Have is the infinitive. ever I shall have.

Loved the participle qualifying what

Mr. Murray has tried hard to mark time more accurately,' but the German grammarians have beat him, for they have four future

tenses.

Imperative Mood.

No name to the tense! Let me love. That is 'Permit thou me to

love.'

Let thou, is the imperative of to Let.

Love thou. We have given this already in our first tense.

Do thou love. Do thou is the imperative as Murray calls it of the verb do. Love is the infinitive already given.

Let him love. Permit thou him to love.

Let us love. Permit thou us to love.

Love ye or you. Our first tense.

Do ye love. Do ye is the imperative of do. Love the infinitive of Love.

Let them love. Permit thou them to love. Let thou the imperative as before, and Love the infinitive.

And all this for the sake of creating an Imperative mood for the verb Love!

Potential Mood.

Present. I may or can love. I may or can is the present tense of may and can. Love is the infinitive of love.

Imperfect. I might, could, would, or should love. I might, I could, I would, and I should are the imperfect of may, can, will, and shall. Love is the infinitive as before.

Perfect.

I may or can have loved. I may and I can are present. Have is the infinitive, loved the participle of Love, and qualities whatever I may or can have.

Pluperfect. I might, could, would, or should have loved. I might, &c. are the imperfect of may, &c. Have is the infinitive and loved a participle, qualifying whatever I might have.

Subjunctive Mood.

Present. If I love. Already given without if in my first tense. If has the same to do with love as do has in the sentence Do thou love, for if means give or grant.

Even Murray himself, who assigns six tenses to the subjunctive mood, says all the rest are similar to the corresponding tenses of the indicative mood.

We think this exposé must satisfy any fair mind that an attempt has been made to force the English language to wear forms that were made to suit some foreign tongue.

In a Latin Grammar it may be necessary to express by an Eng

lish phrase the meaning of the numerous variations of Latin verbs, but it is monstrous to pretend that all such phrases are tenses of our own verb.

Have, shall, will, may and can, have words in English which mean the same thing, thus,

Will the lovers of numerous tenses allow that these synonymous phrases are also tenses of the verb love? We might amuse ourselves at the expense of the names of Mr. M.'s tenses, and moods, and their total inapplicability, but we shall content ourselves with merely remarking that there is no shadow of reason for any distinction of moods, and no other reason for even two tenses than can be found in a difference of termination which has no reference to time, we mean the addition of ed to the simple verb. What is called the present tense expresses future time as well as Mr. Murray's phrase does; and what is called the past tense does the same. We say as well as, because we believe that the verb of itself never expresses any time, but this must be looked for in the context. I sail now, or to-morrow, or always.

To be yesterday, to day, and forever.

Would he be satisfied if I went next week.
Will he be satisfied, if I go next week.
If I please next year I can visit you.

If I pleased, next year I could visit you.

I loved and other verbs in ed have been so long connected with words expressing past time, that we attribute this expression to the verb, but to I loved we may without impropriety add the strongest expression of present time, that words can convey, as, I loved this very instant, or this present moment; and the present tense will make good sense with the strongest expression of future time. I am, the very queen of present tenses, affords one of the best expressions of future time; as I am to go, I am to love, &c. Here we leave the verb, regretting that the want of room obliges us to leave so many other points untouched. We could bring the highest authorities for all we have advanced, but if these remarks cannot recommend themselves to the good sense of every intelligent mind, authorities will never force conviction.

Adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions and interjections remain to be considered. We shall be brief in our remarks upon them.

Adverbs.

'An adverb is a part of speech joined to a verb, an adjective, and sometimes to another adverb to express some quality or circumstance respecting it, as He reads well; A truly good man; He writes very correctly.'

Suppose, instead of 'He reads well,' we put 'He lies well.' Wd, we are told, is an adverb and qualifies lies. Suppose then we put crooked or sick instead of well. No one pretends that they are ad

verbs, and yet they are just as much so as well is.

Truly, correctly, and all other adverbs ending in ly are compound adjectives, the ly being a contraction of like. This double adjective, when separated, reads thus, 'a good man like true (men.)' Very is an adjective and means true.

He very

writes like correct (writers.)

However odd such a resolution of the sentence may seem, we believe, it will admit of no other, and even Mr. Murray allows that the ly, is a contraction of like. The other adverbs are either adjectives or contracted phrases, all of which are ingeniously explained in Horne Tooke's 'Diversions of Purley.'

6

Prepositions.

'Prepositions serve to connect words with one another and to show the relation between them. He went from London to York;' She is above disguise.' 'They are supported by industry.'

We venture to say that from this definition no body could pick a preposition from the mass of words which form our language. Prepositions connect words! He went from London;' from connects him with London. He went to York;' to connects him with York. Or perhaps he means that from and to connect London and York! 'She is above disguise,' and yet above fastens disguise to her. 'They are supported by industry.' They are supported without industry.' In these two cases no doubt by and without connect industry with them. From, above, and without, in the examples just adduced, show strongly that no relation exists between the nouns.

The fact is, all the prepositions, like the adverbs, may be found among the other parts of speech, retaining their original meaning. From is a noun and means beginning.

To is a noun and means end.

Above is an adjective qualifying she, or a noun meaning on top of. By is our verb Be, and the sentence above may be thus expressed. Be industry (or let industry be) they are supported.

Without means, leave out or be out.

So much for Mr. Murray's definition and illustration of preposi

tions. Those who wish for more information in regard to them may consult the author referred to under adverbs.

Conjunctions.

'Conjunctions are chiefly used to connect sentences or words.' Conjunctions then, we suppose, connect sentences as prepositions do, but show no 'relation between them.'

We are really puzzled to know in what this connection consists. In the case of prepositions, no connection of mere words or sentiments was expressed; and no sooner are we told that conjunctions connect, than we are told that they are divided into two sorts, copulative (that is connecting) and disjunctive (that is separating.)

The word and is the verb add, and add may always be substituted for it; thus, two and two are four, two add two are four. Hence Murray does well to give as an example of copulative conjunctions 'He and his brother reside in London.' His other examples

are,

I will go if he will accompany me.'

'You are happy because you are good.'

If is the verb give (or grant) which was formerly spelled gif; and the sentence means 'grant he will accompany me, I will go.'

Be-cause means the cause be or is (for be was once used where we now use is.) The sentence would then be, 'You are happy, the cause is you are good:'

But, independent of the meaning of the words if and because, we need only transpose them to show that the connecting or disconnecting of sentences is no part of their business; for put the first clause of the sentence last, and the conjunction ceases to connect, thus,

'If he will accompany me, I will go.'

"Because you are good, you are happy."

'The conjunction disjunctive (happy contradiction) serves not only to connect and continue the sentence (as the copulative did) but also to express opposition of meaning in different degrees.' Of course this means that copulative conjunctions do not express oppo sition of meaning. The examples are,

Though he was frequently reproved, yet he did not reform.
They came with her but went away without her.

Let us substitute a copulative for these disjunctives.
He was frequently reproved, and he did not reform.
If he was frequently reproved, yet he did not reform.
They came with her and went away without her.

Yet is entirely unnecessary after though. It is another spelling of the word get; and though is a verb, meaning precisely the same as if, viz. grant or give.

But has two meanings exactly opposite. Sometimes it means ercept or leave out, and sometimes add. When it has the latter meaning, and may take its place. When it means leave out, without may be substituted for it. Murray does not appear to have known this fact, and therefore has given but to add or join, as an example of disjunctive conjunctions. But to add was originally spelled bot, and our verb to boot, that is to superadd, is the very verb.

We have not room to explain all the conjunctions in this manner; but we have examined his own examples in order to prove that Murray did not understand their nature or use.

Interjections.

No word can properly be called an interjection. Most of Murray's interjections are verbs in what he calls the imperative mood, such as lo! (that is, look) behold! hush! hail! We cannot better express our sentiments than by transcribing the remarks of Horne Tooke on this subject.

'The dominion of speech is erected upon the downfall of interjections. Without the artful contrivances of language, mankind would have nothing but interjections with which to communicate orally any of their feelings. The neighing of a horse, the lowing of a cow, the barking of a dog, the purring of a cat, sneezing, coughing, groaning, shrieking, and every other involuntary convulsion, with oral sound, have almost as good a right to be called parts of speech as interjections have. Voluntary interjections are only employed when the suddenness or vehemence of some affection or passion returns men to their natural state, and makes them for a moment, forget the use of speech, or when from some circumstance the shortness of time will not permit them to exercise it.'

Thus we have finished our examination of Lindley Murray's Grammar, a work which, to the disgrace of both Americans and Englishmen, is almost the only text book used in their schools. If we have exposed its inconsistencies and errors so as to induce those who have taken them upon trust, to examine them more carefully, we may one day be rewarded for our trouble, by seeing a more rational system of grammar introduced into our seminaries of learning.