None of these expressions imply more than a single action; in other words, they have no relation to any second action occurring simultaneously with them, before them, or after them. I am speaking now, I spoke yesterday, I shall speak to-morrow. Of course, the act of mentioning them is not considered as an action related to them in the sense here meant. By considering past, present, or future actions not only by themselves, but as related to other past, present, or future actions, we get fresh varieties of expression. Thus, an act may have been going on, when some other act, itself an act of past time, interrupted it. Here the action agrees with a present action, in being incomplete; but it differs from it in having been rendered incomplete by an action that has past. This is exactly the case with the— Here we 4. Imperfect.-I was reading when he entered. have two acts; the act of reading and the act of entering. Both are past as regards the time of speaking, but both are present as regards each other. This is expressed, in English, by the past tense of the verb-substantive and the present participle, I was speaking; and in Latin and Greek by the imperfect tense, dicebam, TUTTOV. 5. Perfect.-Action past, but connected with the present by its effects or consequences.—I have written, and here is the letter. Expressed in English by the auxiliary verb have, followed by the participle passive in the accusative case and neuter gender of the singular number. The Greek expresses this by the reduplicate perfect: ré-rupa = I have beaten. 6. Pluperfect.-Action past, but connected with a second action, subsequent to it, which is also past-I had written when he came in. 7. Future present.-Action future as regards the time of speaking, present as regards some future time.—I shall be speaking about this time to-morrow. 8. Future præterite.-Action future as regards the time of speaking, past as regards some future time. I shall have spoken by this time to-morrow. These are the chief expressions which are simply determined by the relations of actions to each other, and to the time of speaking, either in the English or any other language. But over and above the simple idea of time, there may be others. superadded: thus, the phrase, I do speak, means, not only that I am in the habit of speaking, but that I also insist upon it being understood that I am so. Again, an action that is mentioned as either taking place, or as having taken place at a given time, may take place again and again. Hence the idea of habit may arise out of the idea of either present time or aorist time. a. In English, the present form expresses habit. b. 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 præterite.—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 asserted or implied that he does not. As a question implies doubt, do is used in interrogations. "Do et did indicant emphatice tempus præsens, et præteritum 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 circumstances 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 chapter xxiv. 4. That the power of the present tense is, in English, not present, but habitual, has already been twice stated. § 511. 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. 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. § 512. 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. 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 the Syntax. § 513. Certain adverbs, i. e. those of time, require certain I am then, I was now, I was hereafter, &c., are con tenses. tradictory 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 constitit 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 præterite 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 class. § 514. 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 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, ἐσθλὰ μιχθήσεται κακοῖσιν, but, ̓Αλλ ̓ ἔμπης καὶ τοῖσι μεμίξεται ἐσθλὰ κακοῖσιν. Opera et Dies. Again, Ἔπειθ ̓ ὁ πολίτης ἐντεθεὶς ἐν καταλόγῳ ̓Αλλ ὅσπερ ἦν τὸ πρῶτον ἐγγεγράψεται. ARISTOPH. Equites, 1366. Here μETEуyрapnoeraι means change from one class to another, Eyyεypáperaι continuance in the same.-See Mathiæ, ii. § 498. Upon the lines Ὅθεν πρὸς ἀνδρῶν ὑστέρων κεκλήσεται Δούρειος ἵππος. Troades, 13, 14. Seidler remarks that κληθήσεται, est nomen accipiet; κεκλήσεται, 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."—(Mathiæ.) 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 diné, j'eus diné. § 515. 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 (rérvpa), 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 classifying these different kinds of connection, 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 kékτnμaι = I have earned = I possess. The past action is assumed 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. |