[ 28 ] 
merely as pat, i.e. indefinitely, does not exclude the prefent: it may 
be in part paft, yet fill continuing and we may be {peaking of that 
portion which is paft. He /poke we//, does not imply that he may 
not be fpeaking ftill: It may only mean that he {poke well during 
that part of the fpeech which the relator happened to hear. But 
when we fay, he has been a good fpeaker, we exclude the prefent, and 
evidently exprefs that he is no longer fo. How would indefinites 
anfwer this purpofe? Lord Monboddo himfelf takes notice of this 
diftinGion in Latin. “ The Latins, fays he,” “ have a mode of 
“ fometimes ufing their preterperfe@t, in a fenfe which pofitively 
“ excludes the idea of the prefent time.” 
« Fuit Ilium, Fuimus Troes.” VIRGIL. 
“. Vivite felices, memores & vivite noftri, 
* Sive erzmus, feu nos fata fuiffe volent.” 
TIBULLUS. 
He obferves at the fame time that the Latin language was 
probably derived from the Greek before the Greek had arrived at 
its greateft improvements, and before it had been enriched by a 
greater variety of tenfes, and therefore has no aorifts. 
Ir this be true, do not his obfervations make it probable, that 
after the feparation of the Latin language, the Greeks had furnifhed 
theirs with the firft aorift, for the very purpofe of expreffing, by 
a feparate tenfe, this exclufion of the prefent time, as they fur- 
nifhed it with the fecond aorift to exprefs the mere pure inde- 
‘finite ? 
Bur 
a es 
