NOTE. In the familiar style, the second person singular of this verb, is usually and more properly formed thus: IND. Thou art loved, Thou was loved, Thou hast been loved, Thou had been loved, Thou shall or will be loved, Thou shall or will have been loved. POT. Thou may, can, or must be loved; Thou might, could, would, or should be loved; Thou may, can, or must have been loved; Thou might, could, would, or should have been loved. SUBJ. If thou be loved, If thou were loved. IMP. Be [thou] loved, or Do thou be loved.

OBSERVATIONS.

OBS. 1.-A few active-intransitive verbs, that signify mere motion, change of place, or change of condition, may be put into this form, with a neuter signification; making not passive but neuter verbs, which express nothing more than the state which results from the change: as, "I am come. "She is gone."—"He is risen."—"They are fallen." These are what Dr. Johnson and some others call "neuter passives ;" a name which never was very proper, and for which we have no frequent use.

OBS. 2.-Most neuter verbs of the passive form, such as, "am grown, art become, is lain, are flown, are vanished, are departed, was sat, were arrived," may now be considered errors of conjugation, or perhaps of syntax. In the verb, to be mistaken, there is an irregularity which ought to be particularly noticed. When applied to persons, this verb is commonly taken in a neuter sense, and signifies, to be in error, to be wrong; as, "I am mistaken, thou art mistaken, he is mistaken" But, when used of things, it is a proper passive verb, and signifies to be misunderstood, or to be taken wrong; as, "The sense of the passage is mistaken; that is, not rightly understood." See Webster's Dict., w. Mistaken. "I have known a shadow across a brook to be mistaken for a footbridge."

OBS. 3.-Passive verbs may be easily distinguished from neuter verbs of the same form, by a reference to the agent or instrument, common to the former class, but not to the latter. This frequently is, and always may be, expressed after passive verbs; but never is, and never can be, expressed after neuter verbs: as, "The thief has been caught by the officer."-" Pens are made with a knife." Here the verbs are passive; but, "I am not yet ascended," (John, xx, 17,) is not passive, because it does not convey the idea of being ascended by some one's agency.

OBS. 4.-Our ancient writers, after the manner of the French, very frequently employed this mode of conjugation in a neuter sense; but, with a very few exceptions, present usage is clearly in favour of the auxiliary have in preference to be, whenever the verb formed with the perfect participle is not passive; as, "They have arrived,"-not, "They are arrived." Hence such examples as the following, are not now good English: "All these reasons are now ceased."-But

ler's Analogy, p. 157. Say, "have now ceased." "Whether he were not got beyond the reach of his faculties."-Ib., p. 158. Say, "had not got." "Which is now grown wholly obsolete."Churchill's Gram., p. 330. Say, "has now grown." "And when he was entered into a ship." Bible. Say, "had entered."-"What is become of decency and virtue?"-Murray's Key, p. 196. Say, "has become."

OBS. 5.-Dr. Priestley says, "It seems not to have been determined by the English grammarians, whether the passive participles of verbs neuter require the auxiliary am or have before them. The French, in this case, confine themselves strictly to the former. What has become of national liberty?' Hume's History, Vol. 6. p. 254. The French would say, what is become; and, in this instance, perhaps, with more propriety."-Priestley's Gram., p. 128. It is no marvel that those writers who have not rightly made up their minds upon this point of English grammar, should consequently fall into many mistakes. The perfect participle of a neuter verb is not "passive," as the doctor seems to suppose it to be; and the mode of conjugation which he here inclines to prefer, is a mere Gallicism, which is fast wearing out from our language, and is even now but little countenanced by good writers.

OBS. 6.-There are a few verbs of the passive form which seem to imply that a person's own mind is the agent that actuates him; as, "The editor is rejoiced to think," &c.—Juvenile Keepsake. "I am resolved what to do."-Luke, xvi, 4. "He was resolved on going to the city to reside."-Comly's Gram., p. 114. "James was resolved not to indulge himself."-Murray's Key, ii,

220.

"He is inclined to go."-"He is determined to go."-"He is bent on going." These are properly passive verbs, notwithstanding there are active forms which are nearly equivalent to most of them; as, "The editor rejoices to think."-"I know what to do."-"He had resolved on going."-"James resolved not to indulge himself." So in the phrase, "I am ashamed to beg," we seem to have a passive verb of this sort; but, the verb to ashame being now obsolete, ashamed is commonly reckoned an adjective. Yet we cannot put it before a noun, after the usual manner of adjectives. To be indebted, is an other expression of the same kind. In the following example, "am remember'd" is used for do remember, and, in my opinion, inaccurately:

"He said mine eyes were black, and my hair black;

And, now I am remember'd, scorn'd at me."-Shakspeare.

IV. FORM OF NEGATION.

A verb is conjugated negatively, by placing the adverb not after it, or after the first auxiliary; but the infinitive and participles take the negative first as, Not to love, Not to have loved; Not loving, Not loved, Not having loved.

FIRST PERSON SINGULAR.

IND. I love not, or I do not love; I loved not, or I did not love; I have not loved; I had not loved; I shall not, or will not, love; I shall not, or will not, have loved. Por. I may, can, or must not love; I might, could, would, or should not love; I may, can, or must not have loved; I might, could, would, or should not have loved. SUBJ. If I love not, If I loved not.

SECOND PERSON SINGULAR.

SOLEMN STYLE:-IND. Thou lovest not, or Thou dost not love; Thou lovedst not, or Thou didst not love; Thou hast not loved; Thou hadst not loved; Thou shalt not, or wilt not, love; Thou shalt not, or wilt not, have loved. Por. Thou mayst, canst, or must not love; Thou mightst, couldst, wouldst, or shouldst not love; Thou mayst, canst, or must not have loved; Thou mightst, couldst, wouldst, or shouldst not have loved. SUBJ. If thou love not, If thou loved not. IMP. Love [thou] not,

or Do thou not love.

FAMILIAR STYLE:-IND. Thou lov'st not, or Thou dost not love; Thou loved not, or Thou did not love; Thou hast not loved; Thou had not loved; Thou shall not, or will not, love; Thou shall not, or will not, have loved. Por. Thou may, can, or must not love; Thou might, could, would, or should not love; Thou may, can, or must not have loved; Thou might, could, would, or should not have loved. SUBJ. If thou love not, If thou loved not. IMP. Love [thou] not, or Do [thou] not love.

THIRD PERSON SINGULAR.

IND. He loves not, or He does not love; He loved not, or He did not love; He has not loved; He had not loved; He shall not, or will not, love; He shall not, or will not, have loved. Por. He may, can, or must not love; He might, could, would,

or should not love; He may, can, or must not have loved; He might, could, would, or should not have loved. SUBJ. If he love not, If he loved not.

V. FORM OF QUESTION.

A verb is conjugated interrogatively, in the indicative and potential moods, by placing the nominative after it, or after the first auxiliary:

as,

FIRST PERSON SINGULAR.

IND. Love I or Do I love? Loved I? or Did I love? Have I loved? Had I loved? Shall I love? Shall I have loved? Por. May, can, or must I love? Might, could, would, or should I love? May, can, or must I have loved? Might, could, would, or should I have loved?

SECOND PERSON SINGULAR.

SOLEMN STYLE:-IND. Lovest thou? or Dost thou love? Lovedst thou? or Didst thou love? Hast thou loved? Hadst thou loved? Wilt thou love? Wilt thou have loved? Por. Mayst, canst, or must thou love? Mightst, couldst, wouldst, or shouldst thou love? Mayst, canst, or must thou have loved? Mightst, couldst, wouldst, or shouldst thou have loved?

FAMILIAR STYLE:-IND. Lov'st thou or Dost thou love? Loved thou? or Did thou love? Hast thou loved? Had thou loved? Will thou love? Will thou have loved? Por. May, can, or must thou love? Might, could, would, or should thou love? May, can, or must thou have loved? Might, could, would, or should thou have loved?

THIRD PERSON SINGULAR.

IND. Loves he? or Does he love? Loved he? or Did he love? Has he loved? Had he loved? Shall or will he love? Will he have loved? Por. May, can, or must he love? Might, could, would, or should he love? May, can, or must he have loved? Might, could, would, or should he have loved?

VI. FORM OF QUESTION WITH NEGATION.

A verb is conjugated interrogatively and negatively, in the indicative and potential moods, by placing the nominative and the adverb not after the verb, or after the first auxiliary: as,

FIRST PERSON PLURAL.

IND. Love we not? or Do we not love? Loved we not? or Did we not love? Have we not loved? Had we not loved? Shall we not love? Shall we not have loved? POT. May, can, or must we not love? Might, could, would, or should we not love? May, can, or must we not have loved? Might, could, would, or should we not have loved?

SECOND PERSON PLURAL.

IND. See ye not? or Do you not see? Saw ye not? or Did you not see? Have you not seen? Had you not seen? Will you not see? Will you not have seen? Por. May, can, or must you not see? Might, could, would, or should you not see? May, can, or must you not have seen? Might, could, would, or should you not have seen?

THIRD PERSON PLURAL

IND. Are they not loved? Were they not loved? Have they not been loved? Had they not been loved? Shall or will they not be loved? Will they not have been loved? May, can, or must they not be loved? Might, could, would, or should they not be loved? May, can, or must they not have been loved? Might, could, would, or should they not have been loved?

OBSERVATIONS.

OBS. 1.—In a familiar question or negation, the compound or auxiliary form of the verb is, in general, preferable to the simple: as, "No man lives to purpose, who does not live for posterity." -Dr. Wayland. It is indeed so much more common, as to seem the only proper mode of ex

pression: as, "Do I say these things as a man?"-" Do you think that we excuse ourselves?"— "Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump ?"-" Dost thou revile?" &c. But in the solemn or the poetic style, though either may be used, the simple form is more dignified, and perhaps more graceful: as, "Say I these things as a man?"-1 Cor., ix, 8. "Think ye that we excuse ourselves?"-2 Cor., xii, 19. "Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?"-1 Cor., v, 6. "Revilest thou God's high priest ?"-Acts. "King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets ?"-Ib. "Understandest thou what thou readest ?"-Ib. "Of whom speaketh the prophet this ?"-Id. "And the man of God said, Where fell it?"-2 Kings, vi, 6. "What! heard ye not of lowland war?"-Sir W. Scott, L. L. "Seems he not, Malise, like a ghost ?"-Id., L. of Lake. "Where thinkst thou he is now? Stands he, or sits he?

Or does he walk? or is he on his horse?"-Shak., Ant. and Cleop.

OBS. 2.-In interrogative sentences, the auxiliaries shall and will are not always capable of being applied to the different persons agreeably to their use in simple declarations: thus, "Will I go?" is a question which there never can be any occasion to ask in its literal sense; because none knows better than I, what my will or wish is. But " Shall I go?" may properly be asked; because shall here refers to duty, and asks to know what is agreeable to the will of an other. In questions, the first person generally requires shall; the second, will; the third admits of both: but, in the second-future, the third, used interrogatively, seems to require will only. Yet, in that figurative kind of interrogation which is sometimes used to declare a negative, there may be occasional exceptions to these principles; as, " Will I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats?"-Psalms, 1, 13. That is, I will not eat, &c.

OBS. 3.- Cannot is not properly one word, but two: in parsing, the adverb must be taken separately, and the auxiliary be explained with its principal. When power is denied, can and not are now generally united-perhaps in order to prevent ambiguity; as, "I cannot go." But when the power is affirmed, and something else is denied, the words are written separately; as, "The Christian apologist can not merely expose the utter baseness of the infidel assertion, but he has positive ground for erecting an opposite and confronting assertion in its place."-Dr. Chalmers. The junction of these terms, however, is not of much importance to the sense; and, as it is plainly contrary to analogy, some writers,-(as Dr. Webster, in his late or "improved" works; Dr. Bullions, in his; Prof. W. C. Fowler, in his new "English Grammar," 8vo; R. C. Trench, in his "Study of Words;" T: S. Pinneo, in his "revised" grammars; J. R. Chandler, W. S. Cardell, O. B. Peirce,-) always separate them. And, indeed, why should we write, "I cannot go, Thou canst not go, He cannot go ?" Apart from the custom, we have just as good reason to join not to canst as to can; and sometimes its union with the latter is a gross error: as, "He cannot only make a way to escape, but with the injunction to duty can infuse the power to perform."--Maturin's Sermons, p. 287. The fear of ambiguity never prevents us from disjoining can and not whenever we wish to put a word between them: as, "Though the waves thereof toss themselves, yet can they not prevail; though they roar, yet can they not pass over it."-Jeremiah, v, 22. "Which then I can resist not."-Byron's Manfred, p. 1.

"Can I not mountain maiden spy,

But she must bear the Douglas eye?"-Scott.

OBS. 4.-In negative questions, the adverb not is sometimes placed before the nominative, and sometimes after it: as, "Told not I thee?"-Numb., xxiii, 26. "Spake I not also to thy messengers ?"-Ib., xxiv, 12. "Cannot I do with you as this potter?"-Jer., xviii, 6. "Art not thou a seer?"-2 Sam., xv, 27. "Did not Israel know ?"—Rom., X, 19. "Have they not heard?" -Ib., 18. "Do not they blaspheme that worthy name?"-James, ii, 7. This adverb, like every other, should be placed where it will sound most agreeably, and best suit the sense. Dr. Priestley imagined that it could not properly come before the nominative. He says, "When the nominative case is put after the verb, on account of an interrogation, no other word should be interposed between them. [EXAMPLES:] May not we here say with Lucretius?'-Addison on Medals, p. 29. May we not say? Is not it he.' [?] Smollett's Voltaire, Vol. 18, p. 152. Is it not he. [?]" -Priestley's Gram., p. 177.

OBS. 5.-In grave discourse, or in oratory, the adverb not is spoken as distinctly as other words; but, ordinarily, when placed before the nominative, it is rapidly slurred over in utterance and the o is not heard. In fact, it is generally (though inelegantly) contracted in familiar conversation, and joined to the auxiliary: as, IND. Don't they do it? Didn't they do it? Haven't they done it? Hadn't they done it? Shan't, or won't they do it? Won't they have done it? Por. Mayn't, can't, or mustn't they do it? Mightn't, couldn't, wouldn't, or shouldn't they do it? Mayn't, can't, or mustn't they have done it? Mightn't, couldn't, wouldn't, or shouldn't they have done it ?

OBS. 6.-Well-educated people commonly utter their words with more distinctness and fullness than the vulgar, yet without adopting ordinarily the long-drawn syllables of poets and orators, or the solemn phraseology of preachers and prophets. Whatever may be thought of the grammati cal propriety of such contractions as the foregoing, no one who has ever observed how the English language is usually spoken, will doubt their commonness, or their antiquity. And it may be observed, that, in the use of these forms, the distinction of persons and numbers in the verb, is almost, if not entirely, dropped. Thus don't is used for dost not or does not, as properly as for do not; and, "Thou can't do it, or shan't do it," is as good English as, "He can't do it, or shan't do

it." Will, according to Webster, was anciently written woll: hence won't acquired the o, which is long in Walker's orthoëpy. Haven't, which cannot be used for has not or hast not, is still further contracted by the vulgar, and spoken ha'nt, which serves for all three. These forms are sometimes found in books; as, "WONT, a contraction of woll not, that is, will not."-Webster's Dict. "HA'NT, a contraction of have not or has not."—Id. “WONT, (wōnt or wunt,) A contraction of would not:-used for will not."-Worcester's Dict. "HAN'T, (hänt or hånt,) A vulgar contraction for has not, or have not."-Id. In the writing of such contractions, the apostrophe is not always used; though some think it necessary for distinction's sake: as, "Which is equivalent, because what can't be done won't be done."-Johnson's Gram. Com., p. 312.

IRREGULAR VERBS.

An irregular verb is a verb that does not form the preterit and the perfect participle by assuming d or ed; as, see, saw, seeing, seen. Of this class of verbs there are about one hundred and ten, beside their several derivatives and compounds.

OBSERVATIONS.

OBS. 1.-Regular verbs form their preterits and perfect participles, by adding d to final e, and ed to all other terminations; the final consonant of the verb being sometimes doubled, (as in dropped,) and final y sometimes changed into i, (as in cried,) agreeably to the rules for spelling such cases. The verb hear, heard, hearing, heard, adds d to r, and is therefore irregular. Heard is pronounced herd by all our lexicographers, except Webster: who formerly wrote it heerd, and still pronounces it so; alleging, in despite of universal usage against him, that it is written "more correctly heared."-Octavo Dict., 1829. Such pronunciation would doubtless require this last orthography, "heared;" but both are, in fact, about as fanciful as his former mode of spelling, which ran thus: "Az I had heerd suggested by frends or indifferent reeders."-Dr. Webster's Essays, Preface, p. 10.

OBS. 2.-When a verb ends in a sharp consonant, t is sometimes improperly substituted for ed making the preterit and the perfect participle irregular in spelling, when they are not so in sound; as, distrest for distressed, tost for tossed, mixt for mixed, cract for cracked. These contractions are now generally treated as errors in writing; and the verbs are accordingly (with a few exceptions) accounted regular. Lord Kames commends Dean Swift for having done "all in his power to restore the syllable ed;" says, he "possessed, if any man ever did, the true genius of the English tongue;" and thinks that in rejecting these ugly contractions, "he well deserves to be imitated." -Elements of Criticism, Vol. ii, p. 12. The regular orthography is indeed to be preferred in all such cases; but the writing of ed restores no syllable, except in solemn discourse; and, after all, the poems of Swift have so very many of these irregular contractions in t, that one can hardly be lieve his lordship had ever read them. Since the days of these critics still more has been done towards the restoration of the ed, in orthography, though not in sound; but, even at this present time, our poets not unfrequently write, est for essed or ess'd, in forming the preterits or participles of verbs that end in the syllable ess. This is an ill practice, which needlessly multiplies our redundant verbs, and greatly embarrasses what it seems at first to simplify: as,

"O friend! I know not which way I must look

For comfort, being, as I am, opprest,

To think that now our life is only drest

For show."-Wordsworth's Poetical Works, 8vo, p. 119.

OBS. 3.-When the verb ends with a smooth consonant, the substitution of t for ed produces an irregularity in sound as well as in writing. In some such irregularities, the poets are indulged for the sake of rhyme; but the best speakers and writers of prose prefer the regular form, wherever good use has sanctioned it: thus learned is better than learnt; burned, than burnt; penned, than pent; absorbed, than absorbt; spelled, than spelt; smelled, than smelt. So many of this sort of words as are allowably contracted, belong to the class of redundant verbs, among which they may be seen in a subsequent table.

OBS. 4.-Several of the irregular verbs are variously used by the best authors; redundant forms are occasionally given to some verbs, without sufficient authority; and many preterits and parti ciples which were formerly in good use, are now obsolete, or becoming so. The simple irregular verbs in English are about one hundred and ten, and they are nearly all monosyllables. They are derived from the Saxon, in which language they are also, for the most part, irregular.

OBS. 5.-The following alphabetical list exhibits the simple irregular verbs, as they are not generally used. In this list, those preterits and participles which are supposed to be preferable, and best supported by authorities, are placed first. Nearly all compounds that follow the form of their simple verbs, or derivatives that follow their primitives, are here purposely omitted. Welcome and behave are always regular, and therefore belong not here. Some words which are obsolete, have also been omitted, that the learner might not mistake them for words in present Some of those which are placed last, are now little used.

use.