Owen—Hybrid Parts of Speech. 
205 
able to separate the former, even though in form they be iden¬ 
tical. For, if form-identity prevail over difference in mean¬ 
ing, “wax” for instance in the sense of grow, and “wax” in the 
sense of cover with w T ax, will form a single conjugational sys¬ 
tem, to the presumable discontent of every grammarian. 
It further appears to have been at least undesirable to join 
with the conjugation of affirmative verbs, the forms which ex¬ 
hibit negation, even when, as in some of the languages, ne¬ 
gation (if I remember aright) is accomplished by inflectional 
variation of the affirmative form. The difference between eat¬ 
ing and not eating is essentially the difference between eating 
and fasting. Whatever rational ground exists for admitting 
“not eating” to the conjugation of “eating,” equally favors the 
admission of “fasting,” and even “not fasting.” So long as 
“fasting” is not admitted to the conjugation of “eating,” there 
seems to be no better than a very imperfect, formal reason for 
ranking affirmative and negative systems in a single conjuga¬ 
tion. 
Again the difference between eating and fasting is fully 
equalled in importance by the difference between eating and 
being eaten. 64 The reasons which favor the conjugational sep¬ 
aration of the former pair, would seem to apply to the latter. 
Accordingly it does not appear to have been advisable to join 
the “voices” in a single conjugation. 
Conjugation commonly admits occasional forms expressing 
(as one of their meanings) “customary or repeated action.” 65 
Thus of “jacio” (I throw) the Latin grammars offer “jaciebam” 
(in the sense of I repeatedly threw) as a conjugational form. 
Per contra, “jacto,” which may also mean repeated throwing, is 
ranked as an independent verb. Grammar can, however, hardly 
64 As I am ready to argue in another publication, it is, in the voices, 
strictly not at all the action named that varies, but the implication of 
the action personnel. Between “the cannibal dined on missionary” and 
“the cannibal was dined on by a missionary,” the difference intended 
hardly bears on the nature of the dining, but on who was diner and who 
dinner—i. e., whether relation expressed by the verb is that of diner 
to dinner, or vice versa. 
es I momentarily pose the verb, for convenience, only as exhibiting 
action, without intending to neglect the less obvious meanings which 
it also renders. 
