OF IMPERSONAL VERBS.

THE distinctive character of impersonal verbs has been a subject of endless dispute among grammarians. Some deny their existence in the learned languages, and others as positively assert it. Some define them to be verbs devoid of the two first persons; but this definition is evidently incorrect: for, as Perizonius and Frischlinus observe, this may be a reason for calling them defective, but not for naming them impersonal verbs. Others have defined them to be verbs, to which no certain person, as the subject, can be prefixed. But with the discussion of this question, as it respects the learned languages, the English grammarian has no concern. I proceed, therefore, to observe, that impersonal verbs, as the name imports, are those which do not admit a person as their no

present, past, or future, the verbs denoting these having the three correspondent tenses; and the object of the necessity or duty is expressed as contemporary, or relatively present. In English, on the contrary, the two verbs must and ought having only the present tense, we are obliged to note the past time by employing the preterite tense of the subsequent verb. Thus, Me ire oportet, "I ought to go," "I must go." Me ire oportuit, "I ought to have gone," "I must have gone." As well may it be affirmed, that the past time is denoted by ire and not oportuit, as that it is signified by must and not by "have gone."

In the time of Wallis, the term must, as a preterite tense, was almost obsolete. "Aliquando," he remarks," sed rarius in præterito dicitur." And when it was employed as a preterite, it was followed by the present tense. This verb in German has, I understand, a preterite tense.

minative. Their real character seems to be, that they assert the existence of some action or state, but refer it to no particular subject. In English we have very few impersonal verbs. To this denomination, however, may certainly be referred, it behoveth, it irketh, equivalent to, it is the duty, it is painfully wearisome. That the former of these verbs was once used personally, we have sufficient evidence; and it is not improbable that the latter also was so employed, though I have not been able to find an example of its junction with a person. They are now invariably used as impersonal verbs. We cannot say, I behove, thou behovest, he behoves; we irk, ye irk, they irk.

There are one or two others, which have been considered as impersonal verbs, in which the personal pronoun in the objective case is prefixed to the third person singular of the verb, as, methinks, methought, meseems, meseemed; analogous to the Latin expressions me pœnitet, me penituit. You thinketh, him liketh, him seemeth, have long been entirely obsolete. Meseems and meseemed occur in Sidney, Spenser, and other contemporary writers; but are now universally disused. Addison sometimes says methoughts, contrary, I conceive, to all analogy.

CHAPTER VII.

OF ADVERBS.

AN adverb is that part of speech, which is joined to a verb, adjective, or other adverb, to express some circumstance, quality, degree, or manner of its signification; and hence adverbs have been termed attributives of the second order.

"As the attributives hitherto mentioned," says Mr. Harris, "viz. adjective and verb, denote the attributes of substances, so there is an inferior class of them, which denote the attributes only of attributes. If I say, 'Cicero was eloquent,' I ascribe to him the attribute of eloquence simply and absolutely; if I say, 'he was exceedingly eloquent,' I affirm an eminent degree of eloquence, the adverb exceedingly denoting that degree. If I say, 'he died, fighting bravely for his country,' the word bravely here added to the verb denotes the manner of the action." An adverb is, therefore, a word joined to a verb, or any attributive, to denote some modification, degree, or circumstance, of the expressed attribute.

Adverbs have been divided into a variety of classes, according to their signification. Some of those which denote

Certainty or

Affirmation

Quality, simply are, Well, ill, bravely, prudently, softly, with innumerable others formed from adjectives and participles.

Verily, truly, undoubtedly, yea, yes,

certainly.

Interrogation

Excess or Pre

eminence

Defect

Lo.

Why, wherefore, when, how.
Very, exceedingly, too, more, better,

worse, best, worst.

Preference

Almost, nearly, less, least.
Rather, chiefly, especially.

}s

future

Repetition of

times indef. Definitely

Order

Quantity

To-morrow, hereafter, presently, immediately, afterwards.

Often, seldom, frequently.

}Often,

Once, twice, thrice, again.

First, secondly, thirdly, &c.

Much, little, enough, sufficiently.

On inquiring into the meaning and etymology of adverbs, it will appear, that most of them are abbreviations or contractions for two or more words. Thus, bravely, or "in a brave manner," is probably derived by abbreviation from brave-like, wisely from wise-like, happily from happy-like +. Mr. Tooke, indeed, has

* Firstly is used by some writers.

+ Denominativa terminantur in lic vel lice, ut peplic, virilis, ælic legitimus, rœlic marinus piflic muliebris, &c. Hanc terminationem hodie mutavimus in like vel ly ut in godlike vel godly. Hickesii Thes.

The correctness of this explanation has been controverted by Mr. Gilchrist, who contends that, though it may answer in some cases, it will fail " in nine times out of ten." In the expressions "weekly wages," "daily labour," " yearly income," he observes, that the meaning cannot be, " wages like a week," "labour like a day,” “ income like a year." He rejects, therefore, this explanation, and considers the termination lic to be the same with lig in the Latin verb ligo, " to tie," or "join," and to have the same effect as other conjunctive particles, as, "a friendly part," "a friend's part," "yearly produce," "year's produce." Though a copious induction of examples justifies us in refusing our assent to Mr. Gilchrist's exaggerated statement, that the derivation proposed by Hickes will fail in nine cases out of ten, we candidly acknowledge; that in many instances it is inadmissible; and that Mr. Gilchrist's suggestion is ingenious, though it will be found, we apprehend, opposed by the same objection, as he urges against