"ad quem tendebant, et speciem advenientis adhuc "retinent."

Præsens....quia præsens fuit, et præsens erit! Præsens....extremum præteriti punctum, et primum futuri!

Advenientes....qui pervenerunt !

These shabby evasions are themselves sufficient argument against those who use them. A common termination (i. e. a coalesced word) like every other word, must always convey the same distinct meaning; and can only then be properly used, quando distinctio requiritur. What sort of word would that be, which, (used too with propriety) sometimes had a meaning, and sometimes had not a meaning, and sometimes a different meaning? Thus stands the whole matter. Case, gender, number, are no parts of the NoUN. But as these same circumstances frequently accompany the noun, these circumstances are signified by other words expressive of these circumstances: and in some languages these words by their perpetual use have coalesced with the noun: their separate significacation has been lost sight of (except in their proper application;) and these words have been considered as mere artificial terminations of the NoUN.

So, mood, tense, number, person, are no parts of the VERB. But these same circumstances frequently accompanying the verb, are then signified by other words expressive of these circumstances: and again, in some languages, these latter words, by their perpetual recurrence, have coalesced with the verb; their separate signification has been lost sight of (except in their proper application;) and these

words have been considered as mere artificial ter

minations of the VERB.

The proper application of these coalesced words, or terminations, to nouns, has been called declension: and to verbs, has been called conjugation. And perhaps this arrangement and these denominations may have greatly contributed to withdraw us from a proper consideration of this matter: for we are all very apt to rest satisfied with a name, and to inquire no farther.

And thus have I given you my opinion concerning what is called the present participle. Which I think improperly so called; because I take it to be merely the simple verb adjectived, without any adsignification of manner or time.

1

H. Now then let us proceed to the past participle, which you chuse to call the past tense adjective.

F. As far as relates to what is called the indicative mood, and consequently to its adjective, the participle present; you have seen that, so far, Sanctius and I have travelled in perfect accord together. But here again I must get out at Hounslow(). I cannot proceed with him to the exclusion of the other moods and tenses: for, in Latin, they have distinct terminations, and in English, termination and auxiliaries, signifying the circumstances

(6) This is a political allusion; when the anthor was accused of a crime for being an advocate of reform and an enemy to parliamentary corruption; on being questioned as to his share in the political proceedings of which the late Mr. Pitt was also a participator; Tooke said that no doubt some reformers might wish to go as far as Windsor, but he would not accompany them beyond Hounslow. Windsor is the royal residence; Hounslow, a place noted for robbery and gibbets.

AMER. EDIT.

of manner and time. Nor, consequently, can I consent to exclude the other participles, which are indeed merely those moods and tenses, adjectived; and do truly therefore adsignify manner and time. The manner being adjectived as well as the time (i. e. the mood as well as the tense ;) and both for the same reason, and with the same convenience and advantage. In our own language these manners and times are usually (but not always) signified by words distinct from the verb, which we call auxiliaries. In some other languages they are signified also by words, different indeed from the verb, but which have coalesced with the verb, and are now considered merely as terminations; equally auxiliary however with our uncoalescing words, and used for the same purpose.

I hold then that we may and do adjective the simple verb without adsignification of manner or time: that we may and do adjective the verb in conjunction with an expressed time and that we may and do adjective the verb in conjunction with an expressed manner. I hold that all these are greatly and equally convenient for the abbreviating of speech: and that the language which has more of these conveniences does so far forth excel the language which has fewer.

The past participle, or the past tense adjective, our language has long enjoyed; and it is obtained (as we also adjective the noun) by adding en or ed to the past tense of the verb. The Latin makes an adjective of the past tense (as it also makes an

adjective of the noun) merely by adding its article os. n. ov. to the third person of the past tense. Amavit, amavitus, amavtus, amatus.

Docuit, docuitus, docitus, doctus.
Legit, legitus, legtus, lectus.

Audivit, audivitus, audivtus, auditus.

And that this past participle is merely the past tense adjective; that it has merely the same meaning as the past tense, and no other; is most evident in English: because, in the same manner as we often throw one noun substantive to another noun substantive, without any change of termination to shew that it is so intended to be thrown; we are likewise accustomed to use the past tense itself without any change of termination, instead of this past participle: and the past tense so used, answers the purpose equally with the participle, and conveys the same meaning.

Dr. Lowth, who was much better acquainted with Greek and Latin than with English, and had a perfectly elegant Greek and Latin taste, finds great fault with this our English custom; calls it confusion, absurdity, and a very gross corruption; pronounces it altogether barbarous, and wholly inexcusable; and complains that it...." is too much "authorized by the example of some of our best "writers." He then gives instances of this inexcusable barbarism from Shakespear, Milton, Dryden, Clarendon, Atterbury, Prior, Swift, Addison, Misson, Bolingbroke, Pope, and Gay. And if he had been pleased to go farther back than Shakespear, he might also have given instances of the same

1

from every writer in the English tongue. It is the idiom of the language. He is therefore undoubtedly in an error, when he says that...." This abuse has "been long growing upon us, and is continually "making further incroachments." For, on the contrary, the custom has greatly decreased: and as the Greek and Latin languages have become more familiar to Englishmen, and more general; our language has continually proceeded more and more to bend and incline to the rules and customs of those languages. And we have greatly benefited by those languages; and have improved our own language, by borrowing from them a more abbreviated and compact method of speech. And had our early or later authors known the nature of the benefits we were receiving; we might have benefited much more extensively.

However we shall be much to blame, if, with Dr. Lowth, we miss the advantage which our less cultivated language affords us by its defects: for by those very defects it will assist us much to discover the nature of human speech, by a comparison of our own language with more cultivated languages. And this it does eminently in the present instances of the past participle and the noun adjective. For, since we can and do use our noun itself unaltered, and our past tense itself unaltered, for the same purpose and with the same meaning, as the Greek and Latin use their adjective and their participle; it is manifest that their adjective and participle are merely their noun and past tense, adjectived.