understand them, would require to have them translated into his native tongue.

We noticed, in the outset, the abuse to which these expressions are peculiarly liable. It arises, chiefly, from considering the words about and going as superfluous, and, in consequence, dismissing them from the sentences to which they necessarily belong. "I am to marry" is neither future nor present. To marry is the name of the action, and we might as well say "I am marriage." "I am to be married to-morrow" is a confused junction of the future with the present, and would be much more clearly expressed by the words "I shall be married to-morrow." It may be said that good writers never fall into such mistakes; but the following sentence is evidence to the contrary :

"Of the general characters of style, I am afterwards to discourse; but it will be necessary to begin with examining the more simple qualities it; from the assemblage of which, its more complex denominations, in a great measure, result." Blair's Lectures.

Once for all, we request that the Reader will not accuse us of the futile design to depreciate the merits of the Writers whose mistakes we quote. Those vessels that float unhurt along the stream of time are best fitted to mark the rock to which they have approached too near. Scotticisms are very venial faults in the court of Apollo; and the etiquette, usually observed towards living authors, has alone prevented us from lighting our beacon at a luminary which still gladdens the nation, by continually adding to the stock of its harmless enjoyments.

OF MOODS.

The manner in which a state, or action is enunciated, is called the MODE or MOOD of the Verb. Thus, a simple affirmation is termed the INDICATIVE MOOD, and a dependent one is the SUBJUNCTIVE. If it is in the form of a command, it is the IMPERATIVE;-if expressed as a wish, it is the OPTATIVE. The verb itself, -the mere name of the state, or act, is the INFINITIVE MOOD, which we have already examined. It is, however, only when any mode of expression is represented by a change in the orthography of the verb that it has properly, in a grammatical sense, the name of Mood, otherwise the Moods would be as numerous as the passions of the mind. The mood of the speaker's thought is, generally, better indicated by tone and gesture than by any means that written characters can convey.

The Indicative Mood is common to all languages. The Latin has the Subjunctive and Imperative, and the Greek, in addition, has an Optative Mood. The French, Spanish, German, and, we believe, most modern languages, have

also a Subjunctive Mood, under which form other modes of expression are arranged; but the English Verb has no changes of orthography different from the few formerly mentioned; and all the modifications of mind are left to be expressed by the auxiliaries can, could, may, might, &c. already explained. Nevertheless, although the principal verb remains unaltered, there are certain arrangements of these auxiliaries which have rendered it a matter of doubt, in attending to the practice of our best writers, whether or not the English tongue possesses a Subjunctive Mood. To have an unsettled Syntax is derogatory to the character of a language; and, as our grammarians have hitherto failed to produce uniformity on this subject, we cannot pass it over without particular notice.

A subjunctive (or subjoined) clause, is that part of a sentence which is dependent on what either precedes, or follows, it. Thus:

"I did these things, that he might understand me." "I have written him a letter, lest he should forget." The clauses in these sentences might be reversed: "That he might understand me, I did these things.' "Lest he should forget, I have written him a letter.' But, however they may be arranged, the verbs to understand and to forget would, in some languages, have a different termination from what they have in the Indicative, or independent, state; and such termination would incorporate (though imperfectly) the meanings which we have here expressed by the separate words might and should. We say imperfectly, because the Subjunctive affix only denotes dependency in general,-the shades of which are distinguished by means of the auxiliaries might, should, would, and could.

The Subjunctive Future, of English grammarians, refers solely to contingencies; for it declares that a state, or action, will follow, provided another, which is also named, shall take place. Thus:

66

"I shall be glad to see him, if he will call upon me."

The latter member of this sentence is said to be in the Subjunctive, or CoNDITIONAL MOOD, because it is on this subjoined condition that the prediction "I shall be glad to see him" depends. It is not, however, necessary that the condition should be literally subjoined; for it may precede, in the present example, with equal propriety, as :

"If he will call upon me, I shall be glad to see him."

In languages that have a regular change of termination of the verb, in the several tenses and persons of this mood, words corresponding with will call have, as before mentioned, another form, whereas this does not differ from the Indicative "You will call;" but it is a general practice in English to dismiss the Auxiliary from the Subjunctive Verb, leaving the Infinitive only. Thus: "If he call upon me, I shall be glad to see him."

Where no doubt is implied, the Subjunctive form is laid aside, and the sentence is put in the Indicative, as simply declaratory. As:

"When he calls on me, I shall be glad to see him.

It is here taken for granted that he is to call; and it is at the when, or time, at which he calls that "I shall be glad to see him." Again:

"When the sky falls we shall catch Larks," is in the Indicative Mood, and in the present tense; for we transport ourselves, in imagination, to a future period, when the falling of the sky and the catching of the larks will be present and simultaneous actions: but were we to consider the event of this supposed phenomenon to be uncertain the sentence would be Subjunctive. As: "If the sky fall, we shall catch larks."

--

In this case there are two futures: the first being uncertain, the Infinitive, to fall, is written without any preceding auxiliary, but the latter, though provisional, is a direct assertion, and is, therefore, put in the Indicative, "We shall catch."

"Whether he run east or west, he will certainly be overtaken." That is, "Though he run east, he will be overtaken," and "Though he run west, he will be overtaken." The direction in which he will run is uncertain, and has, on that account, the subjunctive form, the Infinitive run not being preceded by any other verb. This elision of the auxiliary is not however necessary. It may be inserted if we choose, and the only reason why it is not always so (and it is the case with every elision) is that the idea can be equally well understood without it. The following are examples in both ways:

"If, in some future year, the foe shall land
His hostile legions on Britannia's strand,
May she not, then, th' alarum sound in vain,
Nor miss her banish'd thousands from the plain."

Hon. H. Erskine.

"Nor Fame I slight, nor for her favours call;

She comes unlook'd for, if she comes at all.

But, if the purchase cost so dear a price

As soothing Folly, or exalting Vice;

Oh! if the Muse must flatter lawless sway,
And follow still where Fortune leads the way;
Or, if no basis bear my rising name,

But the fallen ruins of another's fame ;-
Then teach me, Heaven, to scorn the guilty bays,
Drive from my breast the wretched lust of praise."

Pope.

The first couplet of the latter example is in the Indicative form, because the thought is general, without reference to future time; and, therefore, we have comes after the conjunction if, although against the Rules of ordinary Gram

mars.

The difference, then, between the construction of an Indicative and that of a Subjunctive clause, in the future tense, is that, in the former, the verb must always be preceded by an auxiliary, and that, in the latter, the auxiliary [shall or will] may be inserted or not, as we please: and the sole rule of distinction depends upon the intended meaning of the speaker, as derivable from the general drift of the sentence.

Thus much for the future tense; we shall now inquire, whether, or not, there exists a present tense in the English Subjunctive Mood; and, for this purpose, we shall begin with the verb To Love, on which so many changes have been rung through all the languages of Europe. According to Lowth and his followers, the present tense of the Subjunctive is as under :

where (say they) the place of the if may be supplied by "any other conjunction proper for the Subjunctive Mood."

We may observe, in the outset; that it is only in the second and third persons singular that this Subjunctive differs from the Indicative "I love, Thou lovest, He loves, &c." Let us then endeavour to form a dependent sentence, in the present tense, so as we may discover in what this difference consists: "If he love her, he should [ought to] marry her."

In this sentence, the verb love appears in the Infinitive, and, consequently, as in the case of future subjunctives, an auxiliary may be understood as preceding it. But, the clause being in the present tense, that auxiliary must be the verb To do, and therefore, we may complete the sentence thus:

"If he does love her, he should marry her."

This, however, brings us back to the Indicative, and we might as well have said, "If he loves her, he should marry her."

Again, "If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out." That is, if meant to be in the present tense," If thine eye does offend thee, pluck it out;" but as it is here given, it may be altogether future; and (as is probable from the context) may mean generally,

"If thine eye shall offend thee, then pluck it out."

The sentence "If thou love me, keep my commandments" is liable to the same uncertainty; and, in general, while the Indicative form is clearly expressive of the idea, the elision of the es, or est, does, or doth, is almost always productive of ambiguity.

By these and other considerations, we are persuaded that we should never have found a present Subjunctive in our language, had it not arisen from a peculiarity in the conjugation of the Substantive Verb To be. The Indicative had at one period a double form, which is thus given by Ben Jonson in his Grammar, published in 1640:

Jonson's partiality for the classic tongues is well known,- his "learned sock" is proverbial; and yet, notwithstanding those varieties of the Verb, he never speaks of a Subjunctive Mood: on the contrary, when quoting an example, which we should be apt to consider as a Subjunctive, he resolves it by stating that it contains an Infinitive whose governing verb is understood.

Adelung tells us that the Substantive Verb is regular in the languages of Mexico and Peru. It is seldom so in other tongues. The Saxons (for they were different tribes) had two Infinitives, beon and wesan; and the modern English appears to be a mixture of these with some other Conjugations. Be and been are from the first; was and wast belong to the second; wert and were seem more allied to the Danish være; while am, art, is, and are would claim a different origin. Dr. Wallis, whose "Grammatica Linguæ Anglicanæ' was first printed in 1653, differs little from Jonson. "This verb," says he, "is sufficiently anomalous, and has in fact a double form.

* We

may add to this that I bee, Thou bee, and He bee, were also written; although both those singulars had become obsolete in the time of Jonson,

1