426 
Universal 
Grammar. 
=o 
Sometimes 
applied to 
the pasty 
Sometimes 
to the fu- 
ture. 
Tenses not 
indispen- 
sible, 
The true 
present 
tense. 
Importance 
of the pre- 
terite. 
cative, and that no tense is implied in it. When we say 
«the sun rises in summer much earlier than in winter,” 
we assert a fact applicable to past, present, and future. 
Of the same nature are mathematical theorems and all 
general propositions. This form of the verb might 
therefore with respect to tense receive the appellation 
of a universal aorist. This indeed is the form of the verb 
used for describing present transactions. The idea of 
present time is on such occasions attached to the sen- 
tence, in consequence of an inference drawn from the 
nature of the subject. 
In some languages it is elegantly used to describe a 
long portion of past time extending to the present: 
as in French Je suis ici trois ans, and.in Latin Tres 
annos, hic adsum. But it is also used in describing 
events which have been completed at a time past, as, 
« Yesterday, when walking along, whom do I meet 
but my*old kinsman :” “Iam glad, says he, to find 
ou looking so well.” Grammarians, never doubt- 
ing that such indications are essentially of the present 
tense, have supposed that in such sentences the past is, 
for the sake of vivid representation, described by a fi- 
gure of speech as present. The facts now stated shew 
that such explanations are unnecessary ; and if they 
are in any degree just, or adapted to the conceptions 
which we attach to this form of the verb, the con- 
sideration that this indicative is not restricted to any 
tense will account for the facility with which we re- 
concile our minds to a figure of speech which would 
otherwise appear a distortion. 
We sometimes also use this general indicative in de- 
seribing future events, and their futurity is pointed 
out by some other word in the sentence, or by the 
evident import of the whole. ‘“ Next Tuesday és 
the first of April,” is a sentence equally proper with 
* next Tuesday will be the first of April.” And we 
say without any dread of being accused of vicious dic- 
tion, “ To-morrow he begins his journey.” 
_ It would be possible for men to convey their mean- 
ing on all occasions by indicatives, without any dis- 
tinction of tenses. The mention of other circumstances 
might serve to prevent the hearer from confounding 
the past, the present, and the future. But a sign of 
general application, consisting either of a separate word, 
a termination, or a systematic variation of the verb, is 
an important convenience, 
We are not altogether destitute of resources for 
marking with precision the present tense. Every lan- 
guage possesses separate words for the purpose, such 
as now’in English, and the corresponding words in 
other languages. It happens that, in our language, 
without the use of such additions, we indicate present 
time by employing the substantive verb with the par- 
ticiple instead of the usual indicative. « He writes” 
is the indicative without tense. «He is writing” is 
the present indicative. When we say “He writes a 
good hand,” or ‘* He writes to his relations every 
month,” we restrict our meaning to no particular 
time. But, when we say “ he is writing,” we describe 
a present transaction. This distinction is entirely con- 
ventional. The original meaning of* this combination 
of words implies nothing to distinguish it from the 
simple indicatiye, as the verb “is,” and the termina- 
tion “ing,” are, with respect to tense, equally general. 
3. The Preterite Imperfect and Perfect. 
The preterite tenses are of great importance in lan- 
guage; and all tenses by which knowledge is communi- 
GRAMMAR. 
_owe our information. Our efficient communications of 
cated imply a reference to past time. To the past we 
knowledge consist in references to the . Tho 
the present exhibits nature as immediate y perceived 
the senses, which are the inlets of knowledge, it is by 
means of the — that we are enabled to form a judgment 
concerning the objects perceived. On our experi« 
ence depend all our judgments and ex ( 
ing the future. If language consisted essentially in-as- 
sertion, the past tense would be the original form of the 
verb. Grammarians state this to vod fact in the 3 Its 
cient Hebrew. In that language the preterite is in 
verbs simple and uniform, consisting of two syllables, 
which are formed of three consonants, with two inter- 
sed vowel sounds. The differences of the consonants 
distinguish the verbs from one another, while the vowel 
sounds are the same in all. Such are the verbs 1p» 
Menge visitavit yn3 (nathan) dedit. The verb in 
orm is considered as furnishing roots from which all 
other. words are derived. But those who have con- — 
cluded, from the concurrence of all the facts in other 
languages, that the imperative is the original form of 
the verb, will find no necessity for adopting a different 
opinion of the formation of that ancient lan . The 
eo Set is in it equally simple with the preterite, gene~ 
rally consisting of the same consonants, varied most pro= 
bably by a variation of the vowels. It has, therefore, on 
this principle, an equal claim to be considered as the 
root. In some instances it is shorter: in the verb }n3 
(nathan) it is 2 (then.) Verbs thus formed are on 
that account denominated irregular. But the fact, in 
such instances of the greater brevity of the imperative, 
shews that the Hebrew in this-respect does not differ 
from other languages. The simplicity and regularity 
of the preterite, however, in Hebrew may be con« | 
sidered as a consequence of the important rank which 
that tense holds in the most prevalent application of 
lan, e , : 
In English, the past tense is formed by a variation 
on the root of the verb as used for the imperative. 
This most commonly consists of the addition of the 
termination “ ed.” Others are formed by variations of 
the vowels; as “ struck” for the preterite of “ strike,” 
** wore” of ‘“* wear,” “ bore” of “ bear, “ drove” of 
“ drive.” “I walk,” and “ I drive,” are assertions in 
the aoristic or present indicative; “ [ walked,” and 
«T drove,” are in the past. This tense implies that 
an action was begun, and was continued at some p 
period. It is called the imperfect, because no definite 
relation to the present state of the event is implied in 
it, and room is left for supposing that the action may 
be still continued. — ‘ 
When we mean to assert that an action is accom 
plished, we introduce before the expression of past 
tense the auxiliary verb “ to have” in the present or ge- 
neral indicative. “ I have walked,” signifies, ““Iamin 
possession of the complete act.” “Ihave (by myown 
exertions) assured myself of its completion.” wy | 
Some English verbs have two variations ef the radi 2 
word for expressing past time, “ strive,” has “strove,” | 
and “ striven ;” “weave,” “ wove,” and “ woven;” 
‘“‘ break,” “broke,” and broken ;” “do,” “did,” and — | 
*« done.” The completed act is expressed by the lastof __ 
these forms, the words “ striven,” “ woven,” “broken,” |__ 
and “done.” Mr Tooke considers this contrivance as 
a eter ds because one word +5 t fons i suffie  * 
cient for every purpose. In verbs which have the pre- 
terite in “ ed.” the same word is used for the simple — 
description of an event in a train of progress at some 
ty 
