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

OBS. 4.—A verb, then, being expressive of some attribute, which it ascribes to the thing or person named as its subject; of time, which it divides and specifies by the tenses; and also, (with the exception of the infinitive,) of an assertion or affirmation; if we take away the affirmation and the distinction of tenses, there will remain the attribute and the general notion of time; and these form the essence of an English participle. So that a participle is something less than a verb, though derived immediately from it; and something more than an adjective, or mere attribute, though its manner of attribution is commonly the same. Hence, though the participle by rejecting the idea of time may pass almost insensibly into an adjective, and become truly a participial adjective; yet the participle and the adjective are by no means one and the same part of speech, as some will have them to be. There is always an essential difference in their meaning. For instance: there is a difference between a thinking man and a man thinking; between a bragging fellow and a fellow bragging; between a fast-sailing ship and a ship sailing fast. A thinking man, a bragging fellow, or a fast-sailing ship, is contemplated as being habitually or permanently such; a man thinking, a fellow bragging, or a ship sailing fast, is contemplated as performing a particular act; and this must embrace a period of time, whether that time be specified or not. John Locke was a thinking man; but we should directly contradict his own doctrine, to suppose him always thinking.

OBS. 5.—The English participles are all derived from the roots of their respective verbs, and do not, like those of some other languages, take their names from the tenses. On the contrary, they are reckoned among the principal parts in the conjugation of their verbs, and many of the tenses are formed from them. In the compound forms of conjugation, they are found alike in all the tenses. They do not therefore, of themselves, express any particular time; but they denote the state of the being, action, or passion, in regard to its progress or completion. This I conceive to be their principal distinction. Respecting the participles in Latin, it has been matter of dispute, whether those which are called the present and the perfect, are really so in respect to time or not. Sanctius denies it. In Greek, the distinction of tenses in the participles is more apparent, yet even here the time to which they refer, does not always correspond to their names. See remarks on the Participles in the Port Royal Latin and Greek Grammars.

OBS. 6.—Horne Tooke supposes our participles in ed to express time past, and those in ing to have no signification of time. He says, "I did not mean to deny the adsignification of time to all the participles; though I continue to withhold it from that which is called the participle present."—Diversions of Purley, Vol. ii, p. 415. Upon the same point, he afterwards adds, "I am neither new nor singular; for Sanctius both asserted and proved it by numerous instances in the Latin. Such as, 'Et abfui proficiscens in Græciam.' Cicero. 'Sed postquam amans accessit pretium pollicens.' Terent. 'Ultro ad cam venies indicans te amare.' Terent. 'Turnum fugientem hæc terra videbit.' Virg."—Tooke's Div., ii, 420. Again: "And thus I have given you my opinion concerning what is called the present participle. Which I think improperly so called; because I take it to be merely the simple verb adjectived, without any adsignification of manner or time."—Tooke's Div., Vol. ii, p. 423.

OBS. 7.—I do not agree with this author, either in limiting participles in ed to time past, or in denying all signification of time to those in ing; but I admit that what is commonly called the present participle, is not very properly so denominated, either in English or in Latin, or perhaps in any language. With us, however, this participle is certainly, in very many instances, something else than "merely the simple verb adjectived." For, in the first place, it is often of a complex character, as being loved, being seen, in which two verbs are "adjectived" together, and that by different terminations. Yet do these words as perfectly coalesce in respect to time, as to everything else; and being loved or being seen is confessedly as much a "present" participle, as being, or loving, or seeing—neither form being solely confined to what now is. Again, our participle in ing stands not only for the present participle of the Latin or Greek grammarians, but also for the Latin gerund, and often for the Greek infinitive used substantively; so that by this ending, the English verb is not only adjectived, but also substantived, if one may so speak. For the participle when governed by a preposition, partakes not of the qualities "of a verb and an adjective," but rather of those of a verb and a noun.

English verbs, not defective, have severally three participles;[301] which have been very variously denominated, perhaps the most accurately thus: the Imperfect, the Perfect, and the Preperfect. Or, as their order is undisputed, they may he conveniently called the First, the Second, and the Third.

I. The Imperfect participle is that which ends commonly in ing, and implies a continuance of the being, action, or passion: as, being, acting, ruling, loving, defending, terminating.

II. The Perfect participle is that which ends commonly in ed or en, and implies a completion of the being, action, or passion: as, been, acted, ruled, loved, defended, terminated.

III. The Preperfect participle is that which takes the sign having, and implies a previous completion of the being, action, or passion: as, having loved, having seen, having written; having been loved, having been writing, having been written.

The First or Imperfect Participle, when simple, is always formed by adding ing to the radical verb; as, look, looking: when compound, it is formed by prefixing being to some other simple participle; as, being reading, being read, being completed.

The Second or Perfect Participle is always simple, and is regularly formed by adding d or ed to the radical verb: those verbs from which it is formed otherwise, are either irregular or redundant.

The Third or Preperfect Participle is always compound, and is formed by prefixing having to the perfect, when the compound is double, and having been to the perfect or the imperfect, when the compound is triple: as, having spoken, having been spoken, having been speaking.

OBS. 1.—Some have supposed that both the simple participles denote present time; some have supposed that the one denotes present, and the other, past time; some have supposed that the first denotes no time, and the second time past; some have supposed that neither has any regard to time; and some have supposed that both are of all times. In regard to the distinction of voice, or the manner of their signification, some have supposed the one to be active, and the other to be passive; some have supposed the participle in ing to be active or neuter, and the other active or passive; and some have supposed that either of them may be active, passive, or neuter. Nor is there any more unanimity among grammarians, in respect to the compounds. Hence several different names have been loosely given to each of the participles: and sometimes with manifest impropriety; as when Buchanan, in his conjugations, calls being, "Active,"—and been, having been, having had, "Passive." Learned men may differ in opinion respecting the nature of words, but grammar can never well deserve the name of science, till at least an ordinary share of reason and knowledge appears in the language of those who teach it.

OBS. 2.—The FIRST participle has been called the Present, the Progressive, the Imperfect, the Simple Imperfect, the Indefinite, the Active, the Present Active, the Present Passive, the Present Neuter, and, in the passive voice, the Preterimperfcct, the Compound Imperfect, the Compound Passive, the Passive. The SECOND, which, though it is always but one word, some authors treat as being two participles, or three, has been called the Perfect, the Preter, the Preterperfect, the Imperfect, the Simple Perfect, the Past, the Simple Past, the First Past, the Preterit, the Passive, the Present Passive, the Perfect Active, the Past Active, the Auxiliary Perfect, the Perfect Passive, the Perfect Neuter, the Simple Perfect Active, the Simple Perfect Passive. The THIRD has been called the Compound, the Compound Active, the Compound Passive, the Compound Perfect, the Compound Perfect Active, the Compound Perfect Passive, the Compound Preter, the Present, the Present Perfect, the Past, the Second Past, the Past Compound, the Compound Past, the Prior-perfect, the Prior-present, the Perfect, the Pluperfect, the Preterperfect, the Preperfect.[302]

In teaching others to speak and write well, it becomes us to express our doctrines in the most suitable terms; but the application of a name is of no great consequence, so that the thing itself be rightly understood by the learner. Grammar should be taught in a style at once neat and plain, clear and brief. Upon the choice of his terms, the writer of this work has bestowed much reflection; yet he finds it impossible either to please everybody, or to explain, without intolerable prolixity, all the reasons for preference.

OBS. 3.—The participle in ing represents the action or state as continuing and ever incomplete; it is therefore rightly termed the IMPERFECT participle: whereas the participle in ed always, or at least usually, has reference to the action as done and complete; and is, by proper contradistinction, called the PERFECT participle. It is hardly necessary to add, that the terms perfect and imperfect, as thus applied to the English participles, have no reference to time, or to those tenses of the verb which are usually (but not very accurately) named by these epithets. The terms present and past, which some still prefer to imperfect and perfect, do denote time, and are in a kind of oblique contradistinction; but how well they apply to the participles, may be seen by the following texts: "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself."—"We pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God."—ST. PAUL: 2 Cor., v, 19, 20. Here reconciling refers to the death of Christ, and reconciled, to the desired conversion of the Corinthians; and if we call the former a present participle, and the latter a past, (as do Bullions, Burn, Clark, Felton, S. S. Greene, Lennie, Pinneo, and perhaps others,) we nominally reverse the order of time in respect to the events, and egregiously misapply both terms.

OBS. 4.—Though the participle in ing has, by many, been called the Present participle, it is as applicable to past or future, as to present time; otherwise, such expressions as, "I had been writing,"—"I shall be writing," would be solecisms. It has also been called, almost as frequently, the Active participle. But it is not always active, even when derived from an active verb; for such expressions as, "The goods are selling,"—"The ships are now building," are in use, and not without good authority: as, "And hope to allay, by rational discourse, the pains of his joints tearing asunder."—Locke's Essay, p. 285. "Insensible of the designs now forming by Philip."—Goldsmith's Greece, ii, 48. "The improved edition now publishing."—BP. HALIFAX: Pref. to Butler. "The present tense expresses an action now doing."—Emmons's Gram., p. 40. The distinguishing characteristic of this participle is, that it denotes an unfinished and progressive state of the being, action, or passion; it is therefore properly denominated the IMPERFECT participle. If the term were applied with reference to time, it would be no more objectionable than the word present, and would be equally supported by the usage of the Greek linguists. I am no more inclined to "innovation," than are the pedants who, for the choice here made, have ignorantly brought the false charge against me. This name, authorized by Beattie and Pickbourn, is approved by Lindley Murray,[303] and adopted by several of the more recent grammarians. See the works of Dr. Crombie, J. Grant, T. O. Churchill, R. Hiley, B. H. Smart, M. Harrison, and W. G. Lewis, published in London; and J. M. M'Culloch's Grammar, published in Edinburgh; also some American grammars, as E. Hazen's, N. Butler's, D. B. Tower's, W. H. Wells's, the Sanderses'.

OBS. 5.—The participle in ed, as is mentioned above, usually denotes a completion of the being, action, or passion, and should therefore be denominated the PERFECT participle. But this completion may be spoken of as present, past, or future; for the participle itself has no tenses, and makes no distinction of time, nor should the name be supposed to refer to the perfect tense. The conjugation of any passive verb, is a sufficient proof of