state as doubtful, or contingent; as, "He will escape punishment, if he repent."

The Potential mood asserts the power, liberty, possibility, necessity, or duty of performing an action, or being in a state; as, "I can run;" "You may rest;" "John may learn, perhaps ;"" He must study."

The Imperative mood is used in commanding, exhorting, entreating, or permitting; as, “Study your lesson;""Obey your parents;" "Save my child;" "Go in peace.

The Infinitive mood expresses the action or state without limiting it to any person or thing as its subject; as, "To play is pleasant.

Remarks.-1. The subjunctive mood is so called because it is used in a clause which is subjoined to another clause. It is usually connected with the leading clause by a conjunction; such as, if, that, unless, though, lest. The conjunction is sometimes omitted; as, "Were he poor, he would be happier," that is, if he were poor.

The indicative and potential moods may also be used in subjoined clauses; as, "He will escape punishment, if he should repent" "He is respected, though he is poor." The subjoined clause may come first; as, "If he repent, he will escape punishment."

2. The potential mood may be known by the signs may, can, must, might, could, would, should.

3. Both the indicative and the potential may be used in asking questions; as, "Have you a knife ?" "May I go?"

4. The potential is sometimes used to express a wish; as, "May you prosper!"

5. The infinitive may usually be known by the sign to prefixed; as, to love; to learn. The infinitive partakes of the nature of the verb and of the noun, as the participle partakes of the nature of the verb and of the adjective.

6. The sign to is by some called a preposition, but it resembles the preposition to in nothing but form; it has none of the properties of a preposition;

Define the potential mood.
Define the imperative-the infinitive.
Why is the subjunctive mood so called?
How may the potential mood be known?

What moods are used in asking questions? What mood is sometimes used to express a wish?

How may the infinitive be usually known ?

it shows no relation between words. In the sentence, "To play is pleasant," to cannot be said to denote a relation between play and any other word. To, with the infinitive in English, answers the same purpose that peculiar terminations do in other languages. The infinitive may be the object of a preposition; as, "He is about to go." Other prepositions were formerly used before this mood; as, "What went ye out for to see?"—English Bible. "And each the other from to rise restrained?"-Spenser. In these examples, to go, to see, to rise, are governed by prepositions as single words. The infinitive may be the object of a transitive verb; as, "John loves to read." What does John love? To read. This infinitive is the object of the transitive verb loves, and if to is a preposition, a preposition may come between a transitive verb and its object.

Horne Tooke says that to has the same origin as do, and is indeed the same word. "The verbs in English not being distinguished, as in other languages, by a peculiar termination, and it being sometimes impossible to distinguish them by their place, when the old termination of the Anglo-Saxon verbs was dropped, this word to (i. e. act) became necessary to be prefixed, in order to distinguish them from nouns, and to invest them with the verbal character; for there is no difference between the NOUN, love, and the VERB, To love, but what must be comprised in the prefix To."-Diversions of Purley. Vol. i, 286. "And for the same reason that To is put before the infinitive, Do used formerly to be put before such other parts of the VERB which likewise were not distinguished from the noun by termination. As we still say, I do love, instead of I love. And I doed or did love, instead of I loved."-Ibid., 291. Thus it seems that Horne Tooke considers to an auxiliary verb.

NOTE ON THE MOODS.

I have followed the common arrangement of the moods, without being satisfied with it. There seems to be no sufficient foundation for either the subjunctive or the potential. Neither of these moods seems to be defined by distinct boundaries.

"The subjunctive mood," says Murray, "represents a thing under a condition, motive, wish, supposition, etc.; and is preceded by a conjunction expressed or understood, and attended by another verb." He, very correctly, we think, follows Dr. Lowth and "the most correct and elegant writers, in limiting the conjunctive termination of the principal verb to the second and third persons singular of the present tense.”*

This definition includes forms which Mr. Murray does not assign to this mood, and excludes some which he does. In the sentence, "If he go, he will return," go is said to be in the subjunctive mood; precisely the same idea is expressed by "If he should go, he will return," and yet should go is placed in the potential mood. The definition includes the whole of the potential mood when used after certain conjunctions, and the presence of these conjunctions changes the indicative, the present excepted, into the subjunc

*Such forms as if thou loved, if thou have loved, though sometimes used, "are not warranted by the general practice of correct writers."

tive. The "conjunctive form" is used after some adverbs; as, "Blow till thou burst thy wind."-Shakspeare. "Until the day dawn, and the day-star arise in your hearts."-English Bible. "Ye do show the Lord's death till he come."-English Bible. "Till thou return."— Watts. "Before it come to pass;""Before the cock crow."-English Bible. This "conjunctive form" in such cases, however, is excluded by the definition from the subjunctive mood.*

Some of the expressions which Mr. Murray uses while discussing this subject, would lead us to suppose that he considered the conjunction a part of the verb in the subjunctive. "There appears to be as much propriety in giving a conjunction the power of assisting to form the subjunctive mood, as there is in allowing the particle to to have an effect in the formation of the infinitive mood." But he does not carry out his principle: whenever to is used before a verb, there is always an infinitive, but Mr. Murray does not say that if used before a verb always forms a subjunctive.†

The use of the "conjunctive form" is rendered perfectly intelligible, if we suppose an ellipsis of the "auxiliary" verb. We can then easily understand why the "circumstances of contingency and futurity must concur," when this form is used-the conjunction expresses the contingency, and the verb the futurity. We can also see why this form may be used after some adverbs.

"I will respect him, though he chide me;" that is, though he should chide.

"He will not be pardoned, unless he repent;" unless he shall repent. "That thou appear not unto men to fast;" that thou mayest appear. "Before the cock crow," shall crow.

"Till the Lord come;" shall come.

The full form and the elliptical are sometimes used together, as in the following passage: "If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honorable, and shalt honor him."-Isaiah lviii. 13.

Here the verbs refer to the same time, and yet Mr. Murray would place turn and call in the present tense, and shalt honor in the future. Those who

* Mr. Murray says, "The second and third persons, in both numbers, of the second future tense of all verbs, require a variation from the forms which those tenses have in the indicative mood." Thus, “He will have completed the work by midsummer," is the indicative form; but the subjunctive is, "If he shall have completed the work by midsummer." But this form is used not only after conjunctions, but after many adverbs, such as when, till, after, before, etc.; and even after relative pronouns; as, "When he shall have accomplished the work;" "He will pay even every one who shall have completed the work assigned him."

+ Mr. Murray seems not to have understood correctly what is meant when it is said that conjunctions govern moods. If there were a distinct form for the subjunctive mood, then a conjunction might be said to govern the subjunctive, if it required that particular form to follow it; but Mr. Murray represents the conjunction not as governing but as creating the subjunctive.

So far as the verb is concerned, the subjunctive "declares" as much as the indicative; it is the conjunction which expresses the contingency.

limit the subjunctive to the present and imperfect tenses, would assign turn and call to the present subjunctive, and shalt honor to the future indicativenot only to different tenses, but to different moods, although there is no difference either in contingency or time.

The Potential. This mood seems to have no better foundation than the subjunctive. All the forms which are assigned to this mood consist of the indicative and infinitive of two verbs, the sign to of the infinitive being omitted. "I can write." Here "I can" is a positive affirmation of my ability: no verb in the indicative expresses a more positive and absolute assertion. The omission of to before write is certainly not sufficient to justify us in forming a distinct mood; if it were, we ought either to assign bid, feel, let, etc., and the verbs joined with them, to this mood, or form another mood for them.

The definition of the mood is taken from the meaning of the verbs, and the name is derived from the meaning of one of them. On the same principle that can write is called the potential mood, love to write would be called the loving mood; wish to write, the wishing or optative mood, etc. If we were to take, for instance, love to write, wish to write, endeavor to write, intend to write, class them together in a distinct mood, and give this mood a name derived from the meaning of one of the verbs placed before the infinitive, it would be carrying out the principle on which the potential is formed. This mood would be thus defined: "The optative mood implies love, desire, intention, or endeavor."

The objection to the existence of this mood does not rest on the fact that auxiliaries are employed to form it. If may, can, etc., were really employed as auxiliaries, the objection would not exist; but it is because these words seem to have the characteristics of principal verbs, that we think there is no such mood as the potential.*

I would proprose a division having reference to the subject of the verb. There would then be three moods.

1. The indicative, with which the subject is usually expressed;

2. The imperative, with which the subject is usually omitted; 3. The infinitive, which has no subject.

Or, perhaps it would be better to define these three moods in the usual way. The including of the "Subjunctive" in the indicative would not interfere with the definition, for the "subjunctive" declares, as much as the "indicative" does, so far as the verb is concerned; the only difference between he has loved and if he has loved consisting in the conjunction.

* In the perfect tense, for instance, we find real auxiliaries; as, “I have written." Here have is not employed in the same sense which it has as a principal verb, and written is not used as a simple participle. From the juxtaposition of these two words arises an idea which is not merely the sum of those expressed by have and written when used separately (have+written;) as from the chemical union of two substances arises a tertium quid, or third substance, which is not either of the original substances, nor both added together. We may trace the original meaning of have, but it is pecuKarly modified by its connection with the participle.

TENSES.

Tenses are modifications of the verb to denote the relation of the event to time.

There are three divisions of time; present, past, and future.

Remark.-Strictly speaking, present time is merely the point at which the past and the future meet; and if we take the smallest imaginable point of time for the present, this portion will contain some of the past and some of the future. Thus, if we assume this hour as the present time, a part of the hour is past and a part to come; so if we take this minute or second. But we may take any portion of time-a day, a year, or a century—and consider the whole of it as constituting present time, and the rest of time as past or future.

Thus, "I am writing this moment," "I have written a letter to-day;" "Many great works have been written in this century;" "A great change has taken place since the birth of Christ." In the last example, the whole period from the birth of Christ, including the moment of speaking, is taken as present time. "Many earthquakes have occurred since the creation." Here the creation is the beginning of the time which is assumed as present.

EXERCISES.

What division of time is referred to in each of the following sentences?

I walked yesterday. I walk to-day. I will walk to-morrow. John loves James. You study well to-day. Cæsar defeated Pompey. Washington commanded the army. George is asleep. God loves good men. I will go home. Benjamin went to town last week. James stayed at home.

I have written a letter to-day. You had written your letter, before I commenced mine. You will have written three, before dinner. Many discoveries have been made in the present century. Many discoveries had been made before the commencement of this century.

In each division there are two tenses, one of which denotes the occurrence of the event in the division of time referred to; the other denotes the

What are tenses?

How many divisions of time?

How many tenses in each division?