THE CONDITIONAL IN GERMAN. 



I3y SYL^TESXER PEIMER. 



Two opinions obtain in regard to the orij^in of the two 

 so-called conditional modes in German, ich wuerde loben, 

 ich wuerde gelobt haben, the one advanced by Jacob Grimm 

 in his Deutsche Grammatik, 4. 183 ff., the other first proposed 

 by Vernalaken, Deutsche Syntax, II, 283 ff., which soon found 

 favor with others. However, these two opinions are not so 

 opposed that they cannot be considered complements to each 

 other. 



In O.H.G. the Latin Imperfect, Perfect and Pluperfect 

 Subjunctives were expressed by the Imperfect Subjunctive 

 ( wari, etc.) ; the Latin Perfect Subjunctive was also expressed 

 by the Present Subjunctive. The M.H.G. added a Perfect 

 form (Compound of the Present), but the Imperfect was not 

 limited to the expression of the Latin Imperfect Indicative or 

 Subjunctive, for it still retained its old Perfect force. Thus 

 the Imperfect finally expressed the Latin Imperfect proper 

 and the Aorist Perfect, while the Compound of the Present 

 (bin gewesen) expressed absolute past time. The result was 

 a loss in the differentiation of the Imperfect and Aorist, but a 

 gain in that of the Aorist and Perfect. Right here the Ro- 

 mance Languages excel the German and Latin, for they have 

 three tenses (j'^tais, je fus, j'ai ^t6, etc.). If, then, for the 

 Indicative the differentiation between the Aorist and Perfect 

 was more important and essential than that of the Imperfect 

 and Perfect, the exact opposite was true with regard to the 

 Subjunctive, where there is little to narrate, but a clearer dif- 

 ferentiation of incomplete and complete past time is essential. 

 Grimm therefore argues that the Imperfect Subjunctive could 

 not suffice for the Imperfect tense, since there were un- 

 avoidable encroachments of the simple Preterite ( Aorist) upon 

 the Present on account of the wearing away of the form of 



