I have said, “many of the distinctions in the grammar books have proved mischievous; that they are as false as frivolous;” and this is said perfectly, in the perfect tense.  If I should say, “they had been of some benefit,” that would be more than perfect—­plu-perfect.  But when I say, “they exhibited great depth of research, and conveyed some light on the subject of which they treated,” it would all be im-perfect.

Next, we are presented with a second future tense, which attempts a division of time unbounded and unknown.  In the greek, they have what is called a “paulo post future,” which in plain english, means a “little after the future;” that is, I suppose, when futurity has come to an end, this tense will commence!  At that time we may expect to meet a “praeter plus quam perfectum”—­a more than perfect tense!  But till that period shall arrive, we see little need of making such false and unphilosophic distinctions.

A teacher once told me that he explained the distinctions of time to his scholars from the clock dial which stood in the school room.  Suppose twelve o’clock represents the present tense; nine would signify the perfect; any thing between nine and twelve would be imperfect; any thing beyond, pluperfect.  On the other hand, any act, forward of twelve, would be future; and at three the second future would commence.  I remarked that I thought this a wonderful improvement, especially to those who were able to have clocks by which to teach grammar, but that I could not discover why he did not have three future, as well as three past tenses.  Why, he said, there were no such tenses marked in the books, and hence there was no occasion to explain them.  I asked him why he did not have a tense for every hour, and so he could distinguish with Mr. Webster, twelve tenses, without any trouble whatever; and, by going three times round the dial, he could easily prove the correctness of Dr. Beattie’s division; for he says, in his grammar, there are thirty-six tenses, and thinks there can not be less without “introducing confusion in the grammatical art.”  But he thought such a course would serve rather to perplex than enlighten; and so thought I. But he was the teacher of a popular school in the city of ——­, and had published a duodecimo grammar of over 300 pages, entitled “Murray’s Grammar, improved, by ——.”  I will not give his name; it would be libellous!

Mr. Murray thinks because certain things which he asserts, but does not prove, are found in greek and latin, “we may doubtless apply them to the english verb; and extend the principle as far as convenience, and the idiom of our language require.”  He found it to his “convenience” to note six principal, and as many indefinite tenses.  Mr. Webster does the same.  Dr. Beattie found it “convenient” to have thirty-six.  In the greek they have nine.  Mr. Bauzee distinguishes in the french twenty tenses; and the royal academy of Spain present a very learned and elaborate treatise on seven future tenses in that language.  The clock dial of my friend would be found quite “convenient” in aiding the “convenience” of such distinctions.