they added the termination an; thus, the_an_.  The termination added, was a sign that affirmation was intended.  The same procedure has been adopted, and, in many instances, is still practised, in our language. An, originally affixed to our verbs, in the progress of refinement, was changed to en, and finally dropped.  A few centuries ago, the plural number of our verbs was denoted by the termination, en; thus, they weren, they loven; but, as these terminations do not supersede the necessity of expressing the subject of affirmation, as is the case in the Latin and Greek verbs, they have been laid aside, as unnecessary excrescences.  For the same reason, we might, without any disparagement to the language, dispense with the terminations of our verbs in the singular.

In support of the position, that these terminations were once separate words, we can trace many of them to their origin.  To denote the feminine gender of some nouns, we affix ess; as, heir_ess_, instructr_ess.  Ess_ is a contraction of the Hebrew noun essa, a female.  Of our verbs, the termination est is a contraction of doest, eth, of doeth, s of does.  We say, thou dost or doest love; or thou lovest; i.e. love-dost, or love-doest.  Some believe these terminations to be contractions of havest, haveth, has.  We affix ed, a contraction of dede, to the present tense of verbs to denote that the action named is dede, did, doed, or done.

To and do from the Gothic noun taui, signifying act or effect, are, according to Horne Tooke, nearly alike in meaning and force; and when the custom of affixing some more ancient verbalizing adjunct, began to be dropped, its place and meaning were generally supplied by prefixing one of these.  When I say, “I am going to walk," the verbal or affirmative force is conveyed by the use of to, meaning the same as do; and walk is employed merely as a verbal name; that is, I assert that I shall do the act which I name by the word walk, or the act of walking.

Perhaps such speculations as these will prove to be more curious than profitable.  If it be made clearly to appear, that, on scientific principles, whenever the verbal name is unaccompanied by a verbalizing adjunct, it is in the noun-state, and does not express affirmation, still this theory would be very inconvenient in practice.

    I shall resume this subject in Lecture XI.

* * * * *

QUESTIONS ON THE PHILOSOPHICAL NOTES.