The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1860-09-25
For tie In"HUsncei.
The Lamar System of Ens,isa Grammar.


isc made in our last article proceed to no':ce
The Rules given hy Mr.. Lamar to show when i"
use the Verb in the lenses which he has rejected
We find these on page 1854, classcd under the
head of ..Observaions," and which are as fol-
lows:
For the present-pertect (perfect) tense he OBJ
serves; "To express what took place in past
time. with some reference to the present, use the
present tense ard perfect parlciple: as, have
writeR" For the past-pertect (plupertect) tense:
80 express what took place in past time, at or
before some other specified past time, use the past
tense and perfect participle: as, had written be-
fore the stage left" For the future perfect Second
future) tense: ITO express what will take place
at or before some future time specified use the fu-
,rre tense and perfect participle: rs, shall have
written before the stage leaves"
Now We ask every Grammarian if these Rules
can be practically applied according to their obvi-
GUS meaning, without making nonsense? Does
not every one know who is competent to distin-
guish one of the absolute lenses from another that
write. wrote and shall WRITE are the forms re-
spcctivcy of the present. past and future lenses OF
| -
stance, that farmer A. wishes 'to express" to his
neighbor, farmer b., some of the kinds of work
which he has performed this year, and says, in
accordance with the plain Specification of Mr.
Lamars "Obtervations," plough, p!onghcd, l hoe,
hoed, ETC. Again: Suppose he wishes ITO ex-
press some of the kinds of work h. did last year,
and says, l ploughed, ploGghed, l hoed, hocd etc.
Now, does not every one see that this would DC
the very quintcsscncc of nonsense? yet in strict
accordance with Mr.. Lamars philosophical, no
mood three tense, common sense Grammar.
But, retorts the whole corps of The no mood, three
tense school of superficial smatterers and self
constituted professors, "Sir, you misapprehend
Mr.. Lamars meaning. He means that you must
use hare or some of its notifications before the
participle of every verb, whatever the action may
he which YOU wish to express" Yes, sirs, but his
Rules do not say so they tell us ''to use the
present tense and perfect participlc, the past
tense and perfect pariciplc, and the future tense
and perfect parlicpc." And consequently had
he meant what he says, and had followed bis own
Rules his examples would have been: ! rrite,
rrifen-I vrote wriiten-I shall rrie, wriften
But ms Mr. Lamar in giving these Rules, said
one thing and meant another, will notice few
moments his meaning-the application OF his
observations
1t will he perceived, we presume, that in the
application of his three observations he teach
es the erroneous absurd doctrine, that every conf
plec verb i'll the language has two distinct forms
to represent or show its three absolute lenses;
that ..haye,'' .hnd,' and ..shall have" are the
present. the past, and the future tense of every
verb Hence it is, that he teaches that every verb
has two distinct dissim:lar forms to show its
,lrce absolute lenses that one OF these forms has
:, definite AMI the o;Eer IN indefinite signl!ic;l-
ton: that one OF these ivrns has Il meaning, and
the other no meaning; and that by one OF these
FORMS an action, state or being can be prcd'c;iei
of any subject, while by e ctAer ;.9 action state
or being can be predicitcd OF Il subject, because
in tbe ruconuec.eJ isolated manner i'll wici. Ii.
uses it, has no meaning anu, therefore, canhoI
possibly be verb, partciplc, adjective, or any
other part OF speech
Now we intend to prove by no less dignihed
personagc tilaa P. L. Lamar himself, that the
compound forms of the verb commonly called the
percct, the pupcrfect, and the second future
tense and which he says are not tenses are not
withstanding his assertion to the contrary, true'
genuine lenses.
On page SO of his practical Grammar" he
gives the following definition of the office of the
Verb: A Verb is n word which expresses the ac-
tion being, or state Of its subject This, bear in
mind, is the Office of Verb. Any word which
Go "A for ho
of this office is what constitutes it Verbs
what iufuses into it verbal vitality; and conse-
ouent. if it does not perform this Office, it is I'M
impossible for it to be Verb.
On page 40, he gives the following definition OF
the present tense of the Verb: The present
tense cxurosses what is now taking place, as, He
IErnes."
The present tense also expresses what has been
going on in period of time reaching to the pres
ent moment, as, He has written to-day
Now, we ask, if this is admitting that the pres
ent grand division of time has two lenses, present
and perfect; which expresses an action
which is going on at the time the speaker declares
it: and the other which expresses an action, which
has been going on in the period OF ime' IN whicn'
the speaker declares it.
Now let us take his definition of the Verb, and
also his second definition of its present tense
and sec to what kind of conclusion they will con-
duct us-let us see if he does not contradict him
self-his own definitions both Of the office OF the
Verb and It's present tense, in parsing his exam
ples. "He has written"
In patsng this sentence he says has Is a
Verb in the present tense, because it shows the
time is present, and 'eriten perfect pa'feiple
shows the action itself is past.
Now we ask, is lot this at least an indirect ad-
n,ss;op that it takes both 'Shas" and "'er'tten
,o answer his definition of the Verb and its present