A Handbook of the English Language-- 290. In the forms _luf-ia_, and _lov-en_, the change from singular to plural is made by adding a syllable; but there is no reason against the inflection running thus--_I love_, _thou lovest_, _he loves_; _we lave_, _ye lave_, _they lave_; in other words, there is no reason against the _vowel_ of the root being changed, just as is the case with the form _speak, spoke_; _fall, fell_.
Now, in Anglo-Saxon, with a great number of verbs such a plural inflection not only actually takes place, but takes place most regularly. It takes place, however, in the past tense only. And this is the case in all the Gothic languages as well as in Anglo-Saxon. Amongst the rest, in--
_Mso-Gothic._
Skain, _I shone_; skinum, _we shone_.
Smait, _I smote_; smitum, _we smote_.
Kaus, _I chose_; kusum, _we chose_.
Laug, _I lied_; lugum, _we lied_.
Gab, _I gave_; geb.u.m, _we gave_.
At, _I ete_; etum, _we ete_.
Stal, _I stole_; stelum, _we stole_.
Qvam, _I came_; qyemum, _we came_.
_Anglo-Saxon._
Arn, _I ran_; urnon, _we run_.
Ongan, _I began_; ongunnon, _we begun_.
Span, _I span_; spunnon, _we spun_.
Sang, _I sang_; sungon, _we sung_.
Sw.a.n.g, _I sw.a.n.g_; sw.a.n.gon, _we swung_.
Dranc, _I drank_; druncon, _we drunk_.
Sanc, _I sank_; suncon, _we sunk_.
Sprang, _I sprang_; sprungon, _we sprung_.
Swam, _I swam_; swummon, _we swum_.
Rang, _I rang_; rungon, _we rung_.
From these examples the reader has himself drawn his inference; viz. that words like
_Began_, _begun_.
_Ran_, _run_.
_Span_, _spun_.
_Sang_, _sung_.
_Sw.a.n.g_, _swung_.
_Sprang_, _sprung_.
_Sank_, _sunk_.
_Swam_, _swum_.
_Rang_, _rung_.
_Bat_, _bit_.
_Smote_, _smit_.
_Drank_, _drunk_, &c.,
generally called double forms of the past tense, were originally _different numbers of the same tense_, the forms in a, as _swam_, being singular, and the forms in u, as _swum_, plural.
CHAPTER XXI.
ON MOODS.
-- 291. The Anglo-Saxon infinitive has already been considered.
Between the second plural imperative, and the second plural indicative, _speak ye_, and _ye speak_, there is no difference of form.
Between the second singular imperative _speak_, and the second singular indicative, _speakest_, there is a difference in form.
Still, as the imperative form _speak_ is distinguished from the indicative form _speakest_ by the _negation_ of a character rather than by the possession of one, it cannot be said that there is in English any imperative mood.
-- 292. _If he speak_, as opposed to _if he speaks_, is characterized by a negative sign only, and consequently is no true example of a subjunctive.
_Be_, as opposed to _am_, in the sentence _if it be so_, is a fresh word used in a limited sense, and consequently no true example of a subjunctive.
It is a different word altogether, and is only the subjunctive of _am_, in the way _puss_ is the vocative of _cat_.
The only true subjunctive inflection in the English language is that of _were_ and _wert_, as opposed to the indicative forms _was_ and _wast_.
_Indicative._ | _Subjunctive._ _Singular._ | _Singular._ _Plural._ 1. I was. | If I were. If we were.
2. Thou wast. | If thou wert. If ye were.
3. He was. | If he were. If they were.
CHAPTER XXII.
ON TENSES IN GENERAL.
-- 293. The nature of tenses in general is best exhibited by reference to the Greek; since in that language they are more numerous, and more strongly marked than elsewhere.
_I strike_, _I struck_.--Of these words, the first implies an action taking place at the time of speaking, the second marks an action that has already taken place.
These two notions of present and of past time, being expressed by a change of form, are true tenses. If there were no change of form, there would be no change of tense. They are the only true tenses in our language. In _I was beating_, _I have beaten_, _I had beaten_, and _I shall beat_, a difference of time is expressed; but as it is expressed by _a combination of words_, and not _by a change of form_, no true tenses are const.i.tuted.
-- 294. In Greek the case is different. ??pt? (typto) = _I beat_; ?t?pt??
(etypton) = _I was beating_; t??? (typso) = _I shall beat_; ?t??a (etypsa) = _I beat_; t?t?fa (tetyfa) = _I have beaten_; ?tet?fe?? (etetyfein) = _I had beaten_. In these words we have, of the same mood, the same voice, and the same conjugation, six different tenses; whereas, in English, there are but two. The forms t?t?fa and ?t??a are so strongly marked, that we recognise them wheresoever they occur. The first is formed by a reduplication of the initial t, and, consequently, may be called the reduplicate form. As a tense it is called the perfect. In the form ?t??a an e is prefixed, and an s is added. In the allied language of Italy the e disappears, whilst the s (s) remains. ?t??a is said to be an aorist tense.
_Scripsi_ is to _scribo_ as ?t??a is to t?pt?.
-- 295. Now in the Latin language a confusion takes place between these two tenses. Both forms exist. They are used, however, indiscriminately. The aorist form has, besides its own, the sense of the perfect. The perfect has, besides its own, the sense of the aorist. In the following pair of quotations, _vixi_, the aorist form, is translated _I have lived_, while _tetigit_, the perfect form, is translated _he touched_.
_Vixi_, et quem dederat cursum Fortuna peregi; Et nunc magna mei sub terras ibis imago.--_aen._ iv.
Ut primum alatis _tetigit_ magalia plantis.--_aen._ iv.
-- 296. When a difference of form has ceased to express a difference of meaning, it has become superfluous. This is the case with the two forms in question. One of them may be dispensed with; and the consequence is, that, although in the Latin language both the perfect and the aorist forms are found, they are, with few exceptions, never found in the same word.
Wherever there is the perfect, the aorist is wanting, and _vice versa_. The two ideas _I have struck_ and _I struck_ are merged into the notion of past time in general, and are expressed by one of two forms, sometimes by that of the Greek perfect, and sometimes by that of the Greek aorist. On account of this the grammarians have cut down the number of Latin tenses to _five_; forms like _cucurri_ and _vixi_ being dealt with as one and the same tense.
The true view is, that in _curro_ the aorist form is replaced by the perfect, and in _vixi_ the perfect form is replaced by the aorist.
-- 297. In the _present_ English there is no undoubted perfect or reduplicate form. The form _moved_ corresponds in meaning not with t?t?fa and _momordi_, but with ?t??a and _vixi_. Its sense is that of ?t??a, and not that of t?t?fa. The notion given by t?t?fa we express by the circ.u.mlocution _I have beaten_. We have no such form as _bebeat_ or _memove_. In the Mso-Gothic, however, there was a true reduplicate form; in other words, a perfect tense as well as an aorist. It is by the possession of this form that the verbs of the first six conjugations are characterized.