature, eth connected with all the perfor, make to see, &c. In many instances the sons and numbers of pronouns (en was also same word is diversified in spelling and pronun- generally employed as an affix, at one time, ciation from the original form, when employed especially in the plural number of verbs): as, Í causatively: as, show, a diversity of see ; raise, loveth, Thou loveth, He loveth, We loveth, Ye rouse of rise ; set of sit ; lay of lie, &c.; and loveth, They loveth. From this, it is evident thus many words are resolvable into one word, that eth could not be either a personal or a nuwhich do not seem to have any connexion. meral affix : i. e. whatever it might indicate, if Many verbs, however, are employed both causa- it indicated any thing, it could not denote numtively and uncausatively, or, as commonly ex- ber or person. After more enquiry and reflection pressed, both as active and neuter, without any than the question is perhaps worth, considered diversity of spelling or pronunciation.

by itself, the conclusion in the mind of the 'To verbs, we are told, belong, number, author was, that the affix eth was corrupted person, mood, and tense.' This also is affirmed from the Latin affix at, et, or it; or, that it is concerning English words for no reason what- Thau (Gothic), Thue (German Thun infin.), i.e. ever, except that the same grammatic position Do affixed instead of being put before the verb, had previously existed in connexion with Greek as it is at present, when employed. The last and Latin. "Verbs,' it is said, “have two num seems the more probable conjecture; for when bers, the singular and the plural: as, I love, we Do is employed, the affix disappears; which is love.' Here, again, the example is at variance some approach to evidence, that the one was with the definition; for the distinction, as to considered equivalent to the other, if not the singular and plural, exists not in the word love, very same: as, I do love, Thou do love, or dost but in the pronouns I and we. In Latin, indeed, love: he do, or doth love; not thou dost lovest, the definition can be exemplified: as, Amo, I he does loves. Whatever may have been the Jove; Amamus, we love. Here are two numbers, origin of est, eth, es, contracted into s, they are singular and plural; because the terminations manifestly useless and troublesome appendages.

The doctrine of moods is self-convicted of ah. to absurd opinions : silence is better than loqua-, surdity : for the grammatists are obliged to make cious impertinence. Before, however, we enter such a confession as the following :—Though directly on the consideration of tense; let us this mood (the imperative) derives its name from first examine those words designated auxiliary its intimation of command, it is used on occa or helping verbs, for the right understanding of sions of a very opposite nature, even the humblest these will, in a great measure, supersede the nesupplications of an inferior being to one who is cessity of a formal disquisition concerning tense. infinitely his superior: as, "Give us this day With respect to the auriliary or helping verbs : our daily bread; and forgive us our trespasses !' viz. do, have, shall, will, may, can, let, Opinions are divided concerning the exact num must, be, two affixes must be noticed as being ber and proper definition of moods. Yet, with really all the changes of termination that proall the love of complication, an obvious distinc- perly and usefully belong to English verbs : viz. tion is omitted; for if what is called the infini- ed and ing. The last was, anciently, ante, ant, tive mood deserve any designation, it ought to and, &c. (for there is great diversity of spelling be called the impersonal verb; or the impersonal in the olden literature) and was evidently borstate of the verb; but the term impersonal was rowed from the Latin participle: ing seems pre-engaged ; being applied to what is evidentív merely a spelling of the same affix, accommothe third person of some verbs-or verbs thai dated to the nasal pronunciation that acquired are used only in the third person.

possession of the English language after the In reference to Greek and Latin, the tradi- conquest. The use of ing is precisely the same tional doctrine of moods may be tolerated; be- as the participle-affix ans, ens, in Latin, and on cause it serves at least the purpose of desig- in Greek; and has precisely the same use, and nating the various terminations of verbs, which is, in fact, the same word as the adjective affix must be committed to memory; but, in reference an, en, &c.; for all the difference between what to the English language, it possesses no redeem- is called a participle and what is called an adjecing quality.

tive, is, that the one is formed on a verb and the Tense is a corruption of tempus, contracted other on a noun; and this difference is, in many into time. The grammatic judgments have cases, so very slight, that the same word is conbeen wonderfully divided about tense; which is sidered either adjective or participle. not surprising when we consider how much the The corresponding, or rather the same affix, subject has baffled the most metaphysical intel- in the other languages, is, unde, Swed.; ende, lects; and that it extorted the following humble Ger. ; ant, Fr.; ante, It. From this view, it confession from St. Augustine : Quid sit Tem- plainly appears, that as the Latins borrowed the pus, si nemo quærat a me, scio; si quis inter- affix in question from the Greeks, their literary roget, nescio. Mr. Harris has enumerated no masters; so the modern nations of Europe fewer than twelve tenses; but more moderate borrowed it from the Latins, their literary masgrammarians are content with half the number; ters. not without an apology for insisting on so many. The affix ed, at, Swed.; et, Ger.; ato, It.; is

Tense,' they tell us, being the distinction of evidently the same as that which exists in what time, might seem to admit only of the present, is misnamed (for it is active as well as passive) past, and future; but to mark it more accu the Latin perfect, passive participle. Thus, rately, it is made to consist of six variations, dubit-o, dubitat-us, is, with us, doubt, doubted, viz. the present, the imperfect, the perfect, the &c. &c. If, then, the English affix be merely pluperfect, and the first and second future that of the Latin; what is this Latin affix? We tenses !' Others, still more moderate, are con can hardly expect absolute certainty in such a tent with half this number; and insist only.on matter; but we believe it is what is called the three tenses; the past, the present, and the third person singular of the perfect, with adjecfuture; others refuse to admit that there is a tive terminations appended. Thus, amat, he future or present tense; and some deny the loves, amavit, he has loved, amavitus, a, um, existence of tenses altogether. In all such contracted into amat-us, a, um. The av is a concases of diverse judgment and doubtful distinc- traction of hab-eo : so that amavit is equivalent tion, simplicity is an argument of considerable to love-have-he, she, or it; amaverunt is equivalent weight; so that, if there were no preponderating to, love-have-they; or they-have-love. evidence, we would rather agree with those who Whatever distinctions may be interposed rehold that there are no tenses, than with those specting the perfect tense not only referring to who assert that there are three, six, or twelve: what is past, but also conveying an allusion to but though the doctrine of tenses has, to some the present time,' every one knows that there is extent, realised itself; and we have, or seem to no distinction of meaning, or difference of aphave, some notions of distinctions as to time, in plication, between what are called the preterite connexion with verbs; yet it can be as clearly imperfect and the preterite perfect in Latin. The proved as the nature of the case admits, that ro reason is plain: amabat consists of the three such distinction really belongs to them; and same words as amavit ; i.e. am, love, hab, have, that, where such a notion does exist, it is wholly and at, signifying agent or subject, he, she, or it, accessory or associated; not primary—not in as determined by the connexion. tended to be indicated by any changes which For the same reason that the preterites in are made upon the word's called verbs, in any Latin often appear to indicate past time or pero language. The enquiry, indeed, is attended fected action; so the English affix ed often apwith no substantial utility, except as it serves to pears to indicate the same; but unfortunately remove false theory; for nothing is preferable for distinctions, even of the simplest kind, the

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »