the three examples following, contingency is denoted, but not, futurity. "If he thinks as he speaks, he may safely be trusted." "If he is now disposed to it, I will perform the operation." "He acts uprightly, unless he deceives me." In the following sentences, futurity is signified, but not contingency. "As soon as the sun sets, it will be cooler." As the autumn advances, these birds will gradually emigrate.”

It appears, from the tenor of the examples adduced, that the rules above mentioned may be extended to assert, that in cases wherein contingency and futurity do not concur, it is not proper to turn the verb from its significa. tion of present time, nor to vary its form or termination. The verb would then be in the indicative mood, whatever conjunctions might attend it. If these rules, which seem to form the true distinction between the subjunctive and the indicative moods in this tense, were adopted and established in practice, we should have, on this point, a principle of decision simple and precise, and readily applicable to every case that may occur. It will, doubtless sometimes happen, that, on this occasion, as well as on many other occasions, a strict adherence to grammatical rules would render the language stiff and formal: but when cases of this sort occur, it would be better to give the expression a -different turn, than to violate grammar for the sake of ease, or even elegance. See Rule 14, Note 2.

5. On the form of the auxiliaries in the compound tenses of the subjunctive mood, it seems proper to make a few observations. Some writers express themselves in the perfect tense, as follows: "If thou have determined, we must submit:""Unless he have consented, the writing will be void :" but we believe that few authors of critical sagacity write in this manner. The proper form seems to be, "If thou hast determined; unless he has consented," &c. conformably to what we meet with in the Bible: "I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me." Isaiah xlv. 4. 5. “What is the hope of the hypocrite, though he hath gained," &c. John xxvii. 8. See also Acts xxviii. 4.

6. In the pluperfect and future tenses, we sometimes meet with such expressions as these: "If thou had applied thyself diligently, thou wouldst have reaped the advantage" "Unless thou shall speak the whole truth, we can

not determine;"" If thou will undertake the business, there is little doubt of success." This mode of expressing the auxiliaries, does not appear to be warranted by the general practice of correct writers. They should be hadst, shalt, and wilt: and we find them used in this form in the sacred Scriptures.

"If thou hadst known," &c. Luke xix. 47. "If thou hadst been here," &c. John xi. 21. "If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean," Matt. viii. 2. See also, 2 Sam. ii. 27. Matt. xvii. 4.

7. The second person singular of the imperfect tense in the subjunctive mood, is also very frequently varied in its termination: as, "If thou loved him truly, thou wouldst obey him ;""Though thou did conform, thou hast gained nothing by it." This variation, however, appears to be improper. Our present version of the Scriptures, which we again refer to, as a good grammatical authority in points of this nature, decides against it. "If thou knewest the gift," &c. John iv. 10. "If thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory?" &c. 1 Cor. iv. 7. See also Dan. v. 22. But it is proper to remark, that the form of the verb to be, when used subjunctively in the imperfect tense, is indeed very considerably and properly varied from that which it has in the imperfect of the indicative mood: as the learner will perceive by turning to the conjugation of that verb.*

66

8. It may not be superfluous, also to observe, that the auxiliaries of the potential mood, when applied to the subjunctive, do not change the termination of the second person singular. We properly say, "If thou mayst or canst go;" Though thou mighist live;""Unless thou couldst read;"" If thou wouldst learn;" and not " If thou may or can go ;" &c. It is sufficient, on this point, to adduce the authorities of Johnson and Lowth; " If thou shouldst go;" Johnson, "If thou mayst, mightst, or couldst love ;" Lowth. Some authors think, that when that expresses the motive or end, the termination of these auxiliaries should be varied: as, "I advise thee, that thou may beware;" "He checked thee, that thou should not presume:" but there does not appear to be any ground for this exception.

* See observations on the manner of conjugating the subjunctive mood, at pages 78, 88.

If the expression of condition, doubt, contingency," &c. does not warrant a change in the form of these auxiliaries, why should they have it when a motive or end is expressed? The translators of the Scriptures do not appear to have made the distinction contended for. "Thou buildest the wall, that thou mayest be their king,” Neh. vi. 6, "There is forgiveness with thee, that thou mayest be feared." Psalms cxxx. 4.

From the preceding observations under this rule, it appears, that with respect to what is termed the present tense of any verb, when the circumstances of contingency and futurity concur, it is proper to vary the terminations of the second and third persons singular; that without the concurrence of those circumstances, the terminations should not be altered; and that the verb and the auxiliaries of the three past tenses, and the auxiliaries of the future, undergo no alteration whatever: except the imperfect of the verb to be, which, in cases denoting contingency, is varied in all the persons of the singular number.

After perusing what has been advanced on this subject, it will be natural for the student to inquire, what is the extent of the subjunctive mood? Some grammarians think it extends only to what is called the present tense of verbs generally, under the circumstances of contingency and futurity; and to the imperfect tense of the verb to be, when it denotes contingency; because in these tenses only, the form of the verb admits of variation; and they suppose that it is variation merely which constitutes the distinction of moods. It is the opinion of other grammarians, that, besides the two cases just mentioned, all verbs in the three past, and the two future tenses, are in the subjunctive mood, when they denote contingency and uncertainty, though they have not any change of termination; and that, when contingency is not signified, the verb, through all these five tenses, belongs to the indicative mood, whatever conjunction may attend it. They think, that the definition and nature of the subjunctive mood, have no reference to change of termination, but that they refer merely to the manner of the being, action, or passion, signified by the verb; and that the subjunctive mood may as properly exist, without a variation of the verb, as the infinitive mood, which certainly has no terminations different from those of the indicative. The decision of this point is not, however, of much con.

sequence. The rules which ascertain the propriety of varying, or not varying, the terminations of the verb, are of more importance; and may be well observed, without a uniformity of sentiment respecting the nature and limits of the subjunctive mood. For further remarks on the

subject, see sect. 8. p. 88.

There is a peculiar neatness in a sentence beginning with the conjunctive form of a verb. "Were there no differ

ence, there would be no choice."

A double conjunctive, in two correspondent clauses of a sentence, is sometimes made use of: as, " Had he done this, he had escaped;" «Had the limitations on the prerogative been, in his time, quite fixed and certain, his integrity had made him regard as sacred, the boundaries of the constitution." The sentence, in the common form would have read thus: "If the limitations on the prerogative had been, &c. his integrity would have made him regard," &c.

9. Some conjunctions have their correspondent conjunctions belonging to them, so that, in the subsequent member of the sentence, the latter answers to the former : as,

1st, Though,—yet, nevertheless : as, "Though he was rich; yet for our sakes he became poor."

2d, Whether or, as, "Whether he will go or not, I cannot tell."

3d, Either-or: as, "I will either send it, or bring it myself."

4th, Neither-nor: as, "Neither thou nor I am able to compass it."

5th, As-as: expressing a comparison of equality: as, "She is as amiable as her sister."

6th, As-so: expressing a comparison of equality: as, As the stars, so shall thy seed be.'

7th, Asso: expressing a comparison of quality: as, As the one dieth, so dieth the other."

8th, So-as with a verb expressing a comparison, of quality: as, "To see thy glory, so as I have seen thee in the sanctuary.”

9th, So-as: with a negative and an adjective expressing a comparison of quantity: as, "Pompey was not so great a man as Cæsar."

10th, So that: expressing a consequence as, "He was so fatigued, that he could scarcely move."

The conjunctions or and nor may often be used, with nearly equal propriety. "The king, whose character was not sufficiently vigorous, nor decisive, assented to the measure." In this sentence, or would perhaps have been better: but, in general, nor seems to repeat the negation in the former part of the sentence, and therefore gives more emphasis to the expression.

10. Conjunctions are often improperly used, both singly and in pairs. The following are examples of this impropriety. "The relations are so uncertain, as that they require a great deal of examination;" it should be, "that they require," &c. "There was no man so sanguine, who did not apprehend some ill consequences:" it ought to be, "So sanguine as not to apprehend,” &c.; or, 66 no man, how sanguine soever, who did not," &c: "To trust in him is no more but to acknowledge his power," "This is no other but the gate of paradise." In both these instances, but should be than. "We should sufficiently weigh the objects of our hope; whether they are such as we may reason. ably expect from them what they promise," &c. It ought to be, "that we may reasonably," &c. "The duke had not behaved with that loyalty as he ought to have done;" "with which he ought." In the order as they lie in his preface;" it should be," in order as they lie ;" or, "in the order in which they lie." "Such sharp replies that cost him his life;"" as cost him," &c. "If he was truly that scarecrow, as he is now commonly painted; “such a scarecrow," &c. "I wish I could do that justice to his memory, to oblige the painters," &c.; " do such justice as to oblige," &c.

The particle as, when it is connected with the pronoun such, has the force of a relative pronoun: as, "Let such as presume to advise others, look well to their own conduct;" which is equivalent to, "Let them who presume," &c. But when used by itself, this particle is to be considered as a conjunction.

Our language wants a conjunction adapted to familiar style, equivalent to notwithstanding. The words for all that, seem to be too low. "A word it was in the mouth of every one, but, for all that, this may still be a sécret."

In regard that is solemn and antiquated; because would do much better in the following sentence. "It cannot be otherwise, in regard that the French Prosody differs from that of every other,"