When we mean to assert that an action is accomplish ed, we introduce before the expression of past tense the auxiliary verb " to have" in the present or general indica tive. " I have walked," signifies, " I am in possession of the complete act." " I have (by my own exertions) assured myself of its completion." Some English verbs have two variations of the radical word for expressing past time, " strive," has " strove," and 46 striven ;" " weave," ,, wove," and " woven ;" " break," " broke," and broken ;" "do," 64 did," and " done." The completed act is expressed by the last of these forms, the words " striven," " woven," " broken," and " done." Mr Tooke considers this contrivance as a redundancy, because one word for past time is sufficient for every purpose. In verbs which have the preterite in " ed," the same word is used for the simple description of an event in a train of progress at some past period, and for being conjoined with the verb " have," to signify that the act is completed. The insertion of that verb is sufficient for marking the distinc tion. " He walked," and " he has walked," are equally distinct from one another as " he did," and " he has clone." In some verbs in which the preterite is formed by a change of the vowel, the same simplicity is observed : " struck" is used for both these varieties in the expression of past event.
That form of the past tense which is conjoined with the verb " to have," some grammarians consider as originally and properly the passive participle. In this sentence, I have driven a nail into the wall," they consider the verb ,, have" as governing the noun "nail" in the accusative, and 66 driven" as the passive participle agreeing with the noun. In this form of the past tense, the same word is al ways used as for the passive participle. Therefore the sentence is considered as signifying in etymological ana lysis, I have a nail (which is) driven into the wall," transferred by use and common consent to signify that the action is performed by the individual mentioned in the no minative. This theory receives apparent support from the structure of some phrases in the Italian language, which show that the passive participle is really the word employed, as its inflections are varied and made to agree with the noun in gender and number. Such is the phrase Ho aperte le vostre lettere ; I have opened your letter." This analysis of such phrases would have great probabili ty, if the facts uniformly corresponded with it. But it is not a constant rule. It is often left even in the Italian to the option of the speaker. We may say Ho aperto or aperte le vostre lettere, e veduto or veduta ivi la vostra cor tesia. The French say J'ai donne, not donnee occasion. Il
a tue, not tiles, ses ennemis. DonnI- and tue therefore mere ly signify a past action, and, like any other part of the verb, introduce or govern the subsequent noun. They cannot be considered as agreeing with it like a passive participle. If it is convenient to have a separate name for that part of the verb, it may with sufficient propriety be called a Preterite Gerund. The peculiarity of its nature will appear in the most convincing light, when we turn our attention to neuter and intransitive verbs, which, hav ing no passive voice, cannot be said to have a passive par ticiple. When we say " he has gone," " I have come," the words " gone" and 46 come" cannot be past participles agreeing with nouns, as no nouns are introduced after them. There is no sufficient reason why the introduction of a noun should alter the nature of the word. In the phrase 64 I have struck," the word " struck" signifies ac tion, and, as a part of the active verb, it may govern the accusative case with as much propriety as any other part of it. When we say " I struck my enemy," and ".1 have struck my enemy," the word "struck" is in both instances equally active in its meaning. There are certain occasions in which the past participle in the French language is used to agree with the governed noun; but these are altogether peculiar, and cannot give any room for supposing that this is the original construction of this form of the preterite, afterwards transferred to an active meaning ; for it only takes place when the substantive noun has been previous ly introduced, and then referred to oy means of the rela R r Tue plusieurs hommes ; tive que. The French say but, Les hommes veil a Tuev• This was a subsequent ar rangement, admitted after" long discussion of the French betwixt this gerund and academy. There is woe affinity the past participle. though their syntax is not identical. Pent completed. The participle is only Both signify an the past tens -,, transferred to the adjective or participial applicatiovt by which a past action is treated as a quality intro". ed for describing an object. Its active application ar prior date, and is in constant use.
It is not necessary to treat particularly of the other forms of past tenses, as they are regulated by the same princi ples, whether they are formed of combinations of words, as in the modern languages of Europe, or combinations of syllables, as in the ancient languages. Some observations connected with the general subject of their varieties will be suggested by certain forms of the subjunctive mood.
4. The Future.