some modification of the simple assertion, 
. more rarely happens with the present than 
the -With ‘the others. Yet we have instances’ of such an 
_ plication. ‘Thus, in the ninth book of the Eneid, Nisus 
says to Euryalusy 
on “Si quis in adversum rapiat casusve Deusve 
| Te superess vELIM. . 
‘#¢ If chance or Providence should render the enterprise 
unfortunate, I wish (or I should wish) you to survive.” 
. In like manner, in the 7th book, Juno dismissing 
Alecto from the superior regions, says, . , 
ei , Te su wthereas errare licentius auras 5 
.. Haud pater ipse veurr summi regnator Olympi. 
» This part of the subjunctive, when thus employ- 
ed, is translated by the auxiliaries, « can,” “ may,’? 
_> & should,” and “ would,” and generally refers to fu- 
oa the application of them isso contrived that they 
ture events. 
. The preter-im subjunctive, when used ‘indi- 
catively, is translated by “ should” or “ would.” Illam si 
amaret, in matrimonium DUCERET, “If he loved her, he 
would marry her.” The preterperfect is used on similar 
‘occasions, and translated in the same manner. Ma- 
LuER™ illum quam ullum alium imilari, «1 would rather 
imitate him than any other man.” It is a remarkable 
circumstance, that these three subjunctive forms, called 
the present, the preter-im and the preter-per- 
fect, when used indicatively, are often applied’ to- the 
future. This cannot be considered as accidental ;' for; 
when translated into the English language, which ad- 
heres to no form of expression as an appropriate version 
of the Latin word, but varies it as occasion seems to re- 
quire, they retain the form of the past tense “would” 
and “should,” even when the event spoken of can apply 
only to the future. It might therefore seem interesting 
torinquire what liarity the meanings of these ex- 
: a, have which should render them ye to 
le past tense, We clearly see'that there is a founda- 
ws tion for such an inquiry, when we advert to the import 
~ "of some English phrases. “I may go,” and « I might 
go,” are radically future in their application. “I should 
go,” is equally future with “ I shall go,”thoughnot other- 
‘wise synonymous. ‘I can go,” and “I could go,” are 
‘also future as applied to the verb “ go.” The analysis 
of these phrases is comparatively easyy as they consist of 
auxiliaries. We at once recollect oe the future of'a verb 
_ may be expressed by the present of a verb preceding it 
i ‘signifying preparation for futurity ; and, as the present 
«is only one instant, and therefore has been said by some 
_. _-metaphysicians to have no existence, we consider it as 
__ including some adjoining edn of time, (most gene- 
s ally apart of the past,) at least as great a range as gives 
us scope for that short exercise of memory which we 
. eonfound with’ consciousness, and which is neces 
for reviewing any event and enabling us to describe it. 
* There seems to be no impropriety in describing bya past 
___ tense a present action at least that is to be discontinued. 
if oe may be thus delineated, it follows that 
the ver for the future may also be used 
_ _ in the preterite tense. “I might go,” is future as ap- 
{ plied to the verb “ go,” though the preterite of the verb 
¥ “may.” For the purpose of tracing the source of this 
f phraseology, it is of importance to observe that “may” 
{ and “ might,” which are different ‘in their own tense, 
ad 4 different characters on the future event which 
they are employed to introduce. “Both of them express 
_ an uncertain or conditional futurity, But “may” sig. 
Ss WOL, X- PART! IL, as 
GRAMMAR, 
438 
nifies a state of greater ration, and expresses a be- Universal 
lief in the probability of the condition being obtained, G7m~=r- 
and the consequent contingeri¢y taking place. “1 may 
if you will,” ex és preater readiness than “ I might 
if you would.” The latter phrase id either a hesitating 
way of intimating that we are partially prepared, on 
which account it would on some occasions be reckoned 
less polite ; or, signifies a hesitation originating in our 
modified hopes respecting the condition, and then it is a 
more diffident manner of making a proposal, But the 
pa recurs, why should the past tense be preferred 
or this uncertain mode of speaking of futurity? We probable 
should be happy to present a satisfactory solution of that origin of 
roblem. Although we had none to offer, we should this phrase- 
ve thought it unfair to decline stating the query. Per- °l8y- 
haps this form of expression is used, because these un- 
certain expectations consist of images which possess the 
same sort of dimness with any object which retires toa 
distance in time or placé,and consequently with an event 
which fades from the view by taking its place among 
ideas of’ distant ‘recollection. Or, if this ‘¢xplanation 
is objected to as a refinément too subtile to have given 
origin to expressions so common, perhaps the choice of 
the past tense of the auxiliary on such occasions” has 
proceeded from its signifying that the state of things 
preparatory for thé future is discontinued: this want 
of extension to’the present may conventionally be held 
equivalent to’ a less’ confident mode’ of representing 
& contingént futurity. But, though this explanation 
of the English phraseology now ‘under review should 
be thought in some degree plausible, it might still be 
asked, How are such he to be applied to the 
Latin subjunctive tenses?’ Do these tenses imply in 
their etymological structure’ all the force of the Eng~ 
lish auxiliaries? Did they ‘possess tliat force in the 
intentions of the persons by‘ whom: théy were ‘first‘em- 
ployed? Orare they mere general modes of stating a 
connection of ideas applicable to conditions and other 
subjunctions, as well as to conditional assertions?’ ‘The 
difference betwixt these two methods of explaining them 
is perhaps merely verbal, If the subjunctive is an in- 
strument intended to be applied indiscriminately to all 
connections of ideas whether actual or hypothetical, the 
purpose fulfilled by it is the same, whether it consists in 
the want of some character belon ing to the indicative, 
or in the possession of a superadded character, inclu- 
ding the meaning of'an additional sign. Even if it were 
acknowledged to be of: subsequent invention, and on 
the whole more complicated in its form than the indica- 
tive; this is to be accounted for; not by its expressing 
Specula- 
tions on the 
subjunctive 
mood in 
Latin, 
more ideas, but by its later use as applied to the pur- 
poses of human langwage.. The English auxiliaries 
express ‘something indefinite with regard to the events : 
described ; and the same thing is done by the sub- 
junctive form of the Latin verb. But the-variety of 
the English auxiliaries, as applied to translate the same 
Latin word, leads'us to regard the Latin subjunctives 
as of less ‘special’meaning, and therefore partaking  _ 
more of the character of general marks of annexation, 
which admit of being applied to a variety of purposes, 
the particulars of which are left-to be inferred from the 
tenor of the discourse. If we knew the etymology of 
the ancient subjunctive forms, some light ‘would be 
thrown on their history, but very little on their intrin- 
sic nature. Words derived from the names of particu- 
lar kinds of objects often become much more general ; 
and, though they receive subsequent limited applica- 
tions which render them again particular, they do not 
denote the same kinds of objects by which they were - 
‘ 31. 
