A Handbook of the English Language - Robert Gordon Latham (if you liked this book .txt) 📗
- Author: Robert Gordon Latham
- Performer: -
Book online «A Handbook of the English Language - Robert Gordon Latham (if you liked this book .txt) 📗». Author Robert Gordon Latham
5. Be; equivalent to an inflection in the way of voice. To be beaten = verberari, τύπτεσθαι.
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 = ἐ-τύφθην. I was moving = move-bam.
Do, can, must, and let, are non-inflectional auxiliaries.
B. Classification of auxiliaries according to their non-auxiliary significations.—The power of the word have in the combination of 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. Auxiliary 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, 107.
9. Auxiliary derived from the idea of action—do.
C. Classification of auxiliary verbs in respect to their mode of construction.—Auxiliary verbs combine with others in three 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.
3. With both infinitives and participles.—I shall have done, I mean to have done.
D. 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.
§ 492. The combination of the auxiliary, have, with the past participle requires notice. It is, here, advisable to make the following classifications.
1. The combination with the participle of a transitive verb.—I have ridden the horse; thou hast broken the sword; he has smitten the enemy.
2. The combination with the participle of an intransitive verb,—I have waited; thou hast hungered; he has slept.
3. The combination with the participle of the verb substantive, I have been; thou hast been; he has been.
It is by examples of the first of these three divisions that the true construction is to be shown.
For an object of any sort to be in the possession of a person, it must previously have existed. If I possess a horse, that horse must have had a previous existence.
Hence, in all expressions like I have ridden a horse, there are two ideas, a past idea in the participle, and a present idea in the word denoting possession.
For an object of any sort, affected in a particular manner, to be in the possession of a person, it must previously have been affected in the manner required. If I possess a horse that has been ridden, the riding must have taken place before I mention the fact of the ridden horse being in my possession; inasmuch as I speak of it as a thing already done,—the participle, ridden, being in the past tense.
I have ridden a horse = I have a horse ridden = I have a horse as a ridden horse, or (changing the gender and dealing with the word horse as a thing) I have a horse as a ridden thing.
In this case the syntax is of the usual sort. (1) Have = own = habeo = teneo; (2) horse is the accusative case equum; (3) ridden is a past participle agreeing either with horse, or with a word in apposition with it understood.
Mark the words in italics. The word ridden does not agree with horse, since it is of the neuter gender. Neither if we said I have ridden the horses, would it agree with horses; since it is of the singular number.
The true construction is arrived at by supplying the word thing. I have a horse as a ridden thing = habeo equum equitatum (neuter). Here the construction is the same as triste lupus stabulis.
I have horses as a ridden thing = habeo equos equitatum (singular, neuter). Here the construction is—
"Triste ... maturis frugibus imbres,
Arboribus venti, nobis Amaryllidos iræ."
or in Greek—
Δεινὸν γυναιξὶν αἱ δι' ὠδίνων γοναί.
The classical writers supply instances of this use of have. Compertum habeo, milites, verba viris virtutem non addere = I have discovered = I am in possession of the discovery. Quæ cum ita sint, satis de Cæsare hoc dictum habeo.
The combination of have with an intransitive verb is irreducible to the idea of possession: indeed, it is illogical. In I have waited, we cannot make the idea expressed by the word waited the object of the verb have or possess. The expression has become a part of language by means of the extension of a false analogy. It is an instance of an illegitimate imitation.
The combination of have with been is more illogical still, and is a stronger instance of the influence of an illegitimate imitation. In German and Italian, where even intransitive verbs are combined with the equivalents to the English have (haben, and avere), the verb substantive is not so combined; on the contrary, the combinations are
Italian; io sono stato = I am been.
German; ich bin gewesen = ditto.
which is logical.
§ 493. I am to speak.—Three facts explain this idiom.
1. The idea of direction towards an object conveyed by the dative case, and by combinations equivalent to it.
2. The extent to which the ideas of necessity, obligation, or intention are connected with the idea of something that has to be done, or something towards which some action has a tendency.
3. The fact that expressions like the one in question historically represent an original dative case, or its equivalent; since to speak grows out of the Anglo-Saxon form to sprecanne, which, although called a gerund, is really a dative case of the infinitive mood.
When Johnson thought that, in the phrase he is to blame, the word blame was a noun, if he meant a noun in the way that culpa is a noun, his view was wrong. But if he meant a noun in the way that culpare, ad culpandum, are nouns, it was right.
§ 494. I am to blame.—This idiom is one degree more complex than the previous one; since I am to blame = I am to be blamed. As early, however, as the Anglo-Saxon period the gerunds were liable to be used in a passive sense: he is to lufigenne = not he is to love, but he is to be loved.
The principle of this confusion may be discovered by considering that an object to be blamed, is an object for some one to blame, an object to be loved is an object for some one to love.
§ 495. I am beaten.—This is a present combination, and it is present on the strength of the verb am, not on the strength of the participle beaten, which is præterite.
The following table exhibits the expedients on the part of the different languages of the Gothic stock, since the loss of the proper passive form of the Mœso-Gothic.
Language Latin datur, Latin datus est. Mœso-Gothic gibada, ist, vas, varth gibans. Old High German ist, wirdit kepan, was, warth kepan. Notker wirt keben, ist keben. Middle High German wirt geben, ist geben. New High German wird gegeben, ist gegeben worden. Old Saxon is, wirtheth gebhan, was, warth gebhan. Middle Dutch es blïft ghegheven, waert, blêf ghegeven. New Dutch wordt gegeven, es gegeven worden. Old Frisian werth ejeven, is ejeven. Anglo-Saxon weorded gifen, is gifen. English is given, has been given. Old Norse er gefinn, hefr verit gefinn. Swedish gifves, har varit gifven. Danish bliver, vorder given, har varet given. "Deutsche Grammatik, iv. 19." CHAPTER XXIV.THE SYNTAX OF ADVERBS.
§ 496. The syntax of the adverb is simpler than that of any other part of speech, excepting, perhaps, that of the adjective.
Adverbs have no concord.
Neither have they any government. They seem, indeed, to have it, when they are in the comparative or superlative degree; but it is merely apparent. In this is better than that, the word that is governed neither by better nor by than. It is not governed at all. It is a nominative case; the subject of a separate proposition. This is better (i.e., more good) than that is good. Even if we admit such an expression as he is stronger than me to be good English, there is no adverbial government. Than, if it govern me at all, governs it as a preposition.
The position of an adverb is, in respect to matters of syntax, pre-eminently parenthetic; i.e., it may be omitted without injuring the construction. He is fighting—now; he was fighting—then; he fights—bravely; I am almost—tired, &c.
§ 497. By referring to the Chapter on the Adverbs, we shall find that the neuter adjective is frequently converted into an adverb by deflection. As any neuter adjective may be so deflected, we may justify such expressions as full (for fully) as conspicuous (for conspicuously), and peculiar (for peculiarly) bad grace, &c. We are not, however, bound to imitate everything that we can justify.
§ 498. The termination -ly was originally adjectival. At present it is a derivational syllable by which we can convert an adjective into an adverb: brave, brave-ly. When, however, the adjective ends in -ly already, the formation is awkward. I eat my daily bread is unexceptionable English; I eat my bread daily is exceptionable. One of two things must here take place: the two syllables ly are packed into one (the full expression being dai-li-ly), or else the construction is that of a neuter adjective deflected.
Adverbs are convertible. The then men = οἱ νῦν βρότοι, &c. This will be seen more clearly in the Chapter on Conjunctions.
§ 499. It
Comments (0)