Dissertations on the English Language, with Notes, Historical and Critical; / to Which is Added, by Way of Appendix, an Essay on a Reformed Mode of Spelling, With Dr. Franklin's Arguments on that Subject

by Noah Webster

TIME.

Time is naturally divided into past, present and future. The English verb has but two variations of ending to express time; the present, as love, write; and the past, as loved, wrote. The usual division of tenses, or combinations of words corresponding to the Latin tenses, is not wholly accurate. The definition of the second tense, in the ordinary arrangement of them in Latin grammars, may be correct, as it relates to the Roman tongue; but does not apply to the English tense, which is commonly called by the same name, the Imperfect. The Latin words movebam, legebam, are translated I moved, I read. Now the English words express actions perfectly past, and therefore the time or tense cannot be justly denominated imperfect. If the Latin words expressed, in the Roman tongue, actions imperfectly past, they should be rendered by us, I was moving, was reading, which convey ideas of actions, as taking place at some preceding period, but not then past. In this sense, the name of the tense might have been used with propriety. But the English form of expression, he moved, conveys the idea of an action completely past, and does not fall within the definition of the Latin Imperfect.

It is surprizing that the great Lowth should rank this form of the verb, they moved, under the head of indefinite or undetermined time; and yet place this form, have moved, or what is called the perfect tense, under the head of definite or determined time. The truth is, the first is the most definite. I have loved, or moved, expresses an action performed and completed, generally within a period of time not far distant; but leaves the particular point of time wholly indefinite or undetermined. On the other hand, I loved is necessarily employed, when a particular period or point of time is specified. Thus it is correct to say, I read a book yesterday, last week, ten years ago, &c. but it is not grammatical to say, I have read a book yesterday, last week, &c. so that, directly contrary to Lowth's rule, I moved, is the definite, and I have moved, the indefinite time.

Great inaccuracy is likewise indulged in the usual description of the English future tense. There is no variation of the verb to express a future action; to remedy this defect, the English use shall and will, before the verb in its radical form. But these words are both in the present time; being merely the Teutonic verbs sollen and wollen, which formerly had, and in the German still have, most of the inflections of regular verbs. Thus:

Ind. Pref. Ich soll, I ought or should. Ich will, I will.

Imp. Ich sollt, I ought or should. Ich wollt, I would.

Preter. Ich habe gesollt, I ought or should have. Ich habe gewollt, I would or would have, &c. &c.[107]

I will go is really nothing more than a present promise of a future action. I shall go is a present prediction of a future action. In the second and third persons, will expresses the prediction; and as one cannot promise for a second or third person, shall, in these persons, implies a promise of the first person, that he will command or oblige the second or third person to do an action in some future time. The whole may be thus explained:

I will go,

Is my own present promise to do a future action.

Thou wilt go—He will go,

are my (the speaker's) present predictions that the persons mentioned will do a future action; or perhaps more properly, a declaration of their inclination or intention.

I shall go,

is my present prediction of a future action.

Thou shalt go—He shall go,

are my (the speaker's) present promise that the second and third persons will do a future action. But as a man cannot compel a superior, he can promise only for himself or inferiors; therefore these last expressions imply a promise in the speaker, and a right to command the second and third persons to do the thing promised; for which reason they are used only in addressing or speaking of, inferiors or subjects. The same remarks apply to the three persons in the plural number.

Hence we observe the inaccuracy of translating the future tense of the Greeks, Romans, and French, by shall or will indifferently. It is probable that the future tense in those languages, and perhaps in others, where the tense is formed by inflections, was employed merely to foretell. If so, shall only should be used in the first person of the English translation, and will, in the second and third. Thus:

Latin.	French.	English.
Habebo,	J'aurai,	I shall have.
Habebimus,	nous aurons,	we shall have.
Habebis,	tu auras,	thou wilt have.
Habebit,	il aura,	he will have.
Habebitis,	vous aurez,	you will have.
Habebunt,	ils auront,	they will have.

On the other hand, a promise in the first person expressed in English by will, and a promise or command in the second and third, expressed by shall, seem, in these languages, to be communicated by other words or a circumlocution.

In strictness of speech therefore, we have no future tense of the verb in English; but we use auxiliaries, which, in the present tense, express a prediction of an action, or a disposition of mind to produce an action. These auxiliaries, united with the verb or affirmation, answer the purposes of the future tenses of verbs in other languages; and no inconvenience can arise from calling such a combination a tense.