Uniyersal 
Grammat. 
Verbs often 
intransitive 
424 
wer, did not apply to them, For. this reason these 
fave been retained in the list of active verbs, but dis- 
tinguished from verbs of regimen by the additional 
epithet intransitive. Their peculiar character has been 
generally represented as arising from this peculiarity in 
though they fe nature of the actions signified, that they do not 
signify tran- 
sitive acts. 
Some verbs 
both transi- 
tive and 
intransitive. 
affect any ulterior object. But this is not true in point 
of fact. The transitive or intransitive nature of verbs 
of action depends solely on the occasions of mankind 
jn making use of language. _ Transitive yerbs are 
those which express actions when we have occasion 
instantly to mention an object acted on. _Intransi- 
tive verbs describe actions when we are satisfied with 
stating the connection betwixt the action and the agent. 
Verbs which admit of no direct regimen, and therefore 
are termed intransitive, may introduce other ideas, ex- 
pressed by nouns, through the medium of prepositions. 
The verb “to strike” is transitive, while the verb “ to 
walk” is called intransitive ; and yet it is evident that in 
the act of walking one or more objectsareacted on asmuch 
as in the act of striking. Only it happens that when we 
speak of striking, it is generally of mmportance to point 
out the object that is struck; but, when we speak of walk- 
ing, our attention is chiefly directed to the act as connect- 
ed with the agent. In walking, however, a man walks 
upon some object, which ‘supports him ; he walks from 
some place, and fo some other. Each of the phrases “I 
strike my horse,” and “I walk upon the ground,” express- 
es, in a manner equally explicit, a particular act, together 
with an object affected. The intervention of a preposi- 
*tion in the one case, and the absence of one in the other, 
imply no difference in the energy of the act related, 
but only the different degrees of interest excited in 
the connection of it with the object affected. It 
might naturally be expected, from the numerous and 
varied occasions which we have for the relation of 
events, that, even in describing the same sort of ac- 
tion, we should sometimes have a motive for men- 
tioning an object affected, and sometimes not. For this 
reason some verbs differ from each other only in their 
transitive or intransitive application, of which we have 
already given an instance in the difference betwixt the 
verbs “to speak” and “to say.” In other instances 
the same verb is used either transitively or intransi-= 
tively. We may say at one time, “a miller grinds 
corn ;” in this sentence, corn is the object affected 
by the act ; at another time we may speak ofthe same 
act as characteristic of the situation and employment 
of an individual ; as in the sentence, “ two women were 
cei Ho the mill, the one was taken and the other 
left.” ere no occasion arises for mentioning any ob- 
in on which the act of grinding is exerted. These 
owever are not two different meanings given to the 
verb. In both cases it is used in its full meaning, that 
of describing a species of action. Whether we choose 
to introduce or omit the name of the thing acted on, 
depends on the design which we have in formin 
our discourse. It may or may not be of use to add 
this circumstance to the description. It makes -no 
more difference in the original meaning of the word 
than the introduction of a second sentence in elucida- 
tion of the subject would affect the meaning of the 
words in the sentence first employed. 
Sometimes verbs which are originally intransitive, and 
evidently not intended to have nouns subjoined to them, 
except through the medium of prepositions, are after- 
wards applied as active verbs governing the accusative, 
in consequence of the familiarity which thé expression 
of particular kinds of connection acquires from habit. 
GRAMMAR. 
The verb “ escape” originally required the ition, 
« from’? to express a certain sort of connection betwixt 
the act and other objects. Yet we not only Bey “a pri- 
soner escaped from prison,” but, speaking of our own — 
memory, we may say that “names and dates escape us.” 
Fugire in Latin, is a verb of the same kind, and the 
corresponding phrase me fugit is used in that language, 
Me laiet is of a similar nature. Ardere is intransitive, 
or perhaps ought rather to be called neuter, yet it is 
made to govern the accusative: Formosum pastor Cory< 
don arpEBAT Alezin. : : 
In some instances an active verb, which we are in the quer, 
habit of connecting with nouns by means, of preposi- 
tions, is used to form a transitive verb by being com- com 
pounded with a preposition governing the accusative, 
and evidently derives its transitive power from the pre- ° 
position. Such a verb, like others which govern the 
same case, may be used in the passive voice. In Latin 
we have such words as initur, “it is entered on.” In 
English the same thing takes place, though the two 
words continue separate. The phrase thus formed is 
treated like a compound word, and made to 
through variations similar to those to which entire. 
words are subjected. Such are the phrases “to laugh 
at,” and “to trifle with:” the preposition and the verb 
coalesce to form a sort of compound verb, which is 
used passively in the phrases “to be laughed at,” and 
“to be trifled with.” This species of coalescence of 
words into phrases, subjected to a peculiar inflection, % 
even takes place in instances in which an active verb g¢ 
verns a noun in the accusative, and then leads to another 
by means of a age ae ;.as inthe phrase “to makea 
fool of ;” for we do not say in the passive “afool was 
made of him,” but “he was made a fool of.” Wehave ~ t 
many analogous examples ; as, “ to be made game of,” 
«to be evil spoken of,” “ to be taken notice of,” “to be 
taken care of.” Some even say, “ to be paid attention 
to.” This last expression is inelegant, because it shews 
an unsuccessful grasping at a variety of accommodation. 
On the diversity of regimen of verbs, see our account 
of the cases of the noun. The subjects are inseparably 
connected, and under that head such observations as ~ 
appeared necessary have been delivered, 
Sect. IX. Persons and Numbers. 
Very little remark is required on the meaning at- 
tached to the Persons and Numbers of the verb. But 
the nature ef their connection with this part of speech 
may be illustrated by their etymology. 4 
In those languages in which verbs receive sepa spe jp 
rate terminations for distinguishing the first, second, nati 
and third persons, such terminations are pronouns, and. 
are equally complete as if they were separate words. 
The termination 0 in amo was probably derived from 
ego, the s in amas from cv, the ¢ in amat from avlec, the 
amus in amamus from isis. These terminations shew 
traces of being the same pronouns slightly modified. 
Some philologists who find themselves at one time daz= 
zled by Mr Tooke’s plausible etymologies, are at another 
startled on finding instances to which his principles can« 
not be applied, and on this ground rashly become dis 
posed to condemn the whole as fanciful. A. 
under these impressions might perhaps stop us short 
in the inflections of amo with asking the ene ogy of 
the terminations -afis and -ant in the second and third 
e 
person plural. Alis affords no vestige of the Greek 
imsis, nor -ant of avlo. It would be too bold to main-« 
tain that they are derived from words so dissimilar te 
