Part 15 (1/2)

Most grammarians contend for _five_ moods, two of which, the _potential_ or powerful, and the _subjunctive_, are predicated on the saative, etc, which they condemn It is impossible to explain the character of these n of the subjunctive, and _may_ and _can_ of the potential; and yet they are often found together; as, ”I will go _if I can_” No scholar can deters to both the potential and subjunctive _If_ I _may_ be allowed to speak my mind, I _should_ say that such distinctions were false

I will not go into an exposure of these useless and false distinctions, which are adopted to help carry out erroneous principles The only pretence for a subjunctive mood is founded on the fact that _be_ and _were_ were formerly used in a character different from what they are at present _Be_ was used in the indicative mood, present tense, when doubt or supposition was implied; as, If I _be_ there; if they _be_ wise _Be_ I a man, and _receive_ such treatment? _Were_ was also used instead of _was_ in the past tense; as, ”_Were_ I an Aht for liberty If I _were_ to admit the fact” In this character these words are rapidly beco obsolete We now say, ”If I _am_ there; am I a man, and _receive_ such abuses? _was_ I an American; if I was to ad, and tedious affair of conjugating verbs thro the different modes and tenses will appear in its true character, e co to truth and plain sense But before doing that it will be necessary to make souish tienerally observed In the use of the verb we express action in reference to periods of time when it is performed

There are three tenses, or divisions of time; _past_, _present_, and _future_

_Past tense_ applies to actions which are accomplished; as, I _wrote_ a book; he _recited_ his lesson

_Present tense_ denotes actions commenced, but not finished, and now in operation; as, he _reads_ his book; we _sit_ on our seats and _hear_ the lecture

_Future tense_ refers to actions, which are _to take_ place hereafter; as, I arammar correctly

Every body can mark three plain distinctions of time, past, present, and future With the past we have been acquainted It has ceased to be Its works are ended The present is aunchecked from the past to the future

It is a mere division of the past and future The Hebrehich is strictly a philosophic language, admits no present; only a _past_ and _future_ We speak of the present as denoting an action begun and not finished In the surow, and bear fruit But when the fruit is fallen, and the leaves seared by the frost, we change the expression, and say, it _grew_ and _bore_ fruit

Of the _future_ we can know nothing definitely Heaven has hung before all human eyes an impenetrable veil which obscures all future events No man without prophetic vision bestowed by Hi,” can knohat is _to be_, and no expression can be made, no words employed which will positively declare a future action We ue what is _to be_, or take place hereafter; but all that knowledge is drawn from the past and deduced fros

I hold the paper near the fire and you say it _will_ burn, and you say truly, for it has a _will_, or what is the same, an inherent tendency _to burn_ It is made of combustible ue this has the same tendency to be consumed

But how does your mind arrive at that fact? If you had never seen a substance like it burn, why should you conclude this _will_? Does the child know it _will_ burn? No; for it has not yet learned the quality of the paper It is not till the child has been burned that it dreads the fire Suppose I take some asbestus, of the kind called amianthus, which is a mineral, and is formed of slender flexible fibres like flax; and in eastern countries, especially in Savoy and Corsica, is manufactured into cloth, paper, and la sheets for the dead, in which the bodies were burned, and the ashes, retained in the incoathered into an urn, and revered as the manes of the dead Suppose I take some of this incombustible paper or cloth, and present to you You say it _will_ burn Why do you say thus?

Because you have seen other materials which appear like this, consume to ashes Let us put it into the fire It _will not_ burn It has no _tendency_ to burn; no quality which will consume But this is a new idea to you and hence your mistake You did not know it _would_ burn, nor could you _indicate_ such a fact You only told your opinion derived fros, and hence you made an assertion in the _indicative_ mood, present tense, and added to it an _infinitive_ mood, in order to deduce the consequence of this future action--it _wills_, or has a _tendency_ to burn But you were s This amianthus looks like flax, and to a person unacquainted with it, appears to be as truly coist, and all who know its properties, know very well that it _will_ not--wills nothing, has no inclination, or tendency, to burn

Take another example Here is a steel needle I hold it before you You say, ”if I let go of it, it _will_ fall,” and you say correctly, for it has such a tendency But suppose a reat as that which is said to have drawn the iron coffin of Mohammed to the roof of the temple at Mecca, should be placed in the roo to the floor, would be drawn in the nearest direction to that enerally understood, would be overcoravitation would lose its influence, by the counteracting power of the loadstone

I say, ”I will go home in an hour” But does that expression _indicate_ the act of _going_? It is placed in the indicative o_ is the principal, and _will_ the auxiliary verb May be I shall fall and die before I reach o _future_ I _will_, I now _resolve_, ao_ home

You see the correctness of our position, that we can not positively assert a future active in the indicative mood Try and form to yourselves a phrase by which it can be done Should you succeed, you would violate a law of nature You would penetrate the dark curtain of the future, and claim to yourself what you do not possess, a power to declare future actions Prophets, by the help of the Alhty, had this power conferred upon them But in the revelation of the sublime truths they were instructed to e, and ree with our manner of speech

The only method by which we express a future event, is to make an assertion in the indicative mood, present tense, and to that append the natural consequence in the infinitive or unli _to visit_ New-York The infinitive mood is always future to the circumstance on which it depends

Mr Murray says, that ”tense, being the distinction of tiht seem to admit of only the present, past, and future; but to mark it more _accurately_, it is made to consist of six variations, viz: the present, imperfect, perfect, pluperfect, first and second future tenses” This _more accurate mark_, only serves to expose the author's folly, and distract the learner's mind Before, all was plain The past, present, and future are distinct, natural divisions, easily understood by all But what idea can a person form of an _imperfect_ tense in action If there was ever such an action in the world, it hen _grara to their own authority, in the _im-perfect_ tense! I _wrote_ a letter He _read_ his piece well The scholar learn_ed_ and recit_ed_ his lesson _perfectly_; and yet _learned_, tho made _perfect_ by the qualification of an _adverb_, is an _imperfect_ action!

But this explains the whole rammar We can here discover the cause of all the troubles and difficulties we have encountered in the whole affair When authors _made_ their books, they _did_ it _iht_ them, it was _imperfectly_; and when scholars _learned_ them, it was _iin of this whole difficulty, in the grammars theain, _mirabile dictu!_ wonderful to tell, we are presented with a _plu-perfect_ tense; that is,--_plus_ means _more_,--a _ is perfect, we can not easily conceive any thing beyond That is a _ne plus ultra_ to all advancee is introduced, itfrom _perfect_ back to _imperfect_

I _have said_, ”rammar books _have proved_ mischievous; that they are as false as frivolous;” and this is said _perfectly_, in the perfect tense If I should say, ”they _had been_ of some benefit,” that would be _more_ than _perfect_--plu-perfect But when I say, ”they _exhibited_ great depth of research, and _conveyed_ soht on the subject of which they _treated_,” it would all be _im_-perfect

Next, we are presented with a _second future_ tense, which attereek, they have what is called a ”_paulo post future_,” which in plain english, means a ”_little after the future_;” that is, I suppose, when futurity has come to an end, this tense will commence! At that time we may expect to meet a ”_praeter plus quam perfectum_”--a more than perfect tense! But till that period shall arrive, we see little need ofsuch false and unphilosophic distinctions

A teacher once told me that he explained the distinctions of time to his scholars from the clock dial which stood in the school room Suppose _twelve_ o'clock represents the _present_ tense; _nine_ would signify the _perfect_; any thing between nine and twelve would be _i beyond, _pluperfect_ On the other hand, any act, forward of twelve, would be _future_; and at _three_ the _second future_ would coht this a wonderful improvement, especially to those ere able to have clocks by which to teach grammar, but that I could not discover why he did not have _three future_, as well as _three past_ tenses Why, he said, there were no such tenses marked in the books, and hence there was no occasion to explain them I asked him why he did not have a tense for every hour, and so he could distinguish with Mr Webster, _twelve_ tenses, without any trouble whatever; and, by going three times round the dial, he could easily prove the correctness of Dr Beattie's division; for he says, in his grammar, there are _thirty-six_ tenses, and thinks there can not be less without ”introducing confusion in the graht such a course would serve rather to perplex than enlighten; and so thought I But he was the teacher of a popular school in the city of ----, and had published a duodecies, entitled ”Murray's Graive his name; it would be libellous!

Mr Murray thinks because certain things which he asserts, but does not prove, are found in greek and latin, ”we lish verb; and extend the principle _as far as convenience_, and the idioe require” He found it to his ”convenience” to note _six_ principal, and as many _indefinite_ tenses Mr Webster does the same Dr Beattie found it ”convenient” to have _thirty-six_ In the greek they have _nine_ Mr Bauzee distinguishes in the french _twenty_ tenses; and the royal academy of Spain present a very learned and elaborate treatise on _seven future tenses_ in that language The clock dial ofthe ”convenience” of such distinctions

The fact is, there are only three real divisions of tie, because there are only three in nature, and the ideas of all nations e it was found i other words than those which express simple action These words became coes of the same verb I would here enter into an exareek, latin, french, spanish, and german verbs, did I conceive it necessary, and show you how, by co tords, they forra to you to confine e Here it will be found iuish more than three tenses, or find the verb in any different forn from those that express the action under consideration

It is by the aid of auxiliary verbs that the perfect, pluperfect, or future tenses are formed But when it is shown you that these are principal verbs, and like many other words, are used before the infinitive mood without the word _to_ prefixed to them, you will perceive the consistency of the plan we propose That such is the fact we have abundant evidence to show, and with your consent ill introduce it in this place I repeat, all the words long considered auxiliaries, are _principal_ verbs, declarative of positive action, and as such are in extensive use in our language We can hardly agree that the words _will_, _shall_, _may_, _, as our grammars and dictionaries would teach us; for you may look in vain for a definition of them, as principal verbs, with a few exceptions