"
These instances may serve to show that it is not at all improbable
Shakspeare may have used _delighted_ for _lighted==lightened==freed from
incumbrance_; and it must be confessed that the sense and spirit of the
passage in _Measure for Measure_ would be much improved by taking this
view of it.
On the other hand, it certainly does appear that the poet uses the
termination _-ed_ for _-ing_, in the passages cited by Mr. Halliwell,
where we have profess_ed_ for profess_ing_, becom_ed_ for becom_ing_,
guil_ed_ for guil_ing_, brood_ed_ for brood_ing_, and deform_ed_ for
deform_ing_: it was not unreasonable, therefore, to conclude that he had
done so in these other instances, and that delight_ed_ stood for
delight_ing_, and not for delight_ful_, as Mr. Halliwell implies. How
far the grammatical usages of the poet's time may have authorised this
has not yet been shown; but it appears also that the converse is the
case, and that he has used the termination _-ing_ for _-ed_; e.g.
long_ing_ for long_ed_, all-obey_ing_ for all-obey_ed_, discontent_ing_
for discontent_ed_, multiply_ing_ for multipli_ed_, unrecall_ing_, for
unrecall_ed_. Dr. Crombie (_Etymology and Syntax of the English
language_, p. 150.) says:
"The participle in _ed_ I consider to be perfectly analogous to
the participle in _ing_, and used like it in either an active or
passive sense, belonging, therefore, neither to the one voice
nor the other exclusively.
Pages:
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38