61. That these matters may be expressed clearly in languages borrowing from the Hebrew, the tenses of the indicative should nearly all of them exist in the subjunctive. The aorists particularly should not be excluded, and the idea of compound time should be clearly expressed. The subjunctive should bear very near affinity, if not an exact similarity, to the indicative.

62. The Greeks have performed this in three ways. First, by changing the short vowels of the indicative into long ones: thus Tulus becomes in the subjunctive Tuzlu. Second, by rejecting the augment in the aorist tenses, and changing the endings into w in the active and passive aorists, and into was in the middle ones; as active rua, subjunctive τυψω; passive ετύφθην, subjunctive τυφθω; middle ετυψάμην, subjunctive Tapas. Third, by changing the ending and retaining the augment as in the perfect, as TeTupa, subjunctive Trup. And as the Spanish, English, French, Italian, and German, have no way of forming the passive voice but by prefixing the auxiliary substantive verbs to the past participle; so, all that is necessary for them, is clearly to arrange the tenses of the auxiliary verb, and prefix them to the participle.

63. A few plain rules relative to the use of the conjunction vau, having been laid down in Granville Sharp's "Tracts on the Syntax and Pronunciation of the Hebrew Tongue," and having been copied by J. S. C. F. Frey, in his Hebrew Grammar, I just quote them here.

"Vau prefixed to future tenses changes them to perfect ones, and when prefixed to verbs in the perfect tense, it regularly changes them to the future tense.

"When vau is prefixed to a verb which immediately follows another verb of the same tense, without a prefixed vau, and in the same sentence, the vau in that case is merely conjunctive.

"A prefixed vau does not affect or change any verb or verbs, in the future tense, which follow an imperative mode, in the same sentence. But to perfect tenses, the prefixed vau is conversive without hindrance from a preceding imperative.

"After an interrogation, either of the emphatic , or the interrogatory relatives or, the prefixed vau does not influence any verb or verbs of the future or present tense; but in perfect tenses, the vau is regularly conversive, and is not influenced by a preceding interrogation.

"If a future tense, put for a preter-perfect tense (which must be by having a prefixed vau) precedes a preter tense, (having also a prefixed vau,) the latter is merely copulative."

64. In regard to modes, the optative is so much a Greek mode, that the modern languages under notice cannot express it, but by prefixing a verb, expressive of wishing, to the subjunctive of the verb in use; thus, “I wish it may be fair to-morrow," expresses what the Greek would

express by the term so, "I wish it may be ;" or we might in a shorter way express it in a subjunctive form, only postponing the nominative after the auxiliary; thus, " may it be fair to-morrow." But the French, Italian, Spanish, and German, cannot transpose the form of the subjunctive. The Latin has no form that can at all approximate to an optative. They express the idea by the use of the adverb utinam. We have an instance of an optative as to meaning, but not as to form, in Virgil:

"Sed mihi vel tellus optem prius ima dehiscat,

Vel Pater omnipotens, adigat me fulmine ad umbras."
Eneid, book iv. line 24, &c.

Where the subjunctive optem, is followed by two other subjunctives, dehiscat and adigat.

65. Though the Hebrew and its dialects have no optative as to form, yet they have it as to substance, particularly in the expression in translated in the Chaldee ", in the Greek is dwas, in the Latin utinam, in the English would God, in the German wollte Gott. The Septuagint rendering of the Hebrew proves the real import of the latter.

66. The potential mode is not strictly admissible into any language which I notice; for first, it is not conjugationally different from the subjunctive. This is clearly to be seen in the Latin, where amem is consisidered as potential, signifying I may or can love; and also as subjunctive, with a conjunction expressed or understood, meaning if I love, and the like. Peter Birkman, in his "Simplified German Grammar," printed at Harrisburg, in 1823, says, "for my forming a potential mode, contrary to other German grammarians, I think it sufficient apology to say, that it is in conformity to the English grammar, and that the learner will wish to know the corresponding German expressions; but chiefly because these expressions are rendered in German under other names, such as periphrastic, conditional, &c. which new names would rather bewilder than teach, having already a sufficiency of them." Secondly, its generally received auxiliaries express no more idea of power, than is expressed by shall, or will. May, or can, have a great connexion with futuriety; thus, 'you may go to New York to-morrow," conveys a future idea. And, "you can never succeed in your undertaking," conveys the same. John Parkhurst observes in his Hebrew Grammar, that "the future tense supplies the place of the potential or subjunctive mode of other languages, and so it is frequently to be rendered in English, by may, can, might, would, should, ought, could, all which words evidently imply somewhat future in their signification."

67. The imperative mode simply relates to present and future time, and both may be expressed in those languages which have only a present imperative, by one word, so as to give us an idea of the time intended. The expression, strike but hear, refers to present time; it demands, at

longest, no more than a momentary exercise of the attention, even if a blow must immediately be given. But if I say, Go to Washington, and write me word concerning what is doing there, the first imperative is in the present tense, but the second, write, is future; for, a period of time must intervene between the execution of the first part of the order to go, and of the second to write.

68. This in the Hebrew would be expressed in two ways. First, by two imperatives, as in English, go and write; the known distance of time, place, and other circumstances, being sufficient of themselves to explain the first command as relating to present, and the second to future time. Second, by the first command, being in the imperative, go, and by the second being in the indicative perfect, the vau between them, being conversive. This explains why, in the Hebrew, where two commands are given, and the first only is in the imperative, the second, if in the future, preceded by the vau, is not changed in meaning into the past; (but if in the past with the conjunction, it is changed into the future ;) for the time is not compound, but simple; both commands are positive, and not conditional, or dependent on other things. And it is most probable, that from the circumstance of so immediate connexion subsisting in the Hebrew between the imperative and the perfect, and the imperative and the future, by means of the vau, the Greeks borrowed, and enlarged upon the idea of making perfects, aorists, and future tenses in the imperative. 69. A perfect may admit of an imperative, in as much as it relates to the present completion of an action. Its use is rare.

70. Searching for examples on this subject in the Hebrew Bible, I found the following in a few of the first chapters in Isaiah.

First-Imperatives with imperatives, with the vau between them: Isaiah, chap. i. ver. 2. 11 D'Uv lov Second-Imperatives with futures, the vau being between them, and by the rule, not conversive:

Third-Imperatives with perfects, the vau being between them, and by the rule conversive:

Isaiah, chap vi. ver. 9. ♫

71. Before closing this preface, some little notice should be taken of the substantive verbs. They carry with them the marks of very ancient verbs, for they have few modes and tenses. The Hebrew verb ', to be, has the regular persons in both singular and plural, in the preterite indicative in Kal and though Mr. Frey has not in his Grammar considered it as used in Niphal, yet the third singular feminine indicative, Niphal, is used in Judges, chap. xix. ver. 30. ; again, chap. xx. ver. 5.

The מה הדעה הזאת אשר נהיתה ,12 again, in verse ; איכה נהיתה הרעה הזאת ,הוה גביר לאחיך .29 .is used in Genesis, chap. xxvii. ver הוה imperative

though not in Mr. Frey's paradigm. Again, in Exodus, chap. ix. ver. 3. the word is used with a' as the participle benoni, agreeing with 7 as 'n in 7. Again, in Genesis, chap. xviii. ver. 18. 1 for n as the participle Paoul.

72. To conclude, some remarks seem necessary to be made on the use of auxiliaries. They are assigned to the English, French, Italian, Spanish and German, whilst the other languages of my synopsis are considered as formed without them. But let us view the matter in connexion with facts, and we must come to these conclusions: First, that the Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac, Greek and Latin, do not form either mode, tense, number or person, without an auxiliary. Second, that the other languages have them only in the past tenses; and that the other tenses assigned to them are formed by verbs called auxiliaries, but which are in reality, primary verbs, subject to very few deflexions, and governing the other verbs in the infinitive mode. To notice these in their order.

73. As to the Hebrew and its dialects, I observe, that the third person preterite being the root, it has formed the other persons of that tense by postfixing part of the respective pronouns : as the n to the second person singular, being a part of ns, thou; the 'n to the first person singular, as a part of ns, I; the 13 to the first person plural, as a part of the pronoun un, we; the on to the second person plural, as a part of the pronoun DAN, ye; and the to the third person plural. It has formed its preterite Niphal or passive, by prefixing, and postfixing the same parts of pronouns as in the preterite active; its Hiphil by prefixing, and inserting • after the second radical, and postfixing the same parts of pronouns ; its Huphal as the passive of Hiphil, exactly in the same way, except omitting the after the second radical; and it has formed its Hithpael, or reflective, by prefixing n to the verb, and postfixing the same parts of pronouns; in the future, parts of pronouns are prefixed throughout the whole, to form the different persons, the characteristics being retained; in the imperative mode, consisting of only one tense, the pronouns are postfixed, with the retention of the characteristics; the infinitive, of one tense only, is the same as the third person preter in all the specimens, except the Niphal, where it has p in the place of p53; the participle. inserts vau after the first radical in Kal in the participle benoni, and vau after the second radical in the participle paoul; and prefixes in the passive participle henoni, in Hiphil and Huphal, and л in the participle Hithpael.

74. As the conjugations Piel and Puål, are formed solely by the points, they do not belong to a synopsis of grammar, in which the variations of deflexions are the subject of discussion.

D

Present Tense.

Perfect Tense.

75. The Chaldee and Syriac prefix and postfix the parts of their pronouns, in Kal, in Ithpehal, or their passive, in Aphel, or their Hiphil, in the same manner as the Hebrew.

76. They have likewise adopted two others, which are used in the Targums, which have been denominated Shaphel and Ishthapal: the former prefixes w, and it is nearly of the same import, as the Hebrew Hiphil, asy, he caused to serve; the latter is its passive, and prefixes л, asyn, he was caused to serve. In all these, the persons, infinitives, and participles are formed by the common rule of prefixing and postfixing the parts of pronouns, and of prefixing and inserting the characteristic letter. All these processes are performed without the assistance of any auxiliary verb, but by letters called serviles, which are the true auxiliaries of those languages.

77. In the Greek and Latin, the modes, tenses and persons are formed by conjugated endings, which may be justly called auxiliary verbs, seeing that they alone are the subjects of a change; the verb itself remaining unchangeable. To assist my readers in forming a just ideaof my meaning, I here present them with a paradigm of the auxiliaries in the two languages, the dash being intended to represent the indeclinable root, and if it be filled up in the Greek with, as the indeclinable part of thẹ verb -, and in Latin with am, as the indeclinable part of the verb am-o, I trust the matter will be abundantly clear.

78. Paradigm of the auxiliary conjugated endings in the Greek and Latin languages, in the active voice.