ect_ is a derivative contracted from the Latin
_plusquam-perfectum_, and literally signifies _more than complete_, or
_beyond the perfect_; i. e., (as confirmed by use,) _antecedently
finished_, or _completed before_. It is the usual name of our fourth tense;
is likewise applicable to a corresponding tense in other tongues; and is a
word familiar to every scholar. Yet several grammarians,--too ready,
perhaps, for innovation,--have shown their willingness to discard it
altogether. Bullions, Butler, Hiley, Perley, Wells, and some others, call
the English _pluperfect tense_, the _past-perfect_, and understand either
epithet to mean--"_completed at or before_ a certain _past_ time;"
(_Bullions's E. Gram._, p. 39;) that is--"_finished or past, at_ some
_past_ time."--_Butler's Pract. Gram._, p. 72. The relation of the _tense_
is _before the past_, but the epithet _pluperfect_ is not necessarily
limited to this relation, any more than what is _perfect_ is necessarily
past. Butler has urged, that, "_Pluperfect_ does not mean _completed
before_," but is only "a technical name of a particular tense;" and,
arguing from this erroneous assumption, has convinced himself, "It would be
as correct to call this the _second future_ participle, as the
_pluperfect_."--_Ib._, p. 79. The technical name, as limited to the past,
is _preterpluperfect_, from the older term _praeteritum plusquam perfectum_;
so _preterperfect_, from _praeteritum perfectum_, i. e. _past perfect_, is
the name of an _other_ tense, now called the _perfect_: wherefore the
substitution of _past-perfect_ for _pluperfect_ is the less to be
commended. There may be a convenience in having the name of the tense to
differ from that of the participle, and this alone induces me to prefer
_preperfect_ to _pluperfect_ for the name of the latter.

OBS. 10.--From the participle in _ed_ or _en_, we form three tenses, which
the above-named authors call _perfect_;--"the _present-perfect_, the
_past-perfect_, and the _future-perfect_;"--as, _have seen, had seen, will
have seen_. Now it is, doubtless, the _participle_, that gives to these
their _perfectness_; while diversity in the auxiliaries makes their
difference of time. Yet it is assumed by Butler, that, in general, the
simple participle in _ed_ or _en_, "does not denote an action _done_ and
_completed_," and is not to be called _perfect_; (p. 80;)--that, "If we
wish to express by a participle, an action _completed at any time_, we u