FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   735   736   737   738   739   740   741   742   743   744   745   746   747   748   749   750   751   752   753   754   755   756   757   758   759  
760   761   762   763   764   765   766   767   768   769   770   771   772   773   774   775   776   777   778   779   780   781   782   783   784   >>   >|  
_wert_." So Milton wrote, "If thou _beest_ he."--_P. Lost_, B. i, l. 84. Likewise Shakspeare: "If thou _beest_ Stephano."--_Tempest_. This inflection of _be_ is obsolete: all now say, "If thou _be_." But _wert_ is still in use, to some extent, _for both moods_; being generally placed by the grammarians in the subjunctive only, but much oftener written for the indicative: as, "Whate'er thou art or _wert_."--_Byron's Harold_, Canto iv, st. 115. "O thou that _wert_ so happy!"--_Ib._, st. 109. "Vainly _wert_ thou wed."--_Ib._, st. 169. OBS. 3.--Dr. Lowth gave to this verb, BE, that form of the subjunctive mood, which it now has in most of our grammars; appending to it the following examples and questions: "'Before the sun, Before the Heavens, thou _wert_.'--_Milton_. 'Remember what thou _wert_.'--_Dryden_. 'I knew thou _wert_ not slow to hear.'--_Addison_. 'Thou who of old _wert_ sent to Israel's court.'--_Prior_. 'All this thou _wert_.'--_Pope_. 'Thou, Stella, _wert_ no longer young.'--_Swift_. Shall we, in deference to these great authorities," asks the Doctor, "allow _wert_ to be the same with _wast_, and common to the indicative and [the] subjunctive mood? or rather abide by the practice of our best ancient writers; the propriety of the language, which requires, as far as may be, distinct forms, for different moods; and the analogy of formation in each mood; I _was_, thou _wast_; I _were_, thou _wert_? all which conspire to make _wert_ peculiar to the subjunctive mood."--_Lowth's Gram._, p. 37; _Churchill's_, p. 251. I have before shown, that several of the "best ancient writers" _did not inflect_ the verb _were_, but wrote "_thou were_;" and, surely, "the analogy of formation," requires that the subjunctive _be not inflected_. Hence "the propriety which requires distinct forms," requires not _wert_, in either mood. Why then should we make this contraction of the old indicative form _werest_, a _solitary exception_, by fixing it in the subjunctive only, and that in opposition to the best authorities that ever used it? It is worthier to take rank with its kindred _beest_, and be called an _archaism_. OBS. 4.--The chief characteristical difference between the indicative and the subjunctive mood, is, that in the latter the verb is _not inflected at all_, in the different persons: IND. "Thou _magnifiest_ his work." SUBJ. "Remember that thou _magnify_ his work."--_Job_, xxxvi, 24. IND. "He _cuts_ off, _shuts_ up, and _gathe
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   735   736   737   738   739   740   741   742   743   744   745   746   747   748   749   750   751   752   753   754   755   756   757   758   759  
760   761   762   763   764   765   766   767   768   769   770   771   772   773   774   775   776   777   778   779   780   781   782   783   784   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

subjunctive

 

requires

 
indicative
 

inflected

 
Before
 

Remember

 

propriety

 
writers
 

authorities

 

ancient


formation

 
analogy
 

Milton

 

distinct

 

common

 

practice

 
language
 

peculiar

 

conspire

 

Churchill


werest
 

difference

 
characteristical
 

archaism

 
persons
 

magnifiest

 

magnify

 
called
 

kindred

 

contraction


surely

 
solitary
 

exception

 

worthier

 

fixing

 
opposition
 

inflect

 

oftener

 
written
 
grammarians

generally
 
Harold
 
extent
 

Likewise

 

Shakspeare

 

Stephano

 

obsolete

 
Tempest
 
inflection
 

Vainly