They who contend for the ancient custom of keeping the
auxiliaries distinct, and parsing them as primary verbs, are, by the
same principle, bound to extend their dissecting-knife _to every
compound word in the language_.
Having thus attempted briefly to prove the philosophical accuracy of
the theory which recognises the tenses, moods, and passive verbs,
formed by the aid of auxiliaries, I shall now offer one argument to
show that this theory, and this _only_, will subserve the purposes
of the practical grammarian.
As it is not so much the province of philology to instruct in the
exact meaning of single and separate words, as it is to teach the
student to combine and employ them properly in framing sentences,
and as those _combinations_ which go by the name of compound tenses
and passive verbs, are necessary in writing and discourse, it
follows, conclusively, that that theory which does not explain these
verbs in their _combined_ state, cannot teach the student the
correct use and application of the verbs of our language. By such an
arrangement, he cannot learn when it is proper to use the phrases,
_shall have walked, might have gone, have seen_, instead of, _shall
walk, might go_, and _saw_; because this theory has nothing to do
with the combining of verbs.
Pages:
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347