When one verb is followed by another without the preposition _to_, the construction must be considered to have grown out of the objective case, or from the form in -an. Such is the case with the following words, and, probably, with others: I may go, _not_ I may _to_ go. I might go, -- I might _to_ go. I can move, -- I can _to_ move. I could move, -- I could _to_ move. I will speak, -- I will _to_ speak. I would speak, -- I would _to_ speak. I shall wait, -- I shall _to_ wait. I should wait, -- I should _to_ wait. Let me go, -- Let me _to_ go. He let me go, -- He let me _to_ go. I do speak, -- I do _to_ speak. I did speak, -- I did _to_ speak. I dare go, -- I dare _to_ go. I durst go, -- I durst _to_ go. This, in the present English, is the rarer of the two constructions. When a verb is followed by another, preceded by the preposition _to_, the construction must be considered to have grown out of the so-called gerund, i.e., the form in -nne, i.e., the dative case--_I begin to move_. This is the case with the great majority of English verbs. § 485. _Imperatives_ have three peculiarities. (1.) They can only, in English, be used in the second person--_go thou on_, _get you gone_, &c.: (2.) They take pronouns after, instead of before them: (3.) They often omit the pronoun altogether. * * * * * CHAPTER XX. ON THE TENSES. § 486. Notwithstanding its name, the present tense in English does not express a strictly _present_ action. It rather expresses an habitual one. _He speaks well_ = _he is a good speaker_. If a man means to say that he is in the act of speaking, he says _I am speaking_. It has also, especially when combined with a subjunctive mood, a future power--_I beat you_ ( = _I will beat you_) _if you don't leave off_. § 487. The English præterite is the equivalent, not to the Greek perfect but the Greek aorist. _I beat_ = ἔτυψα not τέτυφα. The true perfect is expressed, in English, by the auxiliary _have_ + the past participle. * * * * * CHAPTER XXI. SYNTAX OF THE PERSONS OF VERBS. § 488. _The concord of persons._--A difficulty that occurs frequently in the Latin language is rare in English. In expressions like _ego et ille_ followed by a verb, there arises a question as to the person in which that verb should be used. Is it to be in the first person in order to agree with _ego_, or in the _third_ in order to agree with _ille_? For the sake of laying down a rule upon these and similar points, the classical grammarians arrange the persons (as they do the genders) according to their _dignity_, making the verb (or adjective if it be a question of gender) agree with the most _worthy_. In respect to persons, the first is more worthy than the second, and the second more worthy than the third. Hence, the Latins said--