486 ON THE ANALOGY IN THE FORMATION OF SOME 



counting for these old and now obsolete forms, but by imagin- 

 ing new Presents in — <ra>, of which they supposed these forms 

 to be the regular Imperfects. This manner of solving the dif- 

 ficulty has been implicitly followed by Eustathius, in his 

 Greek Commentary on the Poems of Homer, and (I am sorry 

 to be obliged to add) by my late invaluable friend Lord Mon- 

 boddo ; of whom, and of the dies Attici, now long gone by, in 

 which I enjoyed his learned and elegant society, I never can 

 think but with an indescribable feeling of satisfaction and re- 

 gret. 



If, however, we acquiesce in this solution of the difficulty, 

 we must be content to abate somewhat of our admiration of 

 the Greek language, which has been heretofore held to ex- 

 press, with the utmost clearness and precision, all the various 

 and diversified conceptions of the human mind, even to their 

 minutest shades of difference. Indeed, that the Greeks, or 

 any enlightened people, should employ those forms of their 

 Verbs as Presents, which were familiar to every ear as appro- 

 priate expressions of the Future, or, as Eustathius often ex- 

 presses it, should draw back the Future to express the Present, 

 is, when duly considered, a supposition in itself so unreason- 

 able, not to say absurd, that it would require better and more 

 conclusive evidence to support it, than has yet been produced. 

 Besides, where was the necessity of such an innovation ? what 

 advantage was to be gained by it ? The original Presents re- 

 mained in common use. Why then employ the Futures, duo-opai 

 and l%oy,a,i, E. G. as Presents, when ^va and $vo{aui, and Izu 

 and Uopcii, present forms in common use, would answer the 

 same purpose ? 



There is still another consideration, to which due weight 

 ought to be given. There is no evidence whatever, that those 



Present- 



