ريف

EXERCISES III., IV., &c.—Write a given number of propositions with the tenses of the progressive form of the verb.

EXERCISES V., VI., &c.—Write a given number of propositions with the passive form of the verb.

The verbs in all these exercises to be varied as much as possible The exercises to be repeated according to the judgment of the instructor.

The learner may pass over the following observations on the auxiliaries, and on the use of the past tenses in hypothetical propositions, till he comes to the subject of conditional and hypothetical propositions in the chapter on accessory propositions. Both the conditional and hypothetical forms given in the table § 64, and the following remarks, are to be carefully studied in connection with what we shall say on the latter subject. See § 137.

$63. ADDITIONAL REMARKS ON THE AUXILIARIES WILL, SHALL, MAY, CAN, AND THEIR PAST FORMS, WOULD, SHOULD, &c., AND ON THEIR USE IN CONDITIONAL AND HYPOTHETICAL PROPOSITIONS.

Will (auxiliary) and shall, though of the indefinite form, are employed, as is seen in treating of the future tense, to predicate future actions or events. Would and should retain the original sense of will and shall; that is to say, would expresses determination, or volition, and should duty, obligation, generally, but not always, in propositions either expressing a condition, or depending on a condition. For example, I would go, or I should go, if I could; and I could go, if I would. In the same manner may and might are used to express possibility, or the having permission, license, &c., and can and could to express power; as, I may help him, if I can find him; I might help him, if 1 could find him; both propositions expressing the possibility of helping the person indicated by him, on condition of possessing the power to find him. The difference in the meaning between the condition expressed by if I can, and if I could, will be considered presently.

It is important to remark that, what we have presented (both in the conjugation of will, shall, may, can, separately, and in the conjugation of the compound conditional tenses (§ 61) formed with may, can, might, &c.), as past forms are generally only past in form, not in signification. They rarely, of themselves, indicate past time, though they are often employed in speaking of past events. That the time of the events is past is usually indicated either by a word expressive of past time, or by the tense of the verb in the accompanying proposition; as, Last year he could do that; John said he might, could, would, should do so. Here, in both examples, a past time is indicated, but in the one

by the words last year, and in the other by the tense of the verb said. We can equally say, He could do so now, provided this proposition is to be followed by a condition; as, He could do so now, if he would. Hence in the conjugation of these words singly, we have abstained from calling the past form a past tense. Would, should, might, could, and we may include ought (past tense of owe) and were (subjunctive or conditional form of to be), are all generally used indefinitely as to time. And whatever may be the difference in meaning between may and might, can and could, it does not, as is generally the case in other verbs, consist in this, that might and could always express as past, that which may and can express indefinitely in reference to time.

It is to be remembered, however, that these past forms are generally used in propositions subjoined to other propositions having their verbs in the past tense. For example, He told them he would, should, might, or could come. Here, because told is the past tense, the past forms would, should, &c., must be employed in the subjoined propositions.* Yet if would, should, &c., indicate any time here, it must be a time future in reference to the time indicated by told. We do not say, He told them that he may come, or he can come. The same remark holds good when one of these past forms, would, should, might, could, is used in the leading proposition; for example, I would go, if I could. We cannot say, with propriety, I would go if I can. These past forms naturally, like all past tenses, accompany each other. May and can also, in conditional propositions, and their accessories, which express the condition, are used together; as, He may go, if he can; and He can go, if he may. May and can are also used in the same way in expressing a condition on which an assertion in the future form depends; as, He will go, if he can, &c.†

* There is an apparent exception in such cases as the following: I said to them, I can go. Such an expression is not to be accounted incorrect, because I may be understood as quoting myself-as repeating the very words used on the occasion referred to. He said, he can go, cannot be defended in the same way. We must here use could, He said, he could go. Or we might say, without impropriety, but with some stiffness, John (or he) said “I can go;" repeating the very words supposed to have been employed by John.

A similar law regulates the sequence of the tenses in other languages. In Latin, for example, a tense of the subjunctive mode which accords in time with the tense of the principal verb (the verb of the proposition which the subjunctive proposition modifies), must always be employed; namely, either a present, or a present perfect of the subjunctive, must follow presents, pres ent perfects, and futures of the indicative; and either imperfect or past per

Because we have said that the past forms, would, should, &c., are generally employed in propositions subjoined to assertions having reference to the past, it is not to be inferred that they can never be subjoined to propositions, in which the verb is of the indefinite tense, nor that they may not be followed by modifying propositions having verbs of the indefinite tense. It commonly occurs that propositions in which these past forms are used, are connected with preceding assertions, and with assertions following them made by verbs in the indefinite tense. Examples, I THINK your father WOULD FEEL pleased to see your young friend. I WISH that I COULD APPROVE his conduct. I BELIEVE YOU MIGHT PREPARE your lessons better. Your brother SAYS you SHOULD not ACT as you DO. In fact other verbs, as well as these, might be used in the past tense, under the same circumstances in which these are employed in the above examples. Some of our writers have followed too servilely and inconsiderately the Latin rule, that conjunctions couple like tenses. They have, in so doing, committed gross blunders, especially where that is used (or is supposed to be implied) for the conjunctive word, as in all the above examples. We have an interesting collection of these blunders in Dr. Webster's Dissertations, from which we select a few specimens:

"Suppose I were to say, that to every art there was a system of such various and well-approved principles."-Harris.

"If an atheist would well consider the arguments in this book, he would confess there was a God." Why not,' remarks Dr. Webster, 'confess that there is a God?'

"Two young men have made a discovery that there was a God."-Swift. 'A curious discovery indeed!' says Dr. Webster. Were the Dean still alive, he might find there is a great inaccuracy in that passage of his works.'— Dissertations, p. 270, et seq.

We may here see a strong confirmation of the propriety of the course we pursue in reference to the indefinite (improperly called the present) tense. As we have described it, it is exactly the form which suits in the above passages. A misapprehension of the true force of this form (confounding it with the present tense of other languages), together with the prejudice derived from familiarity with the Latin rule about similar tenses, has, no doubt, betrayed the learned authors into the use of the above absurd forms of expression-equally at variance with the English idiom and with good sense.

fect tenses must follow imperfect, past, and past perfect tenses of the indicative. Whether the present or perfect, the imperfect, or the past perfect, is to be used depends upon the condition of the action, and is not determined by the form of the verb in the principal proposition.

When employed in a proposition expressing the condition on which another assertion depends, there is a marked difference in the sense implied by may and can on the one hand, and might and could on the other, though both forms are as thus employed altogether indefinite in reference to time. This will be readily understood if we examine the sense expressed in the following examples: I will go, if I CAN. Here, if I can, implies that I do not know whether I shall be able to go or not. I would go, if I cOULD. Here it is intimated that I can

not go. The same may be said of the conditional propositions, I will go, if I may; and I would go, if I might. The condition in the first intimates that I am ignorant whether I shall obtain permission to go or not, and the condition in the second that I have not permission or liberty to go. The same applies to I might go, if I would, and I would go, if I should. The first condition implies that I have not a will to go, the second that I do not think it incumbent on me to go.

In the first case, when we use the indefinite forms, we express the intention to act in a certain manner dependent on a certain contingency; in the second, when we use the past forms, we express what our conduct would be on the supposition of a state of circumstances different from that which actually exists.

We may call the whole proposition, including assertion and condition, a conditional proposition, when the condition is uncertain or contingent; and a hypothetical proposition when it is implied that the supposed condition has no existence. These terms being well understood, we may, from the above observations, deduce the following rule, for the use of the indefinite and past tenses of these verbs, including will and shall, as well as may and can.

RULE.-We employ the indefinite forms in the conditional proposition, and the past forms in the hypothetical proposition.*

What we have said in regard to the employment of past forms in hypothetical propositions, applies to other verbs as well as to the auxiliaries might, could, would, should. In hypothetical propositions having would, should, &c., for verbs in the principal proposition, when other verbs are employed in the accessory proposition, it is the past form of these verbs which is used. Like would, should, &c., they are used indefinitely-without reference to time; and the proposition of the affirmative form implies that the condition which it expresses does not exist, and that of the negative form, on the contrary, implies that

*For a further account of hypothetical and conditional propositions, see the chapter on accessory propositions, § 137.

it does exist. We believe Dr. Noah Webster was the first who called attention, at least in our language, to this fact. See his Dissertations on the English language. We borrow a few of his examples and illustrations:

66

"A servant calls on me for a book which his master would borrow. If I am uncertain whether I have that book or not, I reply in this manner: 'If the book is in my library, or if I have the book, your master shall be welcome to the use of it.' But if I am certain I do not possess the book, the reply is different: 'I have not the book you mention; if I had, it should be at your master's service.' What is the difference between these two forms of speaking? It cannot be in time, for both refer to the same. The ideas both respect present time: 'If I have it now, it shall be at your master's service.' If I had it now, it should be.' The distinction in the meaning is universally understood, and is simply this: the first expresses uncertainty, the last implies certainty, but in a peculiar manner; for an affirmative sentence implies a positive negation; and a negative sentence implies a positive affirmation. Thus, if I had the book, implies a positive denial of having it; if I had not the book, implies that I have it; and both speak of possessing or not possessing it at this present time.

"The same distinction runs through all the verbs in the language. A man, shut up in an interior apartment, would say to his friend, 'If it rains, you cannot go home.' This would denote the speaker's uncertainty. But on coming to the door and ascertaining the fact, he would say, ‘If it rained, you should not go;' or, ' If it did not rain, you might go.' Can these verbs be in past time? By no means. If it did not rain now you could go, is present, for the present existence of the fact prevents the man from going. "These forms of speech are established, by unanimous consent, in prac

tice."

"We have not these antiquities; and if we had them, they would add to our uncertainty.”—Bolingbroke on History, Let. 3.

66

Whereas, had I (if I had) still the same woods to range in, which I once had, when I was a fox-hunter, I should not resign my manhood for a maintenance."-Spect., No. 16.

"Whatever these verbs may be in declaratory phrases, yet, after the conditional conjunctions if and though, they often express present ideas, as in the foregoing examples. In such cases, this form of the verb may be denominated the hypothetical present tense." (We would rather say, This may be called the hypothetical use of the Past Form.) "This would distinguish it from the same form, when it expresses uncertainty in the past time; for this circumstance must not be passed without notice. Thus, 'If he had letters by the last mail,' denotes the speaker's uncertainty as to a past fact or event. But, 'If he had a book, he would lend it,' denotes a present certainty that he has it not. The times referred to are wholly distinct."