The auxiliaries necessary to the formation of the English verb are many of them defective, having precisely those tenses only remaining, which are entirely wanting in the regular verb: or, for it is difficult to decide which is the real origin of the circumstance, perhaps having in themselves the sense required; as in German werden, to become, which has in itself a future signification, performs the part of a future tense. In the Anglo-Saxon rceal shall, from the verb rceoldan to owe, performs this office, and we may see from our own use of I ought, that to owe has in itself a kind of future tense. But the manner of compounding the English verb with its auxiliaries, is so anomalous that it forms the greatest difficulty of the language, and seems almost to defy explanation.

The defective auxiliaries consist of, SHALL, MAY, CAN, MUST: the regularly formed ones are, TO HAVE, TO BE, TO DO, TO LET: and these latter, with the exception of Do, form the compound tenses, as in other languages, by the aid of the participle: but the former class are compounded with the infinitive, omitting the to.

Of the defective auxiliaries, all sufficiently puzzling in their use to a foreigner, SHALL offers by far the greatest difficulties, and is seldom used properly except by a native of England in its most restricted sense. It is required to form the future tense, and by some odd chance has become so amalgamated with the verb WILL, that some parts of each tense are taken from the one verb and some from the other. The simple future is thus formed.

I shall
Thou wilt love.
He will

We shall

Ye or you will love.
They will

But there is a yet farther peculiarity in the use of this auxiliary, for, besides the simple future, it has a second or imperative future, in which the two verbs change places, and I will, thou shalt, have the force in the first person, of a vehement determination; in the second, of a stern command.

The second form, therefore, stands thus:

I will

Thou shalt love.
He shall

We will

Ye or you shall love.
They shall

It is only in modern phraseology that this distinction is so strongly marked. In the Anglo-Saxon rceoldan furnishes the simple future to all the persons, and no longer ago than the age of the translation of the Bible,* it was the custom of the English, as may be seen in Matt. vii. 5. First cast out the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt (wilt) thou see clearly to cast out the mote that is in thy brother's eye;" and a little farther on, "How much more shall (will) your Father which is in heaven give good things," &c. v. 16. "Ye shall (will) know them by their fruits." viii. 11. "Many shall (will) come from the east and from the west," &c. Hundreds more of such instances might be given; nay, it may be assumed as a rule in reading the translation of the scripture, that will is never used but as an expression of absolute volition, as, "Lord if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.”—“ I will, be thou clean!" It is important to be aware of this in reading our older writers, for much misconception of the meaning would otherwise arise, and indeed in many instances has arisen among those who use only the translation of the Bible.

The distinction, however, was well established when Shakspeare wrote, as may be seen in the following:

"My soul upon the forfeit, that your lord

Will never more break faith advisedly.

Portia. Then you shall be his surety."

* Our present authorized translation was a revision of Coverdale's version, first published A. D. 1537.

'Thy company which erst was irksome to me, I will endure, and I'll employ thee too" "Silvius. So holy and so perfect is my love That I shall think it a most plenteous crop To glean the broken ears," &c.

"Phebe.

I'll write to him a very taunting letter,
And thou shalt bear it: Wilt thou, Silvius?"

Yet in a letter from the lord treasurer Burleigh to Mr. (afterwards Sir John) Harrington, dated A. D. 1578, the following passage shows a considerable confusion in the use of shall according to the above rules. "For at a good lecture you maie lerne in an houre that (which) a good Teacher perhapps hath been studyinge for a daie, and yourself by readinge shall not fynd oute in a moneth. Againe you shall reache more discerninge of trothe in an houres reasoninge with others, than a weeks wrytinge by yourself." It seems therefore that the greater precision in the use of shall and will was one of the changes in the language effected by the great writers of the age of Elizabeth, those who did not much affect fine writing clinging still to their old habits: but as the writers became popular, the fashion spread.

According to the modern custom of using these tenses, the second future, as above arranged, has somewhat of the force of the Hebrew hiphil form :* it implies that the speaker is either expressing a very resolute will to act on his own part, or an equally resolute will in causing action on the part of others, with modifications, however, in intensity, which are expressed by a change of emphasis, or by the use of an adverb; I WILL go is equivalent to Je veux aller.

When put interrogatively the same word is used by the querist as by the replicant; as may be seen in the before quoted passage from Shakspeare. "Wilt thou, Silvius?" must be replied to by, I will, or I will not: SHALL he go? will be answered by, Yes, he shall.

The same distinctions exist with regard to the subjunctive or potential mode; the simple future is

*To cause to do.

The second tense implies duty or will, and has but little connection with the future time: often it is used for the past. It is thus conjugated.

I would

Thou shouldst love.
He should

We would

Ye or you should love.
They should

"You swore to me, when I did give it you,

That you would wear it till your hour of death,
And that it should lie with you in your grave:
Though not for me, yet for your vehement oaths,
You should have been respective, and have kept it.”*

In the above example, the first word marked in italics is in the simple, or first future; the next in the second future, in its imperatively future sense: the third implies duty, and applies to a past time.

Although the idiomatic use of this verb will always be surrounded with difficulties to a foreigner, it is nevertheless probable, that were the above arrangement of the tenses adopted in grammars, instead of the customary one of, I shall or will go, &c. much confusion would be avoided.t

The next auxiliary that takes an effective part in the formation of the English verb is MAY. When, like SHALL, it is compounded with the infinitive, omitting the to, it signifies permission, as, you MAY go;-you MAY readthat

* Shakspeare.

†The experiment was once tried by the writer, in teaching a foreigner English. He was not allowed to learn anything but the first or simple future, till he knew the language well. The writer has heard him speak English very commonly since that, but has never known him to make a blunder in the use of shall and will.

book: but when compounded with have and a participle, it gives some uncertainty to the expression, as, "Among innumerable instances that may be given."* I MAY have said so; He MAY have had reason to think it, in which latter it is equivalent to, c'est possible que. When it is a second limb of a sentence beginning with a verb in the subjunctive mode, or the conjunction when, it implies a possibility of doing a thing, the first condition being fulfilled, as "When there is a battle in the Haymarket Theatre one may hear it as far as Charing Cross." It is thus conjugated.

INDICATIVE AND SUBJUNCTIVE MODES.

When compounded with have and a participle, this last becomes a past tense, as, "Supposing these people had endeavored to kill me with their spears and arrows while I was asleep, I should certainly have awaked with the first sense of smart, which might so far have roused my rage and strength as to have enabled me," &c.; but when joined with the infinitive it is future in its sense, as, “I thought it the most prudent method to lie still night: when, my left hand being already loose, I could easily free myself; and as for the inhabitants, I had reason to believe I might be a match for the greatest army they could bring against me- -"'+

till

CAN is the next auxiliary, and is very simple in its use; for its only sense is that of capability or power. Like MAY, it has its indicative and subjunctive modes alike, and is thus conjugated.

* Addison.

† Swift.