« PreviousContinue »
and passion, when, perhaps, (like verbs middle,) they may be rather said to imply both. Not, however, to dispute about names, as these neuters in their energizer always discover their passive subject, which other verbs cannot, their passive subjects being infinite; hence the reason why it is as superfluous in these neuters to have the subject expressed, as in other verbs it is necessary, and cannot be omitted. And thus it is that we are taught in common grammars that verbs active require an accusative, while neuters require none.
Of the above species of verbs, the middle cannot be called necessary, because most languages have done without it. The species of verbs therefore remaining, are the active, the passive, and the neuter, and those seem essential to all languages whatever.
b This character of neuters the Greeks sidered them under the four following sorts. very happily express by the terms αυτοπά- When a verb, coinciding with the nomidela and idiondel, which Priscian renders native of some noun, made without further “quæ ex se in seipsa fit intrinsecus passio.” help a perfect assertive sentence, as Ew 1. viii. p. 790. Consentii Ars apud Putsch. kpáros Trepiratei,“ Socrates walketh ;" then
as the verb in such case implied the power It may be here observed, that even those of a perfect predicate, they called it for that verbs, called actives, can upon occasion lay reason katnyópnua, “ a predicable ;" or else, aside their transitive character ; that is to from its readiness, ouußalveiv, to coincide say, can drop their subsequent accusative, with its noun in completing the sentence, and assume the form of neuters, so as to they called it ovußauan " a coincider." stand by themselves. This happens when When a verb was able with a noun to the discourse respects the mere energy or form a perfect assertive sentence, yet could affection only, and has no regard to the sub- not associate with such noun, but under ject, be it this thing or that. Thus we say, Some oblique case, as Σωκράτει μεταμέλει, ουκ οίδεν αναγινώσκειν ούτος, “ this man Socratem pænitet : such a verb, from its near knows not how to read," speaking only of the approach to just coincidence, and predicaenergy, in which we suppose him deficient. tion, they called Tapaobubapa or tapaHad the discourse been upon the subjects κατηγόρημα. . of reading, we must have added them, oỦk When a verb, though regularly coinoldev avayıváoKELY Tà 'Ouhpov, “ he knows ciding with a noun in its nominative, still not how to read Homer, or Virgil, or Cicero," required, to complete the sentiment, some &c.
other noun under an oblique case, as Thus Horace:
Πλάτων φιλεί Δίωνα, “Plato loveth Dio,” Qui cupit aut metuit, juvat illum sic domus (where without Dio, or some other, the
verb loveth would rest indefinite ;) such Ut lippum pictæ tabulæ ....
verb, from this defect, they called ñitov “ He that desires or fears, (not this thing, qúuBaua, or katnyópnuan “ something in particular, nor that, but, in general, less than a coincider, or less than a predihe within whose breast these affections cable." prevail,) has the same joy in a house or es- Lastly, when a verb required two nouns tate, as the man with bad eyes has in fine in oblique cases, to render the sentiment pictures.” So Cæsar, in his celebrated laconic complete ; as when we say Ewkpátei 'AARepistle of Veni, Vidi, Vici, where two actives, Biddous uéreu, Tædet me ritæ, or the like; we see, follow one neuter in the same de- such verb they called httov, or štartov ☆ tached form as that neuter itself. The glory, napaobubapa, or 8 Tapakatnyópnua, “ someit seems, was in the rapid sequel of the thing less than an imperfect coincider, or an events. Conquest came as quick as he imperfect predicable.” could come himself, and look about him.
re the appellations which they gave Whom he saw, and whom he conquered, to verbs, when employed along with nouns was not the thing of which he boasted. to the forming of propositions. As to the See Apol. I. iii. c. 3). p. 279.
name of øñud, or “ verb," they denied it to i The Stoics, in their logical view of them all, giving it only to the infinitive, as verbs, as making part in propositions, con- we have shewn already. See page 165. Sce
There remains a remark or two further, and then we quit the subject of verbs. It is true, in general, that the greater part of them denote attributes of energy and motion. But there are some which appear to denote nothing more than a mere simple adjective joined to an assertion. Thus isáfeu in Greek, and í equalleth” in English, mean nothing more than loós éoti, “is equal." So albeo, in Latin, is no more than albus sum. Campique ingentes ossibus albent.
Virg. The same may be said of tumeo. Mons tumet, i. e. tumidus est, “is tumid.” To express the energy in these instances we must have recourse to the inceptives. Fluctus uti primo cæpit cum albescere vento.
Virg. There are
verbs also to be found which are formed out nouns. So that, as in abstract nouns, (such as whiteness from white, goodness from good,) as also in the infinitive modes of verbs, the attributive is converted into a substantive; here the substantive on the contrary is converted into an attributive. Such are kuviţelv, from kúwy, " to act the part of a dog, or be a cynic;” Φιλιππίζειν from Φίλιππος, “ to Philippize, or favour Philip;” Syllaturire, from Sylla, “to meditate acting the same part as Sylla did.” Thus, too, the wise and virtuous emperor, by way of counsel to himself-opa un átokatoapwoñs, “ beware thou beest not be-Cæsar'd;" as though he said, “ beware, that by being emperor, thou dost not dwindle into a mere Cæsar." In like manner one of our own witty poets,
Sternhold himself he out-Sternholded. And long before him the facetious Fuller, speaking of one Morgan, a sanguinary bishop in the reign of Queen Mary, says of him, that he out-Bonner'd even Bonner himself.'
And so much for that species of attributes called verbs in the strictest sense.
CONCERNING THOSE OTHER ATTRIBUTIVES, PARTICIPLES AND ADJECTIVES.
The nature of verbs being understood, that of participles is no way difficult. Every complete verb is expressive of an attribute, of time, and of an assertion. Now if we take away the also Ammon. in lib. de Interpret. p. 37. all verbs neuter are ovußáuata; verbs Apollon de Syntaxi, 1. i. c. 8. 1. iii. c. 31. p. active, attova ovußduato. 279. c. 32. p. 295. Theod. Gaz. Gram. I. iv. k Marc. Antonin. l. vi. sec. 30.
From the above doctrine it appears, that Church Hist. b. viii. p. 21.
assertion, and thus destroy the verb, there will remain the attribute and the time, which make the essence of a participle. Thus take away the assertion from the verb, ypápel, “writeth,” and there remains the participle, ypáowv, “ writing,” which (without the assertion) denotes the same attribute, and the same time. After the same manner, by withdrawing the assertion, we discover γράψας in έγραψε, γράψων in γράψει, for we choose to refer to the Greek, as being of all languages the most complete, as well in this respect as in others.
And so much for participles.m The nature of verbs and participles being understood, that of adjectives becomes easy. A verb implies (as we have said) both an attribute, and time, and an assertion; a participle only implies an attribute and time; and an adjective only implies an attribute; that is to say, in other words, an adjective has no assertion, and only denotes such an attribute as has not its essence either in motion or its privation. Thus in general the attributes of quantity, quality, and relation, (such as many and
feu, great and little, black and white, good and bad, double, treble, quadruple, &c.) are all denoted by adjectives.
It must indeed be confessed, that sometimes even those attributes which are wholly foreign to the idea of motion, assume an assertion and appear as verbs. Of such we gave instances before, in albeo, tumeo, loátw, and others. These, however, compared to the rest of verbs, are but few in number, and may be called, if thought proper, verbal adjectives. It is in like manner that participles insensibly pass too into adjectives. Thus doctus in Latin, and learned in English, lose their power as participles, and mean a person possessed of an habitual quality. Thus vir eloquens means, not a man now speaking,” but a man "who possesses the habit of speaking," whether he speak or no. So when we say in English, " he is a thinking man, an understanding man,” we mean, not a person whose mind is in actual
In The Latins are defective in this article our modes and tenses. of participles. Their active verbs ending The English grammar lays down a good in or, (commonly called deponents,) have rule with respect to its participles of the active participles of all times, (such as los past, that they all terminate in d, t, or n. quens, locutus, locuturus,) but none of the This analogy is perhaps liable to as few expassive. Their actives ending in o, have ceptions as any. Considering, therefore, participles of the present and future, (such how little analogy of any kind we have in as scribens and scripturus,) but none of the our language, it seems wrong to annihilate past. On the contrary, their passives have the few traces that may be found. It participles of the past, (such as scriptus,) but would be well, therefore, if all writers who none of the present or future, unless we endeavour to be accurate, would be careful admit such as scribendus and docendus for to avoid a corruption, at present so prevafutures, which grammarians controvert. The lent, of saying, it was wrote, for it was want of these participles they supply by a written; he was drove, for he was driven ; periphrasis ; for ypávas, they say cum scrip I have went, for I have gone, &c. : in all sisset ; for ypapóuevos, dum scribitur, &c. In which instances a verb is absurdly used to English we have sometimes recourse to the supply the proper participle, without any same periphrasis ; and sometimes we avail necessity from the want of such word. ourselves of the same auxiliars, which form
energy, but whose mind is enriched with a larger portion of those
powers. It is indeed no wonder, as all attributives are homogeneous, that at times the several species should appear to interfere, and the difference between them be scarcely perceptible. Even in natural species, which are congenial and of kin, the specific difference is not always to be discerned, and in appearance at least they seem to run into each other.
We have shewn already in the instances of Bill ITSELV, Syllaturire, 'Atrokalo apwońvai, and others, how substantives may be transformed into verbal attributives. We shall now shew how they may be converted into adjectives. When we say the party of Pompey, the style of Cicero, the philosophy of Socrates, in these cases the party, the style, and the philosophy spoken of, receive a stamp and character from the persons whom they respect. Those persons, therefore, perform the part of attributes, that is, stamp and characterize their respective subjects. Hence, then, they actually pass into attributes, and assume as such the form of adjectives. And thus it is we say, the Pompeian party, the Ciceronian style, and the Socratic philosophy. It is in like manner for a trumpet of brass, we say a brazon trumpet; for a crown of gold, a golden crown, &c. Even pronominal substantives admit the like mutation. Thus, instead of saying, the book of me, of thee, and of him, we say, my book, thy book, and his book; instead of saying, the country of us, of you, and of them, we say, our country, your country, and their country; which words may be called so many pronominal adjectives.
It has been observed already, and must needs be obvious to all, that adjectives, as marking attributes, can have no sex.o And yet their having terminations conformable to the sex, number, and case of their substantive, seems to have led grammarians into that strange absurdity of ranging them with nouns, and separating them from verbs, though with respect to these they are perfectly homogeneous; with respect to the others quite contrary. They are homogeneous with respect to verbs, as both sorts denote attributes; they are heterogeneous with respect to nouns, as never properly denoting substances. But of this we have spoken before.P
The attributives hitherto treated, that is to say, verbs, participles, and adjectives, may be called attributives of the first order. The reason of this name will be better understood, when we have more fully discussed attributives of the second order, to which we now proceed in the following chapter. Sup. p. 170.
p Sup. c. vi. note g, p. 141. See also c. Sup. p. 167.
iii. p. 125.
CONCERNING ATTRIBUTIVES OF THE SECOND ORDER.
As the attributives hitherto mentioned denote the attributes of substances, so there is an inferior class of them, which denote the attributes only of attributes.
To explain by examples in either kind: when we say, “Cicero and Pliny were both of them eloquent; Statius and Virgil, both of them wrote;" in these instances the attributives, eloquent and wrote, are immediately referable to the substantives, Cicero, Virgil, &c. As therefore denoting the attributes of substances, we call them attributives of the first order. But when we say, “Pliny was moderately eloquent, but Cicero exceedingly eloquent; Statius wrote indifferently, but Virgil wrote admirably;" in these instances, the attributives, moderately, exceedingly, indifferently, admirably, are not referable to substantives, but to other attributives, that is, to the words eloquent and wrote. As therefore denoting attributes of attributes, we call them attributives of the second order.
Grammarians have given them the name of επιρρήματα, , adverbia, “ adverbs.” And indeed if we take the word pnua, or“ verb,” in its most comprehensive signification, as including not only verbs properly so called, but also participles and adjectives, [an usage which may be justified by the best authorities, 9) we shall find the name émipřnua, or “adverb,” to be a very just appellation, as denoting a part of speech, the natural appendage of verbs. So great is this dependence in grammatical syntax, that an adverb can no more subsist without its verb, than a verb can subsist without its substantive. It is the same here, as in certain natural subjects. Every colour for its existence as much requires a superficies, as the superficies for its existence requires a solid body."
4 Thus Aristotle, in his treatise De In- bant vel casuale. Priscian. I. i. p. 574. terpretatione, instances av@pwmos as “a * This notion of ranging the adverb unnoun,” and Acūkos as “a verb." So Am- der the same genus with the verb, (by callmonius: Karà toto od onpaivóuevov, to ing them both attributives,) and of explainμεν καλός και δίκαιος και όσα τοιαύτα- ing it to be the verb's epithet or adjective, , ρήματα λέγεσθαι και ουκ ονόματα: «Αc. (by calling it the attributive of an attribucording to this signification, (that is, of de- tive,) is conformable to the best authorities. noting the attributes of substance and the Theodore Gaza defines an adverb as follows: predicate in propositions,) the words fair, Μέρος λόγου άπτωτον, κατά ρήματος λεγόjast, and the like, are called verbs, and not hevov, À éileyóuevov pnuari, kal olov nouns.” Am. in libr. De Interp. p. 37. albetov Shuaros: “A part of speech deB. Arist. de Interp. I. i. c. l. See also of void of cases, predicated of a verb, or subthis treatise, c. vi. note 9, p. 141.
joined to it, and being as it were the verb's In the same manner the Stoics talked of adjective.” 1. iv. (where, by the way, we the participle. Nam participium connu- may observe, how properly the adverb is merantes verbis, participiale verbum voca- made an aptote, since its principal some