fay 4 
‘ decree as prefent by its effets and confequences, he ufes the 
* preterperfect, wapaCeCyxe, he has tranfgrefled. If he confiders the 
* tranfgreflion fimply as paft, he ufes the aorift aepeCy.’ 
Havine thus confined the meaning of the preterperfect to a 
conipound fenfe, which always has a connection with the prefent, 
-Lord Monboddo naturally proceeds to fupply tenfes for the paift, 
i. e. for that paft which has no conneGion with the prefent. This 
purpofe he confiders as an{wered by the aorifts, ufed indefinitely, 
and without diftinction—e. g. he /poke, he fad. But he forgets that 
thefe tenfes, in the meaning by him affigned to them, fignify only 
the paft indefinite, and that he has not pointed out to us any tenfe, 
which may exprefs the paft perfect. Either therefore he muft affert 
that there is no paft perfect in nature, unconnected with the 
prefent, (which would contradiét his previous divifion of the 
paft into perfea, imperfea, and indefinite) or he muft allow 
that he has omitted to fhew any correfpondent tenfe in the 
Grecian grammar. Indefinites only exprefs that the action is paft, 
but fay nothing about its perfeétion; whereas we want a tenfe 
to exprefs both that it is paft and perfea . 
Bur to prove further, that indefinites will not fuffice, as Lord 
Monboddo feems to fuppofe they will, to denote that pa/? which 
excludes the prefent, we muft obferve that the fpeaking of an aQlion 
(3D.;.) merely 
* If thefe expreffions offend, viz. of tenfes or times exprefling the perfection or im- 
perfection of action, let it be remarked that they are only ufed for the fake of brevity, 
and that the reader is always fuppofed to fubftitute my original definitions of definite 
and indefinite tenfes, viz..thofe in which the verb expres the perfe€tion or impets_ 
fection of a€tion; or we may with Dr. Beattie fpeak of the tenies as perfected or 
imperfect with re/pect to action. 
* 
