The Grammar of English Grammars by Goold Brown (free ebook reader .txt) 📕

all this: nor is the proof invalidated by resolving verbs of this kind into their component parts. Of the participles in ed applied to present time, the following is an example: "Such a course would be less likely to produce injury to health, than the present course pursued at our colleges."—Literary Convention, p. 118. Tooke's notion of grammatical time, appears to have been in several respects a strange one: he accords with those who call this a past participle, and denies to the other not only the name and notion of a tense, but even the general idea of time. In speaking of the old participial termination and or ende,[304] which our Anglo-Saxon ancestors used where we write ing, he says, "I do not allow that there are any present participles, or any present tense of the verb." [305]—Diversions of Purley, Vol. ii, p. 41.

OBS. 6.—The Perfect participle of transitive verbs, being used in the formation of passive verbs, is sometimes called the Passive participle. It usually has in itself a passive signification, except when it is used in forming the compound tenses of the active verb. Hence the difference between the sentences, "I have written a letter," and, "I have a letter written;" the former being equivalent to Scripsi literas, and the latter to Sunt mihi literæ scriptæ. But there are many perfect participles which cannot with any propriety be called passive. Such are all those which come from intransitive or neuter verbs; and also those which so often occur in the tenses of verbs not passive. I have already noticed some instances of this misnomer; and it is better to preclude it altogether, by adhering to the true name of this Participle, THE PERFECT. Nor is that entirely true which some assert, "that this participle in the active is only found in combination;" that, "Whenever it stands alone to be parsed as a participle, it is passive."—Hart's English Gram., p. 75. See also Bullions's Analyt. and Pract. Gram., p. 77; and Greene's Analysis, or Gram., p. 225. "Rebelled," in the following examples, cannot with any propriety be called a passive participle:

   "Rebelled, did I not send them terms of peace,
    Which not my justice, but my mercy asked?"—Pollok, x, 253.

    "Arm'd with thy might, rid Heav'n of these rebell'd,
    To their prepar'd ill mansion driven down."—Milton, vi, 737.

OBS. 7.—The third participle has most generally been called the Compound, or the Compound perfect. The latter of these terms seems to be rather objectionable on account of its length; and against the former it may be urged that, in the compound forms of conjugation, the first or imperfect participle is a compound: as, being writing, being seen. Dr. Adam calls having loved the perfect participle active, which he says must be rendered in Latin by the pluperfect of the subjunctive; as, he having loved, quum amavisset; (Lat. and Eng. Gram., p. 140;) but it is manifest that the perfect participle of the verb to love, whether active or passive, is the simple word loved, and not this compound. Dr. Adam, in fact, if he denies this, only contradicts himself; for, in his paradigms of the English Active Voice, he gives the participles as two only, and both simple, thus: "Present, Loving; Perfect, Loved:"—"Present, Having; Perfect, Had." So of the Neuter Verb: "Present, Being; Perfect, Been."—Ib., pp. 81 and 82. His scheme of either names or forms is no model of accuracy. On the very next page, unless there is a misprint in several editions, he calls the Second participle the "imperfect;" saying, "The whole of the passive voice in English is formed by the auxiliary verb to be, and the participle imperfect; as, I am loved, I was loved, &c." Further: "In many verbs," he adds, "the present participle also is used in a passive sense; as, These things are doing, were doing, &c.; The house is building, was building, &c."—Ib., p. 83. N. Butler, in his Practical Grammar, of 1845, names, and counts, and orders, the participles very oddly: "Every verb," he says, "has two participles—the imperfect and the perfect."—P. 78. Yet, for the verb love, he finds these six: two "IMPERFECT, Loving and Being loved;" two "PERFECT, Having loved, and Having been loved;" one "AUXILIARY PERFECT, Loved," of the "Active Voice;" and one "PASSIVE, Loved," of the "Passive Voice." Many old writers erroneously represent the participle in ing as always active, and the participle in ed or en as always passive; and some, among whom is Buchanan, making no distinction between the simple perfect loved and the compound having loved, place the latter with the former, and call it passive also. The absurdity of this is manifest: for having loved or having seen is active; having been or having sat is neuter; and having been loved or having been seen is passive. Again, the triple compound, having been writing, is active; and having been sitting is neuter; but if one speak of goods as having been selling low, a similar compound is passive.

OBS. 8.—Now all the compound participles which begin with having are essentially alike; and, as a class of terms, they ought to have a name adapted to their nature, and expressive of their leading characteristic. Having loved differs from the simple participle loved, in signification as well as in form; and, if this participle is to be named with reference to its meaning, there is no more suitable term for it than the epithet PREPERFECT,—a word which explains itself, like prepaid or prerequisite. Of the many other names, the most correct one is PLUPERFECT,—which is a term of very nearly the same meaning. Not because this compound is really of the pluperfect tense, but because it always denotes being, action, or passion, that is, or was, or will be, completed before the doing or being of something else; and, of course, when the latter thing is represented as past, the participle must correspond to the pluperfect tense of its verb; as, "Having explained her views, it was necessary she should expatiate on the vanity and futility of the enjoyments promised by Pleasure."—Jamieson's Rhet., p. 181. Here having explained is exactly equivalent to when she had explained. Again: "I may say, He had commanded, and we obeyed; or, He having commanded, we obeyed."—Fetch's Comprehensive Gram., p. ix. Here the two phrases in Italics correspond in import, though not in construction.

OBS. 9.—Pluperfect is a derivative contracted from the Latin plusquam-perfectum, and literally signifies more than complete, or beyond the perfect; i. e., (as confirmed by use,) antecedently finished, or completed before. It is the usual name of our fourth tense; is likewise applicable to a corresponding tense in other tongues; and is a word familiar to every scholar. Yet several grammarians,—too ready, perhaps, for innovation,—have shown their willingness to discard it altogether. Bullions, Butler, Hiley, Perley, Wells, and some others, call the English pluperfect tense, the past-perfect, and understand either epithet to mean—"completed at or before a certain past time;" (Bullions's E. Gram., p. 39;) that is—"finished or past, at some past time."—Butler's Pract. Gram., p. 72. The relation of the tense is before the past, but the epithet pluperfect is not necessarily limited to this relation, any more than what is perfect is necessarily past. Butler has urged, that, "Pluperfect does not mean completed before," but is only "a technical name of a particular tense;" and, arguing from this erroneous assumption, has convinced himself, "It would be as correct to call this the second future participle, as the pluperfect."—Ib., p. 79. The technical name, as limited to the past, is preterpluperfect, from the older term præteritum plusquam perfectum; so preterperfect, from præteritum perfectum, i. e. past perfect, is the name of an other tense, now called the perfect: wherefore the substitution of past-perfect for pluperfect is the less to be commended. There may be a convenience in having the name of the tense to differ from that of the participle, and this alone induces me to prefer preperfect to pluperfect for the name of the latter.

OBS. 10.—From the participle in ed or en, we form three tenses, which the above-named authors call perfect;—"the present-perfect, the past-perfect, and the future-perfect;"—as, have seen, had seen, will have seen. Now it is, doubtless, the participle, that gives to these their perfectness; while diversity in the auxiliaries makes their difference of time. Yet it is assumed by Butler, that, in general, the simple participle in ed or en, "does not denote an action done and completed," and is not to be called perfect; (p. 80;)—that, "If we wish to express by a participle, an action completed at any time, we use the compound form, and this is THE perfect participle;" (p. 79;)—that, "The characteristic of the participle in ed is, that it implies the reception of an action;" (p. 79;)—that, hence, it should be called the passive, though it "is usually called the perfect participle;" (p. 79;)—that, "The use of this participle in the perfect tenses of the active voice should not be taken into consideration in giving it a name or a definition;" (p. 80;)—that its active, neuter, or intransitive use is not a primitive idiom of the language, but the result of a gradual change of the term from the passive to the active voice; (p. 80;)—that, "the participle has changed its mode of signification, so that, instead of being passive, it is now active in sense;" (p. 105;)—that, "having changed its original meaning so entirely, it should not be considered the same participle;" (p. 78;)—that, "in such cases, it is a perfect participle," and, "for the sake of distinction [,] this may be called the auxiliary perfect participle."—Ib. These speculations I briefly throw before the reader, without designing much comment upon them. It will be perceived that they are, in several respects, contradictory one to an other. The author himself names the participle in reference to a usage which he says, "should not be taken into consideration;" and names it absurdly too; for he calls that "the auxiliary," which is manifestly the principal term. He also identifies as one what he professes to distinguish as two.

OBS. 11.—Participles often become adjectives, and are construed before nouns to denote quality. The terms so converted form the class of participial adjectives. Words of a participial form may be regarded as adjectives, under the following circumstances: 1. When they reject the idea of time, and denote something customary or habitual, rather than a transient act or state; as, "A lying rogue,"—i.e., one that is addicted to lying. 2. When they admit adverbs of comparison; as, "A more learned man." 3. When they are compounded with something that does not belong to the verb; as, "unfeeling, unfelt:" there is no verb to unfeel, therefore these words cannot be participles. Adjectives are generally placed before their nouns; participles, after them. The words beginning with un, in the following lines may be classed with participial adjectives:

   "No king, no subject was; unscutcheoned all;
    Uncrowned, unplumed, unhelmed, unpedigreed;
    Unlaced, uncoroneted, unbestarred."
        —Pollok, C. of T., B. viii, l. 89.

OBS. 12.—Participles in ing often become nouns. When preceded by an article, an adjective or a noun or pronoun of the possessive case, they are construed as nouns; and, if wholly such, have neither adverbs nor active regimen: as, "He laugheth at the shaking of a spear."—Job, xli, 29. "There is no searching of his understanding."—Isaiah, xl, 28. "In their setting of their threshold by ray threshold."—Ezekiel, xliii, 8. "That any man should make my glorying void."—1 Cor., ix, 15. The terms so converted form the class of verbal or participial nouns. But some late authors—(J. S. Hart, S. S. Greene, W. H. Wells, and others—) have given the name of participial nouns to many participles,—such participles, often, as retain all their verbal properties and adjuncts, and merely partake of some syntactical resemblance to nouns. Now, since the chief characteristics of such words are from the verb, and are incompatible with the specific nature of a noun, it is clearly improper to call them nouns. There are, in the popular use of participles, certain mixed constructions which are reprehensible; yet it is the peculiar nature of a participle, to participate the properties of other parts of speech,—of the verb and adjective,—of the verb and noun,—or sometimes, perhaps, of all three. A participle immediately preceded by a preposition, is not converted into a noun, but remains a participle, and therefore retains its adverb, and also its government of the objective case; as, "I thank you for helping him so seasonably." Participles in this construction correspond with the Latin gerund, and are sometimes called gerundives.

OBS. 13.—To distinguish the participle from the participial noun, the learner should observe the following four things: 1. Nouns take articles and adjectives before them; participles, as such, do not. 2. Nouns may govern the possessive case before them, but not the objective after them; participles may govern the objective case, but not so properly the possessive. 3. Nouns, if they have adverbs, require the hyphen; participles take adverbs separately, as do their