OBS. 7.--The third participle has most generally been called the Compound, or the Compound perfect. The latter of these terms seems to be rather objectionable on account of its length; and against the former it may be urged that, in the compound forms of conjugation, the first or imperfect participle is a compound: as, being writing, being seen. Dr. Adam calls having loved the perfect participle active, which he says must be rendered in Latin by the pluperfect of the subjunctive; as, he having loved, quum amavisset; (Lat. and Eng. Gram., p. 140;) but it is manifest that the perfect participle of the verb to love, whether active or passive, is the simple word loved, and not this compound. Dr. Adam, in fact, if he denies this, only contradicts himself; for, in his paradigms of the English Active Voice, he gives the participles as two only, and both simple, thus: "Present, Loving; Perfect, Loved:"--"Present, Having; Perfect, Had." So of the Neuter Verb: "Present, Being; Perfect, Been."--Ib., pp. 81 and 82. His scheme of either names or forms is no model of accuracy. On the very next page, unless there is a misprint in several editions, he calls the Second participle the "imperfect;" saying, "The whole of the passive voice in English is formed by the auxiliary verb to be, and the participle imperfect; as, I am loved, I was loved, &c." Further: "In many verbs," he adds, "the present participle also is used in a passive sense; as, These things are doing, were doing, &c.; The house is building, was building, &c."--Ib., p. 83. N. Butler, in his Practical Grammar, of 1845, names, and counts, and orders, the participles very oddly: "Every verb," he says, "has two participles--the imperfect and the perfect."--P. 78. Yet, for the verb love, he finds these six: two "IMPERFECT, Loving and Being loved;" two "PERFECT, Having loved, and Having been loved;" one "AUXILIARY PERFECT, Loved," of the "Active Voice;" and one "PASSIVE, Loved," of the "Passive Voice." Many old writers erroneously represent the participle in ing as always active, and the participle in ed or en as always passive; and some, among whom is Buchanan, making no distinction between the simple perfect loved and the compound having loved, place the latter with the former, and call it passive also. The absurdity of this is manifest: for having loved or having seen is active; having been or having sat is neuter; and having been loved or having been seen is passive. Again, the triple compound, having been writing, is active; and having been sitting is neuter; but if one speak of goods as having been selling low, a similar compound is passive.
OBS. 8.--Now all the compound participles which begin with having are essentially alike; and, as a class of terms, they ought to have a name adapted to their nature, and expressive of their leading characteristic. Having loved differs from the simple participle loved, in signification as well as in form; and, if this participle is to be named with reference to its meaning, there is no more suitable term for it than the epithet PREPERFECT,--a word which explains itself, like prepaid or prerequisite. Of the many other names, the most correct one is PLUPERFECT,--which is a term of very nearly the same meaning. Not because this compound is really of the pluperfect tense, but because it always denotes being, action, or passion, that is, or was, or will be, completed before the doing or being of something else; and, of course, when the latter thing is represented as past, the participle must correspond to the pluperfect tense of its verb; as, "Having explained her views, it was necessary she should expatiate on the vanity and futility of the enjoyments promised by Pleasure."--Jamieson's Rhet., p. 181. Here having explained is exactly equivalent to when she had explained. Again: "I may say, He had commanded, and we obeyed; or, He having commanded, we obeyed."--Fetch's Comprehensive Gram., p. ix. Here the two phrases in Italics correspond in import, though not in construction.
OBS. 9.--Pluperfect is a derivative contracted from the Latin plusquam-perfectum, and literally signifies more than complete, or beyond the perfect; i. e., (as confirmed by use,) antecedently finished, or completed before. It is the usual name of our fourth tense; is likewise applicable to a corresponding tense in other tongues; and is a word familiar to every scholar. Yet several grammarians,--too ready, perhaps, for innovation,--have shown their willingness to discard it altogether. Bullions, Butler, Hiley, Perley, Wells, and some others, call the English pluperfect tense, the past-perfect, and understand either epithet to mean--"completed at or before a certain past time;" (Bullions's E. Gram., p. 39;) that is--"finished or past, at some past time."--Butler's Pract. Gram., p. 72. The relation of the tense is before the past, but the epithet pluperfect is not necessarily limited to this relation, any more than what is perfect is necessarily past. Butler has urged, that, "Pluperfect does not mean completed before," but is only "a technical name of a particular tense;" and, arguing from this erroneous assumption, has convinced himself, "It would be as correct to call this the second future participle, as the pluperfect."--Ib., p. 79. The technical name, as limited to the past, is preterpluperfect, from the older term præteritum plusquam perfectum; so preterperfect, from præteritum perfectum, i. e. past perfect, is the name of an other tense, now called the perfect: wherefore the substitution of past-perfect for pluperfect is the less to be commended. There may be a convenience in having the name of the tense to differ from that of the participle, and this alone induces me to prefer preperfect to pluperfect for the name of the latter.
OBS. 10.--From the participle in ed or en, we form three tenses, which the above-named authors call perfect;--"the present-perfect, the past-perfect, and the future-perfect;"--as, have seen, had seen, will have seen. Now it is, doubtless, the participle, that gives to these their perfectness; while diversity in the auxiliaries makes their difference of time. Yet it is assumed by Butler, that, in general, the simple participle in ed or en, "does not denote an action done and completed," and is not to be called perfect; (p. 80;)--that, "If we wish to express by a participle, an action completed at any time, we use the compound form, and this is THE perfect participle;" (p. 79;)--that, "The characteristic of the participle in ed is, that it implies the reception of an action;" (p. 79;)--that, hence, it should be called the passive, though it "is usually called the perfect participle;" (p. 79;)
