Basic qualities of the perfect forms free essay sample

BASIC QUALITIES OF THE PERFECT FORMS The Modern English perfect signifiers have been the topic of a drawn-out treatment which has non so far brought about a definite consequence. The troubles inherent in these signifiers are apparent plenty and may outdo be illustrated by the present perfect. This signifier contains the nowadays of the verb haveand is called present perfect, yet it denotes an action which no longer takes topographic point, and it is ( about ever ) translated into Russian by the past tense, e. g. has writ10s # 8212 ; # 1085 ; # 1072 ; # 1087 ; # 1080 ; # 1089 ; # 1072 ; # 1083 ; , has arrived # 8212 ; # 1087 ; # 1088 ; # 1080 ; # 1077 ; # 1093 ; # 1072 ; # 1083 ; , etc. The place of the perfect signifiers in the system of the English verb is a job which has been treated in many different ways and has occasioned much contention. Among the assorted positions on the kernel of the perfect signifiers in Modern English the undermentioned three chief tendencies should be mentioned: 1. The class of perfect is a curious tense class, i. e. a class which should be classed in the same list as the classs present and past . This position was held, for illustration, by O. Jespersen. 1 2. The class of perfect is a curious facet class, i. e. one which should be given a topographic point in the list consisting common facet and uninterrupted facet . This position was held by a figure of bookmans, including Prof. G. Vorontsova.2Those who hold this position have expressed different sentiments about the peculiar facet representing the kernel of the perfect signifiers. It has been diversely defined as retrospective , resultative , consecutive , etc.3 3. The class of perfect is neither one of tense, nor one of facet but a specific class different from both. It should consequently be designated by a particular term and its dealingss to the classs of facet and tense should be investigated. This position was expressed by Prof. A. Smirnitsky. He took the perfect to be a agency of showing the class of clip relation ( # 1074 ; # 1088 ; # 1077 ; # 1084 ; # 1077 ; # 1085 ; # 1085 ; # 1072 ; # 1103 ; # 1086 ; # 1090 ; # 1085 ; # 1077 ; # 1089 ; # 1077 ; # 1085 ; # 1085 ; # 1086 ; # 1089 ; # 1090 ; # 1100 ; ) .4 This broad divergency of positions on the very kernel of a verbal class may look amazing. However, its causes appear to be clear plenty from the point of position of contemporary linguistics. These causes fall under the undermentioned three chief caputs: 1See O. Jespersen, The Philosophy of Grammar,p. 254ff. 2See # 1043 ; . # 1053 ; . # 1042 ; # 1086 ; # 1088 ; # 1086 ; # 1085 ; # 1094 ; # 1086 ; # 1074 ; # 1072 ; , # 1054 ; # 1095 ; # 1077 ; # 1088 ; # 1082 ; # 1080 ; # 1087 ; # 1086 ; # 1075 ; # 1088 ; # 1072 ; # 1084 ; # 1084 ; # 1072 ; # 1090 ; # 1080 ; # 1082 ; # 1077 ; # 1072 ; # 1085 ; # 1075 ; # 1083 ; # 1080 ; # 1081 ; # 1089 ; # 1082 ; # 1086 ; # 1075 ; # 1086 ; # 1103 ; # 1079 ; # 1099 ; # 1082 ; # 1072 ; ,1960. # 1089 ; # 1090 ; # 1088 ; . 191 # 1089 ; # 1083 ; . 3Ibid. 4See # 1040 ; . # 1048 ; . # 1057 ; # 1084 ; # 1080 ; # 1088 ; # 1085 ; # 1080 ; # 1094 ; # 1082 ; # 1080 ; # 1081 ; . # 1055 ; # 1077 ; # 1088 ; # 1092 ; # 1077 ; # 1082 ; # 1090 ; # 1080 ; # 1082 ; # 1072 ; # 1090 ; # 1077 ; # 1075 ; # 1086 ; # 1088 ; # 1080 ; # 1103 ; # 1074 ; # 1088 ; # 1077 ; # 1084 ; # 1077 ; # 1085 ; # 1085 ; # 1086 ; # 1081 ; # 1086 ; # 1090 ; # 1085 ; # 1077 ; # 1089 ; # 1105 ; # 1085 ; # 1085 ; # 1086 ; # 1089 ; # 1090 ; # 1080 ; . # 1048 ; # 1085 ; # 1086 ; # 1089 ; # 1090 ; # 1088 ; # 1072 ; # 1085 ; # 1085 ; # 1099 ; # 1077 ; # 1103 ; # 1079 ; # 1099 ; # 1082 ; # 1080 ; # 1074 ; # 1096 ; # 1082 ; # 1086 ; # 1083 ; # 1077 ; , 1955, # 8470 ;1, 2. Basic Qualities of the Perfect Forms91 1. Scholars have been seeking to specify the basic character of this class without paying sufficient attending to the system of classs of which it is bound to do a portion. As we shall see soon, considerations of the system as a whole regulation out some of the proposed solutions. 2. In seeking the significance of the class, bookmans have non ever been careful to separate between its basic significance ( the constant ) and its alterations due to influence of context. 3. In seeking the basic significance of the class, bookmans have non ever pull a clear line of differentiation between the significance of the grammatical class as such and the significances which belong to, or are influenced by, the lexical significance of the verb ( or verbs ) used in one of the perfect signifiers. If we carefully extinguish these three beginnings of mistake and confusion we shall hold a much better opportunity of geting at a true and nonsubjective solution. Let us now consider the positions expressed by different bookmans in the order in which we mentioned them above. If we are to happen out whether the perfect can be a tense class, i. e. a tense among other tenses, we must see its dealingss to the tenses already established and non apt to doubts about their basic character, i. e. past, nowadays, and hereafter. There is no existent trouble here. We need merely recollect that there are in Modern English the signifiers 1present perfect, past perfect, and future perfect. That present, past, and hereafter are tense classs, is steadfastly established and has neer been doubted by anyone. Now, if the perfect were besides a tense class, the present perfect would be a brotherhood of two different tenses ( the nowadays and the perfect ) , the past perfect would similarly be a brotherhood of two different tenses ( the yesteryear and the perfect ) and the hereafter perfect, excessively, would be a brotherhood of two different tenses ( the hereafter and the perfect ) . This is clearly impossible. If a signifier already belongs to a tense class ( say, the prese nt ) it can non at the same time belong to another tense class, since two tense classs in one signifier would, as it were, collide and destruct each other. Hence it follows that the class of perfect can non be a tense class. We need non see here assorted positions expressed by those who thought that the perfect was a tense, since their positions, whatever the inside informations may be, are shown to be indefensible by the above consideration. So the position that the perfect is a particular tense class has been disproved. In order to happen out whether the perfect can be an aspect class, we must see its dealingss to the facets already established, 1We use here the non-committal term signifier to avoid any pre-judgement refering the kernel of the class in inquiry. We will utilize the term in similar contexts elsewhere. 92The Verb: The Perfect viz. the common and the uninterrupted facets. 1This job does non show any peculiar trouble, either. We need merely recollect that there are in Modern English such braces as is composing # 8212 ; hasbeen composing, was composing # 8212 ; had been composing, will be composing # 8212 ; will hold been composing,i. e. present uninterrupted and present perfect uninterrupted, past uninterrupted and past perfect uninterrupted, future uninterrupted and future perfect uninterrupted. All of these signifiers belong to the uninterrupted facet, so the difference between them can non perchance be based on any aspect class. For illustration, since both was composingand had been composingbelong to the uninterrupted facet ( as distinct from wroteand had written ) ,they can non be said to differ from each other on an aspect line ; otherwise they would at the same clip belong to one facet and to different facets, which is evidently impossible. Hence the decision is ineluctable that the perfect is non an facet. The positions of those who consider the perfect to be an aspect demand non hence be discussed here in item. Since the perfect is neither a tense nor an facet, it is bound to be some particular grammatical class, different both from tense and from facet. This position, though non rather explicitly stated, was first put frontward by Prof. A. Smirnitsky in a posthumous article.2It is in complete harmoniousness with the rule of distributive analysis, though Prof. Smirnitsky did non, at the clip, utilize the term distributive analysis . The kernel of the grammatical class expressed by the perfect, and differing both from tense and from facet, is difficult to specify and to happen a name for. Prof. Smirnitsky proposed to name it the class of clip relation , which is non a really happy term, because it seems to convey us back to the old position that the perfect is a particular sort of tense # 8212 ; a position which Prof. Smirnitsky rather justly combated. Later it was proposed to replace his term of clip relation by that of correlativity ( # 1089 ; # 1086 ; # 1086 ; # 1090 ; # 1085 ; # 1077 ; # 1089 ; # 1077 ; # 1085 ; # 1085 ; # 1086 ; # 1089 ; # 1090 ; # 1100 ; ) , which has the advantage of extinguishing the unwanted term clip . This is unquestionably the term to be preferred. As to the resistance in such braces as writes # 8212 ; has written,wrote # 8212 ; had written, will compose # 8212 ; will hold written, is composing # 8212 ; has been composing, was composing # 8212 ;had been composing, will be writing # 8212 ;will hold been composing,Prof. Smirnitsky proposed to denote it by the correlate footings non-perfect and perfect . While this 1We are continuing here on the premise that the being of these two facets, and, so, of facet as a class of the English verb has been recognised. If its being is denied the job presents itself in a different visible radiation ( see p. 81 ) . 2See # 1040 ; . # 1048 ; . # 1057 ; # 1084 ; # 1080 ; # 1088 ; # 1085 ; # 1080 ; # 1094 ; # 1082 ; # 1080 ; # 1081 ; , # 1055 ; # 1077 ; # 1088 ; # 1092 ; # 1077 ; # 1082 ; # 1090 ; # 1080 ; # 1082 ; # 1072 ; # 1090 ; # 1077 ; # 1075 ; # 1086 ; # 1088 ; # 1080 ; # 1103 ; # 1074 ; # 1088 ; # 1077 ; # 1084 ; # 1077 ; # 1085 ; # 1085 ; # 1086 ; # 1081 ; # 1086 ; # 1090 ; # 1085 ; # 1077 ; # 1089 ; # 1105 ; # 1085 ; # 1085 ; # 1086 ; # 1089 ; # 1090 ; # 1080 ; . # 1048 ; # 1085 ; # 1086 ; # 1089 ; # 1090 ; # 1088 ; # 1072 ; # 1085 ; # 1085 ; # 1099 ; # 1077 ; # 1103 ; # 1079 ; # 1099 ; # 1082 ; # 1080 ; # 1074 ; # 1096 ; # 1082 ; # 1086 ; # 1083 ; # 1077 ; , 1955, # 8470 ; 2. Seealso # 1040 ; . # 1048 ; . # 1057 ; # 1084 ; # 1080 ; # 1088 ; # 1085 ; # 1080 ; # 1094 ; # 1082 ; # 1080 ; # 1081 ; , # 1052 ; # 1086 ; # 1088 ; # 1092 ; # 1086 ; # 1083 ; # 1086 ; # 1075 ; # 1080 ; # 1103 ; # 1072 ; # 1085 ; # 1075 ; # 1083 ; # 1080 ; # 1081 ; # 1089 ; # 1082 ; # 1086 ; # 1075 ; # 1086 ; # 1103 ; # 1079 ; # 1099 ; # 1082 ; # 1072 ; ,1959, # 1089 ; # 1090 ; # 1088 ; . 274 # 8212 ; 316. Compare # 1048 ; . II. # 1048 ; # 1074 ; # 1072 ; # 1085 ; # 1086 ; # 1074 ; # 1072 ; , # 1042 ; # 1080 ; # 1076 ; # 1080 ; # 1074 ; # 1088 ; # 1077 ; # 1084 ; # 1103 ; # 1074 ; # 1089 ; # 1086 ; # 1074 ; # 1088 ; # 1077 ; # 1084 ; # 1077 ; # 1085 ; # 1085 ; # 1086 ; # 1084 ; # 1072 ; # 1085 ; # 1075 ; # 1083 ; # 1080 ; # 1081 ; # 1089 ; # 1082 ; # 1086 ; # 1084 ; # 1103 ; # 1079 ; # 1099 ; # 1082 ; # 1077 ; , # 1089 ; # 1090 ; # 1088 ; . 112 # 8212 ; 113. Basic Qualities of the Perfect Forms93 latter proposal may be to the full accepted, the definition of the significance of the class presents considerable trouble. Its kernel appears to be precedency: an action expressed by a perfect signifier precedes some minute in clip. We can non state that it ever precedes another action: the present perfect signifier is most normally used in sentences which contain no reference of any other action. On the other manus, the usage of a non-perfect signifier does non needfully connote that the action did non predate some minute in clip. It may, or it may non, have preceded it. To happen this out, the reader or listener has to take into history some other characteristic of the context, or, perchance, the state of affairs, that is, an extralinguistic factor. Therefore, the resistance between perfect and non-perfect signifiers is shown to be that between a pronounced and an unmarked point, the perfect signifiers being marked both in significance ( denoting precedency ) and in morphological features ( have+2nd participial ) , and the non-perfect signifiers unmarked both in significance ( precedency non implied ) and in morphological features ( strictly negative feature: the collocation have+ 2nd participial non used ) . On the whole, as a general term to denote the basic significance of the perfect the term correlativity in the above-named significance seems rather acceptable and w e propose to do usage of it until a better term is found, which may take some clip to go on. If this position is taken, the system of verbal classs illustrated by the signifiers writes, is composing, has written, has been composing, wrote,was composing, had written, had been composing, will compose, will be composing, will hold written, will hold been composing, # 8212 ;is based on three groups of impressions, viz.tense:present vs. past vs. hereafter ;facet:common vs. uninterrupted ;correlativity:non-perfect vs. perfect. As is seen from this list, the latter two of the three resistances are dual ( or dichotomic ) , i.e. they consist of merely two points each, whereas the first ( the tense resistance ) is ternary ( or trichotomic ) , i. e. it consists of three points. We will accept this province of things without come ining into a treatment of the inquiry whether every resistance must needfully be dichotomic, i. e. consist of two members merely. Therefore, the resistance between writesand wroteis one of tense, that between wroteand was composingone of facet, and that between wroteand had writtenone of correlativity. It is obvious that two resistances may happen together ; therefore, between writesand wascomposingthere are at the same time the resistances of tense and facet ; between wroteand will hold writtenthere are at the same time the resistances of tense and correlativity, and between wroteand had been composingthere are at the same time the resistances of facet and correlativity. And, eventually, all three resistances may happen together: therefore, between writesand had been composingthere are at the same time the resistances of tense, facet, and correlativity. 94The Verb: The Perfect If, in a system of signifiers, there is merely one resistance, it can evidently be represented diagrammatically on a line. If there are two resistances, they can be represented on a plane. Now, if there are three resistances, the system evidently can non be represented on a plane. To stand for it, we should hold resort to a 3-dimensional solid, viz. a parallelopiped. Prof. A. Smirnitsky has given a study of such a parallelopiped in his book. 1However, a drawing of a parallelopiped can non give the coveted grade of lucidity and we will non reproduce it here. However, a drawing of a parallelopiped can non give the coveted grade of lucidity and we will non reproduce it here. Use OF THE PERFECT FORMS We have accepted the definition of the basic significance of the perfect signifiers as that of precedency . However, this definition can merely be the starting point for a survey of the assorted utilizations of the perfect signifiers. Indeed, for more than one instance this definition of its significance will look entirely unequal, because its existent significance in a given context will be influenced by assorted factors. Though a really great sum of probe has been carried on in this field and many phenomena have by now been elucidated, it is merely just to state that a complete solution of all the jobs involved in the utilizations and sunglassess of significance of the perfect signifiers in Modern English is non yet in sight. Let us foremost, inquire the inquiry: what kinds of lingual factors can be expected to hold an influence on the usage and sunglassess of significance of the perfect signifiers? We will seek to reply this inquiry in a general manner, before continuing to look into the possible concrete instances. These factors, so, would look to be the followers: ( 1 ) the lexical significance of the verb ; ( 2 ) the tense class of the signifier, i. e. whether it is the present perfect, past perfect, or future perfect ( we can non be certain in progress that the tense relation is irrelevant here ) ; ( 3 ) the syntactical context, i. e. whether the perfect signifier is used in a simple sentence, or the chief clause, or once more in a subsidiary clause of a complex sentence. To these should be added an extralinguistic factor, viz. ( 4 ) the state of affairs in which the perfect signifier is used. Let us now consider each of these factors individually and so come to the inquiry of their possible interaction. ( 1 ) The significance of the verb used can impact the significance of the perfect signifier in so far as the verb may denote either an action which is disposed to bring forth an indispensable alteration in the province of the object ( e. g. He has broken the cup )or a procedure which can last indefinitely 1See # 1040 ; . # 1048 ; . # 1057 ; # 1084 ; # 1080 ; # 1088 ; # 1085 ; # 1080 ; # 1094 ; # 1082 ; # 1080 ; # 1081 ; , # 1052 ; # 1086 ; # 1088 ; # 1092 ; # 1086 ; # 1083 ; # 1086 ; # 1075 ; # 1080 ; # 1103 ; # 1072 ; # 1085 ; # 1075 ; # 1083 ; # 1080 ; # 1081 ; # 1089 ; # 1082 ; # 1086 ; # 1075 ; # 1086 ; # 1103 ; # 1079 ; # 1099 ; # 1082 ; # 1072 ; , # 1089 ; # 1090 ; # 1088 ; . 310. Uses of the Perfect Forms95 without conveying about any alteration ( e. g. He has lived in this metropolissince1945 ) ,etc. With the verb interruption,for case, the shadiness of intending would so be the consequence of the action ( the cup is no longer a cup but a aggregation of fragments ) , whereas with the verb liveno consequence in this exact sense can be found ; we might deduce a resultative significance merely in a slightly circuitous manner, by stating that he has now so many old ages of life in this metropolis behind him. Thus the significance of consequence, which we so do happen in the sentence Hehas broken the cup,appears to be the consequence of the combined significances of the verb as such ( in whatever signifier ) and the perfect signifier as such. It is rather natural that this significance should hold more than one time been taken to be the significance of the perfect class as such, which was a misconception.1 To give another illustration, if the verb denotes an action which brings about some new province of things, its perfect signifier is apt to get a shadiness of intending which will non be found with a verb denoting an action unable to convey about a new province. We may, for case, compare the sentences We have found the book( this implies that the book, which had been lost, is now one time more in our ownership ) and We have searched the whole room for the book( which does non connote any new province with mention to the book ) . Of class many more illustrations of this sort might be given. The basic demand is clear plenty: we must happen the significance of the signifier itself, or its invariable, and non the significance of the signifier as modified or coloured by the lexical significance of the verb. If this demand is clearly kept in head, many mistakes which have been committed in specifying the significance of the signifier will be avoided. ( 2 ) The possible dependance of the significance of perfect signifiers on the tense class ( present, past or hereafter ) is one of the most hard jobs which the theory of the perfect has had to face. It is rather natural to say that at that place ought to be an invariable significance of the phrase have+2nd participial , no affair what the tense of the verb havehappens to be, and this so is the premise we start from. However, it would be unsafe to see this hypothesis as something ascertained, without set abouting an nonsubjective probe of all the facts which may throw some visible radiation on the job. We may, for case, suspect that the present perfect, which denotes precedency to the present , i. e. to the minute of address, may turn out different from the past perfect, denoting precedency to a minute in the past, or the future perfect, denoting precedency to a minute in the hereafter: both the yesteryear and the hereafter are, of class, themselves related in some manner to the 1This was really competently pointed out by Prof. G. Vorontsova in her book ( p. 196 ) , where she criticised this construct of the English perfect found in several writers. 86The Verb: The Perfect nowadays, which appears as the Centre to which all other minutes of clip are referred in some manner or other. One of the main points in this domain is the following. If an action precedes another action, and the significance of the verb is such a 1 that the action can hold a distinguishable consequence, the present perfect signifier, together with the lexical significance of the verb ( and, we should add, perchance with some component of the context ) may bring forth the significance of a consequence to be seen at the really minute the sentence is expressed, so that the talker can indicate at that consequence with his finger, as it were. Now with the past perfect and with the hereafter perfect things are bound to be slightly different. The past perfect ( together with the factors mentioned above ) would intend that the consequence was there at a certain minute in the yesteryear, so that the talker could non perchance point at it with his finger. Still less could he make that if the action he spoke about was in the hereafter, and the hereafter perfect ( once more, together with all those factors ) denoted a consequence that would be at that place in the hereafter merely ( that is, it would merely be an expected consequence ) . 1All this has to be carefully gone into, if we are to accomplish truly nonsubjective decisions and if we are to avoid baseless generalizations and haphazard averments which may be disproved by analyzing an illustration or two which did non go on to be at our disposal at the minute of authorship. ( 3 ) The syntactical context in which a perfect signifier is used is on occasion a factor of the highest importance in finding the ultimate significance of the sentence. To exemplify this point, allow us see a few illustrations: There was a halfhearted effort at acare of the belongingss, and so Wilbraham Hall rang withthe laughter of a gag which the following twenty-four hours had become the common cherished belongings of the Five Towns.( BENNETT ) Overton waitedsoftly till he had finished.( LINDSAY ) But before he had answered,she made a face which Mark understood.( R. WEST ) The action denoted by the past perfect in these sentences is non thought of as predating the action denoted by the past tense. Another possibility of the context act uponing the existent significance of the sentence will be seen in the undermentioned illustrations. The inquiry, How long have you been here?of class implies that the individual addressed still is in the topographic point meant by the adverb here.An reply like Ihold been here for half an hrwould so practically intend, I have been here for half an hr and I still am here and may remain here for some clip to come . On the other manus, when, in G. B. Shaw s drama, Mrs Warren s Profession ( Act I ) , Vivie comes into the room and Mrs Warren asks her, Where have you been,Vivie? it is rather apparent that Vivie no longer is in the topographic point about 1See besides below ( p. 111 ) on the average sunglassess of the hereafter. Uses of the Perfect Forms97 which Mrs Warren is asking ; now she is in the room with her female parent and it would be pointless for Mrs Warren to inquire any inquiry about that. These two utilizations of the present perfect ( and similar utilizations of the past perfect, excessively ) have sometimes been classed under the headers present ( or yesteryear ) perfect inclusive and present ( or yesteryear ) perfect sole . This nomenclature can non be recommended, because it suggests the thought that there are two different significances of the present ( or yesteryear ) perfect, which is certainly incorrect. The difference does non lie in the significances of the perfect signifier, but depends on the state of affairs in which the sentence is used. The same consideration applies to the present ( or yesteryear ) perfect uninterrupted, which is besides on occasion classified into present ( or yesteryear ) perfect uninterrupted inclusive and present ( or yesteryear ) perfect uninterrupted sole. The difference in the significance of sentences is a really existent one, as willbe seen from the undermentioned illustrations. Sam, you know everybody, she said, who is that awful adult male I ve been speaking to? His name is Campofiore. ( R. WEST ) Ihave been salvaging moneythese many months.( THACKERAY, quoted by Poutsma ) Do you intend to state that deficiency has been playing with me all the clip? That he has been pressing me non to get married you because he intends to get married you himself?( SHAW ) However, this is non a difference in the significance of the verbal signifier itself, which is the same in all instances, but a difference depending on the state of affairs or context. If we were to impute the two significances to the signifier as such, we should be losing its grammatical constant, which we are seeking to find. Of class it can non be said that the analysis here given exhausts all possible utilizations and applications of the perfect signifiers in Modern English. We should ever bear in head that extensions of utilizations are possible which may sometimes travel beyond the rigorous bounds of the system. Therefore, we on occasion find the present perfect used in complex sentences both in the chief and in the subsidiary clause # 8212 ; a usage which does non rather fit in with the definition of the significance of the signifier. E. g. I ve sometimes wondered if I have ntseemed a small excessively blunt and free with you, if you might non hold thought I had gone homosexual , sing our friendly relationship was so far from confidant.( R. WEST ) We shall best understand this usage if we substitute the past tense for the present perfect. The sentence so would run like this: Ihold sometimes wondered if I had nt seemeda small excessively blunt and free with youAn of import shadiness of significance of the original sentence has been lost in this discrepancy, viz. that of an experience summed up and ready at the clip of speech production. With the past tense, the sentence simply deals with events of a past clip unconnected with the present, whereas with the present perfect there is the extra significance of all those past events being alive in the talker s head. 4 # 1041 ; . A. # 1048 ; # 1083 ; # 1100 ; # 1080 ; # 1096 ; 98The Verb: The Perfect Other illustrations might of class be found in which there is some distinctive feature or other in the usage of a perfect signifier. In the class of clip, if such varied utilizations accumulate, they may so convey about a alteration of the significance of the signifier itself. This, nevertheless, lies beyond the range of our present survey. The three verbal classs considered so far # 8212 ; facet, tense, and correlativity # 8212 ; belong together in the sense that the three express aspects of the action closely connected, and could therefore even on occasion be confused and mistaken for each other. There is besides some connexion, though of a looser sort, between these three and some other verbal classs which we will now see, notably that of temper and that of voice. We will in each instance point out the connexions as we come upon them.