Imágenes de páginas


I seek (indicative or fact mood, present tense, general notion; or, conjunctive mood, present tense).

I am seeking (present tense, emphatic time).

I have sought (past tense, emphatic time, or perfect).

I have been seeking.

I am about to seek.

I have been about to seek.

I do seek (present tense, emphatic action).

I sought (past tense, general notion).

I was seeking (imperfect tense).

I had sought (pluperfect).

I had been seeking.

I was about to seek.

I had been about to seek.

I were seeking (conjunctive mood, imperfect tense).
I were about to seek.

I did seek (past tense, emphatic action).

I may seek (conjunctive mood, dependent present).

[blocks in formation]

may be about to seek.

I may have been about to seek.

I might seek (conjunctive mood, perfect tense).

I might be seeking.

I might have sought (conjunctive mood, pluperfect tense).
I might have been seeking.

I might be about to seek.

I might have been about to seek.

Might I seek (i. e. If I might seek).

Might I be seeking.

Might I have sought.

Might I have been seeking.

Might I be about to seek.

Might I have been about to seek.

I shall go (indicative mood, future tense).

You will go.

I shall be seeking.

You will be seeking.
I shall have sought.
You will have sought.

I shall have been travelling.
You will have been dining.
I shall be about to go.
You will be about to go.

I shall have been about to go.

You will have been about to go.

I should seek (conjunctive mood, perfect tense).

You should seek.

I should be seeking.

You should be seeking.

I should have sought (conjunctive mood, pluperfect tense).

You should have sought.

I should be about to seek.

You should be about to seek.

I should have been about to go.

You should have been about to go.

Should you seek (conjunctive mood, perfect tense).

Should I be seeking.

Should you have found (conjunctive mood, pluperfect tense).

Should I be about to speak.

Should I have been about to speak.

I would go (conjunctive mood, perfect tense).

You would go.

I would be going.
You would be going.
I would have gone.
You would have gone.
I would have been going.

You would have been going.

I would have been about to go.
You would have been about to go.


Every one of these combinations can be used with the passive verb, which requires the use of an additional auxiliary, thus :

[blocks in formation]

To avoid the awkwardness of this phrase in the passive, it is usual to adopt some other mode of expression; e. g. 'I have been an object of search.'

[blocks in formation]

The Imperative Mood is only in the second person; as, ‘Speak, thou,' 'Speak, ye.' The first and third persons are supplied by the verb 'let;' as

Let us go.

us the way.

Let him speak now or never. Let them show
Let the banquet appear.
Let the enemy pre-

vent us, if they can. Do not let us be late.

'Let' takes the noun or pronoun in the objective case; but 'Let you and I' is an allowable colloquialism*.

'Let you and I attend these gentlemen in the library.'


*The reason of this, perhaps, is that the expression 'Let him speak,' is equivalent either to 'Permit him to speak,' or 'Give him permission that he may speak.' In Latin the latter is always the construction. Therethat you and I attend,' would be correct.





[merged small][ocr errors]


The object of a Transitive verb is often understood; as--
Virtue leads (its followers) to happiness.
This road leads (the traveller) to London.
He bowed (his head) to me as he passed.

Some Intransitive verbs are capable of taking an objective case of a noun of kindred meaning; as

He lived a noble life.

She slept the sleep of the innocent.


The word 'ought' is an example of the changes of sense brought about by usage. 'Ought' is properly the perfect tense of the verb 'to owe,' with the sense was debtor. It is now used as a present, with the sense 'is (morally) debtor;' 'his duty is;' as, 'The watch ought to offend no man.' Notwithstanding this, in the expression 'He ought to have done it,' and the like, it retains its original past tense. Thus we have the word 'ought' acting both as a present and a past tense according to the context.

It seems strange that a passive participle, e. g.‘paid,' is made use of in forming an active tense: 'I have paid.' The Romanic languages form their perfect in the same way: 'Io ho veduto; J'ai vu.' This tense is evidently a development of the Latin use of 'habeo' in phrases like 'habeo cognitum.' At first only transitive verbs could form their perf. and pluperf. in this way; the past part. qualified the object and was in agreement with it. The Romanic languages still preserve a recollection of this fact in making the past part. in certain cases agree with the object : 'Le donne che ho vedute;' 'Les femmes que j'ai vues.' By and by, as inflexions fell more and more out of use, intransitive verbs were treated in the same way. The origin of the form was lost sight of, and the auxiliary 'to have' with the past part. became a tense. A similar process may have been going on in Teutonic




Numerals are used either as adjectives, when they are undeclinable; or as nouns, and declined.

As adjectives they take (except 'one') a plural noun expressed or understood; as, 'Napoleon invaded Russia with six hundred thousand men.' 'We are seven.'

'Years of age' is often understood; as, 'I was sixteen yesterday.' 'He is past fifty; over fifty; under sixty.'

The Ordinal numbers 'first,' 'second,' 'third,' are formed irregularly the others regularly, by adding th to the Cardinals; as, fourth,' 'sixth,' 'twenty-seventh;' 'fifth,' 'eighth,' 'ninth,' 'twelfth,' are written according to their sound.

The numeral adverbs 'once,' 'twice,' 'thrice,' are likewise irregular; the others are formed regularly, thus, 'four times,' 'twenty times,' 'five hundred and two times.'

As nouns, numerals have a plural and a possessive case; as— In twos and threes. By twos and threes.

By hundreds.

They went in fifties, by fifties.

it for forty's sake.

Notice the phrases—

The regiment was a thousand strong. was succeeded by George the Fourth.

[blocks in formation]

In hundreds

I will not do

George the Third

The first of June.

Seventy or eighty.


(For 'one,' see under Indefinite Numerals.)

It is usual to say, 'The four last days of June,' or 'The three

first men in the country,' &c. The expression has been objected to on the ground that there cannot be more than one first or more than one last. Some recent writers, in consequence of this objection, have adopted the form 'first three' or 'last four,' &c. But 'three first' or 'four last' is usual, and is defended by writers of ability and note. The expression admits of a satisfactory explanation. No one would object to the words 'Four men marched first,' or 'Four men marched last,' inasmuch

« AnteriorContinuar »