To give a satisfactory definition of the verb, or such a one as shall be found scientifically correct and unexceptionable, has hitherto baffled the skill, and transcended the learning, of our philosophical writers.  If its essential quality, as is generally supposed, is made to consist in expressing affirmation, it remains still to be defined when a verb expresses affirmation.  In English, and in other languages, words appropriated to express affirmation, are often used without any such force; our idea of affirmation, in such instances, being the mere inference of custom.

In the sentence,—­“Think, love, and hate, denote moral actions,” the words think, love, and hate, are nouns, because they are mere names of actions.  So, when I say, “John, write—­is an irregular verb,” the word write is a noun; but when I say, “John, write—­your copy,” write is called a verb.

Why is this word considered a noun in one construction, and a verb in the other, when both constructions, until you pass beyond the word write, are exactly alike?  If write does not express action in the former sentence, neither does it in the latter, for, in both, it is introduced in the same manner.  On scientific principles, write must be considered a noun in the latter sentence, for it does not express action, or make an affirmation; but it merely names the action which I wish John to perform, and affirmation is the inferential meaning.

    The verb in the infinitive, as well as in the imperative mood, is
    divested of its affirmative or verbal force.  In both these moods, it
    is always presented in its noun-state.

If, after dinner, I say to a servant, “Wine," he infers, that I wish him to bring me wine; but all this is not said.  If I say, Bring some wine, he, in like manner, understands, that I wish him to bring me wine; but all that is expressed, is the name of the action, and of the object of the action.  In fact, as much is done by inference, as by actual expression, in every branch of language, for thought is too quick to be wholly transmitted by words.

It is generally conceded, that the termination of our verbs, est, eth, s, ed, and, also, of the other parts of speech, were originally separate words of distinct meaning; and that, although they have been contracted, and, by the refinement of language, have been made to coalesce with the words in connexion with which they are employed, yet, in their present character of terminations, they retain their primitive meaning and force.  To denote that a verbal name was employed as a verb, the Saxons affixed to it a verbalizing adjunct; thus, the (to take, hold) was the noun-state of the verb; and when they used it as a verb,