| Power or ability is expressed by | |||
| CAN. | |||
| Indicative Mood. | |||
| Present. | |||
| Sing. | I can | Thou canst | He can |
| Plur. | We can | Ye or you can | They can[52]. |
| Preterperfect. | |||
| Sing. | I could | Thou couldst | He could |
| Plur. | We could | Ye or you could | They could. |
Futurition and duty are expressed by the verb shall, but not each in the three persons.
| Indicative Mood. | |||
| Present. | |||
| Sing.[53] | I shall | Thou shalt | He shall |
| Plur. | We shall | Ye or you shall | They shall. |
| Preterperfect. | |||
| Sing. | I should | Thou shouldst | He should |
| Plur. | We should | Ye or you should | They should. |
| Volition and futurity are expressed by the verb to will. | |||
| Present. | |||
| Sing. | I will | Thou wilt | He will |
| Plur. | We will | Ye or you will | They will[54]. |
| Preterperfect. | |||
| Sing. | I would | Thou wouldst | He would |
| Plur. | We would | Ye or you would | They would. |
Priestley and Lowth, who have in this been followed by most other grammarians, call the tenses may, can, shall, will, absolute tenses; might, could, should, would, conditional. That might, could, should, would, frequently imply conditionality, there can be no question; but I am persuaded that the proper character of these tenses is unconditional affirmation, and for these two reasons:
1st. Their formation seems to indicate that they are preterites indicative, proceeding from their respective presents, in the same manner as did from do, had from have, and having therefore the same unconditional meaning. Thus, I may, is equivalent to “I am at liberty;” I might, to “I was at liberty;” I can, means “I am able;” I could, “I was able;” I will, “I am willing;” I would, “I was willing.”
2dly. They are used to express unconditional meaning. If we say, “This might prove fatal to your interest,” the assertion of the possibility of the event is as unconditional as absolute, as, “This may prove fatal to your interest.” “This, if you do it, will ruin your cause,” is precisely equivalent to, “This, were you to do it, would ruin your cause;” equivalent as far, at least, as the unconditional affirmation of the consequence of a supposed action is involved[55]. “I may write, if I choose,” is not more absolute than “I might write, if I chose.” If I say, “I might have gone to the Continent,” the expression is as unconditional as, “I had it in my power,” “I was at liberty to go to the Continent.” “Can you construe Lycophron?” “I cannot now; but once I could.” “May you do as you please?” “Not now; but once I might.” Is there any conditionality implied in the latter clause of each of these answers? Not the least. They are unconditionally assertive. The formation of these tenses, therefore, being analogous to that of preterites indicative, and their import in these examples, as in many others which might be adduced, being unconditional and absolute, I am inclined to consider them as preterites indicative, agreeably to their form, and as properly unconditional in respect to signification.
I observe, however, that though might, could, would, should, are preterite tenses, they are frequently employed to denote present time[56]; but in such examples care must be taken that congruity of tense be preserved, and that the subsequent be expressed in the same tense with the antecedent verb. Thus I say, “I may go if I choose,” where the liberty and inclination are each expressed as present; or, “I might go if I chose,” where, though present time be implied, the liberty is expressed by the preterite, and the inclination is denoted by the same tense.