oe 
[Sip 
Bur allowing Lord Monboddo’s extenfion of Dr. Clark’s theory 
to be too refined; as many have fuppofed it to be, and that the 
exceptions to Dr. Clark’s explication of the preterperfect are as 
numerous as they feem to be, and that it often means an aétion 
entirely paft and difeontinued, even in its confequences; give 
me leaye to hazatd a conjeture, that even in this cafe it is 
diftinguifhable from the firft aorift, and that this tenfe has ftill a 
peculiar meaning of itsown. ‘“ The difference between the preter- - 
« perfect, and the aorifts,” fays Mr. Huntingford, ‘‘ is that which we 
“ underftand when we fay, ] have written yeypaa, and I wrote 
"© Eyoatbe. It is fo when this aorift is ufed indefinitely, and in fuch 
“ cafe the diftindtion equally applies to the fecond. But we are 
“ now fpeaking of cafes where it is ufed definitely, where they 
“ both fignify, J have written, and in fuch cafe fome grammarians, 
" as is obferved in the Port Royal Grammar, have conceived the 
“ difference to be, that the firft aorift denotes a time very Jately pa/?, 
“ the preterperfect, ove long face,” ~ It is with much deference that 
I propofe an opinion. dire@ly oppofite. Let us fee, by a few ex- 
amples out of many which have occurred to me, whether there be 
not fome ground for this opinion, having firft ftated clearly what 
the opinion is*, . 
(D2...) In 
* The author of the article Tems, in the Encyclopedic, obferves that fuch dif- 
tingtions are poffible, and therefore ought to be noticed in treating of univerfal 
gtammar, though he does not know whether they ever have taken place in the 
grammar of any particular language, I think they have in French as well as 
Greek, in their preterit abfolu and preterit -indefini. Pere Harduin fays fuch dif- 
tinctions are arbitrary. Be it fo; their exiftence is not thereby difproved. The dif- 
tin&tion above-mentioned between the aorifts, (viz. that of the contraft obferved by 
Dr, Gregory between the fimple and compound paft,) is certainly arbitrary, depending 
on expreffion in words, not on the nature of things; yet, though we can from thence 
account for the diftinGtion having efcaped general notice, we are not thereby autho- 
rifed to deny its exiftence, 
