it follows its Substantive, as—I am thinking, I saw a vessel sailing.

When a Participle is more of an Adjective than a Verb it precedes its Substantive, as-a thinking man, a sailing

vessel.

Participles, when used as Adjectives, can be preceded by the words very, more and most, less and least; as, a very loving couple; a more shining light; a most thinking man.

A Participle, like an Adjective, is wholly destitute of actual inflection. We say I am, thou art, he is, she is, it is, we are, ye are, they are-speaking. We also say I heard him, her, or them-speaking.

§ 194. A Participle, however, like an Adjective, must be considered in respect to its virtual Cases, virtual Numbers, and virtual Genders.

The Past Participle combines with both am and have, as I am called, I have spoken.

The Present Participle combines with am, but not with have. We say I am calling. No one says I have coming. Such a phrase as I have been calling is no exception to the rule inasmuch as been is the word which unites to have, whilst coming depends upon been.

When preceded by am, art, &c., the Participle is in the same case with the Noun.

When preceded by have the Participle is in the Accusative Case and the Neuter Gender. This is explained by what follows.

§ 195. In phrases like I have spoken, I have slept, I have moved, I have written, the verb have is in the present tense, whilst spoken, slept, moved, written are past passive participles. Here have indicates past time. It indicates past time, even although it be itself in the present tense.

As the natural meaning of the word have denotes possession, it may naturally be asked how it comes to mean past time. To say I own written a letter, I possess written a letter, I hold written a letter, sounds as nonsense; at

any

rate, it gives no such a meaning as is given by the words I have written a letter. Nevertheless it is very evident that, in order for a person to possess an object, the object must be in existence. We cannot say that a man has a written letter, without also implying that a letter has been written.

If such be the origin of the phrase I have writen a letter, five things ought to be the case.

1st. The word written should have no agreement with the pronoun governing the word; e. g. in the phrase I have written it should have no connection with the word I, nor in the phrase he has written any reference to the pronoun

he.

2nd. That it should be connected with the substantive that follows; e.g. I have written a letter should be equal to I have a letter written.

3rd. That in respect to case it should agree with that substantive; e. g. in the phrases I have slain a cow, I have struck a bull, I have slain men, the word slain should be in the objective case throughout, inasmuch as it is governed by the verb have.

4th. That in respect to number it should agree with the same substantive. In the phrases I have spurred a horse, and I have spurred horses, the first spurred should be singular, and the second spurred plural.

5th. That in respect to gender it should agree with the same substantive.

Now, the participle joined to the verb have actually comes under all these conditions, since it is an objective case, taking the number and gender of the noun with which it agrees. At least such it was originally, and such we must now consider it, if we wish to have the true history of the expression. This fact would have lain on the surface, and have been seen at once, if it were not for the deficiency of inflection in the English language. The participle written has the same form for all cases, genders, and numbers; and this conceals the fact of its

following the case, gender, and number of the substantive with which it is connected. Add to this the circumstance that the participle has in the present English a peculiar position in the sentence. The order, I have a horse ridden, connects the fact of a horse having been ridden with the idea of possession, much more than the current phrase, I have ridden a horse. The proofs that the view above is the true one are as follows:

1. In certain languages we find other words besides have, expressive of possession, used for the sake of denoting past time: e. g. in Spanish the word tengo = I hold, and in Old High German and Old Saxon the word eigan = to own. In these tongues, phrases like I hold ridden, I own ridden = I have ridden, are actually existing.

2. In Old High German, Old Saxon, and Anglo-Saxon, we have the order of the participle and substantive occasionally reversed; e. g. instead of saying I have forgotten it, I have chosen him, I have made one; the phrases run, I have it forgotten (i. e. I possess it as a forgotten thing), I have him chosen (i. e. I possess him as a chosen person), I have one made (i. e. I have one as a made thing.)

3. In languages where there is a sufficient amount of inflection to exhibit the participle as agreeing in case, number, and gender with the substantive to which it applies, such agreement is exhibited. In the Latin of the Middle Ages we find expressions like literam scriptam habeo=I have a written letter, or I have written a letter.

§ 196. Respecting expressions like the one in question, there is yet one point to be explained. This concerns the gender.

In the two sentences, I have ridden a horse, and I have ridden a mare, the word ridden is in the same gender, although horse is masculine, and mare is feminine. Moreover, the word ridden is in the neuter gender, and, as such, equally different in gender from the two substantives horse and mare. This is the case not only with the sentences in

question, but with all others like them. Whatever may be the gender of the substantive, the participle that follows the word have is always neuter.

Apparently this violates the statement made above, viz. that the participle agreed with the noun in case, number, and gender. In reality it does not violate it. All sentences like the one in question are elliptical, the word thing being understood: so that

I have written a letter is equivalent to I possess a letter as a written thing. I have ridden a horse is equivalent to I possess a horse as a ridden thing. I have ridden a mare is equivalent to I possess a mare as a ridden thing.

Hence it is not with the substantive that appears in the sentence, but with the substantive thing understood that the participle agrees. As such it is in the neuter gender.

=

§ 197. Syntax of the Verb Substantive in the Present Tense with the Past Participle Passive.-In propositions like I am moved, he is beaten, we are struck, it is given, the Verb Substantive is joined to the Participle Passive; and so there arise phrases which have the power of a Verb in the passive voice. It is well known that in some languages these ideas are expressed, not by the combination of the Verb Substantive and Participle, but by a single word: e.g. in Latin, moveor=I am moved; percutimur=we are struck; datur it is given. In the circumstance that the phrases above have the power of passive forms, there is nothing peculiar. Beyond this there is, however, a peculiarity. The Participles moved, beaten, struck, given, are Participles not of a present but of a past tense; and hence the proper meaning of the phrases given above (and of all others like them) should be very different from what it really is. I am moved should mean, not I am in the act of being moved, but I am a person who has been moved; he is beaten should mean, not he is a person who is in the act of suffering a beating, but one who has suffered a beating: in other words, the sense of the combination should be past,

and not present. By a comparison between the English and Latin languages in respect to this combination of the Verb Substantive and Participle, the anomaly on the part of the English becomes very apparent. The Latin word motus is exactly equivalent to the English word moved. Each is a Participle of the passive voice, and of the past tense. Besides this, sum in Latin equals I am in English. Now, the Latin phrase motus sum is equivalent, not to the English combination I am moved, but to the combination I have been moved; i. e. it has a past and not a present sense. In Greek the difference is plainer still, because in Greek there are two Participles Passive, one for the present, and another for the past tense; e.g. TUTTOμEVOS EμL (typtomenos eimi)=I am one in the act of undergoing a beating; TETUμμEVOS εμ=I am one who has undergone a beating. The reason for this confusion in English lies in the absence of a passive form for the present. In Moso-Gothic there existed the forms slahada he (she or it) is beaten (percutitur, TUTTETα), and slahanda=they are beaten (percutiuntur, TUTTOVTα). These were true passive forms. In like manner there occurred gibada=he (she or it) is given (datur), &c. Now, as long as there was a proper form for the present, like those in Moso-Gothic, the combinations of the present tense of the Verb Substantive with the Participle Past Passive had the same sense as in Latin and Greek; that is, it indicated past time: e.g. ga-bundan-s im I have been bound (not I am bound), gibans ist=he (she or it) has been given (not is given), &c. When the passive form, however, was lost, the combination took the sense of a present tense.

=

VERBS.

§ 198. A Verb is a word which can form both the Predicate and the Copula of a proposition; as fire burns.

§ 199. Concord of Number.-When a single object is spoken of, the verb is in the singular number; as I speak,