OBS. 5.—­The English participles are all derived from the roots of their respective verbs, and do not, like those of some other languages, take their names from the tenses.  On the contrary, they are reckoned among the principal parts in the conjugation of their verbs, and many of the tenses are formed from them.  In the compound forms of conjugation, they are found alike in all the tenses.  They do not therefore, of themselves, express any particular time; but they denote the state of the being, action, or passion, in regard to its progress or completion.  This I conceive to be their principal distinction.  Respecting the participles in Latin, it has been matter of dispute, whether those which are called the present and the perfect, are really so in respect to time or not.  Sanctius denies it.  In Greek, the distinction of tenses in the participles is more apparent, yet even here the time to which they refer, does not always correspond to their names.  See remarks on the Participles in the Port Royal Latin and Greek Grammars.

OBS. 6.—­Horne Tooke supposes our participles in ed to express time past, and those in ing to have no signification of time.  He says, “I did not mean to deny the adsignification of time to all the participles; though I continue to withhold it from that which is called the participle present.”—­Diversions of Purley, Vol. ii, p. 415.  Upon the same point, he afterwards adds, “I am neither new nor singular; for Sanctius both asserted and proved it by numerous instances in the Latin.  Such as, ’Et abfui proficiscens in Graeciam.’ Cicero.  ’Sed postquam amans accessit pretium pollicens.’ Terent.  ‘Ultro ad cam venies indicans te amare.’ Terent.  ‘Turnum fugientem haec terra videbit.’ Virg.”—­Tooke’s Div., ii, 420.  Again:  “And thus I have given you my opinion concerning what is called the present participle.  Which I think improperly so called; because I take it to be merely the simple verb adjectived, without any adsignification of manner or time.”—­Tooke’s Div., Vol. ii, p. 423.

OBS. 7.—­I do not agree with this author, either in limiting participles in ed to time past, or in denying all signification of time to those in ing; but I admit that what is commonly called the present participle, is not very properly so denominated, either in English or in Latin, or perhaps in any language.  With us, however, this participle is certainly, in very many instances, something else than “merely the simple verb adjectived.”  For, in the first place, it is often of a complex character, as being loved, being seen, in which two verbs are “adjectived” together, and that by different terminations.  Yet do these words as perfectly coalesce in respect to time, as to everything else; and being loved or being seen