Wright, concerning our usual form of passives in the present tense. But, as he now will have it, that the two voices sometimes tally as counterparts, it is plain that he adheres but partially to his former erroneous conception of a perfect or "past" participle, and the terms which hold it "in any connexion." The awkward substitutes proposed by the Irish critic, he does not indeed countenance; but argues against them still, and, in some respects, very justly. The doctrine now common to these authors, on this point, is the highly important one, that, in respect to half our verbs, what we commonly take for the passive present, _is not such_--that, in "the _second_ class, (perhaps the greater number,) the _present-passive_ implies that _the act expressed by the active voice has ceased_. Thus, 'The house is built.' * * * Strictly speaking, then," says the Doctor, "the PAST PARTICIPLE with the verb TO BE _is not the present tense in the passive voice of verbs thus used_; that is, this form does not express passively the _doing_ of the act."--_Bullions's Analyt. and Pract. Grammar_, Ed. of 1849, p. 235. Thus far these two authors agree; except that Wright seems to have avoided the incongruity of _calling_ that "_the present-passive_"
which he _denies_ to be such. But the Doctor, approving none of this practitioner's "remedies," and being less solicitous to provide other treatment than expulsion for the thousands of present passives which both deem spurious, adds, as from the chair, this verdict: "These verbs either _have no present-passive_, or it is made by annexing the participle in _ing_, in its passive sense, to the verb _to be_; as, 'The house _is building_.'"--_Ib._, p. 236.
OBS. 17.--It would seem, that Dr. Bullions thinks, and in reality Wright also, that nothing can be a present passive, but what "_expresses passively the_ DOING _of the act_." This is about as wise, as to try to imagine every active verb to _express actively the receiving of an act_! It borders exceedingly hard upon absurdity; it very much resembles the nonsense of "_expressing receptively the giving of something_!" Besides, the word "DOING," being used substantively, does not determine well what is here meant; which is, I suppose, _continuance_, or an _unfinished state_ of the act received--an idea which seems adapted to the participle in _ing_, but which it is certainly no fault of a participle ending in _d, t_, or _n_, not to suggest. To "_express passively the doing of the act_," if the language means any thing rational, may be, simply to say, that the act _is_ or _was done_. For "_doings_" are, as often as any-wise, "_things done_,"
as _buildings_ are _fabrics built_; and "_is built_," and "_am smitten_,"
the gentlemen's choice examples of _false passives_, and of "_actions finished_,"--though neither of them necessarily intimates either continuance or cessation of the act suffered, or, if it did, would be the less or the more passive or present,--may, in such a sense, "express _the doing_ of the act," if any passives can:--nay, the "finished act" has such completion as may be stated with degrees of progress or of frequency; as, "The house _is partly built_."--"I _am oftener smitten_." There is, undoubtedly, some difference between the assertions, "The house _is building_,"--and, "The house _is partly built_;" though, for practical purposes, perhaps, we need not always be very nice in choosing between them. For the sake of variety, however, if for nothing else, it is to be hoped, the doctrine above-cited, which limits half our passive verbs of the present tense, _to the progressive form only_, will not soon be generally approved. It impairs the language more than unco-passives are likely ever to corrupt it.
OBS. 18.--"No _startling novelties_ have been introduced," says the preface to the "Analytical and Practical Grammar of the English Language." To have shunned all shocking innovations, is only to have exercised common prudence. It is not pretended, that any of the Doctor's errors here remarked upon, or elsewhere in this treatise, will _startle_ any body; but, if errors exist, even in plausible guise, it may not be amiss, if I tell of them. To suppose every verb or participle to be either "_transitive_" or "_intransitive_," setting all _passives_ with the former sort, all _neuters_ with the latter; (p. 59;)--to define the _transitive_ verb or participle as expressing always "_an act_ DONE _by one person or thing to another_;" (p. 60;)--to say, after making passive verbs transitive, "The object of a transitive verb is in the _objective case_," and, "A verb that does not make sense with an objective after it, is intransitive;" (p.
60;)--to insist upon a precise and almost universal _identity of "meaning_"
in terms so obviously _contrasted_ as are the two voices, "active" and "passive;" (pp. 95 and 235;)--to allege, as a general principle, "that whether we use the active, or the passive voice, _the meaning is the same_, except in some cases in the present tense;" (p. 67;)--to attribute to the forms naturally opposite in voice and sense, that sameness of meaning which is observable only in certain _whole sentences_ formed from them; (pp. 67, 95, and 235;)--to assume that each "VOICE is a particular _form of the verb_," yet make it include _two cases_, and often a preposition before one of them; (pp. 66, 67, and 95;)--to pretend from the words, "The PASSIVE VOICE represents the subject of the verb as _acted upon_," (p. 67,) that, "_According to the_ DEFINITION, the passive voice expresses, passively, _the same thing_ that the active does actively;" (p. 235;)--to affirm that, "'Caesar _conquered_ Gaul,' and 'Gaul _was conquered_ by Caesar,' express _precisely the same idea_,"--and then say, "It will be felt at once that the expressions, 'Caesar _conquers_ Gaul,' and 'Gaul _is conquered_ by Caesar,' _do not express the same thing_;" (p. 235;)--to deny that passive verbs or neuter are worthy to constitute a distinct class, yet profess to find, in one single tense of the former, such a difference of meaning as warrants a general division of verbs in respect to it; (_ib._;)--to announce, in bad English, that, "_In regard to this matter_ [,] there are evidently Two CLASSES of verbs; namely, those _whose_ present-passive expresses precisely the same thing, passively, as the active voice does actively, and those _in which it_ does not:" (_ib._;)--to do these several things, as they have been done, is, to set forth, not "novelties" only, but errors and inconsistencies.
OBS. 19.--Dr. Bullions still adheres to his old argument, that _being_ after its own verb must be devoid of meaning; or, in his own words, "that _is being built_, if it mean anything, can mean nothing more than _is built_, which is not the idea intended to be expressed."--_Analyt. and Pract. Gram._, p. 237. He had said, (as cited in OBS. 5th above,) "The expression, '_is being_,' is equivalent to _is_, and expresses _no more_; just as, '_is loving_,' is equivalent to '_loves_.' Hence, '_is being built_,' is precisely equivalent to '_is built_.'"--_Principles of E.
Gram._, p. 58. He has now discovered "that _there is no progressive form_ of the verb _to be_, and no need of it:" and that, "hence, _there is no such expression_ in English as _is being_."--_Analyt. and Pract. Gram._, p.
236. He should have noticed also, that "_is loving_" is not an authorized "equivalent to _loves_;" and, further, that the error of saying "_is being built_," is only in the relation of the _first two words_ to each other. If "_is being_," and "_is loving_," are left unused for the same reason, the truth may be, that _is_ itself, like _loves_, commonly denotes "_continuance_;" and that _being_ after it, in stead of being necessary or proper, can only be awkwardly tautologous. This is, in fact, THE GRAND OBJECTION to the new phraseology--"_is being practised_"--"_am being smitten_"--and the like. Were there no danger that petty writers would one day seize upon it with like avidity, an other innovation, exactly similar to this in every thing but tense--similar in awkwardness, in tautology, in unmistakeableness--might here be uttered for the sake of illustration. Some men conceive, that "The _perfect_ participle is always compound; as, _having seen, having written_;"--and that the simple word, _seen_ or _written_, had originally, and still ought to have, only a passive construction. For such views, they find authorities. Hence, in lieu of the common phrases, "_had we seen_," "_we have written_," they adopt such English as this; "_Had we having seen_ you, we should have stopped."--"_We have having written_ but just now, to our correspondent." Now, "_We are being smitten_," is no better grammar than this;--and no worse: "The idea intended" is in no great jeopardy in either case.
OBS. 20.--J. R. Chandler, of Philadelphia, in his Common School Grammar of 1847, has earnestly undertaken the _defence_ of this new and much-mooted passive expression: which he calls "_the Definite Passive Voice_," or "_the Passive Voice of the Definite Form_." He admits it, however, to be a form that "does not _sound well_,"--a "_novelty_ that strikes the ear unpleasantly;" but he will have the defect to be, not in the tautologous conceit of "_is being_," "_was being_," "_has been being_," and the like, but in everybody's organ of hearing,--supposing all ears corrupted, "from infancy," to a distaste for correct speech, by "the habit of _hearing_ and using words _ungrammatically_!"--See p. 89. Claiming this new form as "_the true passive_," in just contrast with the progressive active, he not only rebukes all attempts "to evade" the use of it, "by some real or supposed _equivalent_," but also declares, that, "The attempt to deprive the transitive definite verb of [this] _its passive voice_, is _to strike at the foundation of the language_, and _to strip it of one of its most important qualities_; that of making both actor and sufferer, each in turn and at pleasure, the subject of conversation."--_Ibid._ Concerning _equivalents_, he evidently argues fallaciously; for he urges, that the using of them "_does not dispense with the necessity of the definite passive voice_."--P. 88. But it is plain, that, of the many fair substitutes which may in most cases be found, if any one is preferred, this form, and all the rest, are of course rejected for the time.
OBS. 21.--By Chandler, as well as others, this new passive form is justified only on the supposition, that the simple participle in _ing_ can never with propriety be used passively. No plausible argument, indeed, can be framed for it, without the assumption, that the simpler form, when used in the same sense, _is ungrammatical_. But this is, in fact, a begging of the main question; and that, in opposition to abundant authority for the usage condemned. (See OBS. 3d, above.) This author pretends that, "_The RULE of all grammarians_ declares the verb _is_, and a _present participle_ (_is building_, or _is writing_), to be in the active voice" only.--P. 88.
(I add the word "_only_," but this is what he means, else he merely quibbles.) Now in this idea he is wrong, and so are the several grammarians who support the principle of this imaginary "_RULE_." The opinion of critics in general would be better represented by the following suggestions of the Rev. W. Allen: "When the English verb does not signify _mental affection_, the distinction of voice is often disregarded: thus we say, _actively_, they _were selling_ fruit; and, _passively_, the books _are_ now _selling_. The same remark applies to the participle used as a noun: as, actively, _drawing_ is an elegant amusement, _building_ is expensive; and, passively, his _drawings_ are good, this is a fine _building_."--_Allen's Elements of E. Gram._, p. 82.
OBS. 22.--Chandler admits, that, "When it is said, 'The house is _building_,' the meaning is easily obtained; though," he strangely insists, "_it is exactly opposite to the assertion_."--P. 89. He endeavours to show, moreover, by a fictitious example made for the purpose, that the progressive form, if used in both voices, will be liable to ambiguity. It may, perhaps, be so in some instances; but, were there weight enough in the objection to condemn the passive usage altogether, one would suppose there might be found, somewhere, _an actual example or two_ of the abuse. Not concurring with Dr. Bullions in the notion that the active voice and the passive usually "express precisely the same thing," this critic concludes his argument with the following sentence: "There is an _important difference_ between _doing_ and _suffering_; and that _difference is grammatically shown_ by the appropriate use of the active and passive voices of a verb."--_Chandler's Common School Gram._, p. 89.
OBS. 23.--The opinion given at the close of OBS. 2d above, was first published in 1833. An opposite doctrine, with the suggestion that it is "_improper_ to say, '_the house is building_,' instead of 'the house _is being built_,'"--is found on page 64th of the Rev. David Blair's Grammar, of 1815,--"Seventh Edition," with a preface dated, "_October 20th_, 1814."
To any grammarian who wrote at a period much earlier than that, the question about _unco-passives_ never occurred. Many critics have passed judgement upon them since, and so generally with reprobation, that the man must have more hardihood than sense, who will yet disgust his readers or hearers with them.[270] That "This new form has been used by _some respectable writers_," we need not deny; but let us look at the given "_instances of it_: 'For those who _are being educated_ in our seminaries.'
R. SOUTHEY.--'It _was being uttered_.' COLERIDGE.--'The foundation _was being laid_.' BRIT. CRITIC."--_English Grammar with Worcester's Univ. and Crit. Dict._, p. xlvi. Here, for the first example, it would be much better to say, "For those who _are educated_," [271]--or, "who _are receiving their education_;" for the others, "It _was uttering_,"--"_was uttered_,"--or, "_was in uttering_."--"The foundation _was laying_,"--"_was laid_,"--or, "_was about being laid_." Worcester's opinion of the "new form" is to be inferred from his manner of naming it in the following sentence: "Within a few years, a _strange and awkward_ neologism has been introduced, by which the _present passive participle_ is substituted, in such cases as the above, for the participle in _ing_."--_Ibid._ He has two instances more, in each of which the phrase is linked with an expression of disapprobation; "' It [[Greek: tetymmenos]] signifies properly, though _in uncouth English_, one who _is being beaten_.' ABP. WHATELY.--'The bridge _is being built_, and other phrases of the like kind, _have_ pained the eye.' D. BOOTH."--_Ibid._[272]
OBS. 24.--Richard Hiley, in the third edition of his Grammar, published in London, in 1840, after showing the passive use of the participle in _ing_, proceeds thus: "No ambiguity arises, we presume, from the use of the participle in this manner. To avoid, however, affixing a passive signification to the participle in _ing_, an attempt has lately been made to substitute the passive participle in its place. Thus instead of 'The house was _building_,' 'The work _imprinting_,' we sometimes hear, 'The house was _being built_,' 'The work is _being printed_.' But this mode is _contrary to the English idiom_, and has not yet obtained the sanction of reputable authority."--_Hiley's Gram._, p. 30.
OBS. 25.--Professor Hart, of Philadelphia, whose English Grammar was first published in 1845, justly prefers the usage which takes the progressive form occasionally in a passive sense; but, in arguing against the new substitute, he evidently remoulds the early reasoning of Dr. Bullions, errors and all; a part of which he introduces thus: "I know the correctness of this mode of expression has lately been very much assailed, and an attempt, to some extent successful, has been made [,] to introduce the form [,] _'is being built.'_ But, in the first place, the old mode of expression is a well established usage of the language, being found in our best and most correct writers. Secondly, _is being built_ does not convey the idea intended, [;] namely [,] that of _progressive action. Is being_, taken together, means simply _is_, just as _is writing_ means _writes_; therefore, _is being built_ means _is built_, a perfect and not a progressive ACTION. Or, if _being_ [and] _built_ be taken together, _they signify an_ ACTION COMPLETE, and the phrase means, as before, _the house is_ (EXISTS) _being built_."--_Hart's Gram._, p. 76. The last three sentences here are liable to many objections, some of which are suggested above.
OBS. 26.--It is important, that the central phraseology of our language be so understood, as not to be _misinterpreted with credit_, or falsely expounded by popular critics and teachers. Hence errors of _exposition_ are the more particularly noticed in these observations. In "_being built_,"
Prof. Hart, like sundry authors named above, finds nothing but "ACTION COMPLETE." Without doubt, Butler interprets better, when he says, "'The house _is built_,' denotes an _existing state_, rather than a _completed action_." But this author, too, in his next three sentences, utters as many errors; for he adds: "The name of the agent _cannot be expressed_ in phrases of this kind. We _cannot say_, 'The house is built _by John_.' When we say, 'The house is built by mechanics,' we _do not express an existing state_."--_Butler's Practical Gram._, p. 80. Unquestionably, "_is built by mechanics_," expresses _nothing else_ than the "_existing state_" of being "built by mechanics," together with an affirmation:--that is, the "existing state" of receiving the action of mechanics, is affirmed of "the house."
And, in my judgement, one may very well say, "_The house is built by John_;" meaning, "_John is building the house._" St. Paul says, "Every house _is builded by_ SOME MAN."--_Heb._, iii, 4. In this text, the common "name of the agent" is "expressed."
OBS. 27.--Wells and Weld, whose grammars date from 1846, being remarkably chary of finding anything wrong in "respectable writers," hazard no opinion of their own, concerning the correctness or incorrectness of either of the usages under discussion. They do not always see absurdity in the approbation of opposites; yet one should here, perhaps, count them with the majorities they allow. The latter says, "The participle in _ing_ is sometimes used passively; as, forty and six years was this temple in _building_; not in _being built_."--_Weld's English Gram._, 2d Ed., p. 170.
Here, if he means to suggest, that "_in being built_" would "not" be good English, he teaches very erroneously; if his thought is, that this phrase would "not" express the sense of the former one, "_in building_," he palpably contradicts his own position! But he proceeds, in a note, thus: "The form of expression, _is being built, is being committed_, &c., is almost universally condemned by grammarians; but it is _sometimes_ met with in respectable writers. It occurs most frequently in newspaper paragraphs, and in hasty compositions."--_Ibid._ Wells comments thus: "Different opinions have long existed among critics respecting this passive use of the imperfect participle. Many respectable writers substitute the compound passive participle; as, 'The house is _being built_;' 'The book is _being printed_.' But the prevailing practice of the best authors is in favor of the _simple form_; as, 'The house _is building_.'"--_Wells's School Gram._, 1st Ed., p. 148; 113th Ed., p. 161.[273]
OBS. 28.--S. W. Clark, in the second edition of his Practical Grammar, stereotyped and published in New York in 1848, appears to favour the insertion of "_being_" into passive verbs; but his instructions are so obscure, so often inaccurate, and so incompatible one with an other, that it is hard to say, with certainty, what he approves. In one place, he has this position: "The Passive Voice of a verb is formed by adding the _Passive Participle_ of that verb, to the verb _be_. EXAMPLES--To _be_ loved. I _am_ feared. They _are_ worshipped."--Page 69. In an other, he has this: "When the Subject is to be represented as receiving the action, _the Passive Participle_ should be used. EXAMPLE--Henry's _lesson_ is BEING RECITED."--P. 132. Now these two positions utterly confound each other; for they are equally general, and "_the Passive Participle_" is first one thing, and then an other. Again, he has the following assertions, both false: "The Present (or First) Participle _always_ ends in _ing_, and is _limited to the Active Voice_. The Past (or Second) Participle of Regular Verbs ends in _d_ or _ed_, and is _limited to the Passive Voice_."--P. 131.
Afterwards, in spite of the fancied limitation, he acknowledges the passive use of the participle in _ing_, and that there is "_authority_" for it; but, at the same time, most absurdly supposes the word to predicate "_action_," and also to be _wrong_: saying, "_Action_ is _sometimes_ predicated of a _passive_ subject. EXAMPLE--'The _house is building_,..
for.. 'The _house is being built_,'.. which means.. The house _is becoming built_." On this, he remarks thus: "This is one of the instances in which _Authority_ is against _Philosophy_. For an _act_ cannot _properly_ be predicated of a _passive agent_. Many good writers _properly reject_ this idiom. 'Mansfield's prophecy _is being realized_.'--MICHELET'S LUTHER."--_Clark's Practical Gram._, p. 133. It may require some study to learn from this _which idiom it is_. that these "many good writers reject:"
but the grammarian who can talk of "_a passive agent_," without perceiving that the phrase is self-contradictory and absurd, may well be expected to entertain a "Philosophy" which is against "Authority," and likewise to prefer a ridiculous innovation to good and established usage.
OBS. 29.--As most verbs are susceptible of both forms, the simple active and the compound or progressive, and likewise of a transitive and an intransitive sense in each; and as many, when taken intransitively, may have a meaning which is scarcely distinguishable from that of the passive form; it often happens that this substitution of the imperfect participle passive for the simple imperfect in _ing_, is quite needless, even when the latter is not considered passive. For example: "See by the following paragraph, how widely the bane _is being circulated!_"--_Liberator_, No. 999, p. 34. Here _is circulating_ would be better; and so would _is circulated_. Nor would either of these much vary the sense, if at all; for "_circulate_" may mean, according to Webster, "_to be diffused_," or, as Johnson and Worcester have it, "_to be dispersed_." See the second marginal note on p. 378.
OBS. 30.--R. G. Parker appears to have formed a just opinion of the "modern innovation," the arguments for which are so largely examined in the foregoing observations; but the "principle" which he adduces as "conclusive" against it, if _principle_ it can be called, has scarcely any bearing on the question; certainly no more than has the simple assertion of one reputable critic, that our participle in _ing_ may occasionally be used passively. "Such expressions as the following," says he, "have recently become very common, not only in the periodical publications of the day, but are likewise finding favor with popular writers; as, 'The house _is being built_.' 'The street _is being paved_.' 'The actions that _are_ now _being performed_,' &c. 'The patents _are being prepared_.' The usage of the best writers does not sanction these expressions; and Mr. Pickbourn lays down the following principle, which is conclusive upon the subject. '_Whenever the participle_ in _ing_ is joined by an auxiliary verb to a nominative capable of the action, it is taken actively; but, when joined to one incapable of the action, it becomes passive. If we say, _The man are building a house_, the participle _building_ is evidently used in an active sense; _because_ the men are capable of the action. But when we say, _The house is building_, or, _Patents are preparing_, the participles _building_ and _preparing_ must necessarily be understood in a passive sense; because neither the house nor the patents are capable of action.'--See Pickbourn on the English Verb, pp. 78-80."--_Parker's Aids to English Composition_, p.
105. Pickbourn wrote his Dissertation before the question arose which he is here supposed to decide. Nor is he right in assuming that the common Progressive Form, of which he speaks, must be either _active-transitive_ or _passive_: I have shown above that it may be _active-intransitive_, and perhaps, in a few instances, _neuter_. The class of the verb is determined by something else than the mere _capableness_ of the "_nominative_."
III. FORM OF PASSIVE VERBS.
Passive verbs, in English, are always of a compound form; being made from active-transitive verbs, by adding the Perfect Participle to the auxiliary verb BE, through all its changes: thus from the active-transitive verb _love_, is formed the passive verb _be loved_.
FIFTH EXAMPLE.
The regular passive verb BE LOVED, conjugated affirmatively.
PRINCIPAL PARTS or THE ACTIVE VERB.
_Present_. _Preterit_. _Imp. Participle_. _Perf. Participle_.
Love. Loved. Loving. Loved.
INFINITIVE MOOD.
PRESENT TENSE.
To be loved.
PERFECT TENSE.
To have been loved.
INDICATIVE MOOD.
PRESENT TENSE.
_Singular_. _Plural_.
1. I am loved, 1. We are loved, 2. Thou art loved, 2. You are loved, 3. He is loved; 3. They are loved.
IMPERFECT TENSE.
_Singular_. _Plural_.
1. I was loved, 1. We were loved, 2. Thou wast loved, 2. You were loved, 3. He was loved; 3. They were loved.
PERFECT TENSE.
_Singular_. _Plural_.
1. I have been loved, 1. We have been loved, 2. Thou hast been loved, 2. You have been loved, 3. He has been loved; 3. They have been loved.
PLUPERFECT TENSE.
_Singular_. _Plural_.
1. I had been loved, 1. We had been loved, 2. Thou hadst been loved, 2. You had been loved, 3. He had been loved; 3. They had been loved.
FIRST-FUTURE TENSE.
_Singular_. _Plural_.
1. I shall be loved, 1. We shall be loved, 2. Thou wilt be loved, 2. You will be loved, 3. He will be loved; 3. They will be loved.
SECOND-FUTURE TENSE.
_Singular_. _Plural_.
1. I shall have been loved, 1. We shall have been loved, 2. Thou wilt have been loved, 2. You will have been loved, 3. He will have been loved; 3. They will have been loved.
POTENTIAL MOOD.
PRESENT TENSE.