" Hence,
it follows, that no being or thing can be represented in a _neuter_
or _non-acting state_.
This argument supposes the essential character of the verb to be
identified with the primary laws of action, as unfolded by the
principles of physical science. The correctness of this position may
be doubted; but if it can be clearly demonstrated, that every
particle of matter is always in motion, it does not, by any means,
follow, that we cannot _speak of_ things in a state of quiescence.
What is _false_ in fact may be _correct_ in grammar. _The point
contested, is not whether things always_ act, _but whether, when we
assert or affirm something respecting them, we always_ represent
_them as acting_.
2. Verbs were _originally_ used to express the motions or changes of
things which produced obvious actions, and, by an easy transition,
were afterward applied, in the same way, to things whose actions
were not apparent. This assumption is untenable, and altogether
gratuitous.
3. Verbs called neuter are used in the imperative mood; and, as this
mood commands some one to _do_ something, any verb which adopts it,
must be active.
Pages:
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151