[(3) The ac

wrote yesterday; The man thought differently; The poet lived in the country. In these expressions it is simply indicated by the form of the verb employed, that the action asserted is past. tion may have been in progress or completed; and owing to the nature of the action, we may be able from such an assertion to infer its condition, whether progressive or completed at the time past; but this condition in such cases is only inferred; it is not indicated by the form of the expression. (4) This is the only tense properly so called; that is, expressed in English by a modification effected on the root or original form of the verb without other auxiliary words. (5) What we have called the indefinite tense, is expressed by the unchanged root of the verb; and, as regards indication of time, is properly no tense. Or, if we employ tense as a grammati cal term for a particular form of the verb, this might be called tense no tense the tense that excludes the element of time.]

(6) The tense formed by a modification of the root of the verb, and which expresses simply past time, we shall call the PAST TENSE, or PRETERIT TENSE; and verbs of this form PRETERITS. [(7) This form has been very commonly, but very improperly, called in our grammars the imperfect tense. (8) Except that it is used to express what was customary or habitual in past time, it has nothing in common with what is called the imperfect tense in other languages.]

NOTE. We might object, not without reason, to the name imperfect tense, that strictly speaking it involves an absurdity, since perfect, or imperfect cannot, with propriety, be asserted of time, or attributed to time, that is, to tense (temps, tempus) in its original signification. The absurdity will appear, if we propose the questions, what do you mean by imperfect time? What kind of time is imperfect, or perfect time? It will not do for the grammarian who calls the tense under consideration the imperfect, to attempt to rid himself of this absurdity, by saying that perfect time means finished time, and imperfect time unfinished time; because, unfortunately for him, it is what is called the perfect tense in our own, and in other languages, and not the imperfect

When this tense is used, may we sometimes infer the condition of the action? And how may we infer it? (4) State what is remarked in regard of this tense. (5) What is here said of the indefinite tense?]

(6) What name is given to the tense formed by a modification of the root of the verb? [(7) By what name has this tense been improperly called? (8) Has this tense any thing in common (in regard to its use) with the imperfect tense in other languages?

tense, which is used exclusively in asserting actions performed in a period of time not yet fully elapsed or finished. We say, John has written a letter this day, this week, this year, to his father, employing the (so called) perfect tense for the very reason (as grammarians universally admit) that the period of time referred to the day, the week, the year, is yet present, and not finished. On the contrary, if the assertion referred to yesterday, last week, last year—a period of time completely past and finished, we must employ what has been improperly called the imperfect tense; John WROTE a letter yesterday, &c. Our objection to imperfect employed as an attribute of time, obviously applies equally to perfect and to pluperfect, which last is, independently of this objection, an absurd and barbarous term.

But we waive the objection now stated to the use of the terms perfect and imperfect tense deduced from the proper etymological meaning of the word tense, though we do not see how those, who explain all the tense forms found in the verbs of all languages, as used “to mark time more precisely,” can get over this objection. With our views of the functions of tense forms, we can get over it readily, and without inconsistency, and shall use (one if not both) the terms perfect and imperfect, for the convenience of being more readily understood, and to avoid as much as possible unnecessary innovation by the introduction of new terms. Still, we shall employ these terms, unlike the great mass of English grammarians, in a manner consistent with the views presented above; that is, with recognition of the fact, that two distinct modifications are expressed by what are called tense forms; in other words, that the term tense has, in grammatical usage, lost its exclusive, special, and etymological reference to time, and is now employed as the name of certain forms of the verb, which indicate sometimes time alone, sometimes time in combination with the condition of the action as completed, or remaining incomplete and progressive, and sometimes, as in the case of the English indefinite tense (or indefinite form), indicative of the absence of restriction from either modification. And, as to the terms perfect and imperfect, when we come to use them, we shall consider them, as the grammarians who first introduced them seem to have done, as referring exclusively to the condition (as above described), not to the time of the action; perfect (perfectum, done, accomplished, fully finished), being applied to forms which express completed action, and imperfect (imperfectum) to forms which express incomplete or progressive action.

In conformity with these views, and in accordance with the practice of some recent grammarians, we reject the name imperfect tense, as altogether inappropriate to what we have called above the past tense, since it is no part of the function of this tense to give any indication whatever of the condition of the action expressed by the verb. In fact, it is most generally used in speaking of that which is completed (perfectum); but this is not necessarily indicated, nor intended to be indicated by the form. It is inferred from the nature of the action, combined with the fact that it is past; or,

sometimes, from accompanying words limiting the action to a specified time past; examples: Noah BUILT an ark; John WROTE a letter yesterday. On the contrary, in the example, "The village master TAUGHT his little school," we have an action expressed that was incomplete-progressive at the past time referred to. But this fact, again, we learn by inference, not by any thing distinctly indicated by the past form of the verb. We shall see hereafter the propriety of carefully distinguishing, what is explicitly indicated by a grammatical form, from that which may, in some cases, be inferred from what it indicates, either alone, or combined with other modifying or com pleting words.

There is another very strong objection to the employment of the name imperfect tense, in designating the form of the verb now under consideration. And this is, that this improper appellation occasions much confusion of thought, and consequent embarrassment to young learners, when, after having studied the grammar of their own language, they begin to acquire a knowledge of any of the ancient or modern languages of southern Europe. In these they find an imperfect tense, which, unlike what most of our grammars call the imperfect tense in English, does really indicate, according to its name, imperfect, or unfinished action (that is, action unfinished at the past time intended to be indicated), and which, the young scholar finds, cannot, generally, be properly translated by what he has been taught to call the English imperfect tense. On the contrary, he has to be taught that, in writing these languages, our past tense (which he has been allowed to call the imperfect) can seldom be represented by their imperfect tense. In asserting & past action that was customary, habitual, oft repeated, or a continuous state of being, and therefore not definitely, and, once for all completed, the ancient and modern languages referred to properly employ their imperfect tense. In such assertions we loosely employ our past (improperly called imperfect) tense. In such assertions as, The poet LIVED in the country, “The village master TAUGHT his litle school," the imperfect would be employed in those languages, and not the tenses to which our past tense is generally equivalent. It is rarely, except in the case now mentioned, that our past tense can, with propriety, be rendered by the imperfects of other languages.

This employment of our past tense to express what, in other languages is expressed more appropriately by their imperfect, has naturally arisen from the poverty of our language in simple tense forms. Having only one simple form to express past time, it was natural, that it should be used for every assertion relating to past time, which did not absolutely require more definite modification. In fact, we cannot express the distinction noticed above between a single past occurrence, and customary action, or continuous being, even with the help of our compound tenses. The compound tense, expressive of past progressive action, which usually represents the imperfect of other languages, cannot be properly used here. We must either leave the fact of customary action to be inferred from the nature of the action, as we generally

do, where more precision is unnecessary, or employ a less concise form of expression; as, for example, The poet was in the habit of living in the country; "The village master" was accustomed to teach "his little school," instead of the more usual mode of expressing these assertions employed above.

In connection with this we may remark, that, the form under considera. tion being our great tense (our only simple tense) form for past time, it some. times happens (as it does also in reference to the correspondent tense in other languages) that assertions which might be expressed with more precision by some of those combinations called compound tenses, are often expressed by this tense, when the further modification given by the compound tense is not important to the sense. This may account for, and, perhaps, justify such assertions as, "I was this morning with the secretary," I wrote this morning, &c., instead of, I have been this morning with the secretary, &c.

51. FORMATION OF THE PAST TENSE.-We now come to explain the formation of the simple tenses. (1) And here our task is confined to a statement of the modifications which the root undergoes to express past time, since, as we have already remarked (§ 49: 3), the indefinite tense is the root itself—the simplest form of the verb.

(2) The past tense of English verbs is formed from the root in two distinct ways (already noticed, § 35: 2), by inflexion, and by a radical modification. (3) The learner will remember that inflexion is the name given when some addition by way of termination is made to the root, and that radical modification is the name given when a change is effected in the vowel sound of the root, or original word. (4) We have examples of the formation of the past tense by inflexion in the following verbs; act, past tense acted; talk, talked; call, called; paint, painted, &c. And of the formation by a radical modification in write, past tense, wrote; see, saw; speak, spoke; give, gave, &c., &c.

(5) The past tense of the greatest part of our verbs is formed by inflexion. (6) This inflexion consists of the addition (in the present spoken language) of the sound of d, or ed, or, sometimes, t to the root of the verb. (The causes, which determine whether the d

§ 51. (1) To what is our task confined in explaining the formation of the simple tenses, and why is it so confined? (2) In how many ways is the past tense formed from the root of the verb? (3) Repeat what is said of inflection and radical modification. (4) Illustrate by examples.

(5) How is the past tense of the greatest part of English verbs formed? (6) What ad

or the t sound must be added in any particular case are described in § 40 and 41.) (7) In the written language, when the root of the verb happens to end in e,* we add the letter d, and when the root has any other ending we add ed to form the past tense. (8) Thus the past tense of this whole class in the written language ends in ed, except a few which have undergone contraction; such as leapt, contracted from leaped; knelt, from kneeled; wept, from weeped ; spelt, from spelled, &c.

[(9) This termination (ed) was, no doubt, universally pronounced fully, so as to form a complete additional syllable in the spoken language of our early ancestors. (10) It is still sometimes fully pronounced in reading the sacred Scriptures and on solemn occasions; but both in the language of conversation, and in ordinary reading and public speaking the vowel sound is suppressed, and the d sound alone attached to the root, wherever this is possible. (11) It is not possible (see § 41), when the root ends in a d, or a t sound;

* We doubt whether it is altogether proper to consider the final e in such verbs as love, write, &c., as a part of the root. The roots of these verbs are properly lov and writ, and the e is a fragment of the original personal termination retained, in order, perhaps, to indicate (as it does in most cases) that the long sound is to be given to the radical vowel. The final e in such words as hate, revere, write, move, fume, &c., shows the reader how he is to pronounce the radical vowels, viz., with the long sound of each vowel respectively. There are some exceptions, as in the words have and love, as they are now pronounced. On the other hand, the final mute e is retained in many words, where it is altogether unnecessary for the purpose above mentioned; for example, in such words as perceive, receive, rejoice, &c., where the diphthong sufficiently indicates that a long sound is to be given to the radical syllable. But these are only small samples of the great want of consistency in the mode of representing our spoken signs which has become established in our written language-or, in other words, small samples of our anomalous orthography-anomalous, we mean, in reference to the present spoken language.

In reference to the final e mute of our verbs, it is altogether unnecessary,

dition is made to the root of the verb in the spoken language to form the past tense? (7) Describe what is done in the written language. (8) What is the ending of the past tense of this whole class of verbs in the written language? Mention exceptions.

[(9) What is said about the pronunciation of the termination ed in ancient times? (10) What is the modern custom in reference to the pronunciation of this final ed? (11) What must be dono when the root ends in a d, or a t sound? Illustrato by examples.]