ee? ae 
and to confirm the conjecture. They have two preterperfedts, 
one of which is ‘in fact an aorift. All their grammarians fay 
that this laft is never ufed if the time be not entirely paft; for 
inflance, ‘ il a été heureux cette femaine, ce mois ci, cette année.” 
“He was happy this week, this‘ month, this year ;” not “ il fue 
“ heureux,” though that expreffion would be applied to the hap- 
pinefs of the laft week, “ il /wt heureux la femaine paffée.” So 
they obferve it never is ufed to exprefs an action done the day 
we fpeak in, but one done always at fome fmall diftance of time; 
for inftance, they do not fay, to exprefs the happinefs of this morn- 
ing, ‘“ Je fus heureux ce matin,” but “ J’ai ete heureux ce matin.” 
“The fpeaker would not fay, “ { eat a chicken this morning,” but 
“ T have eaten,” “ J'ai mangé un poulet ce matin.” This is men- 
tioned only to fhew that diftin@ions of this nature are not 
chimerical, but do exift in languages. 
But whether this conjecture be well-founded or not, if the 
former pofitions be admitted, as I think they muft, that the 
fecond aorift is rarely ufed definitely ; that the firft is fo frequent- 
ly ufed in that fenfe, of a paft definite, as to occur oftner than 
the preterperfect itfelf; and that this laft tenfe having affigned to 
it a fpecific and appropriate meaning, there naturally remains for 
the firft aorift a proper and peculiar fignification belonging to 
it in ftri€tnefs of fpeech, though not always fo applied in com- 
mon ufe; I fay, if thefe pofitions be admitted, there will re- 
main a confiderable diftin@ion between the two aorifts. 
Tuere is fiill, lapprehend, another perceptible diftinGtion in the 
ufe of thefe tenfes. If an ation be fpoken of which has been 
often done, I think it is obfervable that the Greeks generally ufe the 
firft 
