this circumstance, which distinguishes this example from the preceding, that Peter's supper will be partly present and partly future when Paul's entrance will be present.

"Peter will be near supping at the time that Paul will dine." Under the first relation Peter's supper aud Paul's dinner are future; but, viewing these two events under the relation which they will bear to each other, Peter's supper will still be future when Paul's dinner will be already present.

"Peter will have supped at the time that Paul will dine.” Here the case is entirely different; the two events are, it is true, future under the first relation; but, considered under the second, Peter's supper will be already past at the time that Paul's dinner will be present.

I call every Tense, whether Past or Future, which expresses only the simple relation to the time of speaking, an Absolute Tense; and every Tense, Past or Future, which, besides this general relation, expresses another relation to some event either past or future, I call a Relative Tense.

The Absolute Past is likewise Indefinite, if it does not at all determine the degree of the remoteness of the past event from the moment at which I speak; as, "I have read Virgil."

It is Definite if it does determine the degree of this remoteness; and then it is either near, as "I have just read Homer," or remote, as "I once saw Fontainebleau."

The Relative Past, is either anterior, as "I HAD SUPPED when he entered;" or simultaneous, as "I SUPPED when he dined;" or posterior, as "I WAS GOING TO SUP when he returned from the chase."

The Relative Simultaneous Past might also be called Anterior Present.

The Absolute Future is likewise Indefinite if it does not express the degree of the remoteness of the future event from the moment at which I speak, as when I say, "I shall go to England."

It is Definite, if it does express the degree of this remoteness, and then it is either near, as "I am going to sup;" or remote, as "I shall know this when I am old."

The Relative Future is either anterior, as 66 I SHALL HAVE SUPPED when he will dine;" or simultaneous, as "I SHALL GO to Italy, when we shall be at peace;" or posterior, as "I SHALL BE ON THE POINT OF DEPARTING, when my brother will arrive."

The Relative Simultaneous Future might also be designated by the name of Posterior Present.

The Anterior and Posterior Relative Pasts and Futures may also be subdivided still further; they may be either `near or remote; but for want of peculiar forms in the conjugation of the Verb to express these shades of the relations of time which events have to each other, we express them, as we have expressed many of the preceding examples, by periphrasis.

Near Anterior Relative Past. "I HAD JUST SUPPED when he sat down at the table."

Remote Anterior Relative Past. "I HAD SUPPED A GREAT WHILE AGO, when he returned."

Near Posterior Relative Past.

TO SUP when the house took fire."

"I WAS JUST GOING

Remote Posterior Relative Past. "I WAS YET FAR FROM GOING TO BED when he fell asleep."

Near Anterior Relative Future. "HE WILL HAVE JUST SUPPED when you shall have set down to table."

Remote Anterior Relative Future. "I SHALL HAVE SUPPED A LONG TIME AGO when he shall have re turned."

Near Posterior Relative Future. "I SHALL BE ON THE POINT OF SUPPING when the show shall have finished."

Remote Posterior Relative Future. "I SHALL BE VERY FAR FROM GOING TO BED when I shall have supped."

It is very far from being the case that we have in English a peculiar form of the Verb for each of these circumstances of time. It is not at all probable that there is any language which multiplies the forms to such an extent; but it is necessary to view all these shades of difference as possible in order to classify the different forms of Pasts and Futures which each language does present. Nothing can be more various than the number of Tenses in different languages; the manner in which these Tenses are formed is likewise extremely various. Sometimes it is by a slight change at the end or in some other part of the word; and sometimes by the union of two or more Verbs. We may find examples of both these modes of forming Tenses in English. From the Verb "to love" by a change in the termination is formed "I loved." By the union of the Verb " to have" with the word "loved," are formed "I have loved," "I had loved," " I shall have loved," etc.

When we wish to express some circumstance of time for which a language does not furnish a peculiar form, we have recourse to Adverbs or to some other form of expression, as we have seen in many of the examples previously presented.

CHAPTER VII.

OF THE PERSONS OF VERBS.

THE Verb denotes the existence of the subject and its relation to an Attribute. That we may discover with the more facility the Subject and Verb which are in relation with each other, the Verb in many languages admits a distinction of Genders and Numbers. It then takes in a Proposition the same Gender and Number as the Noun to which it is related. This circumstance renders it easier to understand discourse, permits greater liberty of construction, and affords more abundant resources for harmony. But besides this distinction of Gender and Number there is another which obtains more generally and contributes more effectually to perspicuity in discourse.

66

The Subject of a Proposition is always either the person who speaks, the person who is spoken to, or else a person or thing distinct from both. In the first case the subject is expressed by "I," the Pronoun of the first person; in the second by "thou," the Pronoun of the second person; in the third either by the name of the thing or, if it be not named, by "he," "she," or "it," the Pronouns of the third person.

The Verb also takes different forms according as the subject is of the first, the second, or the third person. This difference is more or less strongly marked. In French, for instance, it is often scarcely perceptible. Thus, in these words, "je lis," "tu lis," "il lit," the difference is imperceptible in pronunciation. In the plural, however, it is strongly marked, 99.66 nous lisons,' vous lisez," "" ils lisent."

66

66

In Latin, in Greek and many other languages, the difference is much more marked, as in " lego,” “legis,” “legit ;" "legimus," "legitis," "legunt." These varying terminations

being sufficient in Latin to denote whether the subject be of the first, second, or third person, it is generally altogether useless to express the subject, when it is only a Pronoun. Thus instead of saying, as in English, "I read," "thou readest," ego lego," "tu legis," the Romans commonly said, “lego,” legis."

66

66

[It must not, however, be thought that this variation in the termination of the Verb is absolutely indispensable in order to distinguish the persons. If the subject be expressed we may do without this distinction. Thus we might say in English, "if thee live with him, he also willingly live with thee," instead of, "if thou livest with him, he also willingly lives with thee." Such a mode of expression would undoubtedly be repugnant to custom and to the genius of the English language, but yet would not render discourse unintelligible.]

CHAPTER VIII.

OF MODES OF VERBS.

ALL the operations of our minds have for their object the relations between things and their qualities. We consider things which fall under our observation, and we reflect upon the ideas which we have conceived of them, only in order to discover the qualities which belong to them; and the end of this employment of our faculties is to put it in our power to form a judgment. When we have once formed this judgment, the work of the understanding is finished, and then commences the operation of the will, whose movements are determined by our judgments, whether correct or incorrect. Thus the exercise of our mental faculties commences with