AUXILIARIES.
There are several verbs in English, which, from the necessity of their union with other verbs, have obtained the name of auxiliaries. Originally they were principal verbs, with regular Saxon infinitives, and the usual inflections; as may be observed by any person, who has the smallest acquaintance with the modern German, which retains more of the ancient structure, than any other branch of the primitive language.
The verbs, called auxiliaries or helpers, are do, be, have, shall, will, may, can, must. The three first are often employed alone, and are therefore acknowleged to be sometimes principal verbs. That the others were so, will be made obvious by a specimen from the German, with the corresponding English.
| German. | English. | |
|---|---|---|
| Inf. | Wollen, | to will. |
| Ind. Pref. | Ich will, | I will. |
| Wir wollen,[109] | we will. | |
| Imper. | Ich wolte, | I would. |
| Preterit. | Ich habe gewolt, | I have would, or willed. |
| Plup. | Ich hatte gewolt, | I had would. |
| Fut. | Ich werde wollen, | I shall will. |
| Imp. | Wolle du, | will thou. |
| Subj. | Ich wolle, | (if) I would, &c. |
| Inf. | Wollen, | to will. |
| Gewolte haben, | to have would, or willed. | |
| Part. | Wollend, | willing. |
| Gewollte, | having would, or willed. |
Sollen, to shall, is inflected in the same manner. Koennen, to can, or be able, is inflected much in the same manner. Ich kann, I can, &c. Imperfect, Ich konnte, I could. Preterit, Ich habe gehonnt, I have could (or been able.) Participle, Kænnend, canning, being able. Thus mægen, to may, makes, in the past tenses, Ich mochte, I might or mought, as the vulgar sometimes pronounce it; Ich habe gemocht, I have might. Must also, which in English has lost all inflection, is varied in the German; mussen, to must, or be obliged; Imperfect, Ich muste, I must, or was obliged.
But whatever these verbs may have once been, yet from their loss of several inflections and the participles, with their singular use in combination with other verbs, they may very well be denominated auxiliary verbs. Their true force in English should be ascertained and explained in grammars for the benefit of learners, and particularly for the assistance of foreigners;[110] yet in resolving sentences, each should be considered as a verb or distinct part of speech.
For want of a clear and accurate knowlege of the English auxiliaries, foreigners are apt to fall into material errors in constructing sentences. The most numerous errors appear in the use of will and shall, and their inflections. The Scots and Irish, even of the first rank, generally use will for shall in the first person; by which means, they substitute a promise for an intended prediction. Several errors of this kind have escaped the notice of the most celebrated writers.
"Without having attended to this, we will be at a loss in understanding several passages in the classics, which relate to the public speaking, and the theatrical entertainments of the ancients."——Blair's Lectures, p. 48. Philad. edit.
"In the Latin language, there are no two words, we would more readily take to be synonimous, than amare and diligere."——The same, p. 83.
In these and several other instances which occur in Blair's writings, the words will and would are used very improperly, for shall and should. The author means only to foretell certain events, and has employed words which carry, to an English ear, the full force of a promise.
English writers have rarely fallen into this error; yet a few instances may be found in authors of reputation.
"If I draw a catgut or any other cord to a great length between my fingers, I will make it smaller than it was before," &c.—— Goldsmith's Survey of Experimental Philosophy, book 2. chap. 2.
In the middle and southern states of America, this error is frequent, both in writing and conversation.
"Let us suppose the charter repealed and the bank annihilated; will we be better situated?"——Argument against repealing the charter of the Bank of North America.
This is very incorrect; there is hardly a possible case, in which will can be properly employed to ask a question in the first person.
"As soon as the diploma is made out, I will have the honor to transmit it to you."——Letter to Count Rochambeau.
Is not this promising to have the honor of a communication, an engagement which delicacy forbids? It is impossible for a foreigner to have a just idea of the absurdity of using will in this manner; but a correct English ear revolts at the practice.
Dr. Priestley observes very justly, that the form of the auxiliaries, shall, will, which is generally conditional, viz. should and would, is elegantly used to express a slight assertion, with modest diffidence.
"The royal power, it should seem, might be intrusted in their hands."——Hume's History, vol. 3. p. 383.
We say also, "I would not choose any." In these cases, the verbs are not conditional; they modestly declare a fact, and therefore properly belong to the indicative mode. But in the following passage, should is improperly employed:
"In judging only from the nature of things, and without the surer aid of divine revelation, one should be apt to embrace the opinion of Diodorus Siculus," &c.—— Warburton's Divine Legation, vol. 2. p. 81.
Should, in the second and third persons, expresses duty, and the idea of the author was, to express an event, under a condition, or a modest declaration; he should have used would.
"There is not a girl in town, but let her have her will in going to a mask, and she shall dress as a shepherdess."——Spect. No. 9.
Shall, in this example, expresses command, an idea very different from the author's meaning.
"Think what reflection shall most probably arise."——Blair, Serm. 9.
"A person, highly entertained at a play, shall remember perfectly the impression made on him by a very moving scene."——Nugent's Trans. of Condillac, p. 1. s. 1.
I would just remark here, that the errors in the use of the auxiliary verbs before mentioned, are not English; that they are little known among the inhabitants of South Britain, and still less among their descendants in New England. This is a new proof of the force of national customs. I do not remember to have heard once in the course of my life, an improper use of the verbs will and shall, among the unmixed English descendants in the eastern states.
But of all the errors or inaccuracies in speaking or writing the English language, the most numerous class appear in the improper use of verbs in the subjunctive mode. Not only illiterate men, but authors of the first rank, often use the present tense for the future, the future for the present, and the past for both.
"If any member absents himself, he shall forfeit a penny for the use of the club, unless in case of sickness and imprisonment."——Rules of the Two Penny Club, Spect. No. 9.
"If thou neglectest or dost unwillingly what I command, I'll rack thee with old cramps."——Temp. act 1. s. 4.
In both these examples, the events mentioned in the verbs are future; "if any member shall absent himself;" "if thou shalt neglect;" therefore the auxiliary verb shall should have been employed, or the sentences should have been elliptical, "if any member absent himself;" "if thou neglect;" where shall is understood and easily supplied by the reader.
Numberless examples of the same kind of inaccuracy may be found in good authors. Thus in Haley's Happy Prescription, act 2.
"And if my scheme prospers, with joy I'll confess,
What a whimsical trifle produced our success."
The idea is, "if my scheme shall prosper;" and this is obvious by the subsequent part of the sentence, where the future is employed, "with joy I'll confess."
"If Punch grows extravagant, I shall reprimand him very freely; if the stage becomes a nursery of folly and impertinence, I shall not be afraid to animadvert upon it."——Spect. No. 35.
These should have been grow or should grow; become or should become.
"If any thing offers (shall offer) from Dublin, that may serve either to satisfy or divert you, I will not fail," &c.—— Swift's Corresp. letter 2.
In the following passage, the same writer is much more correct.
"If any one matter in it prove (that is, shall prove) false, what do you think will become of the paper?"——Letter 8.
But the use of the future for the present is much more frequent.
"If reverence, gratitude, obedience and confidence be our duty."——Priestley, let. 7 to a Phil. Unbeliever.
"If he have any knowlege of actual existence, he must be satisfied."——Same, letter 8.
The author doubtless intended these sentences to be strictly grammatical, by placing the verbs in the present tense of the subjunctive. But in the first example, be is wrong even on Lowth's principles. The rule of the Bishop, with respect to the use of the indicative and subjunctive modes, is this: That when something conditional, hypothetical, or doubtful, is expressed, the verb should be in the subjunctive mode; but when the fact is certain, or taken for granted, the verb should be in the indicative. He gives for examples of the former, several passages from scripture: "If thou be the son of God." Matth. iv. 3. "Tho he slay me, yet will I trust in him." Job xiii. 15. "Unless he wash his flesh." Lev. xxii. 6. "No power except it were given from above." John xix. 11. "Whether it were I or they, so we preach." 1 Cor. xv. 11. "The subjunctive in these instances," says the Bishop, "implies something contingent or doubtful; the indicative would express a more absolute and determinate sense." To illustrate the latter part of his rule, he quotes a passage from Atterbury's Sermons. "Tho he were divinely inspired, and spake therefore as the oracles of God, with supreme authority; tho he were endued with supernatural powers," &c. That our Savior was divinely inspired, and endued with supernatural powers, are positions that are here taken for granted, as admitting not of the least doubt; they would therefore have been better expressed in the indicative mode; "tho he was divinely inspired," &c. Even on these principles, the verb in the first example from Priestley, just quoted, should have been in the indicative; for there is no doubt that reverence, gratitude, &c. are our duty to the Supreme Being.
But I apprehend, that however just Lowth's distinction between the modes, may have formerly been, it is not warranted by the present idiom of the language. Indeed I cannot think the rule just. In the first, fourth and fifth examples quoted by the Bishop, the indicative might be substituted for the subjunctive, and the passages rendered more correct, according to the present practice of speaking and writing. "If thou art the son of God." "No power except it was given from above." "Whether it was I, or they, so we preach." Every English ear must acknowlege that these expressions are more agreeable to our present practice, than those employed by the translators of the Bible, and they convey an idea of condition or doubt, as fully as the other form. But why did the translators deviate from the original? In the Greek, the verbs, in the two first examples, are in the indicative mode; and in the last, the verb is not expressed. Ει υιος ει του Θεου, literally, If thou art the son of God. Ουκ εχεις εξουσιαν ουδεμιαν κατ' εμου, ει μη ην σοι δεδομενον ανωθεν; literally, Thou hast no power (or authority) against me, except it was given thee from above. In the last instance the verb is omitted; Ειτε δε εγω, ειτε εκεινοι; Whether I or they. In these instances therefore the translators of the Bible, and Bishop Lowth have evidently mistaken the true structure of the English verbs. The translators deviated from the original Greek, in changing the modes; and the Bishop has taken their error, as the foundation of a distinction which does not exist in the language. The indicative mode is employed to express conditional ideas, more frequently than the subjunctive, even by the best English writers. Take the following examples.
"And if the same accident is able to restore them to us."——Bolingbroke, Reflec. on Exile.
"If this being, the immediate maker of the universe, has not existed from all eternity, he must have derived his being and power from one who has."——Priestley, let. 4 to Phil. Unb.
"If there is one, I shall make two in the company."——Merry Wives of Windsor, act 3. sc. II.
"If thou lovest me then
Steal forth thy father's house tomorrow night."
Midsum. Night's Dream, act 1. s. 2.
"If thou beest[111] Stephano, touch me and speak to me;
If thou beest Trinculo, come forth."
Tempest, act 2. s. 3.
"If thou art any thing besides a name."
Cowley's Request.
"For if he lives that hath you doen despight."
Spenser's Fairy Queen, book 2. chap. 1.
"If any one imagines."——Moyle.
"Why did Caligula wish that the people had but one neck, that he might strike it off at a blow, if their welfare was thus reciprocal."——Sidney on Gov. sect. 5.
"If Governments are constituted."——Sidney.
"Well, keep your own heart, if silence is best,
Tho a woman, for once, I'll in ignorance rest."
Haley's Happy Prescription.
"If she has stolen the color of her ribbons from another."——Spect. No. 4.
"If we are rightly informed."——Same, No. 8.
"If she is tall enough, she is wife enough."——No. 66.
"If you are in such haste, how came you to forget the miscellanies?"——Swift's Letter to Mr. Tooke.
"If men's highest assurances are to be believed."——Same.
Shall we say that the use of the indicative after if in the foregoing examples is improper or ungrammatical? By no means. Yet the verbs express something conditional or doubtful; and therefore Lowth's rule cannot be well founded.
Let the foregoing passages be contrasted with the following.
"But if he say true, there is but one government in the world that can have any thing of justice in it."——Sidney, sect. 1.
"If he have any knowlege of actual existence, he must be satisfied."——Priestley, let. 8.
"But tho criticism be thus his only declared aim, he will not disown," &c.—— Introd. to Elements of Criticism.
"But if a lively picture, even of a single emotion, require an effort of genius, how much greater the effort to compose a passionate dialogue, with as many different tones of passion as there are speakers?"——Elements of Criticism, vol. 1. chap. 16.
"Here we must also observe, that tho THOU be long in the first part of the verse, it becomes short when repeated in the second."——Sheridan's Art of Reading.
The Scotch writers, who learn the English language grammatically, are the most particular in the use of this subjunctive form of the verb; in consequence of which their stile generally appears stiff and fettered. In all the foregoing examples, and in every instance where the affirmation respects present time, the indicative form is the most correct, and the only form that corresponds with the actual present state of the language. If he says, if he has, if he requires, are the true expressions universally used in speaking; and grammars should exhibit and enforce this practice, rather than amend it.
There are few or no English writers, who seem to have adhered uniformly to any rule in the use of the verbs after the conjunctions. In consequence, either of ignorance or inattention, the most correct writers have fallen into inconsistencies, even in the same sentence. This will appear by the following examples.
"If life and health enough fall to my share, and I am able to finish what I meditate."——Bolingbroke, let. 4, on History.
The author intended the verbs, fall and am, to be in the present time; but this would make him write nonsense; for the events were future at the time of writing. The first part of the sentence, to make sense, must be considered as elliptical, "if life and health enough shall or should fall to my share;" in the last part therefore be should be substituted for am, if I shall be able: This would make the whole sentence correct and consistent.
"Whether our conduct be inspected, and we are under a righteous government, or under no government at all."——Priestley's Pref. to Let. to a Phil. Unb.
What a confusion of modes! or rather of tenses!
"Tho THOU be long, in the first part of the verse," says Sheridan, in the passage just quoted; yet soon after uses the indicative in a phrase precisely similar; "And tho it is impossible to prolong the sound of this word." Can this great critic give a reason for this change of modes? Such examples serve to show at least the necessity of studying our language with more attention, than even many eminent scholars are willing to bestow.
It has been remarked by Lowth, and many other writers on this subject, that "the verb itself in the present, and the auxiliary both of the present and past imperfect times, often carry with them somewhat of a future sense."[112] Thus, if he come tomorrow, if he should or would come tomorrow, carry somewhat of a future sense. The writer should have gone farther, and said that these expressions are in future time; for they form the English future, and belong to no other tense. This would have been the truth, and have prevented the numberless errors which have proceeded from his arranging them in the present tense of the subjunctive. Let us attend to the following passages.
"This can never happen till patriotism flourish more in Britain."—Home's Sketches, book 2. s. 9.
"Pray heaven, he prove so, when you come to him."——Two Gent. of Verona, act 2. s. 10.
"But if thou linger in my territories."——Same, act 3. s. 2.
"Lest, growing ruinous, the building fall."——Same, act 5. s. 6.
"If the second be pronounced thus, the verse will be degraded into hobbling prose."——Sheridan's Art of Reading.
It is needless to multiply similar passages; the same use of the verb, without the personal termination, occurs in almost every page of our best writings, and it is perfectly correct.
But will any person contend that the verbs in these passages are in the present tense? The sense is entirely future, and could not be translated into Latin or French, without employing the future tense. The expressions are elliptical, and cannot be clearly understood, without inserting shall or should before the verbs. This pretended present tense of the subjunctive is therefore the real future of the indicative. To confirm this remark, let us attend to some other passages.
"Tho he slay me, yet will I trust in him."
"Unless he wash his flesh, he shall not eat of the holy thing."
In the original Hebrew these verbs are in the future tense; and so are most similar expressions.[113]
Matth. vii. 10.—Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? Και εαν ιχθυν αιτησῃ μη οφιν επιδωσει αυτῳ;
Rom. xiv. 15.—But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat. Ει γαρ δια βρωμα ὁ αδελφος σου λυπειται
Luke xvii. 3.—If thy brother trespass against thee. Εαν αμαρτηση ὁ αδελφος σου. 4. And seven times in a day turn again to thee. Και επτακις της ημηρας επιστρεψη.
Luke xvi. 28.—Lest they also come into this place of torment. Μη και αυτος ελθωσιν εις τουτον τον τοπον της βασανου.[114]
Is not the sense of the foregoing verbs future? Are not the verbs in the original, either in the future tense, or in the indefinite tenses, which, in the subjunctive mode, usually have the sense of the future, and perhaps never the sense of the present? Why then should we consider the English verbs as in the present time? Either the translators made a mistake, and placed the verbs in a wrong tense; or Lowth and his followers have mistaken the tense, and called that present which is really future.
That the fault is, in some measure, to be ascribed to the translators, is evident from their using the same form of the verb, after a conjunction, when the original Greek is in the present of the indicative.
1 Cor. xvi. 22.—If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be, &c.Ει τις ου φιλει τον Κυριον Ιησουν Χριστον, ητω, &c.
1 Cor. xiv. 37.—If any man think himself a prophet. Ει δε τις δοκει προφητης ειναι. 38.—If any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant still. Ει δε τις αγνοει, αγνοειτω.
In these instances, the verbs express conditional facts in the present time. In the original they are in the indicative present; and on what authority did the translators introduce a different mode in English? Can they be justified by the idioms of the language at the time when they lived? Was the subjunctive always used after a conjunction? By no means: Their own translation of other passages proves the contrary.
1 Cor. xv. 13.—And if there is no resurrection of the dead. Ει δε αναστασις νεκρων ουκ εστιν.
Here is the present tense of the indicative used, where the fact mentioned is supposed, by the argument, to be at least doubtful. In other places the present time of the same mode is used, where the future would have been more accurate.
Prov. ii. 3, 4.—"Yea if thou criest after knowlege, and liftest up thy voice for understanding; if thou seekest for her as for hid treasures, then shalt thou understand," &c.
What conclusion shall we draw from this state of facts? This at least may be said with safety, either that the English modes and tenses have not been ascertained and understood, or that the best of our writers have been extremely negligent.
After an attentive and accurate examination of this subject, I believe I may venture to assert, that nine times out of ten, when the pretended subjunctive form of the verb is used after a conjunction, either in the vulgar translation of the Bible, or in our best profane authors, the sense is actually future, and to render the sentences complete, it would be necessary to insert shall or should.[115] This will be more obvious by attending to the Latin translation of the New Testament, where the future is almost always employed to express the Greek future and aorists. Igitur si munus tuum attuleris ad altare—If thou bring thy gift to the altar; et illic memineris—and there rememberest; (what confusion of modes.) If his son ask bread—Si filius ejus petierit panem. And if the house be worthy—Et si quidem fuerit domus digna; and so throughout the whole New Testament.
Will any person pretend to say that the verbs bring, ask and be, in the foregoing passages, are present time; or that rememberest is not bad English? The elliptical future, If thou be, if he ask, &c. is correct English, but should by no means be confounded with the present tense, which, in English, has but one form.
I do not deny that good authors have used this form, after conjunctions, in the present time; but I deny that the genius of the language requires it, that it is agreeable to the ancient or modern elegant languages, and that it has been or is now the general practice.
With respect to the ancient practice, examples sufficient have been already produced, to show that authors have considered the present of the indicative, after conjunctions, denoting uncertainty or doubt, as at least correct; and the present practice in speaking is wholly on this side of the argument.
With respect to the Roman and Greek languages, I believe examples enough may be brought to prove, that the subjunctive mode after the conditional conjunctions or adverbs, was not generally used, except when the idea was such as we should express by may, might, should, let, or some other auxiliary before the verb. "Quid est autem, quod deos veneremur propter admirationem ejus naturæ, in qua egregium nihil videmus?" "Ut, quos ratio non posset, eos ad officium religio duceret."—Cicero, De nat Deorum, l. I. 42. To render veneremur and duceret into English, should may be prefixed to adore, and might to lead.
At any rate, the conditional conjunctions do not all, nor generally require the subjunctive mode: "Quæ, si mundus est Deus, quoniam mundi partes sunt, Dei membra parim ardentia, partim refrigerata dicenda sunt."—Ibm. 1. I. 10. "Si Di possunt esse sine sensu," &c. The indicative after this conjunction occurs frequently in the best Roman authors.
In Greek the case is nearly the same. Several instances of the indicative after the conditional conjunction ει (if) have already been quoted from scripture; and similar instances without number may be produced from profane writers.
"Εἰ ουν ουτως εχει, εφη, ω Κῦρε, τι αν αλλο τις κρειττον ευροι, ἢ πεμπειν εις Περσας, και αμα μεν διδασκειν αυτους οτι ει τι πεισονται Μηδοι, εις Περσας το δεινον ηξει, αμα δε αιτειν πλειον στρατευμα;"——Xenoph. de Cyri. Inst. l. 2. p. 80. Lond. Ed.
Here the verb εχει is in the present tense of the indicative, after a conjunction denoting condition or doubt; "if the affair is so—if such is the true state of affairs, Cyrus, what better method can be taken (ευροι) than to send to the Persians, and inform them that if any accident happen to the Medes (so we should render πεισονται, which is in the future) calamity will fall upon the Persians also, and let us ask for a greater force."
In French, the conditional conjunctions do not require the subjunctive mode. "Si ma prédiction est fausse, vous serez libre de nous immoler dans trois jours."—Telemaque, liv. 1. "S'il est vrai que vous aimiez la justice."—Liv. 4. If my prediction is false—if it is true—are correct modes of speaking in French. No argument therefore in favor of the use of the English subjunctive, can be drawn from the analogy of other languages.
But this subjunctive form is not agreeable to the structure of the language. It has been demonstrated that our conjunctions are mostly old Saxon verbs in the imperative mode. Let us resolve some sentences where the subjunctive form is used; for example, the passages before quoted.
"If he have any knowlege of actual existence, he must be satisfied."——Priestley's Letters.
Resolved—"He have any knowlege of actual existence, (if) give that, he must be satisfied." Is this English?
"If thou be the son of God, command that these stones be made bread."——Matth. iv. 3.
Resolved—"Thou be the son God, give that, command," &c.
"Tho he slay me, yet will I trust in him."
Resolved—"He slay me, grant it, yet will I trust in him."
This is the literal construction of those sentences; the two first are present time, the last, which is future, is merely elliptical.
If therefore, I be, he have, are good English in the present tense of the indicative, the foregoing are correct expressions; if not, they are incorrect; for every such conditional sentence is resolvable into two or more declaratory phrases. Let us substitute the Latin derivative, which precisely answers to if, viz. suppose; thus, in place of "if thou be the son of God," write, "suppose thou be the son of God," does not every ear acknowlege the impropriety? The only difference between the two expressions is this; if is a Saxon verb in the imperative mode, and suppose, a Latin one in the same mode.
With respect to be, it may be said very justly, that it was anciently used after the conjunctions in almost all cases. But it must be observed also, it was used without the conjunctions. Be, from the Saxon beon, is the true radical verb, still preserved in the German, Ich bin, I be, du bist, thou beest, in the indicative. The old English writers employed be in the same mode and tense.
"O, there be players that I have seen play."——Shakesp. Hamlet to the Players.
"They that be drunken, are drunken in the night."——1 Thess. v. 7.
"As we be slanderously reported."——Rom. iii. 8.
The common people in New England still employ be in the present tense of the indicative, except in the third person. They almost universally say, I be, we be, you be, and they be. While be remained the proper substantive verb in the indicative, it was very correctly employed after the conjunctions, If he be, tho he be, but when, am, are, art and is were substituted in the indicative, they should likewise have been employed in the subjunctive; for the latter is resolvable into the former.
From the facts produced, and the remarks made, we may draw the following conclusions; that the distinction made by grammarians between the present tense of the indicative and subjunctive mode in English, is not well founded; that it is not warranted by the construction of the language, nor by the analogy of other languages; that the expressions commonly supposed to be in the present tense of the subjunctive, are mostly in fact an elliptical form of the future in the indicative, and that the present translation of the Bible cannot be vindicated on any other supposition; that the present practice, both in speaking and writing, is generally in favor of the indicative after the conjunctions; and consequently, that the arrangement of the verbs by Lowth and his followers, is calculated to lead both foreigners and natives into error.
I have been more particular upon this article, because the Scotch writers, many of whom stand among the first authors of the British nation, follow the usual grammatical division of verbs, and thus write a stile not conformed to the present practice of speaking.
In the use of what is called the imperfect tense, after the conjunctions, there is something peculiar, which has not yet been sufficiently explained. On examination it will probably be found that custom has established one singular distinction in the sense of verbs in different tenses, a knowlege of which is necessary to enable us to speak and write with precision. This distinction will readily be understood by a few examples.
A servant calls on me for a book, which his master would borrow. If I am uncertain whether I have that book or not, I reply in this manner; "If the book is in my library, or if I have the book, your master shall be welcome to the use of it."
But if I am certain I do not possess the book, the reply is different; "I have not the book you mention; if I had, it should be at your master's service."
Both these forms of speaking are correct; but the question is, what is the difference? It cannot be in time; for both refer to the same. The ideas both respect present time; "If I have it now, it shall be at your master's service"—"If I had it now, it should be." The distinction in the meaning is universally understood, and is simply this; the first expresses uncertainty; the last implies certainty, but in a peculiar manner; for an affirmative sentence implies a positive negation; and a negative sentence implies a positive affirmation. Thus, if I had the book, implies a positive denial of having it; if I had not the book, implies that I have it: And both speak of possessing or not possessing it at this present time.
The same distinction runs thro all the verbs in the language. A man, shut up in an interior apartment, would say to his friend, "if it rains you cannot go home." This would denote the speaker's uncertainty. But on coming to the door and ascertaining the fact, he would say, "if it rained, you should not go;" or, "if it did not rain, you might go." Can these verbs be in past time? By no means; if it did not rain now, you could go, is present, for the present existence of the fact prevents the man from going.
These forms of speech are established by unanimous consent in practice.
"It remaineth that they who have wives, be as tho they had none, and they that weep, as tho they wept not; and they that rejoice, as tho they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as tho they possessed not."——1 Cor. vii. 29, 30.[116]
"Nay, and the villains march wide betwixt the legs, as if they had gyves on."——1 Henry IV.
"We have not these antiquities; and if we had them, they would add to our uncertainty."——Bolingbroke on Hist. let. 3.
"Whereas, had I (if I had) still the same woods to range in, which I once had, when I was a fox hunter, I should not resign my manhood for a maintenance."——Spect. No. 14.
"I confess I have not great taste for poetry; but if I had, I am apt to believe I should read none but Mr. Pope's."[117]—— Shenstone on Men and Manners.
Whatever these verbs may be in declaratory phrases, yet after the conditional conjunctions if and tho, they often express present ideas, as in the foregoing examples. In such cases, this form of the verb may be denominated the hypothetical present tense. This would distinguish it from the same form, when it expresses uncertainty in the past time; for this circumstance must not be passed without notice. Thus, "If he had letters by the last mail," denotes the speaker's uncertainty as to a past fact or event. But, "if he had a book, he would lend it," denotes a present certainty that he has it not. The times referred to are wholly distinct.
As the practice of all writers and good speakers, and even of the vulgar, is nearly uniform in the distinction here mentioned, it is needless to produce more examples for illustration. One verb however deserves a separate consideration; which is be. In the use of this verb in the hypothetical sense, there is a difference between good authors and common parlance; the first write were, but most people in conversation say, was. Thus,
"Every rich man has usually some sly way of jesting, which would make no great figure, were he not rich."——Spect. No. 2.
"He will often argue, that if this part of our trade were well cultivated, we should gain from one nation," &c.—— Same.
"Were I (if I were) a father, I should take a particular care to preserve my children from these little horrors of imagination."——Same, No. 12.
"Nor think, tho men were none,
That heaven would want spectators, God want praise."
Milton, P. L.
"What then he was, oh, were your Nestor now."
Pope, Iliad, b. 7. 189.
"Yes, if the nature of a clock were to speak, not strike."——Ben Johnson.
"Where the poor knave erroneously believes,
If he were rich, he would build churches, or
Do such mad things."——Same.
Were, in these examples, is the same hypothetical present tense just described, having not the least reference to the past.[118] But in conversation, we generally hear was; "if I was in his place;" "if he was here now," &c. and I observe that modern writers are copying the general practice.
"If I was not afraid of being thought to refine too much."—Boling. Refl. on Exile.
Both these forms have such authorities to support them, that neither can be considered as wholly incorrect; they are both English. But custom will eventually establish the latter, was, as the hypothetical form of the substantive verb. It is now almost universally used, except in books; and the tide of general practice is irresistible.
The following examples will illustrate what has been advanced.
Present time. Affirmative.
If he has or is—denotes uncertainty. If he had or were or was—denote certainty that he has not, or is not.
Negative.
If he has not or is not—uncertainty. If he had not, were not or was not—certainty that he has or is.
Past time. Affirm.
If he had or was yesterday—uncertainty. If he had have,[119] or had been yesterday—certainty that he had not, or was not.
Negative.
If he had or was not—uncertainty. If he had not have, or had not been—certainty that he had or was.[120]
I cannot close my remarks on the tenses of the English verb, without noticing a common error, which must have sprung from inattention, and is perhaps too general now to admit of correction. It is the use of the past tense after another verb or that, when the sense requires a change of tenses. Thus,
"Suppose I were to say, that to every art there was a system of such various and well approved principles."——Harris.
The first part of the sentence is hypothetical, suppose I were to say; but the last becomes declaratory under the supposition, and therefore the form of the verb should be changed to the present, indicative, that to every art there is a system: For it must be remarked that when the English speak of general existence, they use the present time; as, truth is great above all things; the scriptures are a rule of faith; the heavens display the glory of the Lord. The past or the future, in such cases, would be highly improper. Hence the absurdity of the passage just quoted; the supposition is that every art has (generally—at all times) a system of principles.
"If the taxes laid by government were the only ones we had to pay."
The author's meaning is, "the only taxes we have to pay;" and he was probably led into the mistake by not understanding the preceding hypothetical verb, were, which actually speaks of the present time conditionally.
The error will be more striking in the following passages.
"If an atheist would well consider the arguments in this book, he would confess there was a God."
There was a God! And why not confess that there is a God? The writer did not consider that the first part of the sentence is conditional, and that the last ought to be declaratory of a fact always existing.
"Two young men have made a discovery that there was a God."——Swift's Arg. against Abolishing Christianity.
A curious discovery indeed! Were the Dean still alive, he might find there is a great inaccuracy in that passage of his works.
"Yet were we to use the same word, where the figure was manifest, we should use the preposition from."——Priestley, Gram. p. 158.
Here is the same error, and the author may live to correct it.
But of all this class of mistakes, the following is the most palpable.
"I am determined to live, as if there was a future life."——Hammon, quoted by Price and Priestley.
Hammon is an atheist, and it would require the same abilities to reconcile the two words was future, as to reconcile his principles with the common sense of mankind.[121]
The following passage, from Gregory's Comparative View of the State and Faculties of Man, is remarkable for this error.
"Men have been taught that they did (do) God acceptable service, by abstracting themselves from all the duties they owed (owe) to society; and by inflicting on themselves the severest tortures which nature can support. They have been taught that it was (is) their duty," &c.
"And yet one would think that this was the principal use of the study of history."——Bolingbroke on Hist. letter 3.
A similar fault occurs in one of Mrs. Thale's letters to Dr. Johnson, Aug. 9, 1775.
"—Yet I have always found the best supplement for talk was writing."
So in Blackstone's Commentaries, book 1. chap. 7.
"It was observed in a former chapter, that one of the principal bulwarks of civil liberty, or, in other words, of the British constitution, was the limitation of the king's prerogative."
The observation had been made in time past, but respecting a fact that exists now, and at all times while the British constitution exists. The sentence therefore should run thus; "it was observed that one principal bulwark of civil liberty, is the limitation of the king's prerogative."
No fault is more common; we every day hear such expressions as these; "If I thought it was so;" "suppose I should say she was handsome;" "I did not think it was so late," &c. Was, in the first and last examples, should be the infinitive, to be; and in the second, the present time, is. Had proper attention been paid to our language, so many palpable mistakes would not have crept into practice, and into the most correct and elegant writings. Dr. Reid is perhaps the only writer who has generally avoided this error.
The Greek and Roman writers were not guilty of such mistakes. Either the varieties of inflection in their languages, or superior care in the writers, made them attentive to the nice distinctions of time. In the following passage, the translators of the Bible, by adhering closely to the original, have avoided the common error before mentioned.
"I knew thee that thou art an hard man."—Matth. xxv. 24. "Εγνων ὁτι σκληρος ει ανθρωπος;" literally, having known that thou art an hard man. So also ver. 26, "Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap, where I sowed not;" "ηδεις ὁτι θεριζω." Had these passages been translated into the careless stile of modern conversation, and even of many excellent writings, they would have stood thus—"I knew thee that thou wast an hard man"—"thou knewest that I reaped where I sow not." But the general character and conduct of the person mentioned in this parable, are supposed to exist at all times while he is living; and this general nature of the fact requires the verb to be in the present time. To confirm this remark let the sentences be inverted; "thou art an hard man, I knew thee to be such, or I knew it." "I reap where I sowed not, thou knewest that." This is an indubitable evidence of the accuracy of the translation.[122]
An inversion of the order of the sentence in the passages first quoted, will show the common error in a most striking light.
"There was a God, two young men have made that discovery." "Men did God acceptable service, by abstracting themselves, &c. they have been taught this; it was their duty, they have been taught this." "The taxes we had to pay to government, if these were the only ones." This will not make sense to a man who has taxes still to pay; the writer's had to pay will not discharge the public debt. But it is unnecessary to multiply examples and arguments; the reader must be already convinced that these errors exist, and that I ought not to have been the first to notice them.
Sometimes this hypothetical tense is used with an infinitive for the future. In the following passage it seems to be correct.
"I wish I were to go to the Elysian fields, when I die, and then I should not care if I were to leave the world tomorrow."——Pope.
But the following are hardly vindicable.
"Suppose they marched up to our mines with a numerous army, how could they subsist for want of provision."——Moyle, Diss. on the Rev. of Athens.
"If they foraged in small parties."——Same.
The sense is future, and therefore should march, should forage, would have been more correct.
"I should not act the part of an impartial spectator, if I dedicated the following papers to one who is not of the most consummate and acknowleged merit."——Spect. Dedic.
If I should dedicate, would have been more accurate.
A similar fault occurs in the following passage.
"If nature thunder'd in his opening ears,
And stunn'd him with the music of the spheres."
Pope, Essay on Man.
If nature should thunder and stun him, is the meaning.
There is another article that deserves to be mentioned; which is, the use of a verb after as or than, apparently without a nominative.
"This unlimited power is what the best legislators of all ages have endeavored to deposit in such hands, as would preserve the people from rapine."——Swift, vol. 2. Contests, &c.
"Would preserve" seems to have no nominative, for hands cannot be inserted without changing the form of the sentence; in those hands which would preserve.
"A hypocrite hath so many things to attend to, as make his life a very perplexed and intricate thing."——Tillotson.
This mode of expression is however well established and occasions no obscurity. The truth is, as is an article or relative equivalent to that or which; and the criticisms of Lowth on the conjunctions, where he condemns the use of as and so in a number of instances, prove that he knew nothing about the true meaning of these words. See Diversions of Purley, page 283.
Another form of expression, peculiar to our language, is the participial noun, a word derived from a verb, and having the properties, both of a verb and a noun; as, "I heard of his acquiring a large estate." Acquiring here expresses the act done, the acquisition; yet governs the following objective case, estate. When a noun precedes the participle, it takes the sign of the possessive, "I heard of a man's acquiring an estate." This is the genuin English idiom; and yet modern writers very improperly omit the sign of the possessive, as, I heard of a man acquiring an estate. This omission often changes the sense of the phrase or leaves it ambiguous.
The omission of the sign of the possessive in the following example is a very great fault.
"Of a general or public act, the courts of law are bound to take notice judicially and ex officio, without the statute being particularly pleaded."——Blackstone Comment. vol. 1. p. 86.
The preposition without here governs the phrase following, which might otherwise be properly arranged thus, without the particular pleading of the statute, or without pleading the statute particularly. But as the sentence stands, there is nothing to show the true construction, or how the sentence may be resolved: Being and pleaded both stand as participles; whereas the construction requires that they should be considered as standing for a noun; for without does not govern statute; without the statute, is not the meaning of the writer. But it governs pleading, or refers immediately to that idea or union of ideas, expressed by being particularly pleaded. As these last words represent a noun, which is immediately governed by the preposition, without, the word statute should have the sign of the possessive, as much as any word in the genitive case, without the statute's being particularly pleaded; that is, without the particular pleading of the statute by the parties; for in order to make grammar or sense, statute must be in the possessive.
To confirm these remarks, I would just add, that when we substitute a pronoun in such cases, we always use the possessive case. Suppose the word statute had been previously used, in the sentence; the writer then would have used the pronoun in the close of the sentence, thus; "without its being particularly pleaded;" and I presume that no person will contend for the propriety of, "without it being pleaded."
So we should say, "a judge will not proceed to try a criminal, without his being present." But would it be correct to say, without him being present? This mode of speaking will not, I am confident, be advocated: But unless I am mistaken, this last expression stands on a footing with the example cited, without the statute being pleaded. Numberless similar examples occur in those modern writers who aim at refinement of language. "If we can admit the doctrine of the stomach having a general consent with the whole system."—"On account of the system being too highly toned," &c. It is strange the writers of such language do not see that there are in fact two possessives in such phrases—"on account of the too high toning of the system," and that both should be expressed; thus, "on account of the system's being too high toned."
It may be questioned whether the verb need may not with propriety be used in the third person singular of the indicative, present, without the usual termination of that person. Practice will at least warrant it.
"But tho the principle is to be applauded, the error cannot, and, in this enlightened age, happily need not be defended."——Erskine, Orat. Temp. vol. 1. p. 95.
"Now a person need but enter into himself and reflect on the operations of his own mind."——Nugent's Burlamaqui, 1. I. 9.
"Hence it was adjudged, that the use need not always be executed the instant the conveyance is made."——Blackstone, Com. b. 2. chap. 20.
Numberless authorities of this kind may be produced; but we may spare the trouble, and only advert to the constant practice of speakers of every class; "he need not;" "it need not." Indeed, he needs not, altho grammatically correct, is so offensive to most ears, that we have little reason to expect people will be persuaded to use it.
The same may be said of dare; "he dare not."
I am mistaken, Lowth reprobates as bad English; asserting that the phrase is equivalent to I am misunderstood. In this criticism the Bishop is mistaken most grossly. Whether the phrase is a corruption of am mistaking or not, is wholly immaterial; in the sense the English have used it from time immemorial and universally, mistaken is a mere adjective, signifying that one is in an error; and this sense the Bishop should have explained, and not rejected the phrase.