The English Language Part 59

_Indicative._ | _Subjunctive._ _Singular._ _Plural._ | _Singular._ _Plural._ 1. I was. We were. | If I were. If we were.

2. Thou wast. Ye were. | If thou wert. If ye were.

3. He was. They were. | If he were. If they were.

{303}

CHAPTER XXII.

ON TENSES IN GENERAL.

-- 359. The nature of tenses in general is best exhibited by reference to the Greek; since in that language they are more numerous, and more strongly marked than elsewhere.

_I strike, I struck._--Of these words, the first implies an action taking place at the time of speaking, the second marks an action that has already taken place.

These two notions of present and of past time, being expressed by a change of form, are true tenses. They are however, the only true tenses in our language. In _I was beating_, _I have beaten_, _I had beaten_, and _I shall beat_, a difference of time is expressed; but as it is expressed by a combination of words, and not by a change of form, no true tenses are const.i.tuted.

In Greek the case is different. [Greek: Tupto] (_typto_)=_I beat_; [Greek: etupton] (_etypton_)=_I was beating_; [Greek: tupso] (_typso_)=_I shall beat_; [Greek: etupsa] (_etypsa_)=_I beat_; [Greek: tetupha] (_tetyfa_)=_I have beaten_; [Greek: etetuphein] (_etetyfein_)=_I had beaten_. In these words we have, of the same mood, the same voice, and the same conjugation, six different tenses;[47] whereas, in English, there are but two. The forms [Greek: tetupha] and [Greek: etupsa] are so strongly marked, that we recognise them wheresoever they occur. The first is formed by a reduplication of the initial [tau], and, consequently, may be called the reduplicate form. As a tense it is called the perfect. In the form [Greek: etupsa] an [epsilon] is prefixed, and an [sigma] is added. In the allied language of Italy {304} the [epsilon] disappears, whilst the [sigma] (_s_) remains. [Greek: Etupsa] is said to be an aorist tense. _Scripsi_ : _scribo_ :: [Greek: etupsa] : [Greek: tupto].

-- 360. Now in the Latin language a confusion takes place between these two tenses. Both forms exist. They are used, however, indiscriminately. The aorist form has, besides its own, the sense of the perfect. The perfect has, besides its own, the sense of the aorist. In the following pair of quotations, _vixi_, the aorist form, is translated _I have lived_, while _tetigit_, the perfect form, is translated _he touched_.

_Vixi_, et quem dederat cursum Fortuna peregi; Et nunc magna mei sub terras ibit imago.--_aen._ iv.

Ut primum alatis _tetigit_ magalia plantis.--_aen._ iv.

When a difference of form has ceased to express a difference of meaning, it has become superfluous. This is the case with the two forms in question.

One of them may be dispensed with; and the consequence is, that, although in the Latin language both the perfect and the aorist forms are found, they are, with few exceptions, never found in the same word. Wherever there is the perfect, the aorist is wanting, and _vice versa_. The two ideas _I have struck_ and _I struck_ are merged into the notion of past time in general, and are expressed by one of two forms, sometimes by that of the Greek perfect, and sometimes by that of the Greek aorist. On account of this the grammarians have cut down the number of Latin tenses to _five_; forms like _cucurri_ and _vixi_ being dealt with as one and the same tense. The true view is, that in _curro_ the aorist form is replaced by the perfect, and in _vixi_ the perfect form is replaced by the aorist.

-- 361. In the present English there is no undoubted perfect or reduplicate form. The form _moved_ corresponds in meaning not with [Greek: tetupha] and _momordi_, but with [Greek: etupsa] and _vixi_. Its sense is that of [Greek: etupsa], and not that of [Greek: tetupha]. The notion given by [Greek: tetupha] we express by the circ.u.mlocution _I have beaten_. We have no such form as _bebeat_ or _memove_. In the Moeso-Gothic, however, there was a true reduplicate form; in other words, a perfect tense as well as an aorist. It {305} is by the possession of this form that the verbs of the first six conjugations are characterized.

1st. Fala, _I fold_ . Faifal, _I have folded_, or _I folded_.

Halda, _I feed_ . Haihald, _I have fed_, or _I fed_.

Haha, _I hang_ . Haihah, _I have hanged_, or _I hanged_.

2nd. Haita, _I call_ . Haihait, _I have called_, or _I called_.

Laika, _I play_ . Lailaik, _I have played_, or _I played_.

3d. Hlaupa, _I run_ . Hlailaup, _I have run_, or _I ran_.

4th. Slepa, _I sleep_ . Saizlep, _I have slept_, or _I slept_.

5th. Laia, _I laugh_ . Lailo, _I have laughed_, or _I laught_.

Saija, _I sow_ . Saiso, _I have sown_, or _I sowed_.

6th Greta, _I weep_ . Gaigrot, _I have wept_, or _I wept_.

Teka, _I touch_ . Taitok, _I have touched_, or _I touched_.

In Moeso-Gothic, as in Latin, the perfect forms have, besides their own, an aorist sense, and _vice versa_.

In Moeso-Gothic, as in Latin, few (if any) words are found in both forms.

In Moeso-Gothic, as in Latin, the two forms are dealt with as a single tense; _lailo_ being called the praeterite of _laia_, and _svor_ the praeterite of _svara_. The true view, however, is that in Moeso-Gothic, as in Latin, there are two past tenses, each having a certain lat.i.tude of meaning, and each, in certain words, replacing the other.

The reduplicate form, in other words, the perfect tense, is current in none of the Gothic languages except the Moeso-Gothic. A trace of it is found in the Anglo-Saxon of the seventh century in the word _heht_, which is considered to be _he-ht_, the Moeso-Gothic _haihait_, _vocavi_. This statement is taken from the Cambridge Philological Museum, ii. 378. _Did_ from _do_ is also considered to be a reduplicate form.

-- 362. In the English language the tense corresponding with the Greek aorist and the Latin forms like _vixi_, is formed after two modes; 1, as in _fell_, _sang_, and _took_, from _fall_, _sing_, and _take_, by changing the vowel of the present: 2, as in _moved_ and _wept_, from _move_ and _weep_, by the addition of _d_ or _t_; the _d_ or _t_ not being found in the original word, but being a fresh element added to it. In forms, on the contrary, like _sang_ and _fell_, no addition being made, no new element appears. The {306} vowel, indeed, is changed, but nothing is added. Verbs, then, of the first sort, may be said to form their praeterites out of themselves; whilst verbs of the second sort require something from without.

To speak in a metaphor, words like _sang_ and _fell_ are comparatively independent. Be this as it may, the German grammarians call the tenses formed by a change of vowel the strong tenses, the strong verbs, the strong conjugation, or the strong order; and those formed by the addition of _d_ or _t_, the weak tenses, the weak verbs, the weak conjugation, or the weak order. _Bound_, _spoke_, _gave_, _lay_, &c., are strong; _moved_, _favoured_, _instructed_, &c., are weak. For the proof that the division of verbs into weak and strong is a natural division, see the Chapter on Conjugation.

{307}

CHAPTER XXIII.

THE STRONG TENSES.

-- 363. The strong praeterites are formed from the present by changing the vowel, as _sing_, _sang_, _speak_, _spoke_.

The first point in the history of these tenses that the reader is required to be aware of, is stated in the Chapter upon the Numbers, viz., that, in Anglo-Saxon, several praeterites change, in their plural, the vowel of their singular; as

Ic sang, _I sang_. We sungon, _we sung_.

u sunge, _thou sungest_. Ge sungon, _ye sung_.

He sang, _he sang_. Hi sungon, _they sung_.

As a general rule, the second singular has the same vowel with the plural persons, as _burne_, _thou burntest_, plural _burnon_, _we burnt_.

The bearing of this fact upon the praeterites has been indicated in p. 300.

In a great number of words we have a double form, as _ran_ and _run_, _sang_ and _sung_, _drank_ and _drunk_, &c. One of these forms is derived from the singular, and the other from the plural. I cannot say at what period the difference of form ceased to denote a difference of sense.

In cases where but one form is preserved, that form is not necessarily the singular one. For instance, Ic f_a_nd, _I found_, we f_u_ndon, _we found_, are the Anglo-Saxon forms. Now the present word _found_ comes, not from the singular _fand_, but from the plural _fund_; although in the Lowland Scotch dialect and in the old writers, the singular form occurs.

Donald Caird finds orra things, Where Allan Gregor _fand_ the tings.--Scott.

Even in the present English it will be found convenient to {308} call the forms like _sang_ and _drank_ the singular, and those like _sung_ and _bound_ the plural forms.

Be it observed, that, though this fact accounts for most of our double forms, it will not account for all. In the Anglo-Saxon, Ic spr['ae]c, _I spake_, we spr['ae]con, _we spake_. There is no change of number to account for the two forms _spake_ and _spoke_.

_First Cla.s.s._

-- 364. Contains the two words _fall_ and _fell_, _hold_ and _held_, where the sound of _o_ is changed into that of _[)e]_. Here must be noticed the natural tendency of _a_ to become _o_; since the forms in Anglo-Saxon are, _Ic fealle_, I fall; _Ic feoll_, I fell; _Ic healde_, I hold; _Ic heold_, I held.

_Second Cla.s.s._

-- 365. Here the praeterite ends in _-ew_. Words of this cla.s.s are distinguished from those of the third Cla.s.s by the different form of the present tense.

_Present._ _Praeterite._ Draw Drew.

Slay Slew.

Fly Flew.

In these words the _w_ has grown out of a _g_, as may be seen from the Anglo-Saxon forms. The word _see_ (_saw_) belongs to this cla.s.s: since, in Anglo-Saxon, we find the forms _geseah_ and _gesegen_, and in the Swedish the praeterite form is _saag_.