and a
connective element when it is conjugated for agreement. With adjectives
and nouns this verb is used as a predicant. In the passive voice also it
is thus used, and the participles are nouns or adjectives. In what is
sometimes called the progressive form of the active voice nouns and
adjectives are differentiated in the participles, and the verb "to be"
is used as a predicant. But in what is usually denominated the active
voice of the verb, the English language has undifferentiated parts of
speech. An examination of the history of the verb _to be_ in the English
language exhibits the fact that it is coming more and more to be used as
the predicant; and what is usually called the common form of the active
voice is coming more and more to be limited in its use to special
significations.

The real active voice, indicative mode, present tense, first person,
singular number, of the verb to eat, is _am eating_. The expression
_I eat_, signifies _I am accustomed to eat_. So, if we consider the
common form of the active voice throughout its entire conjugation,
we discover that many of its forms are limited to special uses.

Throughout the conjugation of the verb the auxiliaries are predicants,
but these auxiliaries, to the extent that they are modified for mode,
tense, number, and person, contain adverbial and connective elements.

In like manner many of the lexical elements of the English language
contain more than one part of speech: _To ascend_ is _to go up_;
_to descend_ is _to go down_; and _to depart_ is _to go from_.

Thus it is seen that the English language is also synthetic in that its
parts of speech are not completely differentiated. The English, then,
differs in this respect from an Indian language only in degree.

In most Indian tongues no pure predicant has been differentiated, but
in some the verb _to be_, or predicant, has been slightly developed,
chiefly to affirm, existence in a place.

It will thus be seen that by the criterion of organization Indian
tongues are of very low grade.

It need but to be affirmed that by the criterion of sematologic
content Indian languages are of a very low grade. Therefore the
frequently-expressed opinion that the languages of barbaric peoples
have a more highly organized grammatic structure than the languages of
civilized peoples has its complete refutation.

It is worthy of remark that all paradigmatic inflection in a civilized
tongue is a relic of its barbaric c