ae ae 
have fupped *. Lord Monboddo, though he does not perfectly 
accede to his tranflation of the firft future, which he fays is an 
indefinite, does to that of the fecond, and thereby allows there 
is a diftinétion in Latin, but denies it in Greek. “ The Greeks,” 
fays he, “have no one word to exprefs the future perfect or 
“ imperfect; their fecond future does not do it; both futures are 
“‘ merely indefinite ; if they wanted to fay, / /ball write, they could 
“ exprefs it by one word, the future of ypagw; but if they wifhed 
* to fay, J /hall be writing, they muft ufe a circumlocution ypaguy 
“ ecouas, and if they wifhed to fay, J /ball have written, they mutt 
fay yeypapws ecouat. I challenge (fays he) any perfon to fhew that 
“ canabo ever means, J /hall be /upping, in any author.” [I fhall not 
difpute with him about his meaning of the firft future, though 
I do not accede to it; let it be indefinite or imperfect, J /ball /up, 
or I fhall be fupping : if the fecond future be a perfect, and a 
definite, and fignifies,, J /hall have fupped, or I /hall have written, 
the diftinGtion will be fufficient. But before I endeavour to. 
fhew that it does, let me take notice of the pofition that 
the future. definite, that is, the perfection or imperfe@tion of 
the future, cannot be expreffed by one word without circum- 
locution. Now the fact is that the future perfect is very fre- 
quently 
* Tul, I fhall be beating. Tums, I fhall have beat. 
+ To make good his challenge, Lord Monboddo fhould have defied us to fhew 
that the fecond future ever has the laft-mentioned fignification ; and if I thew that it 
has, the futures are thereby diftinguifhed, and his triumph over Dr. Clark is incom- 
plete. 
