If it be alleged, that the speaker or
writer's own good sense must guide him in combining these verbs,
and, therefore, that the directions of the grammarian are
unnecessary, it must be recollected, that such an argument would
bear, equally, against every principle of grammar whatever. In
short, the theory of the compound tenses, and of the passive verb,
appears to be so firmly based in the genius of our language, and so
practically important to the student, as to defy all the engines of
the paralogistic speculator, and the philosophical quibbler, to
batter it down.
But the most plausible objection to the old theory is, that it is
encumbered with much useless technicality and tedious prolixity,
which are avoided by the _simple_ process of exploding the passive
verb, and reducing the number of the moods to three, and of the
tenses to two. It is certain, however, that if we reject the _names_
of the perfect, pluperfect, and future tenses, the _names_ of the
potential and subjunctive moods, and of the passive verb, in writing
and discourse we must still employ those _verbal combinations_ which
form them; and it is equally certain, that the proper mode of
employing such combinations, is as easily taught or learned by the
old theory, which _names_ them, as by the new, which gives them _no
name_.
Pages:
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348