197. Lennie, Murray, and many other grammarians, consider what is here called the future subjunctive to be the present tense of that mood, and, in conformity with this opinion, they have divested the subjunctive mood of the indicative form for the present tense. But their own inconsistency is strongly exhibited by their conjugating all the other tenses like the indicative, except the present or future conditional, which they hold forth as the past subjunctive. It cannot be very encouraging to the youthful mind who has persevered through his pages on Etymology, to come in contact with the principles of Rule X, and others, in Mr. Lennie's Syntax. Rule X may be particularly referred to, because, notwithstanding that his readers are taught in his Etymology that the future tense is a present tense, it teaches them that his present subjunctive is never used but when contingency and future time are implied, and that what we have called the PRESENT subjunctive is never employed bnt when FUTURITY is NOT implied! 198. A little reflection on the nature of the subjunctive mood will forcibly attest the unreasonableness of conjugating the future as the present tense. You are aware that all verbs vary, except must and ought, to suit the different persons of the names or fornames which actuate them. But there is no change of person in the future (Mr. Lennie's present) subjunctive of the verb to be. The reason is, that "If he be there when I go, I will discharge him," means "If he shall be there." "If thou be there when I go," is, "If thou shalt be there when I go." From this, you perceive that a sign is understood before the subjunctive; that it is the sign which changes to designate person, and not the principal verb, and that although no sign is employed in the conjugation, it is clearly understood. For instance, as it has been just observed, the abbreviated future subjunctive is, "If I, thou, he, we, you, or they be," thus retaining the verb in the same form in all the three persons of both numbers. Now the real state of the matter is, that this future subjunctive should be conjugated in full, and then the persons are manifest. It is no longer" If I, thou, he, we, you, or they be," but If I should or shall be. If we should or shall be. 199. The only distinction between the future indicative and the future subjunctive is, that in the subjunctive the auxiliary verb is suppressed, but, you perceive, not necessarily so, it being left to our own taste whether we say, “If he be alive to-morrow," or, "If he should be alive to-morrow." 200. The present subjunctive, likewise, is in all verbs the same with the indicative, the conditional connecting word, if, though, lest, or some other, being the distinguishing characteristic. Quoting Mr. Hiley's observations, "Suppose a child making a noise near my door, I request my servant to send it away, but if it is my own son to send him within. Now, were I to say, 'If he be my son,' my words would imply, 'If he shall be hereafter my son,' which thing would be an absurdity." 201. In conjugating the verb to love, the future subjunctive is, If I love, If thou love, If he love. But shall or should is understood to precede each according to the conditional association accompanying the expression. Lennie in conjugating to love, and all other principal verbs, commits himself, as in the verb to be, by giving the future as the present tense. When we say, "If he survives till he is twenty," survives is improper. The person referred to not yet having attained the age of twenty, the sign shall is understood, and it ought to be "If he survive till he is twenty"-if he shall or should survive. 202. The verb to be is the only verb that has a suppositional tense, which forms the greatest difficulty connected with the theory of a subjunctive mood. The suppositional tense is mostly called the past subjunctive, but it is more properly a present or future tense, and the author is of opinion that if any definite tense whatever exists in the subjunctive mood, its inflections in the verb must be precisely like those of the indicative. 203. No peculiarity has tended more to warp the principles of grammarians, and render them prejudicially on the side of set moods for the verb, than this suppositional tense of the verb to be, nor has anything been more whimsically treated. Murray, lennie, and others, who offer the suppositional tense as the past subjunctive, have no cause to assign for so glaring a departure from the simplicity of this mood, but the imaginary powers of an unmeaning connecting word. But, with Dr. Crombie, it may be unhesitatingly asserted that no example can be adduced in English, where the indicative form is altered merely because the verb is preceded by some conjunctive particle. "If we say," continues the doctor, "Though he were rich, he would not despise the poor,' was is not here turned into were because subjoined to though; for though is joined to the indicative mood, when the sentiment requires it; the verb therefore is not in the subjunctive mood." 204. Lowth, Priestley, Pinnock, Allen-it may be said, nearly all the most respectable authorities, proceed in the same lawless uncertainty. To the subjunctive mood, they have assigned one, two, and three tenses, but it may with much reason be affirmed, that it has either all the tenses or no tense, and, consequently, no existence. 205. Mr. Hiley says, "The present subjunctive simply expresses doubt respecting a fact; as, If he is poor, do not distress him; If thou art honourable, act accordingly. The suppositional tense implies supposition, and expresses either present or future time; as, If I were rich I would relieve the distressed; Were I to mention it, he would not attend." 206. Mr. Hiley does well in calling the latter the suppositional tense. Yet he has not a past subjunctive, but he has a present, which he gives the form of the present indicative, to express doubt respecting a fact. It may be asked, as the present subjunctive merely expresses doubt respecting a present fact, and as the suppositional tense is expressive only of present and future supposition, by what are we to express doubt respecting a past fact? Doubt may be entertained of a past as well as of a present fact. A person says of one of our friends, "He was ill yesterday," respecting which we have some doubt, but, as it is told to us for a fact, are we not justifiable in replying, "If he was, we are sorry?" The position cannot but be equally consistent with propriety, as is the implying of mere doubt by the present indicative. Thus, then, the past indicative and the past subjunctive must be distinctions devoid of difference. THE IMPERATIVE MOOD. 207. Your attention must now be requested to what is called the Imperative mood. 208. Various are the opinions entertained respecting this mood. Some assert that it exists in all the three persons; others in two-the second and the third. The prevailing opinion, however, is, that it exists only in the second person. By a slight attention to its nature, the supposition that it has any existence either in the first or third person, will be dissipated. 209. It is unnecessary to give you instances to disprove the propriety of assigning to this mood a first or third person. The first person is the speaker. Can any one entreat or command himself? The third person is always merely spoken of, and cannot, at the same time, be spoken to, 210. Mr. Baldwin, author of "Outlines of English Grammar," is one who contends for three persons in the imperative mood. 211. Whenever we command or entreat, we direct such command or entreaty to the person addressed. We cannot command or entreat any person, but the one to whom we speak, and the person spoken to is always the second. 212. Mr. Lennie is peculiar on the imperative verb. He perceives that let, in "Let thou me or him love," and in "Let thou them love," is in the imperative mood, but in "Do let me love," that let is in the infinitive mood and do in the imperative, meaning, "Do thou to let me to love." There is too much reason to think that the plan which Mr. Lennie adopts of considering do and let, is rather unorthodox, and that if let is in the infinitive mood, do is also in the infinitive mood, 213. In "Let thou me love," Mr. Lennie calls thou the actor to let, but, in, "Do thou let me love," he considers that thou is the actor to do, and that it is correspondent to "Do thou to let me to love." The same author upholds "I do love," as the emphatic form of "I love," and consequently, calls do and love one verb. If do and love are but one verb in the emphatic form, it requires no hesitation to aver, that do and let, in "Do thou let me love," are but one verb, and that they too are in the emphatic form. 214. Mr. Lennie's two opposite theories are here simply adverted to on the ground of consistency, for, believing, as the writer of the present grammar does, that each verb is properly independent, he can readily give his assent to do and let being separate verbs in "Do thou let me love," but why are do and love ONE verb in "I do love ?" Mr. Lennie assigns not the shadow of a reason in support of the latter. But, although he has neglected to shew us why do and love are one verb, it will, in a theory subsequently propounded, be demonstrated why they are two verbs. 215. Mr. Lennie also calls do, in "Do thou love," a verb active, second person, singular, imperative mood, agreeing with its nominative, or actor, THOU. How he perceives that do is of the second person, and of the singular number, it is difficult to determine. Dost is the second person singular of the verb to be. 216. Using the second personal forname and the uninflected verb, to give a command, as in conjugations of the imperative mood, is but an idiomatic form of speech, founded on the general license for abbreviation which language mostly affords, and may be called the mere sign of what it signified. If we make the verb and the forname agree in Mr. Lennie's example of "Do thou love," his imperative sentence is immediately resolved into an interrogative, as, "Dost thou love?" In the same way, "Let thou him love," becomes "Lettest thou him love?" 217. Now, it may with safety be affirmed, that the doctrine is unsound which says that an uninflected verb is of the second person singular, and it is undeniable that no sound system of classification can ever be obtained, but by rendering all abbreviated expressions complete. I command or entreat, then, is understood to accompany every abbreviated imperative sentence, as, "I command thee to let him to love." "I entreat thee to let him to go." Or, if wishful to have the thou, "I command thee that thou shalt to let him to go." These sentences, it may be maintained are the full renderings of "Let him love," him go," and "Let thou him go." "Love thou," is "I entreat thee that thou shalt to love." "Let 218. According to this method of treating imperative clauses, all the unnecessary differences of opinion which prevail about the first, second, and third persons, are dispensed with, what are called imperative verbs, being infinitive verbs, and therefore of no person, the infinitive verb having no restriction. 219. These views of the imperative mood, the author is |