opposite in voice and sense, that sameness of meaning which is observable only in certain whole sentences formed from them; (pp. 67, 95, and 235;)—­to assume that each “VOICE is a particular form of the verb,” yet make it include two cases, and often a preposition before one of them; (pp. 66, 67, and 95;)—­to pretend from the words, “The PASSIVE VOICE represents the subject of the verb as acted upon,” (p. 67,) that, “According to the DEFINITION, the passive voice expresses, passively, the same thing that the active does actively;” (p. 235;)—­to affirm that, “‘Caesar conquered Gaul,’ and ‘Gaul was conquered by Caesar,’ express precisely the same idea,”—­and then say, “It will be felt at once that the expressions, ‘Caesar conquers Gaul,’ and ’Gaul is conquered by Caesar,’ do not express the same thing;” (p. 235;)—­to deny that passive verbs or neuter are worthy to constitute a distinct class, yet profess to find, in one single tense of the former, such a difference of meaning as warrants a general division of verbs in respect to it; (ib.;)—­to announce, in bad English, that, “In regard to this matter [,] there are evidently Two CLASSES of verbs; namely, those whose present-passive expresses precisely the same thing, passively, as the active voice does actively, and those in which it does not:”  (ib.;)—­to do these several things, as they have been done, is, to set forth, not “novelties” only, but errors and inconsistencies.

OBS. 19.—­Dr. Bullions still adheres to his old argument, that being after its own verb must be devoid of meaning; or, in his own words, “that is being built, if it mean anything, can mean nothing more than is built, which is not the idea intended to be expressed.”—­Analyt. and Pract.  Gram., p. 237.  He had said, (as cited in OBS. 5th above,) “The expression, ‘is being,’ is equivalent to is, and expresses no more; just as, ‘is loving,’ is equivalent to ‘loves.’  Hence, ’is being built,’ is precisely equivalent to ‘is built.’”—­Principles of E. Gram., p. 58.  He has now discovered “that there is no progressive form of the verb to be, and no need of it:”  and that, “hence, there is no such expression in English as is being.”—­Analyt. and Pract.  Gram., p. 236.  He should have noticed also, that “is loving” is not an authorized “equivalent to loves;” and, further, that the error of saying “is being built,” is only in the relation of the first two words to each other.  If “is being,” and “is loving,” are left unused for the same reason, the truth may be, that is itself, like loves, commonly denotes “continuance;” and that being after it, in stead of being necessary or proper, can only be awkwardly tautologous.  This is, in fact, THE GRAND OBJECTION to the new phraseology—­“is