240 Mr. Sankey on the Analysis and Structure 



am induced, in connexion with it, to remark upon another 

 error, in calling in parts of one verb to supply those of ano- 

 ther, not merely as adopted substitutes recognized as such, but 

 as if they were the legitimate offspring of the root ; thus we 

 have a strange commixture of tenses gathered out of different 

 verbs, in conjugating the verb (pspco, as thus, (pepcv, oiaoj, ojvsyxa. 

 We might just as well say that carried, in English, was the past 

 tense of bear, I admit English grammarians are not without 

 their faults also in this particular : thus, it is usually said that 

 went is the past tense of go, whereas it is the past tense of the 

 old verb wend, whilst go, or rather gae, its allied form in the 

 Scottish dialect, has its own past tense gaed. Similar to this 

 error is that common one in most languages, of connecting 

 comparatives and superlatives with positives, with which, as 

 perhaps neither with one another, they are no way allied in 

 literal or sensible characters, such as good, better, best. 



To return, however, to the verbs, I shall make but one 

 further observation upon them, and it is this, that in analysing 

 the verb we are to attend to six different circumstances : viz. 

 1. the radix; 2. the characteristic of the voice; 3. the cha- 

 racteristic of the mood ; 4. the characteristic of the tense ; 

 5. of the number; and 6. of the person. We should observe, 

 however, that the simpler the form the fewer the characteristics : 

 for example, there is no distinguishing characteristic of the 

 active voice, or present tense, whereas we find oci or viv cha- 

 racteristics of the passive voice, and oi or si of the optative 

 mood. 



Connected with the analysis, it may not be altogether irre- 

 levant to notice here the remarkable anomaly in the Greek 

 tongue of neuters plural, for the most entering into construc- 

 tion with singular verbs. Now it is manifest, that analytically 

 there is no reason why the third person singular should not be 

 connected with plural nouns as well as singular, as it contains 

 no distinctive characteristic of the number to limit it to the 

 same, just as we find, in the English tongue, the same form 

 answer for the first person singular, all the persons of the plural 

 number, inasmuch as it contains no distinctive personal cha- 

 racteristic, and is, therefore, equally applicable to all. In a lan- 

 guage, however, so minutely inflected as the Greek, and which 



