th_, or _doeth_-walk, and
walk-_ed_; i.e. walk-_did_, or _doed_ or _did_-walk, are, when
analyzed, as strictly compound, as _will_ walk, _shall_ walk, and
_have_ walked. The only difference in the formation of these tenses,
is, that in the two former, the associated verbs have been
contracted and made to coalesce with the main verb, but in the two
latter, they still maintain their ground as separate words.

If it be said that _will walk_ is composed of two words, each of
which conveys a distinct idea, and, therefore, should be analyzed by
itself, the same argument with all its force, may be applied to
walk-_eth_, walk-_ed_, walk-_did_, or _did_ walk. The result of all
the investigations of this subject, appears to settle down into the
hackneyed truism, that the passive verbs, and the moods and tenses,
of some languages, are formed by inflections, or terminations either
prefixed or postfixed, and of other languages, by the association of
auxiliary verbs, which have not yet been contracted and made to
coalesce as _terminations_. The auxiliary, when contracted into a
_terminating syllable,_ retains its distinct and intrinsic meaning,
as much as when associated with a verb by juxtaposition:
consequently, an "auxiliary verb" may form a part of a mood or
tense, or passive verb, with as much propriety as a _terminating
syllable_. They who contend for the ancient custom of keeping the
auxiliaries distinct, and parsing them as primary verbs, are, by the
same principle, bound to extend their dissecting-knife _to every
compound word in the language_.

Having thus attempted briefly to prove the philosophical accuracy of
the theory which recognises the tenses, moods, and passive verbs,
formed by the aid of auxiliaries, I shall now offer one argument to
show that this theory, and this _only_, will subserve the purposes
of the practical grammarian.

As it is not so much the province of philology to instruct in the
exact meaning of single and separate words, as it is to teach the
student to combine and employ them properly in framing sentences,
and as those _combinations_ which go by the name of compound tenses
and passive verbs, are necessary in writing and discourse, it
follows, conclusively, that that theory which does not explain these
verbs in their _combined_ state, cannot teach the stu