fect relates to tense; and the sign of the perfect tense is universally declared to be have; so that to form the perfect participle we need the present participle of have, i. e., having, combined with another participial form, e. g., loved, making having loved, the perfect participle.

Now some of these grammarians call the last word, loved, the perfect participle, without, I suppose, meaning or knowing exactly what they say; as loved is clearly not the perfect participle at all; not even an elliptical form of it, as it cannot be so used in any construction whatever.

This third principal part, so variously named, is a simple participial form, "used only in combination," denotes past time, and in transitive verbs has an active meaning. It is used in combination with the present, past and future of have, the perfect auxiliary, to form the relative tenses, or tenses for completed action or event of intransitive verbs, and of the active voice of transitive verbs; but it is not on this account to be called the perfect participle; and indeed we derive the perfect participle from this participle by combining it with having, as having loved. The term perfect participle, as applied to this particular principal part, is therefore a misnomer. It is the past

participle.

But again, these grammarians pretend to form the passive voice also with this perfect participle. But this is, if possible, still more name we must use the form, and

absurd. Thus, if we insist on the we should have "am having loved" for the passive form; which is evidently not the passive form, but am loved is the true form of the present indicative passive. But we shall also see that this participial form, loved, used in forming the passive voice, is not even the past participle. If this is so, then grammarians do not furnish us any principal part from which to form the passive voice of transitive verbs. But Murray calls the third principal part the Perfect or Passive Participle. Some grammarians who erroneously call this past participle the perfect participle, also call the perfect participle, having loved, the "compound participle"; a useless and unmeaning term in a syntactical sense. But what in regard to the voice of this past participle when the verb is transitive? It is evidently active; also, am loved is present passive, and have been loved is perfect or present-perfect passive; and these tenses are sufficiently indicated by the auxiliaries, am and have been, which are themselves respectively present

and perfect or present perfect; so that no tense whatever is denoted by the participle; and loved in the passive voice is of course passive; this participle then is not the past participle, but a new principal part which may justly be called the Passive Participle, having necessarily no tense of its own, as it is used only in combination with auxiliaries which of themselves indicate the proper tense of the verb. Now some may contend that this past participle and passive participle are one and the same thing, simply because they are usually of the same form. Greene makes a clear distinction. There is one verb at least which has different forms for these two participles, viz., bear, meaning to produce, to bring forth. The grammars give the principal parts:

Present,

Bear,

Past,

bore, (bare,).

Past Participle,
born.

Unless I am greatly mistaken, here are two errors: first, the omission of the past participle entirely! and second, calling born the past participle when it is the passive participle. See the proof in the following examples:

It is proper to say "she has borne three sons;" but not, "she has born three sons;" which proves that borne is the past participle belonging to the active voice, and that born is not this participle. Here is another common use of borne, the past participle: "That tree has borne [fruit] every year."

It is proper to say "she was born in Boston"; which shows that born is the passive participle. It is admitted however that born is a contraction of borne, which form must have been originally used, as this verb is akin to bear, meaning to carry. But even that does not help the case any. These are the forms now.

to

But I should do great injustice to S. S. Greene, if I should neglect say that he, in substance, admits or explains the same things in regard to these two participles in some most excellent remarks in his "Greene's Elements," and in other editions; except that he does not call the passive participle by the name of a principal part; while according to his own definitions and remarks he should do so.

I am glad also to be able to say that, in my opinion, his treatment of the verb altogether is far superior to that of any other grammar with which I am acquainted; and that not only in this respect but in many others, Greene's Grammars excel all others with which I am acquainted. One recent grammar, which I do not now recall, ignores

voice entirely; and considers the auxiliary am or be the copula or principal verb, and this passive participle the participial adjective attribute. This is undoubtedly literally correct, as the sense is the same, but is exposed to several objections; the principal of which is that it merges the principal verb into a subordinate element.

But here is another point. It is proper to say "I go," or "I am going." The former is the common form and the latter is the progressive form of the same verb. Or else the latter is a kind of periphrastic conjugation; but the same might be said also of the passive voice. But the principal idea of the verb or predicate is contained in going, which is called the present participle, and therefore it should be treated as the principal verb; and am the auxiliary. Now the conjugation of the verb in the progressive form is effected by joining this present participle with the various modes and tenses of the auxiliaries; and this present participle may therefore with great propriety be called one of the principal parts of verbs; that is, when we require the complete conjugation of the verb in all its forms. Clark, Worcester and Webster so give it; at least, I understand that to be their meaning; though they do not speak of it in so many words. We have then four principal parts to intransitive verbs, and five to transitive verbs. We will add a short list of principal parts:

Here we must leave this interesting subject. If we have not sustained our charges against the grammars then I am greatly deceived; and if any one will let us know the fact, we will try again. The subject of connectives would form an interesting field I had intended to show that the ava

of investigation and criticism. rice of publishers is a fruitful cause of bad books, but suffice it to say that, teachers understand this subject as thoroughly as any class; as they are continually "bored" by those travelling nuisances called "Book Agents."

J. M. R.

INADEQUATE SUPPORTS.

A few years ago we saw the workmen laying stones and bricks upon the foundation of an old building which had just been removed. Stone by stone the building rose until it reached almost a dizzy height, and its imposing front was the admiration of thousands. Rich merchandise filled the spacious rooms from cellar to roof. But the foundation was inadequate to the burden imposed upon it, and one winter's night sank beneath it. The next day we looked upon a heap of unsightly ruins.

Strong wheels and neatly polished shafts were driving the thousand wheels, pulleys and spindles, busy hands were directing the motions of these admirable machines, throughout the long and spacious rooms of a magnificent mill, when a supporting pillar gave way, a crash followed, and the beautiful mill, its fine machinery, its human beings, was a heap of mangled smoking rubbish.

Do we weep over these ruins? Let us look at ruins sadder yet. I saw a delicate lad with bright intellect, quick to learn, affectionate, and possessed of a judgment far beyond his years. On this foundation, said his loving parents, we will build an edifice of which the world may well be proud. Stone by stone was carved and laid in its place, and together they presented themselves in goodly proportions to the admiring builders. The mind, that in which the greatness of man exists, was the only object of thought and admiration. The pale and sunken cheek only made the intelligence beaming from the eye more impressive. But before the work was half complete, the foundation gave way and the superstructure fell, crushing beneath it the hopes of loving parents and admiring friends. We saw the sable procession winding its way to the silent burying place, and heard the complaining murmur that God so soon should remove one so young and so promising. Why, O why, fond parents did you attempt to 'raise so costly an edifice before strengthening the foundation?

Read the frequent obituary notices of the gifted and good who die young, and tell me if these human wrecks are not sadder spectacles than the ruin of costly edifices? We call these events sad dispensations of Providence. So was the fall of Pemberton Mill a sad dispensation of Providence. One boy is kept in school for a few years and dies, while another of like constitution is sent into the country to rise early and dig in the soil and comes home healthy. Such are the dispensations of Providence.

But why write thus? It will do no good. These truths have been reiterated for generations, still we can go into any of our schools and into any of our college classes and there find feeble frames tottering under the weight of intellectual pressure to which their natural guardians are subjecting them. Parents do not, or will not see their error until the grave closes over their loved one. Then they console themselves with the comforting thought that the departed one was too good and too bright for this world.

L.

A SCHOOL-ROOM REVERIE.

BY W. H. VENABLE.

WHEREFORE fret if heedless Tom
Loseth half the words I say?
What if, sometimes, dreaming Ben
Fails to learn his Algebra.

Speaking is not everything,—

Farmers must not always hoe;
Undisturbed, the roots of mind,
Oftentimes, the strongest grow.

Action is not everything,—

Crystals form when liquids rest;

And the work we leave undone

May prove to be the best.

Haply, inattentive Tom

Thinks a thought beyond my reach,

Haply, idle Ben may dream

More than Mathematics teach.

Ohio Educational Monthly.

THE CASPIAN.-The old statements that the level of the Caspian is 300 feet below the ocean rested solely on conjectures made by the naturalist, Pallas. The influence of this great depression on the warmer climate of that region, the peculiar vegetation of the salt steppes, and the salt morasses which exist where the land is perfectly