tense and all the other compound tense forms, whether expressive of time, or of the condition of the action, or of both, are the fruits of the (rather bungling) efforts of an age posterior to the Anglo-Saxon period, to express what is generally expressed in the languages ancient and modern of the South of Europe, by a complicated system of inflexions.

These historical remarks throw light upon several grammatical peculiarities. For example, the use of the indefinite tense on some occasions, and especially in colloquial forms of expression in speaking of what is past and future; as, when we say, Plato writes beautifully, or reasons well, &c., and, I go to the country to-morrow. Such forms of expression will not surprise us, when we remember, that the form of the verb here employed was anciently used for assertions relating to all times, and till a comparatively recent period, always used to express the future. The more recent forms appropriated to express past time and future time, can in such instances be dispensed with, as the distinction of time is either not important to be considered, or sufficiently indicated by the sense, if not by the accompanying modifying words.

[(4) In most languages, by what are called the tenses of verbs, more than mere time is indicated. (5) If time alone were indicated, we could have only four modifications at the most, viz., one to indicate that the assertion is made without reference to time, a second to indicate present time, a third to indicate past time, and a fourth to indicate future time (that is time to come).

(6) For verbs by means of the forms called tenses do not generally indicate time more definitely than this. (7) When greater precision in indicating time is required, recourse is had to additional modifying words expressive of the definite time intended. (8) Many languages have not forms of verbs sufficient to indicate distinctly the three grand divisions of present, past, and future time. (9) And most languages have no separate form to be used when there is no reference to time intended. (10) They employ for this purpose the same form by which present time is expressed. (11)

[(4) Is more than mere time indicated by tense forms? (5) If time alone were indicated, how many tenses should we have? (6) State the reason assigned. (7) How do we indicate time with greater precision? (8) Have all languages forms sufficient to distinguish present, past, and future? (9) Have languages generally a distinct form to use when there is no reference to time? (10) What form usually serves this purpose? (11) If time alone

Such languages, if time alone were indicated by the forms called tenses, should have only three tenses. (12) Yet some of these lan guages have six or more forms called tenses. (13) The reason of this is that another modification of the sense of the verb, besides time, and distinct from time, is expressed by what are called tenses or tense forms in most languages. (14) This fact seems, from the terms perfect and imperfect used in naming certain tenses, to have been recognised by the old grammarians, though it has been overlooked by the majority of modern grammarians. (15) Verbs, as we have already observed, generally express action, and all actions, and being also (that is all conceptions asserted by verbs), may come to be spoken of either first, as progressive (that is, going on), or incomplete at any time past, present or future, or, secondly, as completed at a present or past time, or to be completed at a future time. (16) This element we may call the condition of the action as completed or perfected, or, on the contrary, incomplete and progressive. (17) Now to express distinctly all the varieties of modification occasioned by the union of these elements-the complete and incomplete condition of the action expressed by the verb, with the element of time, we should require ten separate forms.

(18) We should require, 1st, A form to express an assertion indefinitely-without reference either to the time, or the condition of the action asserted.

(19) 2d. A form to express an assertion that has reference to the present time alone, without indicating either the complete or incomplete condition of the action.

(20) 3d. A form to express an assertion that has reference simply to the past, without indicating whether the action is completed or not completed.

(21) 4th. A form to express an assertion that has reference, in like manner, simply to future time-the time to come.

were indicated by tense forms, how many tenses should such languages have at most? (12) How many forms called tenses have some of these languages? (13) Tell the reason of this. (14) What leads us to suppose that this fact was recognised by the ancient grammarians? (15) Describe the different manners in which the action of verbs may come to be spoken of. (16) How may the element described as connected sometimes with the action of verbs be called? (17) To express fully the various combinations of the two elements of the time and the condition of the action of the verb, how many separate forms are required? (18) Describe form 1st. (19) Form 2d. (20) Form 3rd. (21) Form 4th. (22) Forms 5th,

Forms to express assertions in reference to

(22) 5th, Present time,

6th, Past time.

7th, Future time.

(23) 8th, Present time.

9th, Past time.

10th, Future time.

Action progressive.

Action completed.

(24) In English we express only two of the above modifications of the sense of the verb, by means of the root and inflexion, without the help of other words. Or, to express the same thing otherwise, we have only two simple tense forms in our language; and it is doubtful, as we shall see, whether one of these two gan properly be called a tense.]

§ 49. (1) We call those SIMPLE TENSES which consist either of the root of the verb alone, or of the root after undergoing some modification of its form. (2) When any modification of the time or of the condition of the action asserted by a verb is expressed by the help of other words, we call this combination a compound tense. shall first consider the simple tenses.*

We

(3) We use the simple root of the verb, subject to certain modifications to indicate the person of the subject (§ 52), to express an assertion without reference either to the time or the condition of the action. Examples: I write, he writes, the man thinks, &c. (4) This may be called the INDEFINITE FORM of the verb-indefinite, we mean, as relates both to time and to progressive or completed action. (5) For the sake of uniformity, we shall call this the INDEFINITE TENSE. [(6) This form has been generally, but improperly, as we

* It may admit a doubt whether what we have called the compound tenses should be considered as proper tense forms of the respective verbs to which they are assigned in our grammars.

This name, we admit, is not strictly proper, for this form of the verb is really no tense, because it does not indicate time. We may here observe,

6th, and 7th. (23) Forms 8th, 9th, and 10th. (24) How many of these modifications of the sense of the verb do we express in English by modified forms of the root?]

49. (1) What are called simple tenses? (2) What compound tenses?

(3) What form is employed to express an assertion without reference either to the time or to the condition of the action? (4) What may this form be called? (5) What name is adopted for the sake of uniformity? [(6) Why has this form been called the present tense?

think, called the present tense of English verbs, because it is very commonly used in assertions that have reference to present existing events or facts (7), but it certainly does not indicate any necessary connection with the present or any other time. (8) This form is employed in asserting all general truths-truths which exist independent of all time; as, God is eternal; Truth is unchangeable; A triangle Has three sides and three angles; and all mathematical and physical truths that are of an immutable nature. (9) It is, in fact, used precisely for the purpose described above, under form 1st; namely, to assert all kinds of action and existence, when we do not intend to limit the action definitely to either past, present, or future, nor to indicate whether it is completed or progressive. (10) So far is this form from being confined to the assertion of actions or states of being connected with present time, that it is often employed to express what is manifestly past or manifestly future; as, Plato THINKS profoundly, Cicero WRITES with great elegance. (11) Here the actions asserted are past. John WRITES to his father next Saturday. He GOES to town to-morrow. Here the action is future. (12) Now, although neither the past existence of that the more philosophical grammarians have applied the terms definite and indefinite very vaguely to tenses. They are not even agreed which tenses are definite and which indefinite. Some call the past tense definite and the perfect indefinite; others, on the contrary, call the past tense indefinite and the perfect definite. This disagreement has arisen from confounding the two distinct elements or modifications indicated by the forms called tenses; namely, time and the condition of the predicate as completed or incomplete. A reference to this, and to the fact that no tense ever expresses a definite point of time, would at once have settled the controversy. When the past tense is called definite, it is meant that it expresses that which is definitely past. When the perfect is called definite, it is meant that it expresses what is definitely completed, not what is definitely past. The name imperfect, most improperly given to the past tense, seems to have led to the error of calling it indefinite. It certainly expresses the past definitely. We have nothing to do with this dispute, as we see no use in applying this term either to the past or the perfect tense. We apply it only to the tense before us, and only

(7) State the objection. (8) For what is this form said to be employed? Give the examples. (9) Describe the precise purpose for which this form is employed. (10) What is said to show that this form is not confined to the expression of present actions? (11) Illustrate by examples. (12) State the conclusion drawn from such examples, &c.

the actions in the one case, nor the future existence in the other is indicated by the verb, but either left to be inferred from the nature of the subject matter, or rendered manifest by the accompanying words expressive of time; yet, if it were the proper and inherent function of this form to assert present time (that is, if it were, as most grammarians teach, a present tense), it could never be employed in this manner.

(13) Again, on the other hand, we cannot employ this form to express, in an explicit manner, that an agent actually performs an action in the present time. (14) For this purpose we must have recourse to a different form of expression. (15) If I am asked what John actually does at present, I do not answer, He writes, but He is writing. For the explanation of this form of expression, see § 62)*].

50. (1) We employ in English a modified form of the roots of our verbs to express an assertion that has reference simply to the PAST, without indicating whether the action was progressive or completed at the past time referred to. (2) Examples: The boy

in the sense indicated, namely, indefinite as to both time and the state of the action.

* It may be added, in confirmation of the views expressed above, that in the Anglo-Saxon, the basis of the present English, there is nothing except this indefinite form to express future action. Whether an assertion in that language is indefinite as to time, or present, or future, is not to be learned from the form of the verb, but by some other means-from the nature of the assertion, the connection of the discourse, or modifying words added to indicate time. For proof of this the inquisitive reader is referred to satisfactory examples in the following passages of the Anglo-Saxon translation of the Gospels:-Matt. 25: 46. Luke 13: verses 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30. In all these places (and we might add an indefinite number of similar examples) the Greek future (or perhaps the Latin future, for the translation appears to have been made from a Latin version) is invariably rendered by the AngloSaxon indefinite form-the form from which our indefinite form (incorrectly called the present tense) has manifestly descended, and which it, to a large extent, represents.-See Remarks, § 48.

(13) Can we by this form express action in the present explicitly? (14) How do we express such action? (15) Give an example.]

§ 50. (1) Describe the purpose for which we employ a modified form of the roots of our verbs. (2) Give examples, and tell what the form of the verb employed indicates. [(3)