Edward Dicey - "Rome in 1860"

Carl Lumholtz - "Unknown Mexico, Volume 1 (of 2)"

Maria Thompson Daviess - "The Golden Bird"

H. A. Cody - "Rod of the Lone Patrol"

A Life Split in Two
An astonishing account of the intricate and unexpected swarm intelligence of wasps, bees, ants and termites.

E Pluribus Unum
Two centuries after Gibbon, a historian plots the trajectory of another great empire’s demise.

Little Britain
Carolyn Chute’s new novel is a love song to a voiceless part of America: the rural poor.

William S. Balch - Lectures on Language

W >> William S. Balch >> Lectures on Language




_Tense_ means _time_. We distinguish time according to certain events
which are generally observed. In the use of the verb we express action
in reference to periods of time when it is performed.

There are three tenses, or divisions of time; _past_, _present_, and
_future_.

_Past tense_ applies to actions which are accomplished; as, I _wrote_ a
book; he _recited_ his lesson.

_Present tense_ denotes actions commenced, but not finished, and now in
operation; as, he _reads_ his book; we _sit_ on our seats and _hear_ the
lecture.

_Future tense_ refers to actions, which are _to take_ place hereafter;
as, I am _to go_ from the Institute; we desire _to learn_ grammar
correctly.

Every body can mark three plain distinctions of time, past, present, and
future. With the past we have been acquainted. It has ceased to be. Its
works are ended. The present is a mere line--, nothing as it
were--which is constantly passing unchecked from the past to the future.
It is a mere division of the past and future. The Hebrew, which is
strictly a philosophic language, admits no present; only a _past_ and
_future_. We speak of the present as denoting an action begun and not
finished. In the summer, we say the trees grow, and bear fruit. But when
the fruit is fallen, and the leaves seared by the frost, we change the
expression, and say, it _grew_ and _bore_ fruit.

Of the _future_ we can know nothing definitely. Heaven has hung before
all human eyes an impenetrable veil which obscures all future events. No
man without prophetic vision bestowed by Him who "sees the end from the
beginning," can know what is _to be_, and no expression can be made, no
words employed which will positively declare a future action. We may see
a present condition of things, and from it argue what is _to be_, or
take place hereafter; but all that knowledge is drawn from the past and
deduced from a review of the present relation and tendencies of things.

I hold the paper near the fire and you say it _will_ burn, and you say
truly, for it has a _will_, or what is the same, an inherent tendency
_to burn_. It is made of combustible matter, like paper which we have
seen burn, and hence we argue this has the same tendency to be consumed.
But how does your mind arrive at that fact? If you had never seen a
substance like it burn, why should you conclude this _will_? Does the
child know it _will_ burn? No; for it has not yet learned the quality of
the paper. It is not till the child has been burned that it dreads the
fire. Suppose I take some asbestus, of the kind called amianthus, which
is a mineral, and is formed of slender flexible fibres like flax; and in
eastern countries, especially in Savoy and Corsica, is manufactured into
cloth, paper, and lamp wicks. It was used in making winding sheets for
the dead, in which the bodies were burned, and the ashes, retained in
the incombustible sheet, were gathered into an urn, and revered as the
manes of the dead. Suppose I take some of this incombustible paper or
cloth, and present to you. You say it _will_ burn. Why do you say thus?
Because you have seen other materials which appear like this, consume to
ashes. Let us put it into the fire. It _will not_ burn. It has no
_tendency_ to burn; no quality which will consume. But this is a new
idea to you and hence your mistake. You did not know it _would_ burn,
nor could you _indicate_ such a fact. You only told your opinion derived
from the present appearance of things, and hence you made an assertion
in the _indicative_ mood, present tense, and added to it an _infinitive_
mood, in order to deduce the consequence of this future action--it
_wills_, or has a _tendency_ to burn. But you were mistaken, because
ignorant of the _nature_ of things. This amianthus looks like flax, and
to a person unacquainted with it, appears to be as truly combustible;
but the mineralogist, and all who know its properties, know very well
that it _will_ not--wills nothing, has no inclination, or tendency, to
burn.

Take another example. Here is a steel needle. I hold it before you. You
say, "if I let go of it, it _will_ fall," and you say correctly, for it
has such a tendency. But suppose a magnet, as great as that which is
said to have drawn the iron coffin of Mohammed to the roof of the temple
at Mecca, should be placed in the room above us. The needle, instead of
falling to the floor, would be drawn in the nearest direction to that
magnet. The _will_ or _tendency_ of the needle, as generally understood,
would be overcome, the natural law of gravitation would lose its
influence, by the counteracting power of the loadstone.

I say, "I will go home in an hour." But does that expression _indicate_
the act of _going_? It is placed in the indicative mood in our grammars;
and _go_ is the principal, and _will_ the auxiliary verb. May be I shall
fall and die before I reach my home. But the expression is correct;
_will_ is _present_, go _future_. I _will_, I now _resolve_, am now
inclined _to go_ home.

You see the correctness of our position, that we can not positively
assert a future active in the indicative mood. Try and form to
yourselves a phrase by which it can be done. Should you succeed, you
would violate a law of nature. You would penetrate the dark curtain of
the future, and claim to yourself what you do not possess, a power to
declare future actions. Prophets, by the help of the Almighty, had this
power conferred upon them. But in the revelation of the sublime truths
they were instructed to make known, they were compelled to adopt human
language, and make it agree with our manner of speech.

The only method by which we express a future event, is to make an
assertion in the indicative mood, present tense, and to that append the
natural consequence in the infinitive or unlimited; as, I _am to go_ to
Boston. He is preparing _to visit_ New-York. The infinitive mood is
always future to the circumstance on which it depends.

Mr. Murray says, that "tense, being the distinction of time, might seem
to admit of only the present, past, and future; but to mark it more
_accurately_, it is made to consist of six variations, viz.: the
present, imperfect, perfect, pluperfect, first and second future
tenses." This _more accurate mark_, only serves to expose the author's
folly, and distract the learner's mind. Before, all was plain. The past,
present, and future are distinct, natural divisions, easily understood
by all. But what idea can a person form of an _imperfect_ tense in
action. If there was ever such an action in the world, it was when
_grammarians_ =made= their grammars, which is, if I mistake not,
according to their own authority, in the _im-perfect_ tense! I _wrote_ a
letter. He _read_ his piece well. The scholar learn_ed_ and recit_ed_
his lesson _perfectly_; and yet _learned_, tho made _perfect_ by the
qualification of an _adverb_, is an _imperfect_ action!

But this explains the whole mystery in the business of grammar. We can
here discover the cause of all the troubles and difficulties we have
encountered in the whole affair. When authors _made_ their books, they
_did_ it _imperfectly_; when teachers _taught_ them, it was
_imperfectly_; and when scholars _learned_ them, it was _imperfectly_!!
So at last, we have found the origin of this whole difficulty, in the
grammars themselves; it was all imperfectly done.

But here, again, _mirabile dictu!_ wonderful to tell, we are presented
with a _plu-perfect_ tense; that is,--_plus_ means _more_,--a _more_
than perfect tense! What must that be? If a thing is perfect, we can not
easily conceive any thing beyond. That is a _ne plus ultra_ to all
advancement--there can be no more beyond. If any change is introduced,
it must be by falling from _perfect_ back to _imperfect_.

I _have said_, "many of the distinctions in the grammar books _have
proved_ mischievous; that they are as false as frivolous;" and
this is said _perfectly_, in the perfect tense. If I should say,
"they _had been_ of some benefit," that would be _more_ than
_perfect_--plu-perfect. But when I say, "they _exhibited_ great depth
of research, and _conveyed_ some light on the subject of which they
_treated_," it would all be _im_-perfect.

Next, we are presented with a _second future_ tense, which attempts a
division of time unbounded and unknown. In the greek, they have what is
called a "_paulo post future_," which in plain english, means a "_little
after the future_;" that is, I suppose, when futurity has come to an
end, this tense will commence! At that time we may expect to meet a
"_praeter plus quam perfectum_"--a more than perfect tense! But till that
period shall arrive, we see little need of making such false and
unphilosophic distinctions.

A teacher once told me that he explained the distinctions of time to his
scholars from the clock dial which stood in the school room. Suppose
_twelve_ o'clock represents the _present_ tense; _nine_ would signify
the _perfect_; any thing between nine and twelve would be _imperfect_;
any thing beyond, _pluperfect_. On the other hand, any act, forward of
twelve, would be _future_; and at _three_ the _second future_ would
commence. I remarked that I thought this a wonderful improvement,
especially to those who were able to have clocks by which to teach
grammar, but that I could not discover why he did not have _three
future_, as well as _three past_ tenses. Why, he said, there were no
such tenses marked in the books, and hence there was no occasion to
explain them. I asked him why he did not have a tense for every hour,
and so he could distinguish with Mr. Webster, _twelve_ tenses, without
any trouble whatever; and, by going three times round the dial, he could
easily prove the correctness of Dr. Beattie's division; for he says, in
his grammar, there are _thirty-six_ tenses, and thinks there can not be
less without "introducing confusion in the grammatical _art_." But he
thought such a course would serve rather to perplex than enlighten; and
so thought I. But he was the teacher of a popular school in the city
of ----, and had published a duodecimo grammar of over 300 pages,
entitled "Murray's Grammar, _improved_, by ----." I will not give his
name; it would be libellous!

Mr. Murray thinks because certain things which he asserts, but does not
prove, are found in greek and latin, "we may doubtless apply them to the
english verb; and extend the principle _as far as convenience_, and the
idiom of our language require." He found it to his "convenience" to note
_six_ principal, and as many _indefinite_ tenses. Mr. Webster does the
same. Dr. Beattie found it "convenient" to have _thirty-six_. In the
greek they have _nine_. Mr. Bauzee distinguishes in the french _twenty_
tenses; and the royal academy of Spain present a very learned and
elaborate treatise on _seven future tenses_ in that language. The clock
dial of my friend would be found quite "_convenient_" in aiding the
"convenience" of such distinctions.

The fact is, there are only three real divisions of time in any
language, because there are only three in nature, and the ideas of all
nations must agree in this respect. In framing language it was found
impossible to mark any other distinctions, without introducing other
words than those which express simple action. These words became
compounded in process of time, till they are now used as changes of the
same verb. I would here enter into an examination of the formation of
the tenses of greek, latin, french, spanish, and german verbs, did I
conceive it necessary, and show you how, by compounding two words, they
form the various tenses found in the grammars. But it will be more
edifying to you to confine my remarks to our own language. Here it will
be found impossible to distinguish more than three tenses, or find the
verb in any different form, except by the aid of other words, wholly
foreign from those that express the action under consideration.

It is by the aid of auxiliary verbs that the perfect, pluperfect, or
future tenses are formed. But when it is shown you that these are
principal verbs, and like many other words, are used before the
infinitive mood without the word _to_ prefixed to them, you will
perceive the consistency of the plan we propose. That such is the fact
we have abundant evidence to show, and with your consent we will
introduce it in this place. I repeat, all the words long considered
auxiliaries, are _principal_ verbs, declarative of positive action, and
as such are in extensive use in our language. We can hardly agree that
the words _will_, _shall_, _may_, _must_, _can_, _could_, _would_,
_should_, etc. have no meaning, as our grammars and dictionaries would
teach us; for you may look in vain for a definition of them, as
principal verbs, with a few exceptions.

The reason these words are not found in the same relation to other
words, with a _to_ after them, is because they are so often used that we
are accustomed to drop that word. The same may be said of all small
words in frequent use; as, _bid_, _do_, _dare_, _feel_, _hear_, _have_,
_let_, _make_, _see_, and sometimes _needs_, _tell_, and a few others.
Bid him go. I _dare say_ so. I _feel_ it _move_. We _hear_ him _sing_.
_Let_ us _go_. _Make_ him _do_ it. He _must go_ thro Samaria. _Tell_ him
_do_ it immediately.

It is a singular fact, but in keeping with neuter verb systems, that all
the _neuter_ verbs as well as the active, take these auxiliary or
_helping_ verbs, which, according to their showing _help them do
nothing_--"express neither action or passion." A wonderful _help_
indeed!

* * * * *

=Will.= This verb signifies to _wish_, to _resolve_, to _exercise
volition_, in reference to a certain thing or action. "I will go." I
_now resolve_ to perform the act of going. When applied to inanimate
things incapable of volition, it signifies what is analogous to it,
_inherent tendency_; as, paper _will_ burn; iron _will_ sink; water
_will_ run. All these things have an inherent or active tendency to
change. Water is composed of minute particles of a round form, piled
together. While on a level they do not move; but let a descent be made,
and these particles, under the influence of gravitation, _will_ change
position, and roll one over another with a rapidity equalled to the
condition in which they are placed. The same may be observed in a
quantity of shot opened at one side which _will_ run thro the aperture;
but the particles being larger, they will not find a level like water.
Grain, sand, and any thing composed of small particles, _will_ exhibit
the same tendency. Iron, lead, or any mineral, in a state of igneous
solution, _will_ run, has the same _inclination_ to run as water, or any
other liquid. In oil, tallow, and lard, when expanded by heat, the same
tendency is observed; but severely chilled with the cold, it congeals,
and _will_ not, has no such _tendency_, to run.

You have doubtless observed a cask filled with water and nearly tight,
(if it is possible, make it quite so,) and when an aperture is made in
the side, it _will_ run but a trifle before it will stop. Open a vent
upon the top of the cask and it _will_ run freely. This _will_ or
tendency was counteracted by other means which I will not stop here to
explain.

This is a most important word in science, physical and moral, and may
be traced thro various languages where it exerts the same influence in
the expression of thought.

"To avoid multiplying of words, I would crave leave here, under the word
_action_, to comprehend the _forbearance_ too of any action proposed;
_sitting still_, or _holding one's peace_, when _walking_ or _speaking_
are proposed, tho mere forbearances, requiring as much the determination
of the _will_, and being as often weighty in their consequences as the
_contrary actions_, may, on that consideration, well enough pass for
actions too. For he that shall turn his thoughts inwards upon what
passes in his mind when he _wills_, shall see that the _will_ or power
of volition is conversant about nothing."--_Locke's Essay_, b. II. c.
21. Sec. 30.

It is correctly applied by writers to _matter_ as well as mind, as may
be seen by consulting their works.

"Meanwhile as nature _wills_, night bids us rest."
_Milton._

The _lupulis_, or common hop, _feels_ for some elevated object which
will assist it in its high aspirations, and _will_ climb it by winding
from left to right, and _will_ not be obliged to go in an opposite
direction; while the _phaseolus_, or kidney bean, takes the opposite
direction. Neither _will_ be compelled to change its course. They _will_
have their own way, and grow as they please, or they _will_ die in the
contest for liberty.

Arsenic has a _tendency_ in itself, a latent power, which only requires
an opportunity suited to its objects, when it _will act_ in the most
efficacious manner. It _will_ destroy the life of the Emperor, who has
_voluntarily_ slain his thousand and tens of thousands. This secret
power does not reside in the flour of wheat, for that _will not_, has no
tendency, to produce such disastrous consequences.

This word is applied in a similar manner to individuals and nations.
The man _will_ fall, not of intention, but of accident. He _will_ kill
himself. The man _will_ drown, and the boat _will_ swim. The water
_will_ hold up the boat, but it _will_ allow the man to sink. The
Russians _will_ conquer the Turks. If conquest depended solely on the
_will_, the Turks would as soon conquer as the Russians. But I have not
time to pursue this topic farther. You can follow out these hints at
your leisure.

=Shall= signifies to be _bound_, _obligated_, or _required_, from
external necessity. Its etymology may be traced back thro various
languages. It is derived direct from the saxon _scaelan_ or _scylan_,
and is found as a principal verb in that language, as well as in ours.
In the church homily they say, "To Him alone we _schall us_ to devote
ourselves;" we _bind_ or _obligate_ ourselves. Chaucer, an early english
poet, says.

"The faith we _shall_ to God."

Great difficulty has been found in distinguishing between _shall_ and
_will_, and frequent essays have been written, to give arbitrary rules
for their use. If the words were well understood, there could be no
difficulty in employing them correctly. _Will_ signifies _inherent
tendency_, _aptitude_, or _disposition_, and _volition_ in beings
capable of using it. _Shall_ implies _external necessity_, or foreign
obligation. The parent says, "You _will_ suffer misery if you do evil,"
for it is in accordance with the nature of things for evil to produce
misery. "You _shall_ regard my wishes," for you are under _obligation_,
from the relation in which you stand to me, to do so. Let these words be
clearly explained, and there will be no difficulty in using them
correctly.

=May=, past tense _might_. This verb expresses _power_, _strength_, or
_ability_ to perform an action. It is a mistake that it means permission
or liberty only. It implies more than that, the delegation of a power to
perform the contemplated action. Suppose the scholar should faint, would
the teacher say to him you _may_ go into the open air? He has no
_power_, _might_, or _strength_, communicated by such liberty, and must
receive the _might_ or strength of others to carry him out. But to the
scholar in health he says you _may_ go out, thereby giving to him a
power and liberty sufficient to perform the action. This is done on the
same principle that one man gives another a "_power_ of attorney" to
transact his business; and that _power_ constitutes his _liberty_ of
action.

=Must= signifies to be _confined_, _limited_, _bound_, or _restrained_.
I _must_, or am bound, to obey; certain obligations require me to obey.
The adjective of this word is in common use. The air in the cask is
_musty_. It has long been _bound_ or _confined_ there, and prevented
from partaking of the purifying qualities of the atmosphere, and hence
has become _musty_.

=Can.= This word is found as a principal verb and as a noun in our
language, especially in the Scotch dialect. "I _ken_ nae where he'd
gone." Beyond the _ken_ of mortals. Far from all human _ken_. It
signifies to _know_, to perceive, to understand. I knew not where he had
gone. Beyond the knowledge of mortals. Far from all human reach. To
_con_ or _cun_ is a different spelling of the same word. _Cunning_ is
that quick _perception_ of things, which enables a person to use his
knowledge adroitly. The child _can_ read; _knows_ how to read. It _can_
walk. Here it seems to imply _power_; but power, in this case, as in
most others, is gained only by knowledge, for =knowledge is power=.
Many children have strength sufficient to walk, long before they do. The
reason why they _can not_ walk, is, they do not _know how_; they have
not learned to balance themselves in an erect position, so as to move
forward without falling.

A vast proportion of human ability is derived from knowledge. There is
not a being in creation so entirely incapable of self-support, as the
new-born infant; and yet, by the help of knowledge, he becomes the lord
of this lower world. Bonaparte was once as helpless as any other child,
and yet by dint of _can_, _ken_, _cunning_, or knowledge, he made all
Europe tremble. But his knowledge was limited. He became blind to
danger, bewildered by success, and he _could_ no longer follow the
prudent course of wisdom, but fell a sacrifice to his own unbridled
ambition, and blinded folly. An enlightened people _can_ govern
themselves; but _power_ of government is gained by a knowledge of the
principles of equality, and mutual help and dependency; and whenever the
people become ignorant of that fact, they _will_ fall, the degraded
victims of their own folly, and the wily influence of some more knowing
aspirant for power.

This is a most important topic; but I dare not pursue it farther, lest I
weary your patience. A few examples _must_ suffice.

"Jason, she cried, for aught I _see_ or _can_,
This deed," &c.
_Chaucer._

A famous man,
Of every _witte_ somewhat he _can_,
_Out take_ that him lacketh rule,
His own estate to guide and rule.
_Gower._

=Do= has been called a _helping_ verb; but it needs little observation
to discover that it is no more so than a hundred other words. "_Do_
thy diligence to come before winter." "_Do_ the work of an
evangelist."--_Paul to Timothy._ I _do_ all in my power _to expose_ the
error and wickedness of false teaching. _Do_ afford relief. _Do_
something to afford relief.

=Have= has also been reckoned as an auxiliary by the "helping verb
grammars," which has no other duty to perform than help conjugate other
verbs thro some of their moods and tenses. It is a word in very common
use, and of course must possess a very important character, which should
be carefully examined and distinctly known by all who desire a knowledge
of the construction of our language.

The principal difficulty in the explanation of this word, is the
peculiar meaning which some have attached to it. It has been defined to
denote _possession_ merely. But when we say, a man _has_ much _property
destroyed_ by fire, we do not mean that he _gains_ or _possesses_ much
property by the fire; nor can we make _has_ auxiliary to _destroyed_,
for in that case it would stand thus: a man _has destroyed_ much
property by fire, which would be false, for the destruction was produced
by an incendiary, or some other means wholly unknown to him.

You at once perceive that _to possess_ is not the only meaning which
attaches to _have_. It assumes a more important rank. It can be traced,
with little change in form, back thro many generations. It is the same
word as _heave_, originally, and retains nearly the same meaning. Saxon
_habban_, Gothic _haban_, German _haben_, Latin _habeo_, French _avoir_,
are all the same word, varied in spelling more than in sound; for _b_ in
many languages is sounded very much like _v_, or _bv_. It may mean to
_hold_, _possess_, _retain_, _sway_, _control_, _dispose of_, either as
a direct or _relative_ action; for a man sustains relations to his
actors, duties, family, friends, enemies, and all the world, as well as
to his possessions. He _has_ a hard task to perform. He _has_ much pain
_to suffer_. He _has_ suffered much unhappiness.

I _have written_ a letter. I _have_ a written letter. I _have_ a letter
_written_. These expressions differ very little in meaning, but the verb
_have_ is the same in each case. By the first expression, I signify that
I have _caused_ the letter to be _written_; by the second that I have a
letter on which such action has been performed; and by the third, that
such written letter stands in such relation to myself.

I _have written_ a letter and sent it away. _Written_ is the past
participle from _write_; as an adjective it describes the letter in the
condition I placed it; so that it will be defined, wherever it is found,
as my letter; that is, some way _related_ to me.

Copyright (c) 2007. topmasterworks.com. All rights reserved.