plusquam perfectum; so preterperfect, from praeteritum perfectum, i. e. past perfect, is the name of an other tense, now called the perfect:  wherefore the substitution of past-perfect for pluperfect is the less to be commended.  There may be a convenience in having the name of the tense to differ from that of the participle, and this alone induces me to prefer preperfect to pluperfect for the name of the latter.

OBS. 10.—­From the participle in ed or en, we form three tenses, which the above-named authors call perfect;—­“the present-perfect, the past-perfect, and the future-perfect;”—­as, have seen, had seen, will have seen.  Now it is, doubtless, the participle, that gives to these their perfectness; while diversity in the auxiliaries makes their difference of time.  Yet it is assumed by Butler, that, in general, the simple participle in ed or en, “does not denote an action done and completed,” and is not to be called perfect; (p. 80;)—­that, “If we wish to express by a participle, an action completed at any time, we use the compound form, and this is THE perfect participle;” (p. 79;)—­that, “The characteristic of the participle in ed is, that it implies the reception of an action;” (p. 79;)—­that, hence, it should be called the passive, though it “is usually called the perfect participle;” (p. 79;)—­that, “The use of this participle in the perfect tenses of the active voice should not be taken into consideration in giving it a name or a definition;” (p. 80;)—­that its active, neuter, or intransitive use is not a primitive idiom of the language, but the result of a gradual change of the term from the passive to the active voice; (p. 80;)—­that, “the participle has changed its mode of signification, so that, instead of being passive, it is now active in sense;” (p. 105;)—­that, “having changed its original meaning so entirely, it should not be considered the same participle;” (p. 78;)—­that, “in such cases, it is a perfect participle,” and, “for the sake of distinction [,] this may be called the auxiliary perfect participle.”—­Ib. These speculations I briefly throw before the reader, without designing much comment upon them.  It will be perceived that they are, in several respects, contradictory one to an other.  The author himself names the participle in reference to a usage which he says, “should not be taken into consideration;” and names it absurdly too; for he calls that “the auxiliary,” which is manifestly the principal term.  He also identifies as one what he professes to distinguish as two.