DEFECTIVE VERBS.

THESE, as Lowth observes, are generally not only defective, but also irregular, and are chiefly Auxiliary Verbs.

* Wit is now confined to the phrase to wit, or to be known. It is an abbreviation from the Anglo Saxon Verb pitan, to know.

This Verb, as an auxiliary, is inflexible; thus we say, "he "will go ;" and " he wills to go."

This verb, which signifies" to think," or "to imagine," is now obsolete.

§ This verb is now used as significant of present duty. It was originally the Preterite, and the Perfect Participle of the Verb to owe; and is corruptedly used in Scotland still to express a past

debt.

"Apprehending the occasion, I will add a continuance "to that happy motion, and besides give you some tribute of "the love and duty, I long have ought you." Spelman.

"This blood, which men by treason sought

"That followed, Sir, which to myself-I ought." Dryden.

It is now used in the present tense only; and, when past duty or obligation is to be signified, we note, as I formerly mentioned, the past time by the preterite tense of the subsequent Verb; thus, "I ought to read," "I ought to have read." The classical scholar knows, that the reverse takes place in Latin.

Debeo

legere, Debui legere. Cicero, however, though very rarely indeed, uses the preterite of the Infinitive, after the preterite tense of this verb.

Murray has told us, that must and ought have both a present and past signification, and, in proof of this, he adduces the following examples: "I must own, that I am to blame." "He "must have been mistaken." "Speaking things, which they "ought not." "These ought ye to have done."-This is truly a strange, and, I verily believe, a singular opinion, Its inaccuracy is so manifest, that every reader of discernment, must intuitively perceive it. The opinion itself, indeed, is not more surprising, than the ground, on which it is maintained by the author. It surely requires but a moderate portion of sagacity to perceive, that the past time, in the second and fourth examples, is not denoted by must and ought, but by the expressions, "have 66 been," and "have done." In Latin, as I have just observed, necessity and duty are expressed as either present, past, or fu ture, the verbs denoting these having the three correspondent Tenses, and the object of the necessity or duty is expressed as contemporary, or relatively present. In English, on the contrary, the two verbs must and ought having only the Present Tense, we are obliged to note the past Preterite Tense of the subsequent verb. Thus, Me ire oportet, "I ought to go," "I must go." Me ire oportuit," I ought

time, by employing the

"to have gone," "I must have gone." affirmed, that the past time is denoted by as that it is signified by must and not by

66

As well may it be

ire and not oportuit,

have gone."

In the time of Wallis, the term must, as a Preterite Tense, was almost obsolete. "Aliquando, he remarks, sed rarius in "præterito dicitur." And when it was employed as a preterite, it was followed by the Present Tense. This verb in German, has, I understand, a Preterite Tense.

OF IMPERSONAL VERBS.

THE distinctive character of Impersonal Verbs has been a subject of endless dispute among grammarians. Some deny their existence in the learned languages, and others as positively assert it. Some define them to be verbs devoid of the two first persons; but this definition is evidently incorrect: for, as Perizonius and Frischlinus observe, this may be a reason for calling them Defective, but not for naming them Impersonal Verbs. Others have defined them to be Verbs, to which no certain person, as the subject, can be prefixed. But with the discussion of this question, as it respects the learned languages, the English grammarian has no concern. I proceed, therefore, to observe, that Impersonal Verbs, as the name imports, are those, which do not admit a person as their nominative. Their real character seems to be, that they assert the existence of some action or state, but refer it to no particular subject. In English we have very

few Impersonal Verbs. To this denomination, however, may certainly be referred, it behoveth, it irketh, equivalent to it is the duty, it is painfully wearisome. That the former of these verbs was once used personally, we have sufficient evidence; and it is not improbable, that the latter also was so employed, though I have not been able to find an example of its junction with a person. They are now invariably used as Impersonal Verbs. We cannot say, I behove, thou behovest, he behoves, or we irk, ye irk, they irk.

Уоль

There are one or two others, which have been considered as Impersonal Verbs, in which the personal pronoun in the objective case is prefixed to the third person singular of the verb, as methinks, methought, meseems, meseemed; analogous to the Látin expressions me pænitet, me penituit. thinketh, him liketh, him seemeth, have long been entirely obsolete. Meseems and meseemed occur in Sidney, Spenser, and other contemporary writers; but are now universally disused. Addison sometimes says methoughts, contrary, I conceive, to all analogy.

CHAP, VII.

Of Adverbs.

AN Adverb is that part of speech, which is joined to a Verb, Adjective, or other Adverb, to express some circumstance, quality, degree, or manner of its signification; and hence Adverbs have been termed Attributives of the second order.

"As the Attributives hitherto mentioned," says Mr. Harris, " viz. Adjective and Verb, denote "the attributes of substances, so there is an infe"rior class of them, which denote the attributes only of attributes. If I say, Cicero was eloquent, I ascribe to him the attribute of eloquence simply and absolutely; if I say, he was "exceedingly eloquent, I affirm an eminent degree of eloquence, the Adverb exceedingly denoting that degree." If I say, "he died, fight'ing bravely for his country," the word bravely here added to the verb denotes the manner of the action. An Adverb is, therefore, a word joined