3. Verbs called neuter are used in the imperative mood; and, as this mood commands some one to do something, any verb which adopts it, must be active. Thus, in the common place phrases, "Be there quickly; Stand out of my way; Sit or lie farther."
It is admitted that these verbs are here employed in an active sense; but it is certain, that they are not used according to their proper, literal meaning. When I tell a man, literally, to stand, sit, or lie, by moving he would disobey me; but when I say, "Stand out of my way," I employ the neuter verb stand, instead of the active verb move or go, and in a correspondent sense. My meaning is, Move yourself out of my way; or take your stand somewhere else. This, however, does not prove that stand is properly used. If we choose to overstep the bounds of custom, we can employ any word in the language as an active-transitive verb. Be, sit, and lie, may be explained in the same manner.
4. Neuter verbs are used in connexion with adverbs which express the manner of action. They must, therefore, be considered active verbs. The child sleeps soundly; He sits genteelly; They live contentedly and happily together.
The class of verbs that are never employed as active, is small. By using adverbs in connexion with verbs, we can fairly prove that some verbs are not active. It is incorrect to say, I am happily; They were peacefully; She remains quietly; The fields appear greenly. These verbs in their common acceptation, do not express action; for which reason we say, I am happy; They are peaceful; &c. But in the expressions, The child sleeps soundly; She sits gracefully; They live happily and contentedly; we employ the verbs sleeps, sits, and live, in an active sense. When no action is intended, we say, They live happy and contented.
If, on scientific principles, it can be proved that those verbs generally denominated neuter, originally expressed action, their present, accepted meaning will still oppose the theory, for the generality of mankind do not attach to them the idea of action.
Thus I have endeavored to present a brief but impartial abstract of the modern theory of the verb, leaving it with the reader to estimate it according to its value.
To give a satisfactory definition of the verb, or such a one as shall be found scientifically correct and unexceptionable, has hitherto baffled the skill, and transcended the learning, of our philosophical writers. If its essential quality, as is generally supposed, is made to consist in expressing affirmation, it remains still to be defined when a verb expresses affirmation. In English, and in other languages, words appropriated to express affirmation, are often used without any such force; our idea of affirmation, in such instances, being the mere inference of custom.
In the sentence,—"Think, love, and hate, denote moral actions," the words think, love, and hate, are nouns, because they are mere names of actions. So, when I say, "John, write—is an irregular verb," the word write is a noun; but when I say, "John, write—your copy," write is called a verb.
Why is this word considered a noun in one construction, and a verb in the other, when both constructions, until you pass beyond the word write, are exactly alike? If write does not express action in the former sentence, neither does it in the latter, for, in both, it is introduced in the same manner. On scientific principles, write must be considered a noun in the latter sentence, for it does not express action, or make an affirmation; but it merely names the action which I wish John to perform, and affirmation is the inferential meaning.
The verb in the infinitive, as well as in the imperative mood, is divested of its affirmative or verbal force. In both these moods, it is always presented in its noun-state.