Page:Philological Museum v2.djvu/210

200 On certaiii Tenses monly represented as forming a distinct tense, under the title of the perfect middle, so much has been written, that the facts respecting it are pretty well ascertained. No one at present, moderately acquainted with the subject, can be unaware that this supposed tense is of very rare occurrence, so as to have far more the character of an occasional redundancy than of a regu- lar formation. In fact, when the preterite exists in this parti- cular form, it very rarely exists in the same verb in any other form : and where two forms do occur, it will generally be found that the one did not come into use till the other was growing obsolete. It is true, that those peculiarities of formation which are considered as characteristic of the perfect middle, are oftenest found in verbs of a neuter or reflex signification ; and this may be regarded by some as evidence of its being a distinct tense. But giving the utmost weight to this consideration, it can only prove that in verbs of that kind the perfect affects this character, and not that there are two distinct perfects ; especially when it is considered, that the features by which the middle form is discriminated, are inconsiderable and uncertain. But in fact, though what is called the middle form has un- doubtedly some degree of alliance with a neuter sense, this alliance is very far from constant. This form has often a truly active and transitive signification, as for example XeXonra I have left^ cktovu I have killed ; while on the other hand the form considered as active is of frequent occurrence in a neuter or reflex sense, as in /ce/cju^y/ca / am weary ^ (iefirjKa I am gone^ 7r€(pvKa I am produced^ eari^Ka I standi /uLe/uevrjKa I remain^ ri{idpTY}Ka I have erred^ ecrjSrjKa I am eootinguished^ (iejiicoKa I have livedo reOvrjKa I am dead. These instances, which might be easily multiplied, are surely sufficient to prove that there is no good ground for assigning to either of these forms of the perfect any determinate cast of signification, whether it be active or neuter. Some preference of what is called the middle form for the neuter sense is the utmost that can with truth be maintained. In a few instances both the forms certainly do exist, and with a characteristic difference of signification, as oXcoXeKa I have destroyed and oXcoXa I am u7idone ; TreVet/ca / have persuaded^ and TrewoLOa I am confi- dent : in others the two forms occur indeed, but with little discrimination in sense, as ireirpa'^a and Treirpaya, SeSoiKa and