[ | 
perfect. In this laft fenfe only is the word applied in the fol- 
lowing treatife, as by definite is meant the tenfe in which the 
verb exprefies the perfetion of the ation. The reafon of adopting 
thefe definitions will appear in the fequel. * 
3. Ir will be obferved that I fay, “ do not expre/s perfeftion 
‘“‘ or imperfeGiion,” for it may be implied and yet the tenfe be 
indefinite. Thus Mr. Harris, in his Hermes, truly calls / wrote, 
and J wrife, indefinites; although the man who wrote has 
written, that is, the action is perfefted; and the man who writes 
is writing, that is, the a€tion is imperfe&t: but the perfe@ion 
and imperfeCtion, though it may be implied, not being expreffed, 
not being brought into view (to do which the auxiliary verb is 
neceffary), nor intended to be fo, fuch tenfes are properly called 
indefinites.. They may be called, if we pleafe, verbal indefinites ; 
but it is of thefe we fpeak; and if they be not indefinites, there 
can be no other in the fenfe which, as it has been obferved, is 
applied to the word in this treatife, and I think in common 
ufe, and by moft philological writers. 
4. To illuftrate this definition ftill further by example. When 
Dr. Louth fays, that Z do, and I did, often exprefs the prefent 
imperfect and preterimperfe@t, I muft beg leave, with great de- 
ference, to differ from him. ‘They are indefinite. ‘* He loves 
“not plays, as thou do/f, Anthony,” does not direcily bring under 
our confideration or view Anthony’s continuing, or not continuing 
to love plays (though it may by implication), but merely his 
love for them, the affection merely, without calling our attention 
to 
