In some languages it is elegantly used to describe a long portion of past time extending to the present : as in French Je suis ici trois any, and in Latin Tres annoy hic adsum. But it is also used in describing events which have been completed at a time past, as, "Yesterday, when walking along, whom do I meet but my old kinsman :" I am glad, says he, to find you looking so well." Gram marians, never doubting that such indications are essen tially of the present tense, have supposed that in such sen tences the past is, for the sake of vivid representation, de scribed by a figure of speech as present. The facts now stated spew that such explanations are unnecessary ; and if they are in any degree just, or adapted to the concep tions which we attach to this form of the verb, the conside ration that this indicative is not restricted to any tense will account for the facility with which we reconcile our minds to a figure of speech, which would otherwise appear a dis tortion.
We sometimes also use this general indicative in describ ing future events, and their futurity is pointed out by some other word in the sentence, or by the evident import of the whole. 46 Next Tuesday is the first of April," is a sentence equally proper with "next Tuesday will be the first of April." And we say, without any dread of being accused of vicious diction, "'1'o-morrow he begins his joulney." It would be possible for men to convey their meaning On all occasions by indicatives, without any distinction of tenses. The mention of other circumstances might serve to prevent the hearer from confounding the past, the pre sent, and the future. But a sign of general application, consisting either of a separate word, a termination, or a systematic variation of the verb, is an important conve nience.
We are not altogether destitute of resources for mark ing with precision the present tense. Every language possesses separate words for the purpose, such as now in English, and the corresponding words in other languages. It happens that, in our language, without the use of such additions, we indicate present time, by employing the sub stantive verb with the participle instead of the usual in dicative. 44 lie writes" is the indicative without tense. " He is writing" is the present indicative. When we say " He writes a good hand," or " He writes to his relations every month," we restrict our meaning to no particular time. But, when we say " he is writing," we 4escribe a present transaction. This distinction is entirely conven tional. The original meaning of this combination of words implies nothing to distinguish it from the simple indica tive, as the verb " is," and the termination " ing," are, with respect to tense, equally general.
S. The Preterite Imperfect and Perfect.
The preterite tenses are of great importance in lan guage ; and all tenses by which knowledge is communi cated imply a reference to past time. To the past we owe
our information. Our efficient communications of know ledge consist in references to the past. Though the pre sent exhibits nature as immediately perceived by the senses, which arc the inlets of knowledge, it is by means of the past that we are enabled to form a judgment concern ing the objects perceived. On our past experience de pend all our judgments and expectations regarding the future. If language consisted essentially in assertion, the past tense would be the original form of the verb. Gram marians state this to be the fact in the ancient Hebrew. In that language the preterite is in all verbs simple and uniform, consisting of two syllables, which are formed of three consonants, with two interposed vowel sounds. The differences of the consonants distinguish the verbs from one another, while the vowel sounds are the same in all. Such are the verbs -,pa (pakad)visitavit tna (nathan) dedit. The verb in this form is considered as furnishing roots from which all other words are derived. But those who have concluded, from the concurrence of all the facts in other languages, that the imperative is the original form of the verb, will find no necessity for adopting a different opinion of the formation of that ancient language. The imperative is in it equally simple with the preterite, gene rally consisting of the same consonants, varied most pro bably by a variation of the vowels. It has, therefore, on this principle, an equal claim to be considered as the root. In some instances it is shorter: in the verb im (nathan) it is In (then.) Verbs thus formed are on that account denominated irregular. But the fact, in such instances of the greater brevity of the imperative, shews that the He brew in this respect does not differ from other languages. The simplicity and regularity of the preterite, however, in Hebrew, may be considered as a consequence of the im portant rank which that tense holds in the most prevalent application of language.
In English, the past tense is formed by a variation on the root of the verb as used for the imperative. This most commonly consists of the addition of the termina tion " cd." Others are formed by variations of the vowels ; as 6, struck" for the pyeterite of 66 strike," " wore" of 16 wear," bore" of "bear", " drove" of " drive." " I walk," and " I drive," are assertions in the aoristic or present in dicative ; 66 I walked," and " I drove," are in the past. This tense implies that an action was begun, and was con tinued at some past period. It is called the imperfect, be cause no definite relation to the present state of the event is implied in it, and room is left for supposing that the ac tion may be still continued.