Part 9 (1/2)

ON VERBS

Neuter and intransitive--Agents--Objects--No actions as such can be known distinct froinary actions--Actions known by their effects--Exanified--Principles of action--=Power=--Aninetic needle--=Cause=--Explained

--First Cause--=Means=--Illustrated--Sir I Newton's example-- These principles must be known--=Relative= action--Anecdote of Gallileo

We resume the consideration of verbs We closed our last lecture with the examination of _neuter verbs_, as they have been called It appears to us that evidence strong enough to convince the most skeptical was adduced to prove that _sit_, _sleep_, _stand_ and _lie_, stand in the sae as other verbs, that they do not, in any case, express neutrality, but frequently adarded as the most neutral of all the verbs except _to be_, which, by the way, expresses the highest degree of action, as we shall see e coo discovered the falsity of the books in the use of a large portion of verbs which have been called neuter To obviate the difficulty, some of them have adopted the distinction of _Intransitive_ verbs, which express action, but terminate on no object; others still use the term _neuter_, but teach their scholars that when the _object_ is _expressed_, it is active This distinction has only tended to perplex learners, while it afforded only a tee the question at issue So far as the action is concerned, which it is the business of the verb to express, what is the difference whether ”I _run_, or _run_ myself?” ”A man started in haste He _ran_ so fast that he _ran himself_ to death” I strike Thomas, Thomas _strikes David_, Thomas _strikes himself_ Where is the difference in the action? What matters it whether the action passes over to another object, or is confined within itself?

”But,” says the objector, ”you mistake An intransitive verb is one where the 'effect is confined within the subject, and does not pass over to any object'”

Very well, I think I understand the objection When Thomas strikes David the effects of the blow _passes over_ to him And when he strikes himself, it ”is confined within the subject,” and hence the latter is an _intransitive_ verb

”No, no; there is an object on which the action terminates, in that case, and so we ive me an example of an _intransitive_ verb?

”I _run_, he _walks_, birds _fly_, it _rains_, the fire _burns_ No objects are expressed after these words, so the action is confined within the When the object is _expressed_ the verb is transitive, when it is not it is intransitive This distinction is generally observed in teaching, however widely it ra their inquiries to what they see placed before them by others, and do not think for themselves When the verb has an objective word after it _expressed_, they are taught to attach action to it; but tho the action reater, if the object is not expressed, they consider the action as widely different in its character, and adopt the false philosophy that a cause can exist without an effect resulting froround, and we shall labor to ent_ or _actor_, an _action_, and an _object_ acted upon, or affected by the action

No action, as such, can be known to exist separate fro that acts We can conceive no idea of action, only by keeping our es, movements, and tendencies

”The book _moves_” In this case the eye rests on the book, and observes its positions and attitudes, alternating one way and the other You can separate no action from the book, nor conceive any idea of it, as a separate entity Let the book be taken away Where now is the action?

What can you think or say of it? There is the same space just now occupied by the book, but no action is perceivable

The boy _rolls_ his marble upon the floor All his ideas of the action performed by it are derived from an observation of thethe floor He sees it in that acting condition When he speaks of the action as a whole, he thinks where it started and where it stopped It is of no importance, so far as the verb is concerned, whether the marble received an impulse from his hand, or whether the floor was sufficiently inclined to allow it to roll by its own inherent tendency The action is, in this case, the obvious change of the e of action depends on an observance of things in a state of e, or to counteract an opposing substance

This will be ads are concerned The sa of which we fore In our definition of nouns we spoke of iave _na an influence in the production of effects, or in resisting actions It is therefore uniinary It is still inseparably connected with the thing that acts; and we ee to express our thoughts Thus, lions roar; birds sing; e increases; fancies err; iination wanders

This fact should be borne in e Thesubstance, to observe its changes and relations at different periods, and in different circue can be gained of actions The e and determines the precise action by the _altered condition_ of the thing, and thus learns to judge of actions by their effects The only rows_ or not is by coo We can not decide on the i the same rule

”By their fruits ye shall know thee of causes only by their effects First principles can never be known We observe things as they _are_, and remember how they _have been_; and from hence deduce our conclusions in reference to the _cause_ of things we do not fully understand, or those consequences which will follow a condition of things as now existing It is the business of philosophy to mark these effects, and trace the all the interes, fors have, at different tirow_” But suppose no change had ever been observed in trees, that they had always been as they now are; in stature as lofty, in foliage as green and beautiful, in location unaltered Who would then say, ”trees grow?”

In this single expression a whole train of facts are taken into the account, tho not particularly le expression we imply that _trees increase their stature_ But this we all know could never be effected without the influence of other causes The soil where it stands rowth_ of the tree A due portion of moisture and heat are also requisite These facts all exist, and are indispensable to ht also trace the capabilities of the tree itself, its roots, bark, veins or pores, fibres or grains, its succulent and absorbent powers But, as in the case of the ”man that killed the deer,” noticed in a forle idea of a cole expression, ”trees grow”

Let the following example serve in further illustration of this point

Take two bricks, the one heated to a high teether, and in a short tiroarm, the other cool One has _imparted_ heat and _received_ cold, the other has _received_ heat and _imparted_ cold

Yet all this would remain forever unknown, but for the effects which must appear obvious to all From these effects the causes are to be learned

Itto see, that action, as such, can never exist distinct fro that acts; that all our notions of action are derived fro condition; and hence that no words can be framed to express our ideas of action on any other principle

I hope you will bear these principles in e, as will appear e coents_ and _objects_ of action We still adhere to the fact, that no rules of language can be successfully employed, which deviate froulation of matter and mind; a fact which can not be too deeply impressed on your minds