SYNTAX OF THE PERSONS OF VERBS.
-- 488. _The concord of persons._--A difficulty that occurs frequently in the Latin language is rare in English. In expressions like _ego et ille_ followed by a verb, there arises a question as to the person in which that verb should be used. Is it to be in the first person in order to agree with _ego_, or in the _third_ in order to agree with _ille_? For the sake of laying down a rule upon these and similar points, the cla.s.sical grammarians arrange the persons (as they do the genders) according to their _dignity_, making the verb (or adjective if it be a question of gender) agree with the most _worthy_. In respect to persons, the first is more worthy than the second, and the second more worthy than the third. Hence, the Latins said--
_Ego_ et _Balbus_ _sustulimus_ ma.n.u.s.
_Tu_ et _Balbus_ _sustulistis_ ma.n.u.s.
Now, in English, the plural form is the same for all three persons. Hence we say _I and you are friends_, _you and I are friends_, _I and he are friends_, &c., so that for the practice of language, the question as to the relative dignity of the three persons is a matter of indifference.
Nevertheless, it _may_ occur even in English. Whenever two or more p.r.o.nouns of different persons, and of the _singular_ number, follow each other _disjunctively_, the question of concord arises. _I or you_,--_you or he_,--_he or I_. I believe that, in these cases, the rule is as follows:--
1. Whenever the words _either_ or _neither_ precede the p.r.o.nouns, the verb is in the third person. _Either you or I is in the wrong_; _neither you nor I is in the wrong_.
2. Whenever the disjunctive is simple (i.e. unaccompanied with the word _either_ or _neither_) the verb agrees with the _first_ of the two p.r.o.nouns.
_I_ (or _he_) _am_ in the wrong.
_He_ (or _I_) _is_ in the wrong.
_Thou_ (or _he_) _art_ in the wrong.
_He_ (or _thou_) _is_ in the wrong.
Now, provided that they are correct, it is clear that the English language knows nothing about the relative degrees of dignity between these three p.r.o.nouns; since its habit is to make the verb agree with the one which is placed first--whatever may be the person. I am strongly inclined to believe that the same is the case in Latin; in which case (in the sentence _ego et Balbus sustulimus ma.n.u.s_) _sustulimus_ agrees, in person, with _ego_, not because the first person is the worthiest, but because it comes first in the proposition,
-- 489. In the Chapter on the Impersonal Verbs, it is stated that the construction of _me-thinks_ is peculiar.
This is because in Anglo-Saxon the word _incan_ = _seem_. Hence _me-thinks_ is fa??eta? ??, or _mihi videtur_, and _me_ is a _dative_ case, not an _accusative_.
The _encan_ = _think_, was, in Anglo-Saxon, a different word.
CHAPTER XXII.
ON THE VOICES OF VERBS.
-- 490. In English there is neither a pa.s.sive nor a middle voice.
The following couplet from Dryden"s "Mac Flecnoe" exhibits a construction which requires explanation:--
An ancient fabric, raised to inform the sight, There stood of yore, and Barbican _it hight_.
Here the word _hight_ = _was called_, and seems to present an instance of the participle being used in a pa.s.sive sense without the so-called verb substantive. Yet it does no such thing. The word is no participle at all; but a simple preterite. Certain verbs are _naturally_ either pa.s.sive or active, as one of two allied meanings may predominate. _To be called_ is pa.s.sive; so is, _to be beaten_. But, _to bear as a name_ is active; so is, _to take a beating_. The word, _hight_, is of the same cla.s.s of verbs with the Latin _vapulo_; and it is the same as the Latin word, _cluo_.--_Barbican cluit_ = _Barbican audivit_ = _Barbican it hight_.
CHAPTER XXIII.
ON THE AUXILIARY VERBS.
-- 491. The auxiliary verbs, in English, play a most important part in the syntax of the language. They may be cla.s.sified upon a variety of principles. The following, however, are all that need here be applied.
A. _Cla.s.sification of auxiliaries according to their inflection or non-inflectional powers._--Inflectional auxiliaries are those that may either replace or be replaced by an inflection. Thus--_I am struck_ = the Latin _ferior_, and the Greek t?pt?a?. These auxiliaries are in the same relation to verbs that prepositions are to nouns. The inflectional auxiliaries are,--
1. _Have_; equivalent to an inflection in the way of tense--_I have bitten_ = _mo-mordi_.
2. _Shall_; ditto. _I shall call_ = _voc-abo_.
3. _Will_; ditto. _I will call_ = _voc-abo_.
4. _May_; equivalent to an inflection in the way of mood. _I am come that I may see_ = _venio ut vid-eam_.
5. _Be_; equivalent to an inflection in the way of voice. _To be beaten_ = _verberari_, t?ptes?a?.
6. _Am_, _art_, _is_, _are_; ditto. Also equivalent to an inflection in the way of tense. _I am moving_ = _move-o_.
7. _Was_, _were_; ditto, ditto. _I was beaten_ = ?-t?f???. _I was moving_ = _move-bam_.
_Do_, _can_, _must_, and _let_, are non-inflectional auxiliaries.
B. _Cla.s.sification of auxiliaries according to their non-auxiliary significations._--The power of the word _have_ in the combination of _I have a horse_ is clear enough. It means possession. The power of the same word in the combination _I have been_ is not so clear; nevertheless it is a power which has grown out of the idea of possession. This shows that the power of a verb as an auxiliary may be a modification of its original power; i.e., of the power it has in non-auxiliary constructions. Sometimes the difference is very little: the word _let_, in _let us go_, has its natural sense of permission unimpaired. Sometimes it is lost altogether.
_Can_ and _may_ exist only as auxiliaries.
1. Auxiliary derived from the idea of possession--_have_.
2. Auxiliaries derived from the idea of existence--_be_, _is_, _was_.
3. Auxiliary derived from the idea of future destination, dependent upon circ.u.mstances external to the agent--_shall_. There are etymological reasons for believing that _shall_ is no present tense, but a perfect.
4. Auxiliary derived from the idea of future destination, dependent upon the volition of the agent--_will_. _Shall_ is simply predictive; _will_ is predictive and promissive as well.
5. Auxiliary derived from the idea of power, dependent upon circ.u.mstances external to the agent--_may_.
6. Auxiliary derived from the idea of power, dependent upon circ.u.mstances internal to the agent--_can_. _May_ is simply permissive; _can_ is potential. In respect to the idea of power residing in the agent being the cause which determines a contingent action, _can_ is in the same relation to _may_ as _will_ is to _shall_.
"_May_ et _can_, c.u.m eorum praeteritis imperfectis, _might_ et _could_, potentiam innuunt: c.u.m hoc tamen discrimine: _may_ et _might_ vel de jure vel saltem de rei possibilitate, dic.u.n.tur, at _can_ et _could_ de viribus agentis."--WALLIS, p. 107.
7. Auxiliary derived from the idea of sufferance--_let_.
8. Auxiliary derived from the idea of necessity--_must_.
"_Must_ necessitatem innuit. Debeo, oportet, necesse est urere, _I must burn_. Aliquando sed rarius in praeterito dicitur _must_ (quasi ex _must"d_ seu _must"t_ contractum). Sic, si de praeterito dicatur, _he must_ (seu _must"t_) _be burnt_, oportebat uri seu necesse habuit ut ureretur."--WALLIS, 107.
9. Auxiliary derived from the idea of action--_do_.
C. _Cla.s.sification of auxiliary verbs in respect to their mode of construction._--Auxiliary verbs combine with others in three ways.
1. _With participles._--a) With the present, or active, participle--_I am speaking_: b) With the past, or pa.s.sive, participle--_I am beaten_, _I have beaten_.
2. _With infinitives._--a) With the objective infinitive--_I can speak_: b) With the gerundial infinitive--_I have to speak_.