the verb to be, and the copula of propositions, &c.), we may mention briefly, for the benefit of those who are curious in these matters, some of the difficulties which we encountered in pursuing our analysis on the old method (namely, considering the verb to be as the real copula of all propositions), and which difficulties have been the occasion of leading us first to doubt of the soundness of the common views of the copula, and finally, to reject these views.

One of these difficulties arose from matters already presented in this note. How shall we establish a distinction, according to the common theory, that is constitutes simply the copula (or simply indicates predication), between such assertions as, 1st, corn grows, and 2d, corn is growing? What is asserted of corn in the first of these propositions? Is it not plainly the act expressed by growing? And if is merely indicates assertion, what but growing is asserted in the second? And yet all must admit that the two propositions are not equivalent, are not always, or (what is the same thing) completely interchangeable. It may be replied, that growing, which we assert is predicated in the first case, is a noun; and growing, in the second example, is a participle. Suppose we admit this, how will it help the objector and the advocate of the old view? Is an action expressed in the second pro-. position? If so, how comes it to be expressed by a participle, and not by a substantive name of that action? Here is a new difficulty. But, waving this, how will this plea that growing in the second proposition is a participle, help to explain the difference between the two propositions? The difficulty, it will be seen already, is easily solved, if we admit is to be, like other verbs, a predicate, or partial predicate, indicating at the same time assertion. Is, according to this view, as we have seen above, asserts being. And in the assertion, corn is growing, being growing is what is asserted of the corn, that is, being, or existence in that qualified state expressed by the attributive word growing. But we suspect that growing is, in the above use, rather the noun in ing than a participle. (See § 64.)

Again, in many cases, is is employed as a complete predicate. As in the examples, God is, "Joseph is not, Simeon is not ;" "TIME WAS, but time shall be no more." In the first of these examples, being without any modification is asserted of God-to God exists; in the last, being in the past is asserted of time. The cases in which the verb to be is employed to express a full predicate in our language, are far more numerous, than at first sight appears. The propositions in our language where the verb to be expresses the complete predicate, are generally introduced by the words it or there. Examples, It is winter, It was autumn.

''Twas All-Souls' Eve, and Surrey's heart beat high."

There are men who think, &c.-men who think, &c., are; that is (the predicate), being is asserted of “ men who think" so and so. The fact that the verb to be in such instances expresses a full predicate, is somewhat disguised by the form of expression. But surely it, in the first class of examples, serves only as a substitute for the real subject which immediately follows the verb, and neither it nor any thing else serves as a complement of the predicate. In the first example, simple existence in an implied present time, is predicated of winter, and in the second, past existence is predicated of autumn. In the examples commencing with there (whatever may have been the origin of this form of expression, whether it is an imitation of the French Il-y-a, occasioned by the importation of French idioms after the Norman conquest, or an insensible extension of the use of the word there, till it came to be employed in cases where its original meaning was obscured, and finally lost), one thing is plain, that now this word adds no modification to the predicate, but serves much the same general purpose as the word it does in the preceding examples; that is, it serves to enable us to throw the subject after the verb, and thus bring the subject noun into contact with the proposition (“ men who think," &c.) which modifies it. This is the form of expression which we generally adopt to predicate mere being or existence. To say, Men who think so and so are, to express the mere existence of such men, is a manner of expression unsanctioned by usage, contrary to our idiom, and which seems feeble and void of all harmony. The feebleness and want of harmony are, perhaps, the reason for rejecting it, and adopting the form commencing with there, in which the original meaning of there, namely, in that place, is wholly suppressed, and the word comes to serve a sort of pronominal function. In many other languages, simple existence in such cases is expressed by the verb equivalent to our to be (by what in those languages is called the copula by logicians), without any accompanying word; as for example, in Latin sunt (supply homines) qui putent, &c. We subjoin a few more examples, from the authorised version of the Scriptures, of the verb TO BE, used to express a complete predicate: "That they are double to that which Is." Job 11: 6. "The grass of the field, which to-day is." Matt. 6: 30. "He that cometh to God must believe that He Is." Heb. 11: 6. "From him which is and which was." Rev. 1: 4. "And there are seven kings; five are fallen, and one is," &c. Rev. 17: 10. "And the beast that was, and is not." Rev. 17: 11.

Another difficulty which presented itself whilst, in our attempts to give a satisfactory analysis of the structure of the language, we

recognised the verb to be as performing the function of a mere copula, was to ascertain the distinction between the grammatical functions performed by is, for example, in the proposition, The man is old, and the function performed by becomes in the proposition, The man becomes old, or by grows in the proposition, The man grows old, or by seems in the proposition, The man seems old. The difference of meaning of all these verbs is abundantly clear, but we could not discover or assign any grammatical distinction. Till this was done, we felt bound, if we called is the copula, to call becomes, grows, seems, &c., copulas. In this case, copulas would be numerous enough, since every verb which can take an adjective after it as a modification (and we shall find hereafter that there are many such) might claim this name. This was the difficulty which actually arrested our progress, and the attempt to solve it has led to the conclusion, already stated, that between is and the other verbs mentioned above, there is NO GRAMMATICAL, NO FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENCE WHATEVER; that both it and they alike express a predicate, whilst, in common with all verbs, they indicate predication, that is, serve as copula; consequently that there is no word in our language (and question, is there one in any other?) which expresses a mere naked copula.

हजुर

47. THE PASSIVE VOICE.-(1) Besides the other uses of the verb to be, what is called the passive voice is formed in English, as in many other languages, by the combination of this verb with a class of verbals expressive of completed action formed from the other verbs. (2) For example, we say, using the active form, The son loves the father, and using the passive form, The father is loved by the son. Is loved, made up of the assertive form of the verb to be, with the word loved, a verbal adjective (or, as it is commonly called, participle), expressive of completed action, constitutes, as we see here, the passive form of loves.

(3) The passive voice or passive form is confined to that class of verbs which we have above named transitive or active verbs. (4) The passive form of these verbs affords us another way of expressing the same proposition, that is expressed by the active form. (5) When we employ the passive form, we make the word which, when we use the active form of the verb, represents the passive or suffer

§ 47. (1) How is the passive voice in English formed? (2) Illustrate by an example. (8) To what class of verbs is the passive voice or passive form confined? (4) What does this form enable us to do? (5) What change do we make in the subject noun, when

on which the ancient division is founded. They have, in consequence of this misunderstanding, in some cases suggested, in some cases adopted, a classification of verbs into "active transitive, active intransitive, passive and neuter;" not observing that the term active is used by the ancient grammarians to indicate the same thing which is now indicated by transitive, and that, with the sense which the word active assumes in the old grammars, an active intransitive verb is an absurdity, and active transitive a useless repetition of equivalent

terms.

The ancient classification is (properly) founded on the basis of a distinction in the grammatical susceptibilities of verbs; but the division into active transitive, active intransitive, &c., is founded on two bases the grammatical susceptibilities of verbs, and their meaning as signs of thought. Verbs are called active from their meaning, their significance, and transitive or intransitive from the fact that they are susceptible, or, on the contrary, not susceptible of being modified by a passive object. A classification of this kind is illogical, and serves only to create confusion of thought, and difficulty and embarrassment to the learner.

Were it not that many of our dictionaries retain the old names, active and neuter, we should feel disposed to discard these names altogether, and employ exclusively the more significant and less objectionable names, transitive and intransitive, now generally used by grammarians. But, whilst, in most dictionaries, the old names active and neuter are still used to designate this division of the verbs, and, in some more recent dictionaries, the terms transitive and intransitive are employed for the same purpose, it is necessary for the guidance of the learner in consulting dictionaries, that these two sets of terms should be familiar to him, and that he should remember that though the names are different, the classification designated by them is the

same.

§ 48. TENSES OF VERBS.-(1) The most important modification of form which verbs undergo in our language is that employed to indicate the different times, to which an assertion has reference. (2) These forms are called the TENSES of the verb. (3) The term tense is derived from the French language, in which it is the word to express time.*

*The Latin word tempus used to express this same modification of verbs

§ 48. (1) What is the most important modification of the form of verbs? (2) What name is given to this modification? (3) Tell the derivation of the term tense.

SUPPOSED HISTORY OF THE FORMATION OF TENSES IN THE NORTHERN

DIALECTS.

The following remarks in reference to the history of the forma tion of tenses, especially in the Teutonic family of languages, may interest the inquisitive student of English Grammar:

We may conceive the history of the formation of tenses to be this. First, the verb in its primary form (the root) was employed to make all kinds of assertions, whether in reference to the present, past, or future; that is, it was employed altogether indefinitely as regards time. But as past transactions (past events) form a large class of the subjects about which men have occasion to speak, it would be found convenient to have a form specially appropriated to this purpose, leaving all assertions about all other except past occurrences, to be expressed by the ancient indefinite form. As mankind generally, and especially in a rude age, do not make the future so much the theme of conversation as the past, which embraces all that traditionary and legendary lore which forms the whole literature of rude nations, a future tense would be a later invention. In fact, the ancient Teutonic dialects appear never to have arrived at this stage of progress. They had no future tense. The modern languages founded on these dialects have supplied this defect, though generally in a somewhat cluinsy and awkward manner.

The first step towards a tense in the ancient Teutonic tongues, seems to have been to modify the vowel sound of the original verb, when the assertion had reference to a past event. Afterwards, they began to express the same distinction by an addition to the root-by what is called inflexion. This addition likely in the first instance, consisted of some significant word appended to the root. But this in time came to be so incorporated with the root, as to form with it a single word. In this state, we find the Anglo-Saxon, at the period when the old English begins to be formed from it. It possesses only one tense distinct from the original verb, formed in the words in most common use, and likely of most ancient origin, by a modification of the vowel sound of the root, and in the rest, by a termination. Besides this it possessed means less or more complete of distinguishing the conjunctive from the independent use of both these tenses, or what is called the subjunctive from the indicative mode. Our future

in that language, and from which the French temps, English tense, is derived, also signifies time.