parts of speech; because, in spite of all opposite usages, experience has shown that it is expedient to do so.
OBS. 3.--According to the doctrine of Harris, all words denoting the attributes of things, are either verbs, or participles, or adjectives. Some attributes have their essence in motion: as, to walk, to run, to fly, to strike, to live; or, walking, running, flying, striking, living. Others have it in the privation of motion: as, to stop, to rest, to cease, to die; or, stopping, resting, ceasing, dying. And there are others which have nothing to do with either motion or its privation; but have their essence in the quantity, quality, or situation of things; as, great and small, white and black, wise and foolish, eastern and western. These last terms are adjectives; and those which denote motion or its privation, are either verbs or participles, according to their formal meaning; that is, according to their manner of attribution. See Hermes, p. 95. Verbs commonly say or affirm something of their subjects; as, "The babe wept." Participles suggest the action or attribute without affirmation; as, "A babe weeping,"--"An act regretted."
OBS. 4.--A verb, then, being expressive of some attribute, which it ascribes to the thing or person named as its subject; of time, which it divides and specifies by the tenses; and also, (with the exception of the infinitive,) of an assertion or affirmation; if we take away the affirmation and the distinction of tenses, there will remain the attribute and the general notion of time; and these form the essence of an English participle. So that a participle is something less than a verb, though derived immediately from it; and something more than an adjective, or mere attribute, though its manner of attribution is commonly the same. Hence, though the participle by rejecting the idea of time may pass almost insensibly into an adjective, and become truly a participial adjective; yet the participle and the adjective are by no means one and the same part of speech, as some will have them to be. There is always an essential difference in their meaning. For instance: there is a difference between a thinking man and a man thinking; between a bragging fellow and a fellow bragging; between a fast-sailing ship and a ship sailing fast. A thinking man, a bragging fellow, or a fast-sailing ship, is contemplated as being habitually or permanently such; a man thinking, a fellow bragging, or a ship sailing fast, is contemplated as performing a particular act; and this must embrace a period of time, whether that time be specified or not. John Locke was a thinking man; but we should directly contradict his own doctrine, to suppose him always thinking.
OBS. 5.--The English participles are all derived from the roots of their respective verbs, and do not, like those of some other languages, take their names from the tenses. On the contrary, they are reckoned among the principal parts in the conjugation of their verbs, and many of the tenses are formed from them. In the compound forms of conjugation, they are found alike in all the tenses. They do not therefore, of themselves, express any particular time; but they denote the state of the being, action, or passion, in regard to its progress or completion. This I conceive to be their principal distinction. Respecting the participles in Latin, it has been matter of dispute, whether those which are called the present and the perfect, are really so in respect to time or not. Sanctius denies it. In Greek, the distinction of tenses in the participles is more apparent, yet even here the time to which they refer, does not always correspond to their names. See remarks on the Participles in the Port Royal Latin and Greek Grammars.
OBS. 6.--Horne Tooke supposes our participles in ed to express time past, and those in ing to have no signification of time. He says, "I did not mean to deny the adsignification of time to all the participles; though I continue to withhold it from that which is called the participle present."--Diversions of Purley, Vol. ii, p. 415. Upon the same point, he afterwards adds, "I am neither new nor singular; for Sanctius both asserted and proved it by numerous instances in the Latin. Such as, 'Et abfui proficiscens in Græciam.' Cicero. 'Sed postquam amans accessit pretium pollicens.' Terent. 'Ultro ad cam venies indicans te amare.' Terent. 'Turnum fugientem hæc terra videbit.' Virg."--Tooke's Div., ii, 420. Again: "And thus I have given you my opinion concerning what is called the present participle. Which I think improperly so called; because I take it to be merely the simple verb adjectived, without any adsignification of manner or time."--Tooke's Div., Vol. ii, p. 423.
OBS. 7.--I do not agree with this author, either in limiting participles in ed to time past, or in denying all signification of time to those in ing; but I admit that what is commonly called the present participle, is not very properly so denominated, either in English or in Latin, or perhaps in any language. With us, however, this participle is certainly, in very many instances, something else than "merely the simple verb adjectived." For, in the first place, it is often of a complex character, as being loved, being seen, in which two verbs are "adjectived" together, and that by different terminations. Yet do these words as perfectly coalesce in respect to time, as to everything else; and being loved or being seen is confessedly as much a "present" participle, as being, or loving, or seeing--neither form being solely confined to what now is. Again, our participle in ing stands not only for the present participle of the Latin or Greek grammarians, but also for the Latin gerund, and often for the Greek infinitive used substantively; so that by this ending, the English verb is not only adjectived, but also substantived, if one may so speak. For the participle when governed by a preposition, partakes not of the qualities "of a verb and an adjective," but rather of those of a verb and a noun.
CLASSES.
English verbs, not defective, have severally three participles;[301] which
