of the Latin and Greek verbs, as in the Hebrew.  Some languages have carried this process to a very great extent.  Ours is remarkable for the small number of its inflections.  But they who reject the passive verb, and those moods and tenses which are formed by employing what are called “auxiliary verbs,” because they are formed of two or more verbs, do not appear to reason soundly.  It is inconsistent to admit, that walk-eth, and walk-ed, are tenses, because each is but one word, and to reject have walked, and will walk, as tenses, because each is composed of two words. Eth, as previously shown, is a contraction of doeth, or haveth, and ed, of dede, dodo, doed, or did; and, therefore, walk-eth; i.e. walk-doeth, or doeth-walk, and walk-ed; i.e. walk-did, or doed or did-walk, are, when analyzed, as strictly compound, as will walk, shall walk, and have walked.  The only difference in the formation of these tenses, is, that in the two former, the associated verbs have been contracted and made to coalesce with the main verb, but in the two latter, they still maintain their ground as separate words.

If it be said that will walk is composed of two words, each of which conveys a distinct idea, and, therefore, should be analyzed by itself, the same argument with all its force, may be applied to walk-eth, walk-ed, walk-did, or did walk.  The result of all the investigations of this subject, appears to settle down into the hackneyed truism, that the passive verbs, and the moods and tenses, of some languages, are formed by inflections, or terminations either prefixed or postfixed, and of other languages, by the association of auxiliary verbs, which have not yet been contracted and made to coalesce as terminations.  The auxiliary, when contracted into a terminating syllable, retains its distinct and intrinsic meaning, as much as when associated with a verb by juxtaposition:  consequently, an “auxiliary verb” may form a part of a mood or tense, or passive verb, with as much propriety as a terminating syllable.  They who contend for the ancient custom of keeping the auxiliaries distinct, and parsing them as primary verbs, are, by the same principle, bound to extend their dissecting-knife to every compound word in the language.

Having thus attempted briefly to prove the philosophical accuracy of the theory which recognises the tenses, moods, and passive verbs, formed by the aid of auxiliaries, I shall now offer one argument to show that this theory, and this only, will subserve the purposes of the practical grammarian.

As it is not so much the province of philology to instruct in the exact meaning of single and separate words, as it is to teach the student to combine and employ them properly in framing sentences,