OBS. 2.—The Indicative mood is so called because its chief use is, to indicate, or declare positively, whatever one wishes to say. It is that form of the verb, which we always employ when we affirm or deny any thing in a direct and independent manner. It is more frequently used, and has a greater number of tenses, than any other mood; and is also, in our language, the only one in which the principal verb is varied in termination. It is not, however, on all occasions, confined to its primary use; else it would be simply and only declarative. But we use it sometimes interrogatively, sometimes conditionally; and each of these uses is different from a simple declaration. Indeed, the difference between a question and an assertion is practically very great. Hence some of the old grammarians made the form of inquiry a separate mood, which they called the Interrogative Mood. But, as these different expressions are distinguished, not by any difference of form in the verb itself, but merely by a different order, choice, or delivery of the words, it has been found most convenient in practice, to treat them as one mood susceptible of different senses. So, in every conditional sentence, the prot'asis, or condition, differs considerably from the apod'osis, or principal clause, even where both are expressed as facts. Hence some of our modern grammarians, by the help of a few connectives, absurdly merge a great multitude of Indicative or Potential expressions in what they call the Subjunctive Mood. But here again it is better to refer still to the Indicative or Potential mood whatsoever has any proper sign of such mood, even though it occur in a dependent clause.
OBS. 3.—The Potential mood is so called because the leading idea expressed by it, is that of the power of performing some action. This mood is known by the signs may, can, must, might, could, would, and should. Some of these auxiliaries convey other ideas than that of power in the agent; but there is no occasion to explain them severally here. The potential mood, like the indicative, may be used in asking a question; as, "Must I budge? must I observe you? must I stand and crouch under your testy humour?"—Shakspeare. No question can be asked in any other mood than these two. By some grammarians, the potential mood has been included in the subjunctive, because its meaning is often expressed in Latin by what in that language is called the subjunctive. By others, it has been entirely rejected, because all its tenses are compound, and it has been thought the words could as well be parsed separately. Neither of these opinions is sufficiently prevalent, or sufficiently plausible, to deserve a laboured refutation. On the other hand, James White, in his Essay on the English Verb, (London, 1761,) divided this mood into the following five: "the Elective," denoted by may or might; "the Potential," by can or could; "the Determinative" by would; "the Obligative," by should; and "the Compulsive," by must. Such a distribution is needlessly minute. Most of these can as well be spared as those other "moods, Interrogative, Optative, Promissive, Hortative, Precative, &c.", which Murray mentions only to reject. See his Octavo Gram., p. 68.
OBS. 4.—The Subjunctive mood is so called because it is always subjoined to an other verb. It usually denotes some doubtful contingency, or some supposition contrary to fact. The manner of its dependence is commonly denoted by one of the following conjunctions; if, that, though, lest, unless. The indicative and potential moods, in all their tenses, may be used in the same dependent manner, to express any positive or potential condition; but this seems not to be a sufficient reason for considering them as parts of the subjunctive mood. In short, the idea of a "subjunctive mood in the indicative form," (which is adopted by Chandler, Frazee, Fisk, S. S. Greene, Comly, Ingersoll, R. C. Smith, Sanborn, Mack, Butler, Hart, Weld, Pinneo, and others,) is utterly inconsistent with any just notion of what a mood is; and the suggestion, which we frequently meet with, that the regular indicative or potential mood may be thrown into the subjunctive by merely prefixing a conjunction, is something worse than nonsense. Indeed, no mood can ever be made a part of an other, without the grossest confusion and absurdity. Yet, strange as it is, some celebrated authors, misled by an if, have tangled together three of them, producing such a snarl of tenses as never yet can have been understood without being thought ridiculous. See Murray's Grammar, and others that agree with his late editions.
OBS. 5.—In regard to the number and form of the tenses which should constitute the subjunctive mood in English, our grammarians are greatly at variance; and some, supposing its distinctive parts to be but elliptical forms of the indicative or the potential,[230] even deny the existence of such a mood altogether. On this point, the instructions published by Lindley Murray, however commended and copied, are most remarkably vague and inconsistent.[231] The early editions of his Grammar gave to this mood six tenses, none of which had any of the personal inflections; consequently there was, in all the tenses, some difference between it and the indicative. His later editions, on the contrary, make the subjunctive exactly like the indicative, except in the present tense, and in the choice of auxiliaries for the second-future. Both ways, he goes too far. And while at last he restricts the distinctive form of the subjunctive to narrower bounds than he ought, and argues against, "If thou loved, If thou knew," &c., he gives to this mood not only the last five tenses of the indicative, but also all those of the potential, with its multiplied auxiliaries; alleging, "that as the indicative mood is converted into the subjunctive, by the expression of a condition, motive, wish, supposition, &c.[232] being superadded to it, so the potential mood may, in like manner, be turned into the subjunctive."—Octavo Gram., p. 82. According to this, the subjunctive mood of every regular verb embraces, in one voice, as many as one hundred and thirty-eight different expressions; and it may happen, that in one single tense a verb shall have no fewer than fifteen different forms in each person and number. Six times fifteen are ninety; and so many are the several phrases which now compose Murray's pluperfect tense of the subjunctive mood of the verb to strow—a tense which most grammarians very properly reject as needless! But this is not all. The scheme not only confounds the moods, and utterly overwhelms the learner with its multiplicity, but condemns as bad English what the author himself once adopted and taught for the imperfect tense of the subjunctive mood, "If thou loved, If thou knew," &c., wherein he was sustained by Dr. Priestley, by Harrison, by Caleb Alexander, by John Burn, by Alexander Murray, the schoolmaster, and by others of high authority. Dr. Johnson, indeed, made the preterit subjunctive like the indicative; and this may have induced the author to change his plan, and inflect this part of the verb with st. But Dr. Alexander Murray, a greater linguist than either of them, very positively declares this to be wrong: "When such words as if, though, unless, except, whether, and the like, are used before verbs, they lose their terminations of est, eth, and s, in those persons which commonly have them. No speaker of good English, expressing himself conditionally, says, Though thou fallest, or Though he falls, but, Though thou fall, and Though he fall; nor, Though thou camest, but, Though, or although, thou came."—History of European Languages, Vol. i, p. 55.
OBS. 6.—Nothing is more important in the grammar of any language, than a knowledge of the true forms of its verbs. Nothing is more difficult in the grammar of our own, than to learn, in this instance and some others, what forms we ought to prefer. Yet some authors tell us, and Dr. Lowth among the rest, that our language is wonderfully simple and easy. Perhaps it is so. But do not its "simplicity and facility" appear greatest to those who know least about it?—i.e., least of its grammar, and least of its history? In citing a passage from the eighteenth chapter of Ezekiel, Lord Kames has taken the liberty to change the word hath to have seven times in one sentence. This he did, upon the supposition that the subjunctive mood has a perfect tense which differs from that of the indicative; and for such an idea he had the authority of Dr. Johnson's Grammar, and others. The sentence is this: "But if he be a robber, a shedder of blood; if he have eaten upon the mountains, and defiled his neighbour's wife; if he have oppressed the poor and needy, have spoiled by violence, have not restored the pledge, have lift up his eyes to idols, have given forth upon usury, and have taken increase: shall he live? he shall not live."—Elements of Criticism, Vol. ii, p. 261. Now, is this good English, or is it not? One might cite about half of our grammarians in favour of this reading, and the other half against it; with Murray, the most noted of all, first on one side, and then on the other. Similar puzzles may be presented concerning three or four other tenses, which are sometimes ascribed, and sometimes denied, to this mood. It seems to me, after much examination, that the subjunctive mood in English should have two tenses, and no more; the present and the imperfect. The present tense of this mood naturally implies contingency and futurity, while the imperfect here becomes an aorist, and serves to suppose a case as a mere supposition, a case contrary to fact. Consequently the foregoing sentence, if expressed by the subjunctive at all, ought to be written thus: "But if he be a robber, a shedder of blood; if he eat upon the mountains, and defile his neighbour's wife; if he oppress the poor and needy, spoil by violence, restore not the pledge, lift up his eyes to idols, give forth upon usury, and take increase; shall he live? he shall not live."
OBS. 7.—"Grammarians generally make a present and a past time under the subjunctive mode."—Cobbett's E. Gram., ¶ 100. These are the tenses which are given to the subjunctive by Blair, in his "Practical Grammar." If any one will give to this mood more tenses than these, the five which are adopted by Staniford, are perhaps the least objectionable: namely, "Present, If thou love, or do love; Imperfect, If thou loved, or did love; Perfect, If thou have loved; Pluperfect, If thou had loved; Future, If thou should or would love."—Staniford's Gram., p. 22. But there are no sufficient reasons for even this extension of its tenses.—Fisk, speaking of this mood, says: "Lowth restricts it entirely to the present tense."—"Uniformity on this point is highly desirable."—"On this subject, we adopt the opinion of Dr. Lowth."—English Grammar Simplified, p. 70. His desire of uniformity he has both heralded and backed by a palpable misstatement. The learned Doctor's subjunctive mood, in the second person singular, is this: "Present time. Thou love; AND, Thou mayest love. Past time. Thou mightest love; AND, Thou couldst, &c. love; and have loved."—Lowth's Gram., p. 38. But Fisk's subjunctive runs thus: "Indic. form, If thou lovest; varied form, If thou love." And again: "Present tense, If thou art, If thou be; Imperfect tense, If thou wast, If thou wert."—Fisk's Grammar Simplified, p. 70. His very definition of the subjunctive mood is illustrated only by the indicative; as, "If thou walkest."—"I will perform the operation, if he desires it."—Ib., p. 69. Comly's subjunctive mood, except in some of his early editions, stands thus: "Present tense, If thou lovest; Imperfect tense, If thou lovedst or loved; First future tense, If thou (shalt) love."—Eleventh Ed., p. 41. This author teaches, that the indicative or potential, when preceded by an if, "should be parsed in the subjunctive mood."—Ib., p. 42. Of what is in fact the true subjunctive, he says: "Some writers use the singular number in the present tense of the subjunctive mood, without any variation; as, 'if I love, if thou love, if he love.' But this usage must be ranked amongst the anomalies of our language."—Ib., p. 41. Cooper, in his pretended "Abridgment of Murray's Grammar, Philad., 1828," gave to the subjunctive mood the following form, which contains all six of the tenses: "2d pers. If thou love, If thou do love, If thou loved, If thou did love, If thou have loved, If thou had loved, If thou shall (or will) love, If thou shall (or will) have loved." This is almost exactly what Murray at first adopted, and afterwards rejected; though it is probable, from the abridger's preface, that the latter was ignorant of this fact. Soon afterwards, a perusal of Dr. Wilson's Essay on Grammar dashed from the reverend gentleman's mind the whole of this fabric; and in his "Plain and Practical Grammar, Philad., 1831," he acknowledges but four moods, and concludes some pages of argument thus: "From the above considerations, it will appear to every sound grammarian, that our language does not admit a subjunctive mode, at least, separate and distinct from the indicative and potential."—Cooper's New Gram., p. 63.
OBS. 8.—The true Subjunctive mood, in English, is virtually rejected by some later grammarians, who nevertheless acknowledge under that name a greater number and variety of forms than have ever been claimed for it in any other tongue. All that is peculiar to the Subjunctive, all that should constitute it a distinct mood, they represent as an archaism, an obsolete or antiquated mode of expression, while they willingly give to it every form of both the indicative and the potential, the two other moods which sometimes follow an if. Thus Wells, in his strange entanglement of the moods, not only gives to the subjunctive, as well as to the indicative, a "Simple" or "Common Form," and a "Potential Form;" not only recognizes in each an "Auxiliary Form," and a "Progressive Form;" but encumbers the whole with distinctions of style,—with what he calls the "Common Style," and the "Ancient Style;" or the "Solemn Style," and the "Familiar Style:" yet, after all, his own example of the Subjunctive, "Take heed, lest any man deceive you," is obviously different from all these, and not explainable under any of his paradigms! Nor is it truly consonant with any part of his theory, which is this: "The subjunctive of all verbs except be, takes the same form as the indicative. Good writers were formerly much accustomed to drop the personal termination in the subjunctive present, and write 'If he have,' 'If he deny,' etc., for 'If he has,' 'If he denies,' etc.; but this termination is now generally retained, unless an auxiliary is understood. Thus, 'If he hear,' may properly be used for 'If he shall hear' or 'If he should hear,' but not for 'If he hears.'"—Wells's School Gram., 1st Ed., p. 83; 3d Ed., p. 87. Now every position here taken is demonstrably absurd. How could "good writers" indite "much" bad English by dropping from the subjunctive an indicative ending which never belonged to it? And how can a needless "auxiliary" be "understood," on the principle of equivalence, where, by awkwardly changing a mood or tense, it only helps some grammatical theorist to convert good English into bad, or to pervert a text? The phrases above may all be right, or all be wrong, according to the correctness or incorrectness of their application: when each is used as best it may be, there is no exact equivalence. And this is true of half a dozen more of the same sort; as, "If he does hear,"—"If he do hear,"—"If he is hearing,"—"If he be hearing,"—"If he shall be hearing,"—"If he should be hearing."
OBS. 9.—Similar to Wells's, are the subjunctive forms of Allen H. Weld. Mistaking annex to signify prefix, this author teaches thus: "ANNEX if, though, unless, suppose, admit, grant, allow, or any word implying a condition, to each tense of the Indicative and Potential modes, to form the subjunctive; as, If thou lovest or love. If he loves, or love. Formerly it was customary to omit the terminations in the second and third persons of the present tense of the Subjunctive mode. But now the terminations are generally retained, except when the ellipsis of shall or should is implied; as, If he obey, i. e., if he shall, or should obey."—Weld's Grammar, Abridged Edition, p. 71. Again: "In general, the form of the verb in the Subjunctive, is the same as that of the Indicative; but an elliptical form in the second and third person [persona] singular, is used in the following instances: (1.) Future contingency is expressed by the omission of the Indicative termination; as, If he go, for, if he shall go. Though he slay me, i.e., though he should slay me. (2.) Lest and that annexed to a command are followed by the elliptical form of the Subjunctive; as, Love not sleep [,] lest thou come to poverty. (3.) If with but following it, when futurity is denoted, requires the elliptical form; as, If he do but touch the hills, they shall smoke."—Ib., p. 126. As for this scheme, errors and inconsistencies mark every part of it. First, the rule for forming the subjunctive is false, and is plainly contradicted by all that is true in the examples: "If thou love," or, "If he love" contains not the form of the indicative. Secondly, no terminations have ever been "generally" omitted from, or retained in, the form of the subjunctive present; because that part of the mood, as commonly exhibited, is well known to be made of the radical verb, without inflection. One might as well talk of suffixes for the imperative, "Love thou," or "Do thou love." Thirdly, shall or should can never be really implied in the subjunctive present; because the supposed ellipsis, needless and unexampled, would change the tense, the mood, and commonly also the meaning. "If he shall," properly implies a condition of future certainty; "If he should," a supposition of duty: the true subjunctive suggests neither of these. Fourthly, "the ellipsis of shall, or should," is most absurdly called above, "the omission of the Indicative termination." Fifthly, it is very strangely supposed, that to omit what pertains to the indicative or the potential mood, will produce an "elliptical form of the Subjunctive." Sixthly, such examples as the last, "If he do but touch the hills," having the auxiliary do not inflected as in the indicative, disprove the whole theory.
OBS. 10.—In J. B. Chandler's grammars, are taken nearly the same views of the "Subjunctive or Conditional Mood," that have just been noticed. "This mood," we are told, "is only the indicative or potential mood, with the word if placed before the nominative case."—Gram. of 1821, p. 48; Gram. of 1847, p. 73. Yet, of even this, the author has said, in the former edition, "It would, perhaps, be better to abolish the use of the subjunctive mood entirely. Its use is a continual source of dispute among grammarians, and of perplexity to scholars."—Page 33. The suppositive verb were,—(as, "Were I a king,"—"If I were a king,"—) which this author formerly rejected, preferring was, is now, after six and twenty years, replaced in his own examples; and yet he still attempts to disgrace it, by falsely representing it as being only "the indicative plural" very grossly misapplied! See Chandler's Common School Gram., p. 77.
OBS. 11.—The Imperative mood is so called because it is chiefly used in commanding. It is that brief form of the verb, by which we directly urge upon others our claims and wishes. But the nature of this urging varies according to the relation of the parties. We command inferiors; exhort equals; entreat superiors; permit whom we will;—and all by this same imperative form of the verb. In answer to a request, the imperative implies nothing more than permission. The will of a superior may also be urged imperatively by the indicative, future. This form is particularly common in solemn prohibitions; as, "Thou shalt not kill. * * * Thou shalt not steal."—Exodus, xx, 13 and 15. Of the ten commandments, eight are negative, and all these are indicative in form. The other two are in the imperative mood: "Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy. Honour thy father and thy mother."—Ib. But the imperative form may also be negative: as, "Touch not; taste not; handle not."—Colossians, ii, 21.