The English Language Part 92

_Old Saxon_ is, wirtheth gebhan, was, warth gebhan.

_Middle Dutch_ es, blift ghegheven, waert, blef ghegeven.

_New Dutch_ wordt gegeven, es gegeven worden.

_Old Frisian_ werth ejeven, is ejeven.

{475} _Anglo-Saxon_ weorded gifen, is gifen.

_English_ is given, has been given.

_Old Norse_ er gefinn, hefr verit gefinn.

_Swedish_ gifves, har varit gifven.

_Danish_ bliver, vorder given, har varet given.

Deutsche Grammatik, iv. 19.

-- 592. _Ought, would, &c., used as presents._--These words are not in the predicament of _shall_.

They are _present_ in power, and _past_ in form. So, perhaps, is _shall_.

But they are not, like _shall_, perfect forms; _i. e._, they have no natural present element in them.

They are _aorist_ praeterites. Nevertheless, they have a present sense.

So had their equivalents in Greek: [Greek: echren]=[Greek: chre], [Greek: edei]=[Greek: dei], [Greek: proseken]=[Greek: prosekei].

In Latin, too, _would_ was often not represented by either _volo_ or _volebam_, but by _velim_.

I believe that the _usus ethicus_ is at the bottom of this construction.

The a.s.sertion of _duty_ or _obligation_ is one of those a.s.sertions which men like to soften in the expression: _should_, _ought_.

So is the expression of power, as denoted by _may_ or _can_--_might_, _could_.

Very often when we say _you should_ (or _ought to_) _do this_, we leave to be added by implication--_but you do not_.

Very often when we say _I could_ (or _might_) _do this_, we leave to be added by implication--_but I do not exert my power_.

Now, if what is left undone be the _present_ element in this a.s.sertion, the duty to do it, or the power of doing it, const.i.tutes a past element in it; since the power (or duty) is, in relation to the performance, a cause--insufficient, indeed, but still antecedent. This hypothesis is suggested rather than a.s.serted.

-- 593. By subst.i.tuting the words _I am bound_ for _I ought_, {476} we may see the expedients to which this present use of the praeterite forces us.

_I_ am bound _to do this_ now = _I_ owe _to do this_ now. However, we do not say _owe_, but _ought_.

Hence, when we wish to say _I_ was bound _to do this_ two years ago, we cannot say _I ought_ (_owed_) _to do this_, &c., since _ought_ is already used in a present sense.

We therefore say, instead, _I_ ought to have done _this_ two years ago; which has a similar, but by no means an identical meaning.

_I was bound to pay two years ago, _means_ two years ago I was under an obligation to make a payment, either then or at some future time._

_I was bound to have paid, _&c., means_ I was under an obligation to have made a payment._

If we use the word _ought_, this difference cannot be expressed.

Common people sometimes say, _you had not ought to do so and so_; and they have a reason for saying it.

The Latin language is more logical. It says not _debet factum fuisse_, but _debuit fieri_.

{477}

CHAPTER XXIV.

THE SYNTAX OF ADVERBS.

-- 594. The syntax of the adverb is simpler than that of any other part of speech, excepting, perhaps, that of the adjective.

Adverbs have no concord.

Neither have they any government. They _seem_, indeed, to have it, when they are in the comparative or superlative degree; but it is merely apparent. In _this is better than that_, the word _that_ is governed neither by _better_ nor by _than_. It is not governed at all. It is a nominative case; the subject of a separate proposition. _This is better_ (_i. e._, _more good_) _than that is good_. Even if we admit such an expression as _he is stronger than me_ to be good English, there is no adverbial government. _Than_, if it govern _me_ at all, governs it as a preposition.

The position of an adverb is, in respect to matters of syntax, pre-eminently parenthetic; _i. e._, it may be omitted without injuring the construction. _He is fighting--now_; _he was fighting--then_; _he fights--bravely_; _I am--almost--tired_, &c.

-- 595. By referring to the Chapter on the Adverbs, we shall find that the neuter adjective is frequently converted into an adverb by deflection. As any neuter adjective may be so deflected, we may justify such expressions as _full_ (for _fully_) _as conspicuous_, and _peculiar_ (for _peculiarly_) _bad grace_, &c. We are not, however, bound to imitate everything that we can justify.

-- 596. The termination _-ly_ was originally adjectival. At present it is a derivational syllable by which we can convert an adjective into an adverb: _brave_, _brave-ly_. {478} When, however, the adjective ends in _-ly_ already, the formation is awkward. _I eat my daily bread_ is unexceptionable English; _I eat my bread daily_ is exceptionable. One of two things must here take place: the two syllables _-ly_ are packed into one (the full expression being _dai-li-ly_), or else the construction is that of a neuter adjective deflected.

Adverbs are convertible. _The then men_=[Greek: hoi nun brotoi], &c. This will be seen more clearly in the Chapter on Conjunctions.

-- 597. It has been remarked that in expressions like _he sleeps the sleep of the righteous_, the construction is adverbial. So it is in expressions like _he walked a mile_, _it weighs a pound_. The ideas expressed by _mile_ and _pound_ are not the names of anything that serves as either object or instrument to the verb. They only denote the _manner_ of the action, and define the meaning of the verb.

-- 598. _From whence, from thence._--This is an expression which, if it have not taken root in our language, is likely to do so. It is an instance of excess of expression in the way of syntax; the _-ce_ denoting direction _from_ a place, and the preposition doing the same. It is not so important to determine what this construction _is_, as to suggest what it is _not_.

It is _not_ an instance of an adverb governed by a preposition. If the two words be dealt with as logically separate, _whence_ (or _thence_) must be a noun=_which place_ (or _that place_); just as _from then till now_=_from that time to this_. But if (which is the better view) the two words be dealt with as one (_i. e._, as an improper compound) the preposition _from_ has lost its natural power, and become the element of an adverb.

{479}

CHAPTER XXV.

ON PREPOSITIONS.

-- 599. All prepositions govern an oblique case. If a word cease to do this, it ceases to be a preposition. In the first of the two following sentences the word _up_ is a preposition, in the second an adverb.

1. _I climbed up the tree._ 2. _I climbed up._

All prepositions in English precede the noun which they govern. _I climbed up the tree_, never _I climbed the tree up_. This is a matter not of government, but of collocation. It is the case in most languages; and, from the frequency of its occurrence, the term _pre-position_ (or _prefix_) has originated. Nevertheless, it is by no means a philological necessity. In many languages the prepositions are _post-positive_, following their noun.

-- 600. No preposition, in the present English, governs a genitive case.

This remark is made, because expressions like the _part of the body_=_pars corporis_,--_a piece of the bread_=_portio panis_, make it appear as if the preposition _of_ did so. The true expression is, that the preposition _of_ followed by an objective case, is equivalent, in many instances, to the genitive case of the cla.s.sical languages.