ritory of the peaceable inhabitants; he fights and conquers, takes an immense booty, which he divides amongst his soldiers, and returns home to enjoy an empty triumph."

The Imperfect Tense represents the action or event, either as past and finished, or as remaining unfinished at a certain time past: as, "I loved her for her modesty and virtue;" "They were travelling post when he met them.”

The Perfect Tense not only refers to what is past, but also conveys an allusion to the present time: as, "I have finished my letter;" "I have seen the person that was recommended to me."

In the former example, it is signified that the finishing of the letter, though past, was at a period immediately, or very nearly, preceding the present time. In the latter instance, it is uncertain whether the person mentioned was seen by the speaker a long or short time before. The meaning is, "I have seen him some time in the course of a period which includes, or comes to, the present time.” When the particular time of any occurrence is specified, as prior to the present time, this tense is not used: for it would be improper to say, "I have seen him yesterday;" or, "I have finished my work last week." In these cases the imperfect is necessary: as, "I saw him yesterday ;" "I finished my work last week." But when we speak indefinitely of any thing past, as happening or not happening in the day, year, or age, in which we mention it, the perfect must be employed: as, "I have been there this morning" "I have travelled much this year:" "We have escaped many dangers through life." In referring, however, to such a division of the day as is past before the time of our speaking, we use the imperfect: as, "They came home early this morning," "He was with them at three o'clock this afternoon."

The perfect tense, and the imperfect tense, both denote a thing that is past; but the former denotes it in such a manner that there is still actually remaining some part of the

1

time to slide away, wherein we declare the thing has been done; whereas the imperfect denotes the thing or action past, in such a manner, that nothing remains of that time in which it was done. If we speak of the present century, we say, "Philosophers have made great discoveries in the present century:" but if we speak of the last century, we say, "Philosophers made great discoveries in the last century." "He has been much afflicted this year;" "I have this week read the king's proclamation;" "I have heard great news this morning :" in these instances, "He has been," "I have read," and "heard," denote things that are past; but they occurred in this year, in this week, and today; and still there remains a part of this year, week, and day, whereof I speak.

In general, the perfect tense may be applied wherever the action is connected with the present time, by the actual existence, either of the author, or of the work, though it may have been performed many centuries ago; but if neither the author nor the work now remains, it cannot be used. We may say, "Cicero has written orations;" but we

cannot say, "Cicero has written poems;" because the orations are in being, but the poems are lost. Speaking of priests in general, we may say, "They have in all ages claimed great powers;" because the general order of the priesthood still exists: but if we speak of the Druids, as any particular order of priests, which does not now exist, we cannot use this tense. We cannot say, "The Druid

"The

priests have claimed great powers;" but must say, Druid priests claimed great powers;" because that order is now totally extinct. See PICKBOURN on the English verb.

The Pluperfect Tense represents a thing, not only as past, but also as prior to some other point of time specified in the sentence: as, "I had finished my letter before he arrived."

The First Future Tense represents the action as yet to come, either with or without respect to the

66

precise time: as, The sun will rise to-morrow;" "I shall see them again."

The Second Future intimates that the action will be fully accomplished, at or before the time of another future action or event: as, "I shall have I dined at one o'clock;" "The two houses will have finished their business, when the king comes to prorogue them."*

It is to be observed, that in the subjunctive mood, the event being spoken of under a condition or supposition, or in the form of a wish, and therefore as doubtful and contingent, the verb itself in the present, and the auxiliary both of the present and past imperfect times, often carry with them somewhat of a future sense: as, "If he come to-morrow, I may speak to him;” “If he should, or would come to-morrow, I might, would, could, or should speak to him." Observe also, that the auxiliaries should and would, in the imperfect times, are used to express the present and future as well as the past: as, "It is my desire, that he should, or would, come now, or to-morrow;" as well as, "It was my desire, that he should or would come yesterday." So that in this mood the precise time of the verb is very much determined by the nature and drift of the sentence.

The present, past, and future tenses, may be used either definitely or indefinitely, both with respect to time and action. When they denote customs or habits, and not individual acts, they are applied indefinitely: as, "Virtue promotes happiness;" "The old Romans governed by benefits more than by fear;" "I shall hereafter employ my time more usefully." In these examples, the words, promotes, governed, and shall employ, are used indefinitely, both in regard to action and time; for they are not confined to individual actions, nor to any precise points of present, past, or future time. When they are applied to signify particular actions,

* See an account of the simple and compound tenses, at page 100.

and to ascertain the precise points of time to which they are confined, they are used definitely; as in the following instances. "My brother is writing" "He built the house last summer, but did not inhabit it till yesterday." "He will write another letter to-morrow."

The different tenses also represent an action as complete or perfect, or as incomplete or imperfect. In the phrases, "I am writing," "I was writing," "I shall be writing," imperfect, unfinished actions are signified. But the following examples, "I wrote," "I have written," "I had written," "I shall have written," all denote complete perfect action.

From the preceding representation of the different tenses, it appears, that each of them has its distinct and peculiar province; and that though some of them may sometimes be used promiscuously, or substituted one for another, in cases where great accuracy is not required, yet there is a real and essential difference in their meaning. It is also evident, that the English language contains the six tenses which we have enumerated. Grammarians who limit the number to two, or at most to three, namely, the present, the imperfect, and the future, do not reflect that the English verb is mostly composed of principal and auxiliary; and that these several parts constitute one verb. Either the English language has no regular future tense, or its future is composed of the auxiliary and the principal verb. If the latter be admitted, then the auxiliary and principal united, constitute a tense, in one instance; and, from reason and analogy, may doubtless do so, in others, in which minuter divisions of time are necessary, or useful. What reason can be assigned for not considering this case, as other cases, in which a whole is regarded as composed of several parts, or of principal and adjuncts? There is nothing heterogeneous in the parts: and precedent, analogy, utility, and even necessity, authorize the union.

In support of this opinion, we have the authority of eminent grammarians; in particular, that of Dr. Beattie. "Some writers," says the doctor, "will not allow any

thing to be a tense, but what, in one inflected word, expresses an affirmation with time; for that those parts of the verb are not properly called tenses, which assume that appearance, by means of auxiliary words. At this rate, we should have, in English, two tenses only, the present and the past in the active verb, and in the passive no tenses at all. But this is a needless nicety; and, if adopted, would introduce confusion into the grammatical art. If amaveram be a tense, why should not amatus fueram? If I heard be a tense, I did hear, I have heard, and I shall hear, must be equally entitled to that appellation."

The proper form of a tense, in the Greek and Latin tongues, is certainly that which it has in the grammars of those languages. But in the Greek and Latin grammars, we uniformly find, that some of the tenses are formed by variations of the principal verb; and others, by the addition of a helping verb. It is, therefore, indisputable, that the principal verb, or rather its participle, and an auxiliary, constitute a regular tense in the Greek and Latin languages. This point being established, we may, doubtless, apply it to English verbs; and extend the principle as far as convenience, and the idiom of our language require.

If it should be said, that, on the same ground that a participle and auxiliary are allowed to form a tense, and the verb is to be conjugated accordingly, the English noun and pronoun ought to be declined at large, with articles and prepositions; we must object to the inference. Such a mode of declension is not adapted to our language. This we think has been already proved *. It is also confessedly inapplicable to the learned languages. Where then is the grammatical inconsistency, or the want of conformity to the principles of analogy, in making some tenses of the English verb to consist of principal and auxiliary; and the cases of English nouns, chiefly in their termination? The argument from analogy, instead of militating against

* See page 54

E