The Grammar of English Grammars by Goold Brown (read books for money TXT) 📖

ix, 8. "Think ye that we excuse ourselves?"—2 Cor., xii, 19. "Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?"—1 Cor., v, 6. "Revilest thou God's high priest?"—Acts. "King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets?"—Ib. "Understandest thou what thou readest?"—Ib. "Of whom speaketh the prophet this?"—Id. "And the man of God said, Where fell it?"—2 Kings, vi, 6.

"What! heard ye not of lowland war?"—Sir W. Scott, L. L.

"Seems he not, Malise, like a ghost?"—Id., L. of Lake.

    "Where thinkst thou he is now? Stands he, or sits he?
    Or does he walk? or is he on his horse?"—Shak., Ant. and Cleop.

OBS. 2.—In interrogative sentences, the auxiliaries shall and will are not always capable of being applied to the different persons agreeably to their use in simple declarations: thus, "Will I go?" is a question which there never can be any occasion to ask in its literal sense; because none knows better than I, what my will or wish is. But "Shall I go?" may properly be asked; because shall here refers to duty, and asks to know what is agreeable to the will of an other. In questions, the first person generally requires shall; the second, will; the third admits of both: but, in the second-future, the third, used interrogatively, seems to require will only. Yet, in that figurative kind of interrogation which is sometimes used to declare a negative, there may be occasional exceptions to these principles; as, "Will I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats?"—Psalms, 1, 13. That is, I will not eat, &c.

OBS. 3.—Cannot is not properly one word, but two: in parsing, the adverb must be taken separately, and the auxiliary be explained with its principal. When power is denied, can and not are now generally united—perhaps in order to prevent ambiguity; as, "I cannot go." But when the power is affirmed, and something else is denied, the words are written separately; as, "The Christian apologist can not merely expose the utter baseness of the infidel assertion, but he has positive ground for erecting an opposite and confronting assertion in its place."—Dr. Chalmers. The junction of these terms, however, is not of much importance to the sense; and, as it is plainly contrary to analogy, some writers,—(as Dr. Webster, in his late or "improved" works; Dr. Bullions, in his; Prof. W. C. Fowler, in his new "English Grammar," 8vo; R. C. Trench, in his "Study of Words;" T. S. Pinneo, in his "revised" grammars; J. R. Chandler, W. S. Cardell, O. B. Peirce,—) always separate them. And, indeed, why should we write, "I cannot go, Thou canst not go, He cannot go?" Apart from the custom, we have just as good reason to join not to canst as to can; and sometimes its union with the latter is a gross error: as, "He cannot only make a way to escape, but with the injunction to duty can infuse the power to perform."—Maturin's Sermons, p. 287. The fear of ambiguity never prevents us from disjoining can and not whenever we wish to put a word between them: as, "Though the waves thereof toss themselves, yet can they not prevail; though they roar, yet can they not pass over it."—Jeremiah, v, 22. "Which then I can resist not."—Byron's Manfred, p. 1.

"Can I not mountain maiden spy, But she must bear the Douglas eye?"—Scott.

OBS. 4.—In negative questions, the adverb not is sometimes placed before the nominative, and sometimes after it: as, "Told not I thee?"—Numb., xxiii, 26. "Spake I not also to thy messengers?"—Ib., xxiv, 12. "Cannot I do with you as this potter?"—Jer., xviii, 6. "Art not thou a seer?"—2 Sam., xv, 27. "Did not Israel know?"—Rom., x, 19. "Have they not heard?"—Ib., 18. "Do not they blaspheme that worthy name?"—James, ii, 7. This adverb, like every other, should be placed where it will sound most agreeably, and best suit the sense. Dr. Priestley imagined that it could not properly come before the nominative. He says, "When the nominative case is put after the verb, on account of an interrogation, no other word should be interposed between them. [EXAMPLES:] 'May not we here say with Lucretius?'—Addison on Medals, p. 29. May we not say? 'Is not it he.' [?] Smollett's Voltaire, Vol 18, p. 152. Is it not he. [?]"—Priestley's Gram., p. 177.

OBS. 5.—In grave discourse, or in oratory, the adverb not is spoken as distinctly as other words; but, ordinarily, when placed before the nominative, it is rapidly slurred over in utterance and the o is not heard. In fact, it is generally (though inelegantly) contracted in familiar conversation, and joined to the auxiliary: as, IND. Don't they do it? Didn't they do it? Haven't they done it? Hadn't they done it? Shan't, or won't they do it? Won't they have done it? POT. Mayn't, can't, or mustn't they do it? Mightn't, couldn't, wouldn't, or shouldn't they do it? Mayn't, can't, or mustn't they have done it? Mightn't, couldn't, wouldn't, or shouldn't they have done it?

OBS. 6.—Well-educated people commonly utter their words with more distinctness and fullness than the vulgar, yet without adopting ordinarily the long-drawn syllables of poets and orators, or the solemn phraseology of preachers and prophets. Whatever may be thought of the grammatical propriety of such contractions as the foregoing, no one who has ever observed how the English language is usually spoken, will doubt their commonness, or their antiquity. And it may be observed, that, in the use of these forms, the distinction of persons and numbers in the verb, is almost, if not entirely, dropped. Thus don't is used for dost not or does not, as properly as for do not; and, "Thou can't do it, or shan't do it," is as good English as, "He can't do it, or shan't do it." Will, according to Webster, was anciently written woll: hence won't acquired the o, which is long in Walker's orthoëpy. Haven't, which cannot be used for has not or hast not, is still further contracted by the vulgar, and spoken ha'nt, which serves for all three. These forms are sometimes found in books; as, "WONT, a contraction of woll not, that is, will not."—Webster's Dict. "HA'NT, a contraction of have not or has not."—Id. "WONT, (w=ont or w~unt,) A contraction of would not:— used for will not."—Worcester's Dict. "HAN'T, (hänt or h=ant,) A vulgar contraction for has not, or have not."—Id. In the writing of such contractions, the apostrophe is not always used; though some think it necessary for distinction's sake: as, "Which is equivalent, because what can't be done won't be done."—Johnson's Gram. Com., p. 312.

IRREGULAR VERBS.

An irregular verb is a verb that does not form the preterit and the perfect participle by assuming d or ed; as, see, saw, seeing, seen. Of this class of verbs there are about one hundred and ten, beside their several derivatives and compounds.

OBSERVATIONS.

OBS. 1.—Regular verbs form their preterits and perfect participles, by adding d to final e, and ed to all other terminations; the final consonant of the verb being sometimes doubled, (as in dropped,) and final y sometimes changed into i, (as in cried,) agreeably to the rules for spelling in such cases. The verb hear, heard, hearing, heard, adds d to r, and is therefore irregular. Heard is pronounced h~erd by all our lexicographers, except Webster: who formerly wrote it heerd, and still pronounces it so; alleging, in despite of universal usage against him, that it is written "more correctly heared."—Octavo Dict., 1829. Such pronunciation would doubtless require this last orthography, "heared;" but both are, in fact, about as fanciful as his former mode of spelling, which ran thus: "Az I had heerd suggested by frends or indifferent reeders."—Dr. Webster's Essays, Preface, p. 10.

OBS. 2.—When a verb ends in a sharp consonant, t is sometimes improperly substituted for ed, making the preterit and the perfect participle irregular in spelling, when they are not so in sound; as, distrest for distressed, tost for tossed, mixt for mixed, cract for cracked. These contractions are now generally treated as errors in writing; and the verbs are accordingly (with a few exceptions) accounted regular. Lord Kames commends Dean Swift for having done "all in his power to restore the syllable ed;" says, he "possessed, if any man ever did, the true genius of the English tongue;" and thinks that in rejecting these ugly contractions, "he well deserves to be imitated."—Elements of Criticism, Vol. ii, p. 12. The regular orthography is indeed to be preferred in all such cases; but the writing of ed restores no syllable, except in solemn discourse; and, after all, the poems of Swift have so very many of these irregular contractions in t, that one can hardly believe his lordship had ever read them. Since the days of these critics still more has been done towards the restoration of the ed, in orthography, though not in sound; but, even at this present time, our poets not unfrequently write, est for essed or ess'd, in forming the preterits or participles of verbs that end in the syllable ess. This is an ill practice, which needlessly multiplies our redundant verbs, and greatly embarrasses what it seems at first to simplify: as,

   "O friend! I know not which way I must look
    For comfort, being, as I am, opprest,
    To think that now our life is only drest
    For show."—Wordsworth's Poetical Works, 8vo, p. 119.

OBS. 3.—When the verb ends with a smooth consonant, the substitution of t for ed produces an irregularity in sound as well as in writing. In some such irregularities, the poets are indulged for the sake of rhyme; but the best speakers and writers of prose prefer the regular form, wherever good use has sanctioned it: thus learned is better than learnt; burned, than burnt; penned, than pent; absorbed, than absorbt; spelled, than spelt; smelled, than smelt. So many of this sort of words as are allowably contracted, belong to the class of redundant verbs, among which they may be seen in a subsequent table.

OBS. 4.—Several of the irregular verbs are variously used by the best authors; redundant forms are occasionally given to some verbs, without sufficient authority; and many preterits and participles which were formerly in good use, are now obsolete, or becoming so. The simple irregular verbs in English are about one hundred and ten, and they are nearly all monosyllables. They are derived from the Saxon, in which language they are also, for the most part, irregular.

OBS. 5.—The following alphabetical list exhibits the simple irregular verbs, as they are now generally used. In this list, those preterits and participles which are supposed to be preferable, and best supported by authorities, are placed first. Nearly all compounds that follow the form of their simple verbs, or derivatives that follow their primitives, are here purposely omitted. Welcome and behave are always regular, and therefore belong not here. Some words which are obsolete, have also been omitted, that the learner might not mistake them for words in present use. Some of those which are placed last, are now little used.

LIST OF THE IRREGULAR VERBS.

                                    Imperfect Perfect
Present. Preterit. Participle. Participle.
Arise, arose, arising, arisen.
Be, was, being, been.
Bear, bore or bare, bearing, borne or born.[274]
Beat, beat, beating, beaten or beat.
Begin, began or begun,[275] beginning, begun.
Behold, beheld, beholding, beheld.
Beset, beset, besetting, beset.
Bestead, bestead,