Preterperfect.

Sing. I would
Plur. We would

Ye or you would They would.

Priestley and Lowth, who have in this been followed by most other grammarians, call the Tenses, may, can, shall, will, Absolute Tenses; might, could, should, would, Conditional. That might, could, should, would, frequently imply conditionality, there can be no question; but I am persuaded, that the proper character of these Tenses is unconditional affirmation; and for these two reasons.

1st. Their formation seems to indicate that they are Preterites Indicative, proceeding from their respective Presents, in the same manner as did from do, had from have, and having therefore the same unconditional meaning. Thus, I may, is equivalent to, "I am at liberty;" I might, to "I was at liberty;" I can, means "I am able;" I could, "I was able;" I will, "I am willing;" I would, "I was willing."

2dly, They are used to express unconditional meaning. If we say, "This might prove fatal to your interest," the assertion of the possibility of the event, is as unconditional, as absolute as, "this may prove fatal to your interest.” "This, if f you do it, will ruin your cause," is precisely equivalent to, "This, were you to do it, would

66

66

,,

" I

"ruin your cause," equivalent as far, at least, as the unconditional affirmation of the consequence of a supposed action is involved*. "I may write "if I choose," is not more absolute than " I might write if I chose." If I say, "I might "have gone to the continent," the expression is as unconditional, as, I had it in my power,' "was at liberty to go to the continent." you construe Lycophron ?" "but once I could." May you do as you "please?" "Not now; but once I might." Is there any conditionality implied in the latter clause of each of these answers? Not the least. They are unconditionally assertive. The formation of these

ટ

"Can

"I cannot now;

* The preterite would is frequently employed, like the Latin preterimperfect tense, to denote what is usual or customary. Thus,

Quintilio siqued recitares, Corrige, sodes,
Hoc, aiebat, et hoc: melius te posse negares,
Bis terque expertum frustra; delere jubebat.

Si defendere delictum, quam vertere malles,
Nullum ultra verbum, aut operam insumebat inanem.

HORACE.

where, the verbs aiebat, jubebat, insumebat, may be translated, "he would say," "he would desire," " he would spend." Thus also in English,

Pleas'd with my admiration, and the fire

His speech struck from me, the old man would shake

His years away, and act his young encounters,
Then having shew'd his wounds, he'd sit him down.

Tenses, therefore, being analogous to that of Preterites Indicative, and their import in these examples, as in many others, which might be adduced, being unconditional and absolute, I am inclined to consider them as Preterites Indicative, agreeably to their form, and as properly unconditional in respect to signification.

1

I observe, however, that though might, could, would, should, are preterite Tenses, they are frequently employed to denote present time*; but in such examples care must be taken, that congruity of Tense be preserved, and that the subsequent be expressed in the same Tense with the antecedent Verb. Thus I say, "I may go, if I choose," where the liberty and inclination are each expressed as present, or, "I might go, if I chose," where, though present time be implied, the liberty is ex pressed by the Preterite, and the inclination is denoted by the same Tense.

Before I proceed to shew how these auxiliary Verbs are joined with others, to express the intended accessary ideas, I shall offer a few observations on the Participle.

* In Latin the Imperfect Potential is frequently employed in the same manner to denote present time; thus, irem si vellem, expresses present liberty and inclination. And the same analogy obtains in Latin; for we say either, tu, si hic sis, aliter sentias, or tu, si hic esses, aliter sentires. In such examples, it is intended to signify either the coexistence of two circumstances, or the one as the immediate consequence of the other. An identity of Tense, therefore, best expresses contemporary events.

CHAP. VI.

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*.

* If it should be said, that the Participle may properly be considered as a Verb, since it implies an attribute with time, I would ask, whether affirmation, the most important of all circumstances, and without which no communication could take place, should be overlooked in our classification of words agreeably to their import, or the offices which they perform. If the Verb and Participle be referred to one class, the principal part of speeeh, which has been pre-eminently distinguished by the name of Verb, or the Word, is degraded from its rank, and confounded with a species of words which are not even necessary to the communication of thought. Surely, if any circumstance can entitle any sort of words to a distinct reference, it is that of affirmation.

If it should be objected, that the Participle, like the Verb, governs a case, I would ask, because lectio, tactio, and many other Substantives, are found sometimes joined with an accusative case, were they ever, on this account, considered as Verbs? Besides, if the government of a case be urged as an argument, what becomes of those Participles which govern no case? Nay,

if the government of a case be deemed the criterion of a Verb, what name shall we assign to those Verbs which have no regimen at all? If any species of words is to be distinguished from another, the characteristic difference must surely belong, not to part only, but to the whole.

There are two Participles; the Present, ending in ing, as reading; 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,"