OBSERVATIONS.
OBS. 1. When any of the principal parts of a verb are wanting, the tenses usually derived from those parts are also, of course, wanting. All the auxiliaries, except do, be, and have, if we compare them with other verbs, are defective; but, as auxiliaries, they lack nothing; for no complete verb is used throughout as an auxiliary, except be. And since an auxiliary differs essentially from a principal verb, the propriety of referring may, can, must, and shall, to the class of defective verbs, is at least questionable. In parsing there is never any occasion to call them defective verbs, because they are always taken together with their principals. And though we may technically say, that their participles are "wanting," it is manifest that none are needed.
OBS. 2. Will is sometimes used as a principal verb, and as such it is regular and complete; will, willed, willing, willed: as, "His Majesty willed that they should attend."—Clarendon. "He wills for them a happiness of a far more exalted and enduring nature."—Gurney. "Whether thou willest it to be a minister to our pleasure."—Harris. "I will; be thou clean."—Luke, v, 13. "Nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou will."—Matt., xxvi, 39. "To will is present with me."—Rom., vii, 18. But would is sometimes also a principal verb; as, "What would this man?"—Pope. "Would God that all the Lord's people were prophets."—Numb., xi, 29. "And Israel would none of me."—Psalm, lxxxi, 11. If we refer this indefinite preterit to the same root, will becomes redundant; will, willed or would, willing, willed. In respect to time, would is less definite than willed, though both are called preterits. It is common, and perhaps best, to consider them distinct verbs. The latter only can be a participle: as,
"How rarely does it meet with this time's guise,
When man was will'd to love his enemies!"—Shakspeare.
OBS. 3. The remaining defective verbs are only five or six questionable terms, which our grammarians know not well how else to explain; some of them being now nearly obsolete, and others never having been very proper. Begone is a needless coalition of be and gone, better written separately, unless Dr. Johnson is right in calling the compound an interjection: as,
"Begone! the goddess cries with stern disdain,
Begone! nor dare the hallow'd stream to stain!"—Addison.
Beware also seems to be a needless compound of be and the old adjective ware, wary, aware, cautious. Both these are, of course, used only in those forms of expression in which be is proper; as, "Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision."—Philippians, iii, 2. "But we must beware[297] of carrying our attention to this beauty too far."—Blair's Rhet., p. 119. These words were formerly separated: as, "Of whom be thou ware also."—1 Tim., iv, 15. "They were ware of it."—FRIENDS' BIBLE, and ALGER'S: Acts, xiii, 6. "They were aware of it."—SCOTT'S BIBLE: ib. "And in an hour that he is not ware of him."—Johnson's Dict., w. Ware. "And in an hour that he is not aware of."—COMMON BIBLES: Matt., xxiv, 50. "Bid her well be ware and still erect."—MILTON: in Johnson's Dict. "That even Silence was took ere she was ware."—Id., Comus, line 558. The adjective ware is now said to be "obsolete;" but the propriety of this assertion depends upon that of forming such a defective verb. What is the use of doing so?
"This to disclose is all thy guardian can; Beware of all, but most beware of man."—Pope.
The words written separately will always have the same meaning, unless we omit the preposition of, and suppose the compound to be a transitive verb. In this case, the argument for compounding the terms appears to be valid; as,
"Beware the public laughter of the town; Thou springst a-leak already in thy crown."—Dryden.
OBS. 4. The words ought and own, without question, were originally parts of the redundant verb to owe; thus: owe, owed or ought, owing, owed or own. But both have long been disjoined from this connexion, and hence owe has become regular. Own, as now used, is either a pronominal adjective, as, "my own hand," or a regular verb thence derived, as, "to own a house." Ought, under the name of a defective verb, is now generally thought to be properly used, in this one form, in all the persons and numbers of the present and the imperfect tense of the indicative and subjunctive moods. Or, if it is really of one tense only, it is plainly an aorist; and hence the time must be specified by the infinitive that follows: as, "He ought to go; He ought to have gone." "If thou ought to go; If thou ought to have gone." Being originally a preterit, it never occurs in the infinitive mood, and is entirely invariable, except in the solemn style, where we find oughtest in both tenses; as, "How thou oughtest to behave thyself."—1 Tim., iii, 15. "Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers."—Matt., xxiv, 27. We never say, or have said, "He, she, or it, oughts or oughteth." Yet we manifestly use this verb in the present tense, and in the third person singular; as, "Discourse ought always to begin with a clear proposition."—Blair's Rhet., p. 217. I have already observed that some grammarians improperly call ought an auxiliary. The learned authors of Brightland's Grammar, (which is dedicated to Queen Anne,) did so; and also affirmed that must and ought "have only the present time," and are alike invariable. "It is now quite obsolete to say, thou oughtest; for ought now changes its ending no more than must."—Brightland's Gram., (approved by Isaac Bickerstaff, Esq.,) p. 112.
"Do, will, and shall, must, OUGHT, and may, Have, am, or be, this Doctrine will display."—Ib., p. 107.
OBS. 5.—Wis, preterit wist, to know, to think, to suppose, to imagine, appears to be now nearly or quite obsolete; but it may be proper to explain it, because it is found in the Bible: as, "I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest."—Acts, xxiii, 5. "He himself 'wist not that his face shone.'"—Life of Schiller, p. iv. Wit, to know, and wot, knew, are also obsolete, except in the phrase to wit; which, being taken abstractly, is equivalent to the adverb namely, or to the phrase, that is to say. The phrase, "we do you to wit," (in 2 Cor., viii, 1st,) means, "we inform you." Churchill gives the present tense of this verb three forms, weet, wit, and wot; and there seems to have been some authority for them all: as, "He was, to weet, a little roguish page."—Thomson. "But little wotteth he the might of the means his folly despiseth."—Tupper's Book of Thoughts, p. 35. To wit, used alone, to indicate a thing spoken of, (as the French use their infinitive, savoir, à savoir, or the phrase, c'est à savoir,) is undoubtedly an elliptical expression: probably for, "I give you to wit;" i. e., "I give you to know." Trow, to think, occurs in the Bible; as, "I trow not."—N. Test. And Coar gives it as a defective verb; and only in the first person singular of the present indicative, "I trow." Webster and Worcester mark the words as obsolete; but Sir W. Scott, in the Lady of the Lake, has this line:
"Thinkst thou he trow'd thine omen ought?"—Canto iv, stanza 10.
Quoth and quod, for say, saith, or said, are obsolete, or used only in ludicrous language. Webster supposes these words to be equivalent, and each confined to the first and third persons of the present and imperfect tenses of the indicative mood. Johnson says, that, "quoth you," as used by Sidney, is irregular; but Tooke assures us, that "The th in quoth, does not designate the third person."—Diversions of Purley, Vol. ii, p. 323. They are each invariable, and always placed before the nominative: as, quoth I, quoth he.
"Yea, so sayst thou, (quod Tröylus,) alas!"—Chaucer.
"I feare, quod he, it wyll not be."—Sir T. More.
"Stranger, go! Heaven be thy guide! Quod the beadsman of Nith-side."—Burns.
OBS. 6.—Methinks, (i. e., to me it thinks,) for I think, or, it seems to me, with its preterit methought, (i. e., to me it thought,) is called by Dr. Johnson an "ungrammatical word." He imagined it to be "a Norman corruption, the French being apt to confound me and I."—Joh. Dict. It is indeed a puzzling anomaly in our language, though not without some Anglo-Saxon or Latin parallels; and, like its kindred, "me seemeth," or "meseems," is little worthy to be countenanced, though often used by Dryden, Pope, Addison, and other good writers. Our lexicographers call it an impersonal verb, because, being compounded with an objective, it cannot have a nominative expressed. It is nearly equivalent to the adverb apparently; and if impersonal, it is also defective; for it has no participles, no "methinking," and no participial construction of "methought;" though Webster's American Dictionary, whether quarto or octavo, absurdly suggests that the latter word may be used as a participle. In the Bible, we find the following text: "Me thinketh the running of the foremost is like the running of Ahimaaz."—2 Sam., xviii, 27. And Milton improperly makes thought an impersonal verb, apparently governing the separate objective pronoun him; as,
"Him thought he by the brook of Cherith stood." —P. R., B. ii, l. 264.
OBS. 7.—Some verbs from the nature of the subjects to which they refer, are chiefly confined to the third person singular; as, "It rains; it snows; it freezes; it hails; it lightens; it thunders." These have been called impersonal verbs; because the neuter pronoun it, which is commonly used before them, does not seem to represent any noun, but, in connexion with the verb, merely to express a state of things. They are however, in fact, neither impersonal nor defective. Some, or all of them, may possibly take some other nominative, if not a different person; as, "The Lord rained upon Sodom, and upon Gomorrah, brimstone and fire."—Gen., xix, 24. "The God of glory thundereth."—Psalms, xxix, 3. "Canst thou thunder with a voice like him?"—Job, xl, 9. In short, as Harris observes, "The doctrine of Impersonal Verbs has been justly rejected by the best grammarians, both ancient and modern."—Hermes, p. 175.
OBS. 8.—By some writers, words of this kind are called Monopersonal Verbs; that is, verbs of one person. This name, though not very properly compounded, is perhaps more fit than the other; but we have little occasion to speak of these verbs as a distinct class in our language. Dr. Murray says, "What is called an impersonal verb, is not so; for lic-et, juv-at, and oport-et, have Tha, that thing, or it, in their composition."—History of European Languages, Vol. ii, p. 146. Ail, irk, and behoove, are regular verbs and transitive; but they are used only in the third person singular: as, "What ails you?"—"It irks me."—"It behooves you." The last two are obsolescent, or at least not in very common use. In Latin, passive verbs, or neuters of the passive form, are often used impersonally, or without an obvious nominative; and this elliptical construction is sometimes imitated in English, especially by the poets: as,
"Meanwhile, ere thus was sinn'd and judg'd on earth,
Within the gates of Hell sat Sin and Death."
—Milton, P. L., B. x, l. 230.
"Forthwith on all sides to his aid was run
By angels many and strong, who interpos'd."
—Id., B. vi, l. 335.
LIST OF THE DEFECTIVE VERBS.
Present. Preterit.
Beware, ———
Can, could.
May, might.
Methinks, methought.
Must, must.[298]
Ought, ought.[298]
Shall, should,
Will[299] would.
Quoth, quoth.
Wis, wist.[300]
Wit, wot.