Most grammarians contend for _five_ moods, two of which, the _potential_ or powerful, and the _subjunctive_, are predicated on the same principles as Mr. Harris' optative, interrogative, etc., which they condemn. It is impossible to explain the character of these moods so as to be understood. _If_, it is said, is the sign 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 determine in what mood to put this last verb. It of right belongs 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 American I would fight for liberty. If I _were_ to admit the fact." In this character these words are rapidly becoming obsolete. We now say, "If I _am_ there; am I a man, and _receive_ such abuses? _was_ I an American; if I was to admit," etc.

All the round about, perplexing, and tedious affair of conjugating verbs thro the different modes and tenses will appear in its true character, when we come to give you a few brief examples, according to truth and plain sense. But before doing that it will be necessary to make some remarks on time.

_Tense_ means _time_. We distinguish time according to certain events which are generally 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 am _to go_ from the Inst.i.tute; we desire _to learn_ grammar 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 a mere line--, nothing as it were--which is constantly pa.s.sing unchecked from the past to the future.

It is a mere division of the past and future. The Hebrew, which 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 summer, we say the trees grow, 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 Him who "sees the end from the beginning," can know what is _to be_, and no expression can be made, no words employed which will positively declare a future action. We may see a present condition of things, and from it argue what is _to be_, or take place hereafter; but all that knowledge is drawn from the past and deduced from a review of the present relation and tendencies of things.

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 matter, like paper which we have seen burn, and hence we argue 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 lamp wicks. It was used in making winding sheets for the dead, in which the bodies were burned, and the ashes, retained in the incombustible sheet, were gathered 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 from the present appearance of things, and hence you made an a.s.sertion 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 mistaken, because ignorant of the _nature_ of things. This amianthus looks like flax, and to a person unacquainted with it, appears to be as truly combustible; but the mineralogist, 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 magnet, as great 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 room above us. The needle, instead of falling to the floor, would be drawn in the nearest direction to that magnet. The _will_ or _tendency_ of the needle, as generally understood, would be overcome, the natural law of gravitation 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 mood in our grammars; and _go_ is the princ.i.p.al, and _will_ the auxiliary verb. May be I shall fall and die before I reach my home. But the expression is correct; _will_ is _present_, go _future_. I _will_, I now _resolve_, am now inclined _to go_ home.

You see the correctness of our position, that we can not positively a.s.sert 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 Almighty, had this power conferred upon them. But in the revelation of the sublime truths they were instructed to make known, they were compelled to adopt human language, and make it agree with our manner of speech.

The only method by which we express a future event, is to make an a.s.sertion in the indicative mood, present tense, and to that append the natural consequence in the infinitive or unlimited; as, I _am to go_ to Boston. He is preparing _to visit_ New-York. The infinitive mood is always future to the circ.u.mstance on which it depends.

Mr. Murray says, that "tense, being the distinction of time, might 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 was when _grammarians_ =made= their grammars, which is, if I mistake not, according 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 mystery in the business of grammar. 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 _imperfectly_; when teachers _taught_ them, it was _imperfectly_; and when scholars _learned_ them, it was _imperfectly_!!

So at last, we have found the origin of this whole difficulty, in the grammars themselves; it was all imperfectly done.

But here, again, _mirabile dictu!_ wonderful to tell, we are presented with a _plu-perfect_ tense; that is,--_plus_ means _more_,--a _more_ than perfect tense! What must that be? If a thing is perfect, we can not easily conceive any thing beyond. That is a _ne plus ultra_ to all advancement--there can be no more beyond. If any change is introduced, it must be by falling from _perfect_ back to _imperfect_.

I _have said_, "many of the distinctions in the grammar 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_ some light on the subject of which they _treated_," it would all be _im_-perfect.

Next, we are presented with a _second future_ tense, which attempts a division of time unbounded and unknown. In the greek, 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 of making such 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 _imperfect_; any thing beyond, _pluperfect_. On the other hand, any act, forward of twelve, would be _future_; and at _three_ the _second future_ would commence. I remarked that I thought this a wonderful improvement, especially to those who were 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 grammatical _art_." But he thought 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 duodecimo grammar of over 300 pages, ent.i.tled "Murray's Grammar, _improved_, by ----." I will not give his name; it would be libellous!

Mr. Murray thinks because certain things which he a.s.serts, but does not prove, are found in greek and latin, "we may doubtless apply them to the english verb; and extend the principle _as far as convenience_, and the idiom of our language require." He found it to his "convenience" to note _six_ princ.i.p.al, 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 of my friend would be found quite "_convenient_" in aiding the "convenience" of such distinctions.

The fact is, there are only three real divisions of time in any language, because there are only three in nature, and the ideas of all nations must agree in this respect. In framing language it was found impossible to mark any other distinctions, without introducing other words than those which express simple action. These words became compounded in process of time, till they are now used as changes of the same verb. I would here enter into an examination of the formation of the tenses of greek, latin, french, spanish, and german verbs, did I conceive it necessary, and show you how, by compounding two words, they form the various tenses found in the grammars. But it will be more edifying to you to confine my remarks to our own language. Here it will be found impossible to distinguish more than three tenses, or find the verb in any different form, except by the aid of other words, wholly foreign 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 princ.i.p.al 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 we will introduce it in this place. I repeat, all the words long considered auxiliaries, are _princ.i.p.al_ 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_, _must_, _can_, _could_, _would_, _should_, etc. have no meaning, as our grammars and dictionaries would teach us; for you may look in vain for a definition of them, as princ.i.p.al verbs, with a few exceptions.

The reason these words are not found in the same relation to other words, with a _to_ after them, is because they are so often used that we are accustomed to drop that word. The same may be said of all small words in frequent use; as, _bid_, _do_, _dare_, _feel_, _hear_, _have_, _let_, _make_, _see_, and sometimes _needs_, _tell_, and a few others.

Bid him go. I _dare say_ so. I _feel_ it _move_. We _hear_ him _sing_.

_Let_ us _go_. _Make_ him _do_ it. He _must go_ thro Samaria. _Tell_ him _do_ it immediately.

It is a singular fact, but in keeping with neuter verb systems, that all the _neuter_ verbs as well as the active, take these auxiliary or _helping_ verbs, which, according to their showing _help them do nothing_--"express neither action or pa.s.sion." A wonderful _help_ indeed!

=Will.= This verb signifies to _wish_, to _resolve_, to _exercise volition_, in reference to a certain thing or action. "I will go." I _now resolve_ to perform the act of going. When applied to inanimate things incapable of volition, it signifies what is a.n.a.logous to it, _inherent tendency_; as, paper _will_ burn; iron _will_ sink; water _will_ run. All these things have an inherent or active tendency to change. Water is composed of minute particles of a round form, piled together. While on a level they do not move; but let a descent be made, and these particles, under the influence of gravitation, _will_ change position, and roll one over another with a rapidity equalled to the condition in which they are placed. The same may be observed in a quant.i.ty of shot opened at one side which _will_ run thro the aperture; but the particles being larger, they will not find a level like water.

Grain, sand, and any thing composed of small particles, _will_ exhibit the same tendency. Iron, lead, or any mineral, in a state of igneous solution, _will_ run, has the same _inclination_ to run as water, or any other liquid. In oil, tallow, and lard, when expanded by heat, the same tendency is observed; but severely chilled with the cold, it congeals, and _will_ not, has no such _tendency_, to run.

You have doubtless observed a cask filled with water and nearly tight, (if it is possible, make it quite so,) and when an aperture is made in the side, it _will_ run but a trifle before it will stop. Open a vent upon the top of the cask and it _will_ run freely. This _will_ or tendency was counteracted by other means which I will not stop here to explain.

This is a most important word in science, physical and moral, and may be traced thro various languages where it exerts the same influence in the expression of thought.

"To avoid multiplying of words, I would crave leave here, under the word _action_, to comprehend the _forbearance_ too of any action proposed; _sitting still_, or _holding one's peace_, when _walking_ or _speaking_ are proposed, tho mere forbearances, requiring as much the determination of the _will_, and being as often weighty in their consequences as the _contrary actions_, may, on that consideration, well enough pa.s.s for actions too. For he that shall turn his thoughts inwards upon what pa.s.ses in his mind when he _wills_, shall see that the _will_ or power of volition is conversant about nothing."--_Locke's Essay_, b. II. c.

21. -- 30.

It is correctly applied by writers to _matter_ as well as mind, as may be seen by consulting their works.

"Meanwhile as nature _wills_, night bids us rest."

_Milton._

The _lupulis_, or common hop, _feels_ for some elevated object which will a.s.sist it in its high aspirations, and _will_ climb it by winding from left to right, and _will_ not be obliged to go in an opposite direction; while the _phaseolus_, or kidney bean, takes the opposite direction. Neither _will_ be compelled to change its course. They _will_ have their own way, and grow as they please, or they _will_ die in the contest for liberty.

a.r.s.enic has a _tendency_ in itself, a latent power, which only requires an opportunity suited to its objects, when it _will act_ in the most efficacious manner. It _will_ destroy the life of the Emperor, who has _voluntarily_ slain his thousand and tens of thousands. This secret power does not reside in the flour of wheat, for that _will not_, has no tendency, to produce such disastrous consequences.

This word is applied in a similar manner to individuals and nations.

The man _will_ fall, not of intention, but of accident. He _will_ kill himself. The man _will_ drown, and the boat _will_ swim. The water _will_ hold up the boat, but it _will_ allow the man to sink. The Russians _will_ conquer the Turks. If conquest depended solely on the _will_, the Turks would as soon conquer as the Russians. But I have not time to pursue this topic farther. You can follow out these hints at your leisure.

=Shall= signifies to be _bound_, _obligated_, or _required_, from external necessity. Its etymology may be traced back thro various languages. It is derived direct from the saxon _scaelan_ or _scylan_, and is found as a princ.i.p.al verb in that language, as well as in ours.

In the church homily they say, "To Him alone we _schall us_ to devote ourselves;" we _bind_ or _obligate_ ourselves. Chaucer, an early english poet, says.

"The faith we _shall_ to G.o.d."

Great difficulty has been found in distinguishing between _shall_ and _will_, and frequent essays have been written, to give arbitrary rules for their use. If the words were well understood, there could be no difficulty in employing them correctly. _Will_ signifies _inherent tendency_, _apt.i.tude_, or _disposition_, and _volition_ in beings capable of using it. _Shall_ implies _external necessity_, or foreign obligation. The parent says, "You _will_ suffer misery if you do evil,"

for it is in accordance with the nature of things for evil to produce misery. "You _shall_ regard my wishes," for you are under _obligation_, from the relation in which you stand to me, to do so. Let these words be clearly explained, and there will be no difficulty in using them correctly.

=May=, past tense _might_. This verb expresses _power_, _strength_, or _ability_ to perform an action. It is a mistake that it means permission or liberty only. It implies more than that, the delegation of a power to perform the contemplated action. Suppose the scholar should faint, would the teacher say to him you _may_ go into the open air? He has no _power_, _might_, or _strength_, communicated by such liberty, and must receive the _might_ or strength of others to carry him out. But to the scholar in health he says you _may_ go out, thereby giving to him a power and liberty sufficient to perform the action. This is done on the same principle that one man gives another a "_power_ of attorney" to transact his business; and that _power_ const.i.tutes his _liberty_ of action.

=Must= signifies to be _confined_, _limited_, _bound_, or _restrained_.

I _must_, or am bound, to obey; certain obligations require me to obey.

The adjective of this word is in common use. The air in the cask is _musty_. It has long been _bound_ or _confined_ there, and prevented from partaking of the purifying qualities of the atmosphere, and hence has become _musty_.

=Can.= This word is found as a princ.i.p.al verb and as a noun in our language, especially in the Scotch dialect. "I _ken_ nae where he'd gone." Beyond the _ken_ of mortals. Far from all human _ken_. It signifies to _know_, to perceive, to understand. I knew not where he had gone. Beyond the knowledge of mortals. Far from all human reach. To _con_ or _cun_ is a different spelling of the same word. _Cunning_ is that quick _perception_ of things, which enables a person to use his knowledge adroitly. The child _can_ read; _knows_ how to read. It _can_ walk. Here it seems to imply _power_; but power, in this case, as in most others, is gained only by knowledge, for =knowledge is power=.

Many children have strength sufficient to walk, long before they do. The reason why they _can not_ walk, is, they do not _know how_; they have not learned to balance themselves in an erect position, so as to move forward without falling.