CHAPTER XXII. SYNTAX OF THE PERSONS OF VERBS. § 508. The concord of persons.-A difficulty that occurs frequently in the Latin language is rare in English. In expressions like ego et ille followed by a verb, there arises a question as to the person in which that verb should be used. Is it to be in the first person in order to agree with ego, or in the third in order to agree with ille? For the sake of laying down a rule upon these and similar points, the classical grammarians arrange the persons (as they do the genders) according to their dignity, making the verb (or adjective if it be a question of gender) agree with the most worthy. In respect to persons, the first is more worthy than the second, and the second more worthy than the third. Hence, the Latins said Ego et Balbus sustulimus manus. Tu et Balbus sustulistis manus. Now, in English, the plural form is the same for all three persons. Hence we say I and you are friends, you and I are friends, I and he are friends, &c., so that, for the practice of language, the question as to the relative dignity of the three persons is a matter of indifference. Nevertheless, it may occur even in English. Whenever two or more pronouns of different persons, and of the singular number, follow each other disjunctively, the question of concord arises. I or you, you or he, he or I. I believe that, in these cases, the rule is as follows: 1. Whenever the words either or neither precede the pro nouns, the verb is in the third person. Either you or I is in the wrong; neither you nor I is in the wrong. 2. Whenever the disjunctive is simple (i. e. unaccompanied with the word either or neither) the verb agrees with the first of the two pronouns. I or he am in the wrong. The reasons for these rules will appear in the chapter on Conjunctions. Now, provided that they are correct, it is clear that the English language knows nothing about the relative degrees of dignity between these three pronouns; since its habit is to make the verb agree with the one which is placed firstwhatever may be the person. I am strongly inclined to believe that the same is the case in Latin; in which case (in the sentence ego et Balbus sustulimus manus) sustulimus agrees, in person, with ego, not because the first person is the worthiest, but because it comes first in the proposition. That the greater supposed worth of the first person may be a reason for putting it first in the proposition is likely enough. CHAPTER XXIII. ON THE AUXILIARY VERBS. § 509. THE auxiliary verbs, in English, play a most important part in the syntax of the language. They may be classified upon a variety of principles. The following, however, are all that need here be applied. I. Classification of auxiliaries according to their inflectional or non-inflectional powers.-Inflectional auxiliaries are those that may either replace or be replaced by an inflection. Thus -I am struck the Latin ferior, and the Greek TúжToμa. These auxiliaries are in the same relation to verbs that prepositions are to nouns. The inflectional auxiliaries are,— 1. Have; equivalent to an inflection in the way of tense-I have bitten mo-mordi. 4. May; equivalent to an inflection in the way of mood. I am come that I may see venio ut vid-eam. 5. Be; equivalent to an inflection in the way of voice. To be beaten verberari, TúπTεobal. 6. Am, art, is, are; ditto. Also equivalent to an inflection in the way of tense. I am moving move-o. 7. Was, were; ditto, ditto. I was beaten-Túpĺŋv. I ἐ-τύφθην. was moving move-bam. Do, can, must, and let, are non-inflectional auxiliaries. II. Classification of auxiliaries according to their non-auxiliary significations.-The power of the word have in the combination I have a horse, is clear enough. It means possession. The power of the same word in the combination I have been, is not so clear; nevertheless, it is a power which has grown out of the idea of possession. This shows that the power of a verb as an auxiliary may be a modification of its original power; i. e. of the power it has in non-auxiliary constructions. Sometimes the difference is very little : the word let, in let us go, has its natural sense of permission unimpaired. Sometimes it is lost altogether. Can and may exist only as auxiliaries. 1. Auxiliaries derived from the idea of possession—have. 2. Auxiliaries derived from the idea of existence-be, is, was. 3. Auxiliary derived from the idea of future destination, dependent upon circumstances external to the agent-shall. There are etymological reasons for believing that shall is no present tense, but a perfect. 4. Auxiliary derived from the idea of future destination, dependent upon the volition of the agent-will. Shall is simply predictive; will is predictive and promissive as well. 5. Auxiliary derived from the idea of power, dependent upon circumstances external to the agent-may. 6. Auxiliary derived from the idea of power, dependent upon circumstances internal to the agent-can. May is simply permissive; can is potential. In respect to the idea of power residing in the agent being the cause which determines a contingent action, can is in the same relation to may as will is to shall. "May et can, cum eorum præteritis imperfectis, might et could, potentiam innuunt: cum hoc tamen discrimine: may et might vel de jure vel saltem de rei possibilitate dicuntur, at can et could de viribus agentis."-WALLIS, p. 107. 7. Auxiliary derived from the idea of sufferance-let. 8. Auxiliary derived from the idea of necessity-must. "Must necessitatem innuit. Debeo, oportet, necesse est urere, I must burn. Aliquando sed rarius in præterito dicitur must (quasi ex must'd seu must't contractum). Sic, si de præterito dicatur, he must (seu must't) be burnt, oportebat uri seu necesse habuit ut ureretur."WALLIS, p. 107. 9. Auxiliary derived from the idea of action—do. III. Classification of auxiliary verbs in respect to their mode of construction.-Auxiliary verbs combine with others in two ways. 1. With participles.-a) With the present or active participle-I am speaking: b) With the past, or passive, participle -I am beaten, I have beaten. 2. With infinitives. — a) With the objective infinitive I can speak: b) With the gerundial infinitive-I have to speak. Caution. Such expressions as I shall have done, and I mean to have done, &c., are mixed, i. e. they give us the combination of the auxiliar and infinitive (shall have), followed by that of the auxiliar and participle (have done). IV. Auxiliary verbs may be classified according to their effect.—Thus―have makes the combination in which it appears equivalent to a tense: be to a passive form; may to a sign of mood, &c. This sketch of the different lights under which auxiliary verbs may be viewed, has been written for the sake of illustrating, rather than exhausting, the subject. § 510. The following is an exhibition of some of the times in which an action may take place, as found in either the English or other languages, expressed by the use of either an inflection or a combination. Time considered in one point only- 1. Present.-An action taking place at the time of speaking, and incomplete.—I am beating, I am being beaten. Not expressed, in English, by the simple present tense; since I beat means I am in the habit of beating. 2. Aorist.-An action that took place in past time, or previous to the time of speaking, and which has no connection with the time of speaking,-I struck, I was stricken. Expressed, in English, by the præterite, in Greek by the aorist. The term aorist, from the Greek ȧ-ópioros = undefined, is a convenient name for this sort of time. 3. Future.-An action that has neither taken place, nor is taking place at the time of speaking, but which is stated as one which will take place.-Expressed, in English, by the combination of will or shall with an infinitive mood. In Latin and Greek by an inflection. I shall (or will) speak, Xék-ow, dica-m. |