fast week." But when we speak indefinitely of any thing past, as happening or not happening in the day, year, or age, in which we mention it, the perfect must be employed: as, "I have been there this morning;" "I have travelled much this year;" "We have escaped many dangers through life." In referring, however, to such a division of the day as is past before the time of our speaking, we use the imperfect: as, "They came home early this morning;" "He was with them at three o'clock this afternoon."

The perfect tense, and the imperfect tense, both denote à thing that is past; but the former denotes it in such a manner, that there is still actually remaining some part of the time to slide away, wherein we declare the thing has been done; whereas the imperfect denotes the thing or action past, in such a manner, that nothing remains of that time in which it was done. If we speak of the present century, we say, " Philosophers have made great discoveries in the present century:" but if we speak of the last century, we say, "Philosophers made great discoveries in the last century." "He has been much afflicted this year;" "I have this week read the king's proclamation;"" I have heard great news this morning :" in these instances, "He has been," "I have read,” and “heard,” denote things that are past; but they occurred in this year, in this week, and to-day; and still there remains a part of this year, week, and day, whereof I speak.

In general, the perfect tense may be applied wherever the action is connected with the present time, by the actual existence, either of the author, or of the work, though it may have been performed many centuries ago; but if neither the author nor the work remains, it cannot be used. We "Cie may say, cero has written orations ;" but we cannot say, "Cicero has written poems ;" because the orations are in being, but the poems are lost. Speaking of priests in general, we may say, "They have in all ages claimed great powers;" because the general order of the priesthood still exists: but if we speak of the Druids, as a particular order of priests, which does not now exist, we cannot use this tense. We cannot say, "The Druid priests have claimed great powers;" but must say, Druid priests claimed great powers;" because that order is now totally extinct.

"The

The perfect tense, preceded by the words when, after, as soon as, &e. is often used to denote the relative time of a future action: as, "When I have finished my letter, I will attend to his request:" "I will attend to the business, as soon as I have finished my letter."

The PLUPERFECT TENSE represents a thing, not only as past, but also as prior to some other point of time specified in the sentence: as, "I had finished my letter before he ar

rived."

The term used to designate this tense, may, in some degree at least, be justified by observing that the time of the action or event, is more than, or beyond the time of some other action or event to which it refers, and which is in the perfect or the imperfect tense. Thus, in the sentences, "I have seen him, but I had written to him before ;" "Though he had not then agreed to the proposal, he has at length consented to it ;" "I saw him after I had written to him ;"" He decided indeed very culpably, but he had been vehemently urged to it; the pluperfect extends not only beyond, and precedent to, the time signified in the perfect tense, but also that denoted by the imperfect.

The FIRST FUTURE TENSE represents the action as yet to come, either with or without respect to the precise time: as, "The sun will rise to-morrow ;" "I shall see them again."

The SECOND FUTURE intimates that the action will be fully accomplished, at or before the time of another future action or event: as, "I shall have dined at one o'clock;" "The two houses will have finished their business, when the king comes to prorogue them."

It is to be observed, that in the subjunctive mood, the event being spoken of under a condition or supposition, or in the form of a wish, and therefore as doubtful and contingent, the verb itself in the present, and the auxiliary both of the present and past imperfect times, often carry with them somewhat of a future tense: as, "If he come to-morrow, I may speak of them;" "If he should, or would come to-morrow, I might, could, would, or should speak to him." Observe also, that the auxiliaries should and would, in the imperfect times, are used to express the present and future as well as the past: as, "It is my desire, that he should, or would, come now, or tomorrow;" as well as, "It was my desire, that he should or would come yesterday." So that, in this mood, the precise time of the verb is very much determined by the nature and drift of the sentence.

In treating of the tenses, there are two things to which attention ought principally to be turned, the relation which the several tenses have to one another, in respect of time; and the notice which they give of an action's being completed or not completed.

N

QUESTIONS.

When is a verb in the subjunctive mood?

How does a verb differ in this mood from one in the indicative? Which tenses have two forms?

What is the difference between the first form, and the sccond, of the subjunctive mood, present tense?

When must the second form be used?

When is a verb called regular ?

When must the form of the subjunctive present be used? How are the four tenses of the potential mood formed? How does the infinitive mood differ from other moods? Why is it called infinitive?

Why does not the second form of the subjunctive present, vary the verb in the second and third persons singular, as the indicative does?

How do you know the imperfect tense of verbs, from the perfect or passive participle, when they are both spelled alike? When must to be omitted before the infinitive mood? How are all the passive verbs formed?

Why are passive verbs so called?

What is the meaning of neuter?

When is a verb neuter?

How many classes of nominatives are there?
Can you explain them?

What verbs are sometimes auxiliaries, and sometimes principals ?

What auxiliaries are never used as principals?

In what moods and tenses is do used as an auxiliary?
In what tenses is have used as an auxiliary? and how?
What is it always prefixed to, when auxiliary?

Can you give a definition of tense, and of the six tenses?

CONVERSATION XX.

Tutor. You are now quite familiar with nearly all the regular constructions of the language; but there are a few, which I have not yet presented to you. These I will endeavour to explain in this Conversation. A few more rules, properly explained, will enable you to parse any word, in a regularly constructed sentence, in the English language. The first, which I shall give you this morning, is this,

RULE XXI.

Any INTRANSITIVE, PASSIVE, or NEUTER verb, must have the same case after it as before it, when both words refer to, and signify the same thing.

George. I think that I already understand this rule, for no verbs except transitive, govern the objective case. When nouns or pronouns, then, follow intransitive, passive, or neuter verbs, they cannot be governed by them. And, when both words refer , and signify the same thing, the latter is in apposition to the former, and must be in the same case, according to the sixteenth rule in Conversation XIII.

Tutor. That is true.

Caroline. Then what is the use of this twenty-first rule, if the sixteenth would enable us to parse all the words to which this applies?

Tutor. This rule will serve as a further illustration of that, and bring under your consideration many erroneous constructions, with which you have not yet been made sufficiently familiar, and which might escape your notice, if they were not more particularly considered.

I will first direct your attention to the neuter verb to be, and give you many examples and illustrations, which you must parse, and then you will remember them. The nouns and pronouns before and after the verbs, and which you will perceive to be in apposition, I will mark in Italics.

"I am he whom they invited ;"" It may be (or might have been) he, but it cannot be (or could not have been) I," "It is impossible to be they ;" "It seems to have been he, who conducted himself so wisely;" "It appears to be she that transacted the business;" "I understood it to be him ;" ." "I believe it to have been them;" "We at first took it to be her; but were afterwards convinced that it was not she." "He is not

the person who it seemed he was." "He is really the person who he appeared to be." "She is not now the woman whom they represented her to have been." "Whom do you fancy him to be?" "He desired to be their king ;"" They desired him to be their king."

66

By these examples, it appears that this substantive verb has no government of case, but serves, in all its forms, as a conductor to the cases; so that the two cases which, in the construction of the sentence, or member of the sentence, are the next before and after it, must always be alike. In the sen tence, "I understood it to be him," the words it and him are in apposition; that is, "they refer to the same thing, and are

in the same case."-If this rule be considered as applying to simple sentences, or to the simple members of compound sentences, the difficulties respecting it, will be still further diminished.

The following sentences contain deviations from the rule, and exhibit the pronoun in a wrong case: "It might have been him, but there is no proof of it ;" "Though I was blamed, it could not have been me;" "I saw one whom I took to be she;" ;""She is the person who I understood it to have been;" "Who do you think me to be ?" "Whom do men say that I am ?" "And whom think ye that I am?"

In the last example, the natural arrangement is, "Ye think that I am whom ;" where, contrary to the rule, the nominative I precedes, and the objective case whom follows the verb. The best method of discovering the proper case of the pronoun, in such phrases as the preceding, is, to turn them into declarative expressions, and to substitute the personal pronoun for the interrogative, or relative pronoun; as the interrogative, or relative pronoun must be in the same case as the personal pronoun would be in, if substituted for it. Thus the question, "Whom do men say that I am ?" if turned into a declarative sentence, with the personal pronoun, would be, " Men do say that I am he:" consequently the interrogative must be in the same case as he; that is, the nominative who, and not whom. In the same manner, in the phrase, "Who should I see but my old friend?" if we turn it into a declarative one, as, "I should see him my old friend," we shall perceive that the interrogative is governed by the verb; as him and my friend are in the objective case, and that it ought to be in the same case; that is, whom, and not who.

When the verb to be is understood, it has the same case before and after it, as when it is expressed: as, "He seems the leader of the party;" "He shall continue steward;" "They appointed me executor;" "I supposed him a man of learning :" that is, "He seems to be the leader of the party," &c.

Passive verbs which signify naming, and others of a similar nature, have the same case before and after them as, "He was called Cæsar ;""She was named Penelope ;" "Homer is styled the prince of poets ;" "James was created a duke;" "The general was saluted emperor;" "The professor was appointed tutor to the prince;" "He caused himself to be proclaimed king," "The senate adjudged him to be declared a traitor."

From the observations and examples which have been produced, under this rule, it is evident that certain other neuter