arily implies an agent, and an object acted upon.' In the sentence,
'William hastens away,' the active intransitive verb _hastens_ has indeed
an _agent_, 'William,' but where is the _object_? Again, he says, 'Active
verbs govern the objective case;' although it is clear it is not the
_active_ meaning of the verb which requires the objective case, but the
_transitive_, and that only. He adds, 'A verb neuter expresses _neither
action, nor passion_, but being, or a state of being;' and the accuracy of
this definition is borne out by the assent of perhaps every other
grammarian. If, with this clear and forcible definition before our eyes, we
proceed to class _active_ intransitive verbs with neuter verbs, and direct
our pupils to prove such a classification by reciting Murray's definition
of the _neuter_ verb, we may indeed expect from a thinking pupil the
remonstrance which was actually made to a teacher on that system, while
parsing the verb '_to run_.' 'Sir,' asks the boy, 'does not _to run_ imply
action, for it always makes me perspire?'"--_Nixon's English Parser_, p. 9.

OBS. 8.--For the consideration of those classical scholars who may think we
are bound by the authority of _general usage_, to adhere to the old
division of verbs into active, passive, and neuter, it may be proper to
say, that the distribution of the verbs in Latin, has been as much a matter
of dispute among the great grammarians of that language, as has the
distribution of English verbs, more recently, among ourselves; and often
the points at issue were precisely the same.[226] To explain here the
different views of the very old grammarians, as Charisius, Donatus,
Servius, Priscian; or even to notice the opinions of later critics, as
Sanctius, Scioppius, Vossius, Perizonius; might seem perhaps a needless
departure from what the student of mere English grammar is concerned to
know. The curious, however, may find interesting citations from all these
authors, under the corresponding head, in some of our Latin grammars. See
_Prat's Grammatica Latina_, 8vo, London, 1722. It is certain that the
division of _active_ verbs, into _transitive_ and _intransitive_--or, (what
is the same thing,) into "_absolute_ and _transitive_"--or, into
"_immanent_ and _transient_"--is of a very ancient date. The notion of
calling _passive_ verbs _transitive_, when used in their ordinary and
proper construction, as some now do, is, I think, a _modern_ one, and no
small error.

OB