[288] _Sate_ for the preterit of _sit_, and _sitten_ for the perfect participle, are, in my opinion, obsolete, or no longer in good use. Yet several recent grammarians prefer _sitten_ to _sat_; among whom are Crombie, Lennie, Bullions, and M'Culloch. Dr. Crombie says, "_Sitten_, though formerly in use, is now obsolescent. Laudable attempts, however, have been made to restore it."--_On Etymol. and Syntax_, p. 199. Lennie says, "Many authors, both here and in America, use _sate_ as the Past time of _sit_; but this is improper, for it is apt to be confounded with _sate_ to glut. _Sitten_ and _spitten_ are preferable [to _sat_ and _spit_,]
though obsolescent."--_Principles of E. Gram._, p. 45. Bullions says, "_Sitten_ and _spitten_ are nearly obsolete, though preferable to _sat_ and _spit_."--_Principles of E. Gram._, p. 64. M'Culloch gives these verbs in the following form: "Sit, sat, sitten _or_ sat. Spit, spit _or_ spat, spit _or_ spitten."--_Manual of E. Gram._, p. 65.
[289] "He will find the political hobby which he has _bestrided_ no child's nag."--_The Vanguard, a Newspaper_.
"Through the pressed nostril, spectacle-_bestrid_."--_Cowper_.
"A lank haired hunter _strided_."--_Whittier's Sabbath Scene_.
[290] In the age of Pope, _writ_ was frequently used both for the participle and for the preterit of this verb. It is now either obsolete or peculiar to the poets. In prose it seems vulgar: as, "He _writ_ it, at least, published it, in 1670."--_Barclay's Works_, Vol. i, p. 77.
"He, who, supreme in judgement, as in wit, Might boldly censure, as he boldly _writ_."--_Pope, Ess. on Crit._
Dr. Crombie remarked, more than thirty years ago, that, "_Wrote_ as the Participle [of _Write_,] is generally disused, and likewise _writ_."--_Treatise on Etym. and Synt._, p. 202.
[291] A word is not necessarily _ungrammatical_ by reason of having a rival form that is more common. The regular words, _beseeched, blowed, bursted, digged, freezed, bereaved, hanged, meaned, sawed, showed, stringed, weeped_, I admit for good English, though we find them all condemned by some critics.
[292] "And the man in whom the evil spirit was, _leapt_ on them."--FRIENDS'
BIBLE: _Acts_, xix, 16. In Scott's Bible, and several others, the word is "_leaped_." Walker says, "The past time of this verb is _generally_ heard with the diphthong short; and if so, it ought to be spelled _leapt_, rhyming with _kept_."--_Walker's Pron. Dict., w. Leap_. Worcester, who improperly pronounces _leaped_ in two ways, "l~ept or l=ept," _misquotes_ Walker, as saying, "it ought to be spelled _lept_."--_Universal and Critical Dict., w. Leap_. In the solemn style, _leaped_ is, of course, two syllables. As for _leapedst_ or _leaptest_, I know not that either can be found.
[293] _Acquit_ is almost always formed regularly, thus: _acquit, acquitted, acquitting, acquitted._ But, like _quit_, it is sometimes found in an irregular form also; which, if it be allowable, will make it redundant: as, "To be _acquit_ from my continual smart."--SPENCER: _Johnson's Dict._ "The writer holds himself _acquit_ of all charges in this regard."--_Judd, on the Revolutionary War_, p. 5. "I am glad I am so _acquit_ of this tinder-box."--SHAK.
[294]
"Not know my voice! O, time's extremity!
Hast thou so crack'd and _splitted_ my poor tongue?"
--SHAK.: _Com. of Er._
[295] _Whet_ is made redundant in Webster's American Dictionary, as well as in Wells's Grammar; but I can hardly affirm that the irregular form of it is well authorized.
[296] In S. W. Clark's Practical Grammar, first published in 1847--a work of high pretensions, and prepared expressly "for the education of Teachers"--_sixty-three_ out of the foregoing ninety-five Redundant Verbs, are treated as having no regular or no irregular forms. (1.) The following twenty-nine are _omitted_ by this author, as if they were _always regular_; belay, bet, betide, blend, bless, curse, dive, dress, geld, lean, leap, learn, mulet, pass, pen, plead, prove, rap, reave, roast, seethe, smell, spoil, stave, stay, wake, wed, whet, wont. (2.) The following thirty-four are _given_ by him as being _always irregular_; abide, bend, beseech, blow, burst, catch, chide, creep, deal, freeze, grind, hang, knit, lade, lay, mean, pay, shake, sleep, slide, speed, spell, spill, split, string, strive, sweat, sweep, thrive, throw, weave, weep, wet, wind. Thirty-two of the ninety-five are made redundant by him, though not so called in his book.
In Wells's School Grammar, "the 113th Thousand," dated 1850, the deficiencies of the foregoing kinds, if I am right, are about fifty. This author's "List of Irregular Verbs" has forty-four Redundants, to which he assigns a regular form as well as an irregular. He is here about as much nearer right than Clark, as this number surpasses thirty-two, and comes towards ninety-five. The words about which they differ, are--_pen, seethe_, and _whet_, of the former number; and _catch, deal, hang, knit, spell, spill, sweat_, and _thrive_, of the latter.
[297] In the following example, there is a different phraseology, which seems not so well suited to the sense: "But we _must be aware_ of imagining, that we render style strong and expressive, by a constant and multiplied use of epithets"--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 287. Here, in stead of "_be aware_," the author should have said, "_beware_," or "_be ware_;" that is, be _wary_, or _cautious_; for _aware_ means _apprised_, or _informed_, a sense very different from the other.
[298] Dr. Crombie contends that _must_ and _ought_ are used only in the present tense. (See his _Treatise_, p. 204.) In this he is wrong, especially with regard to the latter word. Lennie, and his copyist Bullions, adopt the same notion; but Murray, and many others, suppose them to "have both a present and [a] past signification."
[299] Dr. Crombie says, "This Verb, as an auxiliary, is _inflexible_; thus we say, 'he _will_ go;' and 'he _wills to_ go.'"--_Treatise on Etym. and Syntax_, p. 203. He should have confined his remarks to the _familiar style_, in which all the auxiliaries, except _do, be_, and _have_, are inflexible. For, in the solemn style, we do not say, "Thou _will_ go," but, "Thou _wilt_ go."
[300] "HAD-I-WIST. A proverbial expression, _Oh_ that I had known.
_Gower_."--_Chalmers's Dict._, also _Webster's_. In this phrase, which is here needlessly compounded, and not very properly explained, we see _wist_ used as a perfect participle. But the word is obsolete. "_Had I wist_," is therefore an obsolete phrase, meaning. If I had known, or, "_O_ that I had known."
[301] That is, passive verbs, as well as others, have three participles for each; so that, from one active-transitive root, there come _six_ participles--three active, and three passive. Those numerous grammarians who, like Lindley Murray, make passive verbs a distinct class, for the most part, very properly state the participles of a _verb_ to be "_three_;" but, to represent the two voices as modifications of one species of verbs, and then say, "The Participles are _three_," as many recent writers do, is manifestly absurd: because _two threes should be six_. Thus, for example, Dr. Bullions: "In English [,] the _transitive_ verb has always _two voices_, the Active and [the] Passive."--_Prin. of E. Gram._, p. 33. "The Participles are _three_, [:] the Present, the _Perfect_, and the _Compound Perfect_."--_Ib._, p. 57. Again: "_Transitive_ verbs have two voices, called the _Active_ and the _Passive_."--_Bullions's Analyt. and Pract.
Gram._, p. 66. "Verbs have _three_ participles--the _present_, the _past_, and the _perfect_; as, _loving, loved, having loved_, in the active voice: AND _being loved, loved, having been loved_, in the passive."--_Ib._, p.
76. Now either not all these are the participles of _one_ verb, or that verb has _more than three_. Take your choice. Redundant verbs usually have _duplicate forms_ of all the participles except the Imperfect Active; as, _lighting, lighted_ or _lit, having lighted_ or _having lit_; so again, _being lighted_ or _being lit, lighted_ or _lit, having been lighted_ or _having been lit_.
[302] The diversity in the _application_ of these names, and in the number or nature of the participles recognized in different grammars, is quite as remarkable as that of the names themselves. To prepare a general synopsis of this discordant teaching, no man will probably think it worth his while.
The following are a few examples of it:
1. "How many Participles, are there; There are two, the Active Participle which ends in (ing), as burning, and the Passive Participle which ends in (ed) as, burned."--_The British Grammar_, p. 140. In this book, the participles of _Be_ are named thus: "ACTIVE. Being. PASSIVE. Been, having been."--_Ib._, p. 138.
2. "How many _Sorts_ of Participles are there? _A_. Two; the Active Participle, that ends always in _ing_; as, _loving_, and the Passive Participle, that ends always in _ed, t_, or _n_; as, _loved, taught, slain_."--_Fisher's Practical New Gram._, p. 75.
3. "ACTIVE VOICE. _Participles_. Present, calling. Past, having called.
Future, being about to call. PASSIVE VOICE. Present, being called. Past, having been called. Future, being about to be called."--_Ward's Practical Gram._, pp. 55 and 59.
4. ACT. "Present, loving; Perfect, loved; Past, having loved."--_Lowth's Gram._, p. 39. The participles _passive_ are not given by Lowth; but, by inference from his rule for forming "the passive verb," they must be these: "Present, being loved; Perfect, loved, or been loved; Past, having been loved." See _Lowth's Gram._, p. 44.
5. "ACT. V. _Present_, Loving. _Past_, Loved. _Perfect_, Having loved. PAS.
V. _Pres_. Being loved. _Past_, Loved. _Perf_. Having been loved."--_Lennie's Gram._, pp. 25 and 33; _Greene's Analysis_, p. 225; _Bullions's Analyt. and Pract. Gram._, pp. 87 and 95. This is Bullions's _revised_ scheme, and much worse than his former one copied from Murray.
6. ACT. "_Present._ Loving. _Perfect._ Loved. _Compound Perfect_, Having loved." PAS. "_Present._ Being loved. _Perfect or Passive._ Loved.
_Compound Perfect._ Having been loved."--_L. Murray's late editions_, pp.
98 and 99; _Hart's Gram._, pp. 85 and 88; _Bullions's Principles of E.
Gram._, pp. 47 and 55. No form or name of the first participle passive was adopted by Murray in his early editions.
7. ACT. "Present. Pursuing. Perfect. Pursued. Compound perfect. Having pursued." PAS. "_Present and Perfect_. Pursued, or being pursued. _Compound Perfect_. Having been pursued."--_Rev. W. Allen's Gram._, pp. 88 and 93.
Here the first two passive forms, and their names too, are thrown together; the former as equivalents, the latter as coalescents.
8. "TRANSITIVE. _Pres._ Loving, _Perf._ Having loved. PASSIVE. _Pres._ Loved or Being loved, _Perf._ Having been loved."--_Parkhurst's Gram. for Beginners_, p. 110. Here the second active form is wanting; and the second passive is confounded with the first.
9. ACT. "_Imperfect_, Loving [;] _Perfect_, Having loved [.]" PAS.
"_Imperfect_, Being loved [;] _Perfect_, Loved, Having been loved."--_Wells's School Gram._, pp. 99 and 101. Here, too, the second active is not given; the third is called by the name of the second; and the second passive is confounded with the _third_, as if they were but forms of the same thing.
10. ACT. "_Imperfect_, (_Present_,) Loving. _Perfect_. Having loved.
_Auxiliary Perfect_, Loved." PAS. "_Imperfect_, (_Present_,) Being loved.
_Perfect_, Having been loved. _Passive_, Loved."--_N. Butler's Pract.
Gram._, pp. 84 and 91. Here the common order of most of the participles is very improperly disturbed, and as many are misnamed.
11. ACT. "Present, Loving [;] Perfect, Loved [;] Comp. Perf. Having loved [.]" PAS. "Present, Being loved [;] Perfect, Loved, or been loved [;]
Compound Perfect, Having been loved."--_Frazee's Improved Gram._, 63 and 73. Here the second participle passive has two forms, one of which, "_been loved_," is not commonly recognized, except as part of some passive verb or preperfect participle.
12. ACT. V. "_Imperfect_, Seeing. _Perfect_, Seen. _Compound_, Having seen." PAS. V. "_Preterimperfect_, Being seen. _Preterperfect_, Having been seen."--_Churchill's New Gram._, p. 102. Here the chief and radical passive participle is lacking, and neither of the compounds is well named.
13. ACT. "_Present_, Loving, [;] _Past_, Loved, [;] _Com. Past_, Having loved." PAS. "_Present_, Being loved. [;] _Past_, Loved. [;] _Com. Past._ [,] Having been loved."--_Felton's Analyt. and Pract. Gram._, of 1843, pp.
37 and 50.
14. ACT. "Present. [,] Loving. [;] Perfect. [,] Loved. [;] Compound Perfect. [,] Having loved." PAS. "Perfect or Passive. Loved. Compound Perfect. Having been loved."--_Bicknell's Gram. Lond._, 1790, Part I, pp.
66 and 70; _L. Murray's_ 2d _Edition, York_, 1796, pp. 72 and 77. Here "_Being loved_," is not noticed.
15. "_Participles. Active Voice. Present._ Loving. _Past_. Loved, or having loved. _Participles. Passive Voice. Present._ Being loved. _Past_. Having been loved."--_John Burn's Practical Gram._, p. 70. Here the chief Passive term, "Loved," is omitted, and two of the active forms are confounded.
16. "_Present_, loving, _Past_, loved, _Compound_, having loved."--_S. W.
Clark's Practical Gram._, of 1848, p. 71. "ACT. VOICE.--_Present_ ...
Loving [;] _Compound_ [,] Having loved...... _Having been loving_."--_Ib._, p. 81. "PAS. VOICE.--_Present_..... Loved, or, being loved [;]
_Compound_..... Having been loved."--_Ib._, p. 83. "The Compound Participle consists of _the_ Participle of a principal verb, added to the word _having_, or _being_, or to the two words _having been_. Examples--Having loved--_being loved_--having been loved."--_Ib._, p. 71. Here the second extract is _deficient_, as may be seen by comparing it with the first; and the fourth is _grossly erroneous_, as is shown by the third. The participles, too, are misnamed throughout.
The reader may observe that the _punctuation_ of the foregoing examples is very discrepant. I have, in brackets, suggested some corrections, but have not attempted a general adjustment of it.