1. THERE are certain verbs called Defective, as they have no Infinitive, Imperative, or Participial forms, but are used only in asserting. They coalesce with the Infinitives of other verbs, to which they add assertiveness, and are therefore called Auxiliaries or Helping verbs.* Thus, in the expressions, "We can write" "Robert should study”. we have auxiliary verbs, can and should, forming compound verbs with the Infinitives write and study, the prepositional sign of the Infinitive being omitted.

The Defective verbs thus used as Auxiliaries are the respectively present and past forms, Shall, should; Will, would; May, might; Can, could; and the unvaried present form, Must. +

* They are sometimes called generic verbs; the verbs to which they are auxiliary being called specific verbs.

+ Ought, a past form of the verb owe, is by some called an Auxiliary. As, however, it does not occasion the suppression of the Infinitive sign to, it is properly a Principal verb. It is defective, consisting of only a past tense, which is unvaried in termination excepting in the second person singular, oughtest. L. Murray supposes that must is sometimes past, and ought sometimes present.

The verb Do, though it is not a defective verb, and is often employed as a principal verb, is sometimes auxiliary to an Infinitive; as, "You do require;” "The ship did

sail."

2. The only other verbs employed as auxiliaries, although never in that capacity preceding an Infinitive, are Be and Have*, which are not defective, and are very often principal verbs. When used as auxiliaries they precede a Participle; -Be forming a compound verb with the Imperfect or the Perfect participle, and Have with the Perfect; as, "We are thinking;" "We are thought;" "We have thought." 3. In the Compound Verbs, the first auxiliary alone is assertive and personal, and therefore is the only part of the compound which constitutes a strictly grammatical Tense, that is, a Tense arising out of the modification or accidence of a single word. Many grammarians, however, treat compound verbs as Tenses, when they are English translations of tenses of the Latin verb.†

We subjoin the conjugations of the Auxiliary verbs, exemplifying, at the same time, their coalition with an unvarying Principal verb.

* In such instances as "I am to go"-" I have to go," the verbs am and have are Principal verbs, as well as go. I concur, however, with Smart in regarding the verb to be as always "a verb principal, though deemed a verb auxiliary;" the participle following the substantive verb is thoroughly an adjective. See Smart's Accidence, p. xiv.

"The Greek and Latin expressed what related to volition, power, futurity, suffering, &c. by peculiar terminations or moods of the verb, or predicate, itself alone; the Teutonic, imitating the plainness and simplicity of the Eastern style, did all this by several distinct verbs, each expressing its particular part of the complex idea or notion contained in the whole predication." B. Martin's Instit. of Lang. p. 80. Smart calls the compound verbs Dividual, and the others Individual verbs.

4. Examples of the Infinitive forming compound verbs with the auxiliaries Shall, should, — Will, would.

Present.

I shall or will teach.

Thou shalt or wilt teach.

Past.

I should or would teach.

Thou shouldst or wouldst teach.

He, we, &c., shall or will teach. He, &c., should or would teach.

5. Examples of the Infinitive forming compound verbs with the auxiliaries May, might-Can, could, and Must.

I

Present.

may, can, or must write. Thou mayest, canst, or must

write.

Past.

I might or could write.

Thou mightst or couldst write.

He, &c., may, can, or must He, &c., might or could write.

write.

6. Examples of the Infinitive forming compound verbs with the auxiliary Do.

Present.

I do permit.

Thou dost permit.

He does or doth permit.

We, you, they, do permit.

Past.

I did permit.
Thou didst permit.

He did permit.

We, &c., did permit.

Imperative. Do permit.

7. Examples of the Imperfect and Perfect Participles forming compound verbs with the auxiliary Be.

I am persuading or persuaded. I was persuading or per

suaded.

Thou art persuading or per- Thou wast persuading or persuaded. suaded. He is persuading or per- He was persuading or persuaded. suaded. We, &c. are persuading or We, &c. were persuading or persuaded. persuaded.

Imperative. Be persuading or persuaded.

Infinitive. To be persuading or persuaded.

Imperfect Participle. Being persuaded. Perfect Participle. Been persuading or persuaded.

8. Examples of the Perfect Participle forming a compound verb with the auxiliary Have.

9. The forms "I shall teach,"-"I will teach," have been designated Present Future Tenses, and "I should teach," "I would teach," Past Future Tenses, of the verb Teach. They are not, however, Tenses, in a purely grammatical sense, but only in a logical sense.

Shall or Will implies present time referring to the future; Should or Would implies past time referring to the future, - that is, to time which is future in comparison with the past time. "I shall or will teach expresses a present disposition towards a future act; "I should or would teach," expresses a predisposition towards a future act. In the former, the tendency towards the future is represented as originating now; in the latter, it is represented as originating in the past.

10. The distinction in the uses of shall and will is partly dependent on the particular person of the subject; and some writers have employed much nicety of comparison, in the endeavour to explain that distinction. M'Culloch says, "Shall is merely future in the first person, and imperative

in the other two; with will the case is exactly reversed.* Thus: "I shall walk expresses simply my anticipation of the occurrence of my walking. "I will walk" expresses my inclination or determination to walk.

Again: "You shall walk "He shall walk," expresses my determination respecting your walking or his walking: "You will walk "He will walk,” expresses my anticipation of the occurrence of your walking or his walking.

The Rule thus exemplified is a good general direction; but one particular interference with its application should be remembered; namely, that such words as when, while, provided, if, whoever, preceding shall in the second or third person almost always deprive that verb of its reference to determination, and reduce it to the sense of mere anticipation.

11. The forms "I may write "—"I can write," denote, respectively, present liberty and present ability; and these, together with "I might write”—“I could write," are, by some grammarians, said to constitute the present and past tenses of the Potential Mode of the verb Write. †

* See Webster's Improved Gram. p. 57, to which M'Culloch refers for a clear statement of this distinction. No fewer than 35 Rules are delivered on this subject, in a tract entitled "Observations on the Use of the Words Shall and Will" (Canterbury, 1813). This is the publication referred to by Booth (p. 113), and Sullivan (p. 73), the former of whom remarks that, though he believes the Rules to be correct, they defeat their purpose by their multiplicity." Grammarians are much in the habit of quoting the versified translation of Wallis's Rule in Brightland and Steele's Grammar, which is as follows:

In the first person, simply shall foretells;

In will a threat, or else a promise dwells.
Shall, in the second and the third does threat;
Will simply then foretells the future feat.

66

See Wallis's Gram. p. 106, and the 8th edit. of Brightland, p. 109.

t "The recognition of a potential mode," says an American author, "in so many of our popular grammars, affords a striking example of the power of custom. The verbs, It may rain,'' He may go,' I can ride,' &c. are manifestly declarative; and the verbs, may rain, may go, can