People in Cork commonly say 'A man has a right to pay his debts,' and 'The money has a right to be paid,' when they mean that, 'A man ought to pay his debts,' and that 6 The money must or should be paid.' Similarly nurses sometimes say to a child, Oh! you could not have that,' for ' 'you must not have that.'

In like manner, in Scotland, people often say, 'You require to go out,' where there is no requirement at all, in the sense of wanting' or 'wishing;' but where the speaker means ‘It is your duty to go out,' or 'You must go out.'

6

เ

360. The distinction between 'shall' and 'will' is one of the great difficulties of the English language, more vexatious to an Irishman or Scotchman than to a foreigner. For the Irishman or Scotchman has to unlearn his own habit of speaking, in addition to acquiring the English idiom. Dr. Lowth, (English Grammar, p. 65,) states the rule thus: Will in the first person singular and plural promises or threatens; in the second and third persons, only foretels; shall, on the contrary, in the first person, simply foretels; in the second and third persons, promises, commands, or threatens.' Then he adds in a note: This distinction was not observed formerly as to the word shall, which was used in the second and third persons to express simply the event. So likewise should was used, where now we make use of would. See the Vulgar

Translation of the Bible.'

6

He further remarks that this rule must be understood of Explicative, by which, no doubt, he means Indicative sentences; for,' he says, 'when the sentence is interrogative, just the reverse, for the most part, takes place: thus, "I shall go; you will go," express event only; but "will you go? imports intention; and "shall I go?" refers to the will of another. But again, "he shall go," and "shall he go?" both imply will, expressing or referring to a command. Would primarily denotes inclination of will, and should, obligation; but they both vary their import, and are often used to express a simple event.'

Brightland sums up the rule in the following verses:
In the first person simply shall foretells;

In will a threat, or else a promise dwells.
Shall, in the second and the third, does threat;
Will, simply, then, foretells the future feat.

This, however, must be understood of Indicative sentences only.

K

361. Sir Edmund W. Head, who has discussed the question at length in a work entitled ""Shall" and "Will," ' lays down the following rules, pp. 119, 120:

'WILL.

Will, in the first person, expresses (a) a resolution, or (b) a promise:

(a) "I will not go" =
not to go."

(b) "I will give it you
it you."

Will, in the second

"It is my resolution

"I promise to give

person, foretells:

"If you come at twelve o'clock you will find me at home."

Will, in the second person, in questions, anticipates (a) a wish, or (b) an intention :

"Will you go to-morrow?" = "Is it your wish or intention to go to-morrow?”

Will, in the third person, foretells, generally implying an intention at the same time, when the nominative is a rational creature:

"He will come to-morrow," signifies (a) what

is to take place, and (b) that it is the intention of the person mentioned to come.

"I think it will snow to-day," intimates what is, probably, to take place.

Will must never be used in questions with nominative cases of the first person:

"Will we come to-morrow = "Is it our in

362.WOULD.

tention or desire to come to-morrow?" which is an absurd question.

Would is subject to the same rules as will.

Would, followed by that, is frequently used (the nominative being expressed or understood) to express a wish:

"Would that he had died before this disgrace befell him": = "I wish that he had died before this disgrace befell him."

Would have, followed by an infinitive, signifies a desire to do or make:

"I would have you think of these things

=

"I wish to make you think of these things."

Would is often used to express a custom:
"He would often talk about these things
"It was his custom to talk of these things."

363.SHALL.

=

Shall, in the first person, foretells, simply expressing what is to take place :

"I shall go to-morrow."

Obs. No intention or

desire is expressed by shall.

Shall, in the first person, in questions, asks permis

sion:

"Shall I read? = Do you wish me, or will you permit me, to read?" [Sometimes shall in the first person marks a simple interrogative, as shall I see him?"]

66

Shall, in the second and third persons, expresses (a) a promise, (b) a command, or (c) a threat.

(a)" You shall have these books to-morrow "I promise to let you have these books to-morrow."

(b) "Thou shalt not steal"="I command thee not to steal."

(a) (c) “He shall be punished for this"

364. SHOULD.

= "I

threaten or promise to punish him for this offence."

Should is subject to the same rules as shall.
Should frequently expresses duty:

"You should not do so

not to do so."

Should often signifies a plan :

"I should not do so

plan to do so."

"It is your duty

Should often expresses a supposition:

"Should they not agree to the proposals, what must I do?" = "Suppose that it happen that they will not agree to the proposals,' &c."'

365. These practical rules are good, as far as they go. But then, they have to be modified according to the signification of other words in a sentence. For instance, if I am leaving town, to take a journey, a friend says, 'I hope you will write to me.' I reply, 'Yes, I will,' or 'I will do so with pleasure.' But if any word denoting willingness is introduced before the

word write, the construction is altered. We do not say, 'I will be happy to do so,' 'I will be very glad to write;' but 'I shall be happy to do so,' 'I shall be very glad to write.' And why is this? Because happiness implies willingness; and to say 'I will be happy' is almost like saying 'I will be willing.'

Hence, it is not enough to study general rules, apart from the construction of sentences, and the mutual dependence of words in sentences. The grammatical rules must be supplemented by familiarity with the best authors, and by conversation in good society.

We must, however, confess that the same attention has not been paid to English syntax that has been given to the Greek. We have nothing in English grammar comparable to the Greek grammars of Matthiæ, Buttmann, or Kühner (Jelf). Still, certain points have been discussed. The reader may consult shall and will' in Latham's English Language, pp. 618-627, introducing the views of Archdeacon Hare and Professor De Morgan. See also a correspondence between H. R. G. and Professor De Morgan, in the Athenæum, May 6,

1865.

NUMBER.

366. In modern English there is generally no distinct termination to mark the plural in verbs.

In Anglo-Saxon, the termination of the plural was -ath in the Present Indicative, and on in the Past Indicative, and in the Subjunctive, both Present and Past.

In Old English, and in some provincial dialects to the present day, the termination in -en is found; so Chaucer,

And smale foules maken melodie

That slepen all night with open eye.

Canterbury Tales, Prologue, 9.

The chambres and the stables weren wide,
And wel we weren esed atte beste.

Ibid. 28.

This termination was in common use down to the sixteenth century, when all indication of a plural form disappeared.

Ben Jonson says, that in former times, till about the reign of King Henry the Eighth, the persons plural were wont to be formed by adding en: thus,

loven, sayen, complainen.

But now (whatsoever is the cause) it hath quite grown out of use, and that other so generally prevailed, that I dare not presume to set this afoot again: albeit (to tell you my opinion) I am persuaded that the lack hereof well considered will be found a great blemish to our tongue.'-Ben Jonson, English Grammar, i. 16.

PERSON.

367. The terminations which mark differences of Person are found in the singular number of the Present and Past tenses Indicative.

1. First Person Singular.-The only verb which retains a distinctive termination for the first person singular is am (a-m), where the letter m represents the - -om of the Anglo-Saxon e-om. 2. Second Person Singular.-The termination of the second person singular is -est, -st, or -t: as,

Present call-est, can-st, ar-t.
Past: spake-est, called-st.

3. Third Person Singular.-The termination of the third person is -eth or -th, which in modern English assumes the form -es or -s. These terminations appear in the Present Indicative only:

Present: call-eth, do-th.

call-s, do-es, search-es.

INFINITIVES AND PARTICIPLES.

Infinitives and Participles are respectively like nouns (substantive) and adjectives. Infinitives resemble nouns, in the fact that they describe acts and states merely as things or notions; and that the infinitive can be made either the subject or the object of a verb. Participles resemble adjectives in attributing a quality, without formally asserting it; and in agreeing with their nouns.

But they differ respectively in the following particulars :— The Infinitive admits no plural form, and rarely a possessive genitive (i. e., the form ending in -s); and it can govern an objective case. The Participle active, when formed from a transitive verb, can govern an accusative; and then it generally stands after its noun. See Angus, Handbook, § 286.

In connection with the Infinitive, we must consider the forms called Gerunds.