Page:The grammar of English grammars.djvu/411

 from this connexion, and hence owe has become regular. Own, as now used, is either a pronominal adjective, as, "my own hand," or a regular verb thence derived, as, "to own a house." Ought, under the name of a defective verb, is now generally thought to be properly used, in this one form, in all the persons and numbers of the present and the imperfect tense of the indicative and subjunctive moods. Or, if it is really of one tense only, it is plainly an aorist; and hence the time must be specified by the infinitive that follows: as, "He ought to go; He ought to have gone." "If thou ought to go; If thou ought to have gone." Being originally a preterit, it never occurs in the infinitive mood, and is entirely invariable, except in the solemn style, where we find oughtest in both tenses; as, "How thou oughtest to behave thyself."--1 Tim., iii, 15. "Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers."--Matt., xxiv, 27. We never say, or have said, "He, she, or it, oughts or oughteth." Yet we manifestly use this verb in the present tense, and in the third person singular; as, "Discourse ought always to begin with a clear proposition."--Blair's Rhet., p. 217. I have already observed that some grammarians improperly call ought an auxiliary. The learned authors of Brightland's Grammar, (which is dedicated to Queen Anne,) did so; and also affirmed that must and ought "have only the present time," and are alike invariable. "It is now quite obsolete to say, thou oughtest; for ought now changes its ending no more than must."--Brightland's Gram., (approved by Isaac Bickerstaff, Esq.,) p. 112.

"Do, will, and shall, must, OUGHT, and may,   Have, am, or be, this Doctrine will display."--Ib., p. 107.

OBS. 5.--Wis, preterit wist, to know, to think, to suppose, to imagine, appears to be now nearly or quite obsolete; but it may be proper to explain it, because it is found in the Bible: as, "I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest."--Acts, xxiii, 5. "He himself 'wist not that his face shone.'"--Life of Schiller, p. iv. Wit, to know, and wot, knew, are also obsolete, except in the phrase to wit; which, being taken abstractly, is equivalent to the adverb namely, or to the phrase, that is to say. The phrase, "we do you to wit," (in 2 Cor., viii, 1st,) means, "we inform you." Churchill gives the present tense of this verb three forms, weet, wit, and wot; and there seems to have been some authority for them all: as, "He was, to weet, a little roguish page."--Thomson. "But little wotteth he the might of the means his folly despiseth."--Tupper's Book of Thoughts, p. 35. To wit, used alone, to indicate a thing spoken of, (as the French use their infinitive, savoir, à savoir, or the phrase, c'est à savoir,) is undoubtedly an elliptical expression: probably for, "I give you to wit;" i. e., "I give you to know." Trow, to think, occurs in the Bible; as, "I trow not."--N. Test. And Coar gives it as a defective verb; and only in the first person singular of the present indicative, "I trow." Webster and Worcester mark the words as obsolete; but Sir W. Scott, in the Lady of the Lake, has this line:

"Thinkst thou he trow'd thine omen ought?"--Canto iv, stanza 10.

Quoth and quod, for say, saith, or said, are obsolete, or used only in ludicrous language. Webster supposes these words to be equivalent, and each confined to the first and third persons of the present and imperfect tenses of the indicative mood. Johnson says, that, "quoth you," as used by Sidney, is irregular; but Tooke assures us, that "The th in quoth, does not designate the third person."--Diversions of Purley, Vol. ii, p. 323. They are each invariable, and always placed before the nominative: as, quoth I, quoth he.

"Yea, so sayst thou, (quod Tröylus,) alas!"--Chaucer.

"I feare, quod he, it wyll not be."--Sir T. More.

"Stranger, go! Heaven be thy guide!   Quod the beadsman of Nith-side."--Burns.

OBS. 6.--Methinks, (i. e., to me it thinks,) for I think, or, it seems to me, with its preterit methought, (i. e., to me it thought,) is called by Dr. Johnson an "ungrammatical word." He imagined it to be "a Norman corruption, the French being apt to confound me and I."--''Joh. Dict.'' It is indeed a puzzling anomaly in our language, though not without some Anglo-Saxon or Latin parallels; and, like its kindred, "me seemeth," or "meseems," is little worthy to be countenanced, though often used by Dryden, Pope, Addison, and other good writers. Our lexicographers call it an impersonal verb, because, being compounded with an objective, it cannot have a nominative expressed. It is nearly equivalent to the adverb apparently; and if impersonal, it is also defective; for it has no participles, no "methinking," and no participial construction of "methought;" though Webster's American Dictionary, whether quarto or octavo, absurdly suggests that the latter word may be used as a participle. In the Bible, we find the following text: "Me thinketh the running of the foremost is like the running of Ahimaaz."--2 Sam., xviii, 27. And Milton improperly makes thought an impersonal verb, apparently governing the separate objective pronoun him; as,

"Him thought he by the brook of Cherith stood." --P. R., B. ii, l. 264.

OBS. 7.--Some verbs from the nature of the subjects to which they refer, are chiefly confined to the third person singular; as, "It rains; it snows; it freezes; it hails; it lightens; it thunders." These have been called impersonal verbs; because the neuter pronoun it, which is commonly used before them, does not seem to represent any noun, but, in connexion with the verb, merely to express a state of things. They are however, in fact, neither impersonal nor defective. Some, or all of them, may possibly take some other nominative, if not a different person; as, "The Lord rained upon Sodom, and upon Gomorrah, brimstone and fire."--Gen., xix, 24. "The God of glory thundereth."--Psalms, xxix, 3. "Canst thou thunder with a voice like him?"--Job, xl, 9.