Page:The grammar of English grammars.djvu/347

 ; 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