The English Language Part 90

[alpha]. In English, the present form expresses _habit_. See p. 455.

[beta]. In Greek the aorist expresses habit.

Again, one tense, or one combination, may be used for another. _I was speaking when he enters._

The results of these facts may now be noticed:

1. The _emphatic present and praeterite._--Expressed by _do_ (or _did_), as stated above. A man says _I do_ (or _did_) _speak_, _read_, &c., when, either directly or by implication, it is a.s.serted or implied that he does not. As a question implies doubt, _do_ is used in interrogations.

"_Do_ et _did_ indicant emphatice tempus praesens, et praeteritum imperfectum. _Uro_, _urebam_; _I burn_, _I burned_: vel (emphatice) _I do burn_, _I did burn_."--WALLIS, p. 106.

2. _The predictive future._--_I shall be there to-morrow._ This means simply that the speaker will be present. It gives no clue to the circ.u.mstances that will determine his being so.

3. The _promissive future._--_I will be there to-morrow._--This means not only that the speaker will be present, but that he _intends_ being so. For further observations on _shall_ and _will_, see pp. 471-474.

4. That the power of the present tense is, in English, not present, but habitual, has already been twice stated.

-- 580. _The representative expression of past and future time._--An action may be past; yet, for the sake of bringing it more vividly before the hearers, we may make it present. {464} _He walks (_for_ walked) up to him, and knocks (_for_ knocked) him down._ This denotes a single action; and is by no means the natural habitual power of the English present. So, in respect to a future, _I beat you if you don't leave off_, for _I will beat you_. This use of the present tense is sometimes called the _historic_ use of the present tense. I find it more convenient to call it the representative use; inasmuch as it is used more after the principles of painting than of history; the former of which, necessarily, _represents_ things as present, the latter, more naturally, describes them as _past_.

The use of the representative present to express simple actions is unequivocally correct. To the expression, however, of complex actions it gives an illogical character,--_As I was doing this he enters_ (for _entered_). Nevertheless, such a use of the present is a fact in language, and we must take it as it occurs.

-- 581. The present tense can be used instead of the future; and that on the principle of representation. Can a future be used for a present? No.

The present tense can be used instead of the aorist; and that on the principle of representation. Can a past tense, or combination, be used for a present?

In respect to the perfect tense there is no doubt. The answer is in the affirmative. For all purposes of syntax a perfect tense, or a combination equivalent to one, is a present tense. Contrast the expression, _I come that I may see_; with the expression, _I came that I might see_; _i.e._, the present construction with the aorist. Then, bring in the perfect construction, _I have come_. It differs with the aorist, and agrees with the present. _I have come that I may see._ The reason for this is clear.

There is not only a present element in all perfects, but for the purposes of syntax, the present element predominates. Hence expressions like _I shall go_, need give us no trouble; even though _shall_ be considered as a perfect tense. Suppose the root, _sk-ll_ to mean _to be destined_ (or _fated_). Provided we consider the effects of the action to be continued up to the time of speaking, we may say _I _have been_ destined to go_, just as well as we can say _I _am_ destined to go_. {465}

The use of the aorist as a present (except so far as both the tenses agree in their power of expressing _habitual_ actions) is a more difficult investigation. It bears upon such expressions as _I ought to go_, &c., and will be taken up in p. 475.

-- 582. Certain adverbs, _i.e._, those of time, require certain tenses. _I am then_, _I was now_, _I was hereafter_, &c., are contradictory expressions. They are not so much bad grammar as impossible nonsense.

Nevertheless, we have in Latin such expressions as

"Ut _sumus_ in ponto ter frigore const.i.tit Ister."

Here the connection of the present and perfect ideas explains the apparent contradiction. The present state may be the result of a previous one; so that a preterite element may be involved in a present expression. _Ut sumus_=_since I have been where I am_.

It is hardly necessary to remark that such expressions as _since I am here_ (where _since_=_inasmuch as_) do not come under this cla.s.s.

-- 583. Two fresh varieties in the use of tenses and auxiliary verbs may be arrived at by considering the following ideas, which may be superadded to that of simple time.

1. _Continuance in the case of future actions._--A future action may not only take place, but continue: thus, a man may, on a given day, not only be called by a particular name, but may _keep_ that name. When Hesiod says that, notwithstanding certain changes which shall have taken place, good shall _continue_ to be mixed with bad, he does not say, [Greek: esthla michthesetai kakoisin], but,

[Greek: All' empes kai toisi memixetai esthla kakoisin].

_Opera et Dies._

Again,--

[Greek: Epeith' ho polites entetheis en katalogoi]

[Greek: Oudeis kata spoudas metengraphesetai], [Greek: All' hosper en to protun engegrapsetai].

ARISTOPH. _Equites_, 1366.

{466}

Here [Greek: metengraphesetai] means _change from one cla.s.s to another_, [Greek: engegrapsetai] _continuance in the same_.--See Mathiae, ii. -- 498.

Upon the lines,--

[Greek: Hothen pros andron husteron keklesetai]

[Greek: Doureios hippos].

_Troades_, 13, 14.

Seidler remarks that [Greek: klethesetai], est _nomen accipiet_; [Greek: keklesetai], _nomen geret_.

Now it is quite true that this Greek tense, the so-called _paulo-post-futurum_, "bears the same relation to the other futures as, among the tenses of past time, the perfectum does to the aorist."--(Mathiae.) And it is also true that it by no means answers to the English _shall have been_. Yet the logical elements of both are the same.

In the English expression, the _past_ power of the perfect predominates, in the Greek its _present_ power.

2. _Habit in the case of past actions._--_I had dined when I rode out._ This may apply to a particular dinner, followed by a particular ride. But it may also mean that when the speaker _had dined, according to habit, he rode out, according to habit also_. This gives us a variety of pluperfect; which is, in the French language, represented by separate combination--_j'avais dine_, _j'eus dine_.

-- 584. It is necessary to remember that the connection between the present and the past time, which is involved in the idea of a perfect tense ([Greek: tetupha]), or perfect combination (_I have beaten_), is of several sorts.

It may consist in the _present proof_ of the _past_ fact,--_I have written, and here is the evidence_.

It may consist in the _present effects_ of the _past_ fact,--_I have written, and here is the answer_.

Without either enumerating or cla.s.sifying these different kinds of connexion, it is necessary to indicate two sorts of _inference_ to which they may give origin.

1. _The inference of continuance._--When a person says, _I have learned my lesson_, we presume that he can say it, _i. e._, that, _he has a present knowledge of it_. Upon this principle {467} [Greek: kektemai]=_I have earned_=_I possess_. The past action is a.s.sumed to be continued in its effects.

2. _The inference of contrast._--When a person says, _I have been young_, we presume that he is so no longer. The action is past, but it is continued up to the time of speaking by the contrast which it supplies. Upon this principle, _fuit Ilium_ means _Ilium is no more_.

In speaking, this difference can be expressed by a difference of accent. _I _have_ learned my lesson_, implies that _I don't mean to learn it again_.

_I have _learned_ my lesson_, implies that _I can say it_.

-- 585. The construction of the auxiliary, _may_, will be considered in the Chapter on Conjunctions; that of _can_, _must_, and _let_, offer nothing remarkable. The combination of the auxiliary, _have_, with the past participle requires notice. It is, here, advisable to make the following cla.s.sifications.

1. The combination with the participle of a _transitive verb_.--_I have ridden the horse_; _thou hast broken the sword_; _he has smitten the enemy_.

2. The combination with the participle of an _intransitive_ verb,--_I have waited_; _thou hast hungered_; _he has slept_.

3. The combination with the participle of the verb substantive,--_I have been_; _thou hast been_; _he has been_.

It is by examples of the first of these three divisions that the true construction is to be shown.

For an object of any sort to be in the possession of a person, it must previously have existed. If I possess a horse, that horse must have had a previous existence.