That they likewise denote present time, I have already adduced sufficient evidence. Might and could, being frequently used in conjunction with other verbs, to express present time, past liberty and ability are generally denoted by the latter phraseology; thus, “I might have written,” “I could have written.” Some farther observations respecting the nature of these tenses I purpose to make, when I come to consider what has been termed the subjunctive or conjunctive mood.

Present Duty or Obligation.
I oughtThou oughtestHe ought}to write.
We oughtYe oughtThey ought}
Past Duty.
I oughtThou oughtestHe ought}to have
We oughtYe oughtThey ought}written.

The same is expressed by the verb should. Ought being now always considered as a present tense, past duty is expressed by taking the preterite definitive of the following verb.

Having shown how most of the common accessary circumstances are signified in our language, I proceed to explain how we express the circumstance of suffering, or being acted upon.

The manner of denoting this in English is simple and easy. All that is necessary is to join the verb to be with the present participle, if the state of suffering be imperfect or proceeding; and with the perfect participle, if it be complete; thus,

I amThou artHe is}written to.
We areYe areThey are}
Preterite.
I wasThou wastHe was}written to.
We wereYe wereThey were}
I have beenI had beenI shall be}written to.
I may beI might beI could be}

If the state be imperfect, the participle in ing must be substituted; thus,

The house is building}
The house was building}Progressive.
The house shall be building}
The house is built}
The house was built}Perfect.
The house shall be built}

Neuter verbs, expressing neither action nor passion, admit, without altering their signification, either phraseology; thus, I have arisen, or I am arisen; I was come, or I had come.

I conclude this part of the subject with a few observations concerning the subjunctive or potential mood.