The Old-English also used ought as an impersonal verb, like oportet: Wel ought us werche, and idelnesse withstond (CHAUCER 15482. Tyrwh.). Among the lost preterito-presentia of the Anglosaxon is unnan, pres. ann; pret ùde; part. geunnen, amare, largiri; and munan, pres. man (plur. munon); pret. munde; part. munen; cogitare, putare; which answers to the Old-norse munu; pres. mun, plur. munum. The latter served, like the Greck us to form the periphrastic future. With that agrees the Old-English mon, mun, moun: Where I am ye moun not come (WICLIFFE Joh. VII.). Ye moun not serve God and richesse (ID MATTH. VI, which Chaucer presents several times in Tyrwhitts edition, where Wright has may. This form might certainly be also equivalent to mowen (from may); yet it is remarkable that even now they say in the North of England munn'e, munto, munna, which is usually explained by must I, thou, he; ye mun do it etc. I dare not claim unconditionally the Anglosaxon munan for this form. Even the preterito-presents purfan, pres. sing. pearf, plur. purfon; pret porfte, indigere, opus habere, is lost. We may, however, presume this verb in the Old-English tharen, tharne (TowsEL MYST. p. 126.), in which has been cast off, as it likewise does not appear in the corresponding Danish turde. Compare: What thar the recch or care How merily that other folkes fare? (CHAUCER 5911.) as so often impersonally, but also personally: He thar nat weene wel that evyl doth (ID. 4318.). The a of the infinitive comes from the present. Compare also HALLIWELL S vv. thare, tharne.

Compound and Peri hrastic Tenses.

The poverty of the English language in inflective forms of the verb renders the use of auxiliary verbs necessary to determine more particularly, partly the relations of the activity to the sphere of time, partly the subjective relation of the speaker to the predicate, finally, to gain passive tenses.

We are wont to term have, be, shall, will, can, may, do, ought, must, let auxiliary verbs. We do this on the one hand, so far as they do not by themselves make up the predicate, but only in union with the participle or infinitive of another verb; but in this case we might augment their number to an indefinite extent. On the other hand it is assumed that by those verbs with their complements those relations of the verb are expressed which, in tongues of richer development of forms, are represented by tenses and moods. But here we manifestly go too far, since, for example, the certainly modal determinations contained in can, must &c., are expressed with decision by no verbal form in any tongue whatever.

The doctrine of forms has to do primarily only with the statement of those combinations of participles and infinitives with verbs of that class by which inflective forms of the verb existing in other tongues are supplied.

So far as the auxiliary verbs coming here under review offer

only two inflective forms of time, they often appear themselves compounded in periphrastic forms.

1. The tenses of the active voice gained by composition are essentially preserved by have, shall and will. How far be comes under review here is a matter for syntax.

Tenses of the present time are completed in the following manner; the perfect: I have been, had, loved: The future: I shall (will) be, have, love; when the first person receives shall, the two others will in the singular and plural: The future perfect: I shall (will) have been, had, loved.

Tenses of the past:

The plusquamperfectum: I had been, had, loved. The imperfect of the future: I should (would) be, have, love. The plusquamperfectum of the future: I should (would) have been, had,

loved.

Middle forms:

The compound gerund (participle): having been, had, loved.
The infinitive of the past: to have been, had, loved.

2. The verb may may serve for the periphrastic formation of the conjunctive in its simple and compound forms; upon which syntax has to give more particular explanation. The completion of a few forms of the imperative is given by the verb let: Let me, him, us, them be &c.

3. The verb be with the participle of the perfect is substituted for all passive forms:

Tenses of the present:

Present: I am loved. Perfect: I have been loved.

Future: I shall (will) be loved. Future perfect: I shall (will) have been loved.

Tenses of the past:

Preterite: I was loved, Plusquamperfectum: I had been loved. Imperfect of the future: I should (would) be loved. Plusquamperfectum of the future: I should (would) have been loved. Middle forms:

The gerunds: of the present, being loved; of the past, having been loved.

The infinitive: of the present, to be loved; of the past, to have been loved.

Imperative: be (thou, you) loved; let me, him, us, them be loved. 4. Periphrastic forms of another sort, neither serving as substitutes for non-existent tenses, nor expressing modal relations of the predicate, are familiar both to Modern- and Old-English. They are shades of the notion of activity itself, for which, strictly speaking, no other verbal form could be substituted.

Here belongs the periphrasis with be with the participle or gerund of the present; as: The wind is roaring (LONGFELLOW). The day is drawing to its close (ID.). We had been wandering for many days (WHITTIER). Old-English: Syngynge he was or flowtynge,

Mätzner, engl. Gr. I.

25

al the day (CHAUCER 91.). We han ben waytynge al this fourtenight (931.). Here the verb of the predicate is resolved in such a manner that the activity is to be taken as a determination or quality cleaving to the subject, where the image of involution with or perseverance in the activity is approximate. Another periphrasis with be is that in which the infinitive is joined with it: Your brother is to die (SHAKSPEARE Meas. for Meas.). How is this to be reconciled with the doctrine of hereditariness? (LEWES). The infinitive with to expresses here, in connection with the preceding verb, the activity which the subject inclines to, strives towards or is designed for, where Old-English used to join for to the infinitive: zif that hit be for to done (Ms. in HALLIWELL v. for.).

A familiar periphrasis is that when the verb do precedes the simple infinitive: We do want a coach (GOLDSMITH). Bring the lamp, Elsie. Dost thou hear? (LONGFELLOW). I did not write (MUR RAY). Do thou love; do ye be loved (ID.). Comp. Old-English: Do me endite Thy maydenes deth (CHAUCER 11960.). This mode of expression, wherein the general precedes the particular notion of the activity, seems originally to admit the reduplication for the sake of emphasis, which, however, has been weakened by the progressive enchoachment of this periphrasis. Syntax has to shew in what manner Modern-English departs from the older usage in the employment of it, particularly in negative and interrogative sen

tences.

The statement of the forms hitherto cited conducts us to the domain of syntax, where the more particular discussion of cognate phenomena will find its place.

C) Particles.

1) The Adverb.

The adverb or word of circumstance serves to determine the notion of the activity. If the adverb determines another part of speech than the verb, this only happens so far as the fundamental notion of an activity is still perceived in it. If the adverb receives at the same time a reference to a substantive, it becomes a preposition; if it relates at the same time to an entire sentence, it takes the nature of a conjunction.

a) It serves primarily to express determinations of space. Here it is the determinations of the Where? Whither? and Whence? which are denoted in an interrogative, demonstrative or more particular manner.

1) To the where? refer: where? here; there; anywhere; elsewhere; somewhere; negatively nowhere. More particular determinations contain yonder; below; before; behind; within; without &c. Yet the separation of the Where? from the Whither? is not always carried out; even where is extended to the latter by the usage of the tongue: And from the mart he's somewhere gone to dinner (SHAKSPEARE Com. of Err.). We wish to inquire whence you came, and where you are going (LONGFELLOW).

2) To express the Whence? whither? hither; thither; hitherward(s) and similar compounds serve, as, eastward, backward &c., wherein however direction and movement coincide, and some others, as home &c.

3) The Whither? is denoted by: whence? hence; thence, as well as combinations of determinations of space with a preceding from: from below; from above &c., when we also even add from to the three characteristic adverbs whence? hence; thence: from whence? &c., which appears a pleonasm, but is very usual.

b) The adverbs of time serve

1) To denote a point or space of time generally, in which the activity falls. Here belong the interrogative when? the generalising whensoever and the demonstrative then. In a more definite manner is denoted:

a) either the present, for instance, by now; at present; to day &c.

B) or the past, as by yesterday; newly; lately; formerly; before; erewhile; of yore &c., although here occasionally we may start even from a past point of time,

7) or the future: to-morrow; soon; anon; hereafter; by and by &c. when the standing-point from which the speaker starts, may again belong to various times.

2) They also express the continuance of the activity, as well as its extension from a point or up to a point of the line of time, as: long; longtime; still; ever; always; henceforth; henceforward; since; since then; hitherto; and negatively no longer; never.

3) So too the more or less frequent repetition of the activity is denoted by the adverb of time, as by again; once more; seldom; oft, often; oftentimes; sometimes; now and then; daily; weekly; monthly; yearly &c.

4) Adverbs frequently have regard to the contemporaneousness or the temporal succession of activities, as is the case in then; after; afterward; forthwith; first; last, and others.

5) Finally, the adverb of time may receive a subjective tinge by a reference to the image of appropriateness or expectation and the contrary, as appears in early; late; betimes; already; sudden; suddenly and others.

c) Adverbs of manner denote in the most general sense a quality of the activity. As the adjective, the numeral and the adjective pronoun act in the determination of the substantive, so this adverb acts in the determination of the notion of activity, and comprises accordingly, besides qualitative determinations in the narrower sense, also demonstrative and quantitative ones, and, by analogy to the negative indefinite pronoun, the negation in the sentence. Thus these adverbs comprise:

1) Adverbs of manner in the narrower sense:

a) as interrogative and demonstrative ones: how? so; thus; or indeterminate ones: somehow &c.

B) and with a more particular notional determination: well; wisely; admirably; foolishly; slowly; quickly; at random; by stealth &c.

2) Adverbs of determination of quantity and degree: little; enough; half; much; abundantly; plentifully; exceedingly; superfluously; scarce; hardly; nearly; almost; quite; all; even &c. also interrogative and comparative: how much?, as, so &c. We may also assign here the terms for the repetition of the activity definite times, as once; twice; thrice &c. How near, moreover, determinations of degree and qualitative determinations border on one another, is seen in some of the adverbs cited, as well as in forms like intensely; mightily and similar ones, in which the mode of the activity at the same time includes the degree.

3) Adverbs denoting the not merely temporal succession of actions, as first; firstly; secondly; finally; lastly &c., or the order of rank in the narrower sense, as principally; chiefly; rather &c., or the additional relation, in which that of outbidding may at the same time be contained, as further; besides and moreover. To these may also be added the expressions for the communion of the action, as in together, or the separateness, as in asunder; apart; separately, as well as for the interchange: alternally; alternately; by turns &c.

4) As a particular class we must cite that of the sentential adverbs, which repose formally upon the notion of the activity, but properly express a judgment of the speaker with regard to the predicate attributed to the subject.

a) They appear in part as affirmative asseverations: truly; certainly; verily; surely; really; indeed; forsooth &c., to which originally very belongs:

B) in part as terms of possibility, probability or doubt: likely; probably; possibly, peradventure, perhaps &c.:

y) or, they are negations taking away the reference of the subject to the predicate, as not; not at all, by no means, noway, noways &c.

d) or, they are absolute affirmations or negations, which removed out of a sentence, strengthen or take away its matter, as ay, yes, yea, and no, nay, for which other adverbs annexed to the predicate may also be substituted, or which may be strengthened by these, as indeed &c., not at all &c.

d) The adverbs of causality act in great part also as conjunctions, not containing themselves the causal determination of the action, but denoting it retrospectively, as if contained in another sentence. Here belong, with the exception of the interrogative why?, the adverbs wherefore; therefore; hence; consequently; accordingly &c., to which adversative ones, as nevertheless &c., are also annexed.

Origin and Form of Adverbs.

The adverbs of the English tongue are partly simple, partly,