20.5.
mvp-aristotle-comment-85
20.9
A CASE IS INCIDENT BOTH TO THE NOUN AND THE VERB.
AS much of the elegance and peculiarity of speech depends on the inflection of verbs, and as most languages in this respect deviate at times from what may be called the rules of universal grammar, I shall venture briefly to mention a few cursory observations that I have made on this point in the course of my reading. Dr. Lowth has mentioned the confufion frequently made even by good writers, of the participle and preterite of such verbs as form the participle in En, as 'wrote,' ' written,' ' rode,' ' ridden;' which has indeed been more carefully avoided, even in conversation by those who are tolerably accurate, since his admonition. But he has either overlooked, or neglected to mention the distinction custom has made as to the impropriety of using the preterite for the participle, in the different circumstance of its being connected with the auxiliary verb ' to have,' ' to be,' or being connected with a substantive as a verbal adjective. 'It is wrote' seems to convey a more ungrammatical found to the ear than ' I have ' wrote;' but no person whatever would say, ' wrote language' for • written language.' This appears even in cafes where the proper participle, as used with the auxiliary verbs, is nearly obsolete. It might favour a little of pedantry to say, in common conversation, ' I have beaten him,' ' I have • eaten it; but we always say 'weather-beaten,'' moth-eaten.' 3 G The
The two auxiliary verbs, ' shall' and 'will, which constitute the future tense in English, are perpetually confounded not only by foreigners, but by the Scotch and Irish. The proper fimple future is this, ' I shall,' 'Thou wilt,' or 'You will,' 'He will,' 'We shall,' 'You, or Ye ' will,'' They will.' Were I to say ' I will go,' or • You shall go,' it is no longer the simple future, but speaks determination in one instance, and command or compulfion in the other. What a difference between these expreffions, • I shall not succeed in this but you will,' and I will not fucceed in this but you shall.' The last part is nonsense, fince the verb 'fucceed' being accidental requires only the simple future; but for 'fucceed,' substitute ' attempt,' which is in the power of the agent, the fimple future will be the fame; but change the signs, say ' I will not attempt this, you shall ; and determination on one part, and command on the other are clearly expressed. On this principle it is that our neighbours often raise a laugh at their own expence, by telling us they will break their necks, and that their friends shall win a rubber at whift. It feems very wonderful that two languages so very different, and in all apparent circumstances fo entirely unconnected as the English and modern Greek, should unite in the fingular circumstance of using the verb ' I will' for a fign of the future tenfe, the latter ufing θέλω for this purpose. A fanciful writer might perhaps be tempted to impute this corruption of the Greek tongue to the conversation of the Barangi, a body of English guards, to whom the particular defence of the Grecian Emperor's person was entrusted, and who preferved the use of their native language to the last age of the empire [o]. [o] See a quotation from Codinus in Note 48, on Chap. LV. of Mr. Gibbon's History. Πολυχρονιζᾶσι ὁι Βάραγγοι καλὰ τῶν παλρίον γλῶσσαν ἀνθῶν, ἡτὸι Ιγκληνισὶ. There
POETIC OF ARISTOTLE. There is a distinction in the passive voice of the ancient languages to which all the modern ones I have any knowledge of are strangers, I mean the perfect and imperfect present, AMATUS SUM and AMOR. This is observed by the later editor of Lilly's grammar; but AMO being the example it is not so clear, it not being very easy in that verb to mark the distinction, though by accurate investigation it may be traced. AMOR means simply, that at the present time I am beloved; AMATUS SUM has in this verb a kind of retrospect. It is the word Prior's Henry would have used to express his situation. • When industry and time, (the mighty two • That bring our wishes nearer to our view,) • Made him perceive that the inclining fair • Received his vows with no reluctant ear.'- The distinction is more obvious in DOCEOR, which means ' I am now learning,' or ' in the act of being taught; whereas DOCTUS SUM fignifies the completion of my purpose, ' I am instructed.' The same advantage that the Latin has over the English in the passive, the English in its turn has over the Latin in the active voice, from using the auxiliary, 'I am,' with the participle, ' I think, I am thinking.' In verbs deponent in Latin, the active voice has also the same advantage and from the same cause. There is an anomaly in the Italian verb substantive exactly resembling the Latin deponent. It is conjugated by itself, assuming, as an auxiliary, the power of TO HAVE, SONO STATO, 'I have been.' The cause appears to be this. The Latin verb sum having nothing like the 3G 2 paffive
paffive participle, its derivative the Italian borrowed one for the verb STARE; and SONO STATO literally means ' I AM PLACED.' There is a remarkable nicety in Spanish between SER and ESTAR, the first always fignifying only fimple essence; as for instance, SER QUATRO LUGARES DI LONDRA, would not signify being four leagues distant from London; but being actually the four leagues, the proper verb here iS ESTAR. In fome languages, the Hebrew for instance, the genders of the perfons are fignified by the termination of the verb itself. At first sight this may appear an advantage, but in fact it is a defect, for it often enforces difcrimination where difcrimination cannot be really made. What happens from this to the Hebrew in all its persons, happens to the French, Italian, and Spanish in the third person of both numbers, from the use of the pronoun. Here Greek and Latin have manifeftly the advantage, as where discrimination is necessary they can employ the pronoun or nominative cafe, or otherwise, omit them. In the fingular pronoun the English is in the fame cafe with the other modern languages; and we feel an inconvenience when we wish to mention a circumstance relating to a person, whose sex we either do not know or wish to conceal; and we must either use a periphrafis, or have recourse to the colloquial barbarism of substituting the third person plural, ' They.' CHAP.
