3. Which of the following verbs are in the active voice, and which are in the passive voice?

Anne cut the thread. The thread was cut by Anne. George split the wood. The wood was split by George. The boy read the book. The book was read by the boy. The man shot the squirrel. Thomas sees us. The horse kicked the cow. The horse was kicked by the cow. The cow was kicked by the horse. horse eats the corn.

John reads. The book was read.

Nuts are eaten by squirrels. The

Thomas will write. The letter

was written. My coat was torn. We have been deceived. Mary will recite. The lesson has been recited.

MOODS.

MOODS are different modes of expressing the action or state. There are four moods; the indicative, the imperative, the infinitive, and the participle, or participial mood.

The INDICATIVE MOOD is used to express direct assertion and interrogation; as, "I walk;" "I can walk;" "Do I walk?" "Can I walk?"

The IMPERATIVE MOOD is used to express command, exhortation, entreaty, or permission; as, "Study your lesson;" "Obey your parents;" "Save my child;" "Go in peace."

The INFINITIVE MOOD partakes of the nature of the verb and of that of the noun; as, "To play is pleasant;" "John loves to walk."

Here to play expresses action, like the verb, and forms the subject of the verb is, like the noun; to walk expresses action, like the verb, and forms the object of the verb loves, like the noun.

The PARTICIPLE partakes of the nature of the verb and of that of the adjective; as, "I see a man cutting wood;" "She died lamented by all."

Here cutting expresses action, like the verb, and belongs to the noun man, like the adjective. Lamented expresses action received, like the verb in the passive voice, and it belongs to the pronoun she, like the adjective.

What are moods?

How many moods? Name them.
How is the indicative used?

The imperative?

What is said of the infinitive mood?
Of the participle?

Remarks-1. There are many modes of expressing the action or state, and some grammarians have made a large number of moods. We read of the declarative mood, the definitive, the rogative, the interrogative, the requisitive, the percontative, the assertive, the vocative, the potential, the dubitative, the conjunctive, the subjunctive, etc. It is possible for a language to exist with a peculiar form for each different mode of expressing the action or state; but no language has so great a number. Grammar is concerned with those modes only that are represented by peculiar forms.

2. The indicative mood may be employed in propositions expressing conditions, suppositions, and other things which are not direct assertions; as, "If he has money he will pay you." But here the condition is expressed, not by the form of the verb has, but by the word if. The verb itself expresses a direct assertion, "he has money;" the word if making the proposition equivalent to "grant this fact, he has money."

3. With the second person of the imperative mood the subject is generally understood; "Depart." Here the subject you is understood. But when the imperative takes the first or the third person the subject is expressed. (See page 83.)

4. The infinitive mood is usually accompanied by the sign to; as, "He wishes to learn." But after certain verbs, among which are may, can, must, might, could, would, and should, the simple form (without to) is used; as, "I can learn," "I may learn," "I could learn."

5. The to of the infinitive was originally a preposition. The Anglo-Saxons had two forms of the infinitive, one without to, as helpan, to help; the other with to, as, to helpanne, to or for helping. The latter form is by some called the dative of the infinitive, by others the gerund. The two forms in the course of time became confounded, to came to be used with the first form as well as with the second, and the nature of to was gradually forgotten.

[NOTE. To say, as some do, that to in such expressions as "To play is pleasant is a preposition is as absurd as to say that all the Smiths of the present day are smiths.]

6. The infinitive mood takes its name infinitive (not limited) from the fact that it is not limited to a subject. To distinguish them from verbs in this mood, verbs in the indicative and imperative are called finite verbs. The participle also is not limited.

7. The infinitive sometimes takes a subject, as will be noticed hereafter; but in this use it loses its distinctive character.

8. The participle derives its name from the Latin participo, to partake, and is so called because it is a form of the verb that partakes of the properties of the adjective. Some make of the participle a separate part of speech; but it has no greater claims to this distinction than the infinitive mood has. They are both participles in the etymological sense of the term; the one being a verbal form partaking of the nature of the adjective, the other a verbal form partaking of the nature of the noun.

9. A participle denotes an action or state, and is transitive or intransitive; and when transitive is used in the active and passive voices; but it can not be so used as to express an affirmation. Like an adjective it belongs to a noun; as, “I see a man cutting wood." Here cutting denotes an action, is in the active voice, and has an object like a transitive verb; and it belongs to the noun man like an adjective.

10. Participles are intermediate between verbs and adjectives, as zoöphytes are between animals and vegetables. Lord Bacon gives the name participle to those productions which seem to form a connecting link between the animal and vegetable kingdoms. "The participles or confiners between plants and living creatures are such chiefly as are fixed and have no local motion of remove, though they

have a motion in their parts. . . . There is a fabulous narration that in the northern countries there should be an herb that groweth in the likeness of a lamb and feedeth upon the grass in such sort as it will bare the grass round about."Natural History, page 609.

THE GERUND, OR PARTICIPIAL NOUN.

The gerund, or participial noun, has the same form with the participle in ing; but it is a noun, like the infinitive, while the participle is an adjective; as, "He commenced playing "="He began to play;" "He delights in playing."

Note." It is to be observed also that in English there are two infinitives, one in ing, the same in sound and spelling as the participle present, from which, however, it should be carefully distinguished; for example, 'Rising early is healthful,' and 'It is healthful to rise early,' are equivalent. Grammarians have produced much needless perplexity in speaking of the participle in 'ing' being employed so and so; when it is manifest that that very employment of the word constitutes it to all intents and purposes an infinitive, and not a participle. The advantage of the infinitive in ing is that it may be used in the nominative or in any oblique case.-Whately's Logic: Book II., chap. i, sec. 3.

Remark. It is probable that the gerund has been formed from the AngloSaxon infinitive in an. This at a later period became en, and the termination en was afterward changed to ing, an ending borrowed from the Anglo-Saxon verbal noun in ung, ing.

Note. "Some modern grammarians will have it that a participle governed by a preposition is a 'participial noun;' and yet, when they come to parse an adverb or an objective following it, their 'noun' becomes a 'participle' again, and not a noun.' To allow words to dodge from one class to another is not only unphilosophical, but ridiculously absurd. Among those who thus treat this construction of the participle, the chief, I think, are Butler, Hart, Weld, Wells, and S. S. Greene."-Goold Brown, "Grammar of English Grammars," page 633.

It is not probable that any of the persons mentioned has made the participial noun "dodge" in this "ridiculously absurd" way. The doctrine in "Butler's Practical Grammar " is that the "participial noun" is a noun like the infinitive, and that it may be modified as the infinitive is modified. But Mr. Brown could never understand the participial noun. He scarcely ever mentions it without condemning some of the most common idioms of the language, simply because he confounds the noun with the adjective.

The gerund, like the infinitive, may be modified as the finite verb is modified, by adverbs, by nouns in the objective case, by the predicatenominative, etc.; as, "He is engaged in studying arithmetic;" "By coming suddenly upon them I frightened them."

Gerunds may have compound forms; as, "After having studied so diligently you must know your lesson;" "Was he made better by being persecuted?"

Note.-Most grammars make two other moods, with the names potential" and "subjunctive."

The "potential mood" is represented as composed of the "auxiliary verbs" may, can, must, might, could, would, should and a "principal" verb; as, "I can write;" "I must write;" "I would write;" "You should write." And here are some explanations: "The indicative and potential both declare, but they declare different things: the former declares what the subject does or is; the latter what it may or can, etc., do or be. The declaration made by the indicative is simple; that made by the potential is always complex, containing the idea of liberty, power, etc., in connection with the act."-Bullions's Analytical English Grammar. "The potential mood is also used in principal propositions, not however to represent the actual, but that which at the time of speaking exists, or is supposed to exist, only in idea-that which is merely imagined or thought of.”—Green's Elements of English Grammar. The examples given are, "We can sing ;" "You may write;" "He must read;" "They should obey the law."

Each of the forms assigned to this mood consists of two verbs, the one in the indicative, the other in the infinitive mood; as, "I can swim" (I am able to swim); "Children should obey" (ought to obey). Here can denotes power and should denotes obligation as expressly as these things are denoted by am able and ought. Can and should declare absolutely "the facts expressed by the verbs," which facts are power and obligation. "Children should-." "Children ought-." In the first of these expressions as clearly as in the last obligation is declared as a positive fact, belonging to "the actual," not existing or supposed to exist "only in idea, not merely imagined or thought of." Should and ought are both followed by the infinitive, to being omitted after should, as it is after bid, dare, feel, let, and some other verbs. When Launce says to Speed, "Fie on thee, jolt-head! thou canst not read," Speed replies, "Thou liest, I can.' Does Speed intend to declare that his ability is merely "imagined or thought of ?"

But though "the indicative and potential both declare," "they declare different things." We should expect two verbs of different meanings to declare different things. When I say, "I can read," I employ can to declare my ability, and I employ another word to denote what I can do. When I say, "I wish to read," I employ wish to declare my desire, and I employ another word to denote what I desire. If can read is to be placed in the potential mood, wish to read also should be placed in that mood, because it does not declare "what the subject does or is," but only what "it" wishes to do; and because the declaration made by "I wish to read" is complex, containing the idea of desire "in connection with the act."

There is no greater propriety in regarding can read as one word than there is in regarding dare read, ought to read, wish to read, or have to read as one word.

The Anglo-Saxons had a subjunctive mood; but very little of it has descended to the modern English. In turning the Anglo-Saxon subjunctive into English we do not generally turn it into a subjunctive form; but we sometimes use may, might, etc., with the infinitive, sometimes the infinitive by itself, sometimes the indicative; as, "Tha sende he hine to his tune, that he heolde hys swyn," then sent he him to his field, that he might keep his swine, or to keep; He saegde thaet Sarra his sweoster waere," he said that Sarah was his sister; "Whaet secge ge thaet ic sig?" What say ye that I am? "Whaet do ic thaet ic ece lif haebbe?" What shall I do that I may have eternal life? "Ne bidde ic thaet thu hig nime of middenearde," I pray not that thou shouldst take them out of the world.

¢

Many have attempted to make a subjunctive mood for modern English. They have taken the few unstable relics of the Anglo-Saxon subjunctive and borrowed from the indicative what was necessary to make out a mood, giving to a conjunction the power to transfer almost any form to the subjunctive mood. Murray makes a mass of confusion in his attempts to form a subjunctive mood. He sometimes expresses himself as if he thought distinct forms necessary to a subjunctive mood; then again he seems to think that an if or some other conjunction before

a verb is sufficient to transform the indicative to the subjunctive. He says he follows Dr. Lowth and the most correct and elegant writers in limiting the conjunctive termination of the principal verb to the second and third persons singular of the present tense. He means that the so-called "present subjunctive" is the same as the present indicative except in these two persons. Thus his "present subjunctive" of the verb to love is "if I love, if thou love, if he love, if we love, if you love, if they love." The present indicative has the same forms except in the second and third persons singular, thou lovest, he loves. In his definition of the subjunctive mood he says that it is "preceded by a conjunction expressed or understood." But the same forms may be preceded by adverbs; as, "Blow till thou burst thy wind."-Shakespeare. "Until the day dawn and the day-star arise.”— English Bible. "Come down ere my child die."-Ib. "Before the cock crow.”—Ib. "Till danger's troubled night depart.' -Campbell. Here we have the subjunctive form without the subjunctive mood. [More correctly speaking, till, until, ere, before are prepositions with noun-propositions as their objects. "Till the day dawn""Till the dawn of day."]

Murray says: "The second and third persons, in both numbers, of the secondfuture tense of all verbs, require a variation from the forms which those tenses have in the indicative mood. Thus, 'He will have completed the work by midsummer' is the indicative form; but the subjunctive is, 'If he shall have completed the work by midsummer.'" But we find this "subjunctive" after adverbs and pronouns; as, "When he shall have completed the work he will be paid;” “I will pay every one who shall have completed the work assigned him." Here again are "subjunctive" forms, but, according to the definition, no subjunctive mood.

That which is called the "present subjunctive" is not a present tense at all. Murray himself says that it expresses futurity. Take for illustration the following passage: "If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honourable; and shalt honour him."-English Bible. Here turn, call, and shalt honour denote the same future time. There is a transition from the old idea of the "subjunctive to the modern idea of "the auxiliary." With these relics of the subjunctive mood, which are passing out of use, it is better, in accordance with the genius of modern English to regard shall, should, may or might as implied.

EXERCISES.

In what mood is each of the verbs in the following exercises?

"John ran."

Ran is in the indicative mood-it is used to express a direct assertion.

"Mary wishes to learn."

Wishes is in the indicative mood-it is used to express a direct assertion.

To learn is in the infinitive mood - it partakes of the nature of the verb and of the noun.

Note.-Here to learn is used as a noun in the objective case, the object of the verb wishes.

"It

*"The subjunctive is evidently passing out of use; and there is good reason to suppose that it will soon become obsolete altogether."-George P. Marsh. has become equally allowable to write if he loves and if he love, even in careful and elegant styles of composition, while the latter is very rarely heard in colloquial discourse."-Whitney's Language and the Study of Language, p. 87.