NOTE. The perfect participle of a regular verb, corresponds exactly with the imperfect tense; yet the former may, at all times, be distinguished from the latter, by the following rule: In composition, the imperfect tense of a verb always has a nominative, either expressed or implied: the perfect participle never has.
For your encouragement, allow me to inform you, that when you shall have learned to conjugate the verb to love, you will be able to conjugate all the regular verbs in the English language, for they are all conjugated precisely in the same manner. By pursuing the following direction, you can, in a very short time, learn to conjugate any verb. Conjugate the verb love through all the moods and tenses, in the first person singular, with the pronoun I before it, and speak the Participles: thus, Indicative mood, pres. tense, first pers. sing. I love, imperf. tense, I loved; perf. tense, I have loved; and so on, through every mood and tense. Then conjugate it in the second pers. sing, with the pronoun thou before it, through all the moods and tenses; thus, Indic. mood, pres. tense, second pers. sing, thou lovest; imperf. tense, thou lovedst; and so on, through the whole. After that, conjugate it in the third pers. sing, with he before it; and then in the first pers. plural, with we before it, in like manner through all the moods and tenses. Although this mode of procedure may, at first, appear to be laborious, yet, as it is necessary, I trust you will not hesitate to adopt it. My confidence in your perseverance, induces me to recommend any course which I know will tend to facilitate your progress.
When you shall have complied with my requisition, you may conjugate the following verbs in the same manner; which will enable you, hereafter, to tell the mood and tense of any verb without hesitation: walk, hate, smile, rule, conquer, reduce, relate, melt, shun, fail.
PHILOSOPHICAL NOTES.
The changes in the termination of words, in all languages, have been formed by the coalescence of words of appropriate meaning. This subject was approached on page 49. It is again taken up for the purpose of showing, that the moods and tenses, as well as the number and person, of English verbs, do not solely depend on inflection.
The coalescing syllables which form the number and person of the Hebrew verb, are still considered pronouns; and, by those who have investigated the subject, it is conceded, that the same plan has been adopted in the formation of the Latin and Greek verbs, as in the Hebrew. Some languages have carried this process to a very great extent. Ours is remarkable for the small number of its inflections. But they who reject the passive verb, and those moods and tenses which are formed by employing what are called "auxiliary verbs," because they are formed of two or more verbs, do not appear to reason soundly. It is inconsistent to admit, that walk-eth, and walk-ed, are tenses, because each is but one word, and to reject have walked, and will walk, as tenses, because each is composed of two words. Eth, as previously shown, is a contraction of doeth, or haveth, and ed, of dede, dodo, doed, or did; and, therefore, walk-eth; i.e. walk-doeth, or doeth-walk, and walk-ed; i.e. walk-did, or doed or did-walk, are, when analyzed, as strictly compound, as will walk, shall walk, and have walked. The only difference in the formation of these tenses, is, that in the two former, the associated verbs have been contracted and made to coalesce with the main verb, but in the two latter, they still maintain their ground as separate words.
If it be said that will walk is composed of two words, each of which conveys a distinct idea, and, therefore, should be analyzed by itself, the same argument with all its force, may be applied to walk-eth, walk-ed, walk-did, or did walk. The result of all the investigations of this subject, appears to settle down into the hackneyed truism, that the passive verbs, and the moods and tenses, of some languages, are formed by inflections, or terminations either prefixed or postfixed, and of other languages, by the association of auxiliary verbs, which have not yet been contracted and made to coalesce as terminations. The auxiliary, when contracted into a terminating syllable, retains its distinct and intrinsic meaning, as much as when associated with a verb by juxtaposition: consequently, an "auxiliary verb" may form a part of a mood or tense, or passive verb, with as much propriety as a terminating syllable. They who contend for the ancient custom of keeping the auxiliaries distinct, and parsing them as primary verbs, are, by the same principle, bound to extend their dissecting-knife to every compound word in the language.
Having thus attempted briefly to prove the philosophical accuracy of the theory which recognises the tenses, moods, and passive verbs, formed by the aid of auxiliaries, I shall now offer one argument to show that this theory, and this only, will subserve the purposes of the practical grammarian.
As it is not so much the province of philology to instruct in the exact meaning of single and separate words, as it is to teach the student to combine and employ them properly in framing sentences, and as those combinations which go by the name of compound tenses and passive verbs, are necessary in writing and discourse, it follows, conclusively, that that theory which does not explain these verbs in their combined state, cannot teach the student the correct use and application of the verbs of our language. By such an arrangement, he cannot learn when it is proper to use the phrases, shall have walked, might have gone, have seen, instead of, shall walk, might go, and saw; because this theory has nothing to do with the combining of verbs. If it be alleged, that the speaker or writer's own good sense must guide him in combining these verbs, and, therefore, that the directions of the grammarian are unnecessary, it must be recollected, that such an argument would bear, equally, against every principle of grammar whatever. In short, the theory of the compound tenses, and of the passive verb, appears to be so firmly based in the genius of our language, and so practically important to the student, as to defy all the engines of the paralogistic speculator, and the philosophical quibbler, to batter it down.