06 Colorado College Studies. 



that it IS not thought of, as in the second sentence, in the re- 

 lation of possibility, but with condition at the same time in 

 the relation of negative reality; the reality of the conditioned 

 conception, like that of the condition, is only assumed by the 

 speaker. Since the condition expressed in the dependent 

 clause likewise stands in the relation of a negative reality, it 

 is also expressed by the Conditional. We must take that sig- 

 nification which the Conditional has in the independent clause 

 as the real fundamental signification of this modal form. For, 

 though the Conditional is used in dependent clauses, aside 

 from the case of a merely assumed condition just mentioned, 

 it assumes the signification of a Subjunctive by re^jresenting 

 the relation of a logically possible thought in the form of an 

 assumed reality. We must, however, distinguish this deriva- 

 tive signification of the Conditional from its fundamental sig- 

 nification. The Conditional stands much nearer the Indicative 

 in its fundamental signification than it does to the Subjunc- 

 tive, as is seen from the fact that it frequently exchanges with 

 the preterite of the Indicative in the ancient and modern lan- 

 guages without varying the signification in the least, e. ^., h't 

 r: er/ov, ioioio^ iiv. Moreover in many other relations, and es- 

 pecially in hypothetical sentences, the Conditional is also just 

 like the Indicative. In hypothetical sentences, where the re- 

 lation of a necessary condition is to be expressed, either with 

 the Conditional or the Indicative, the Greek uses j; and not i«> 

 as with the Subjunctive, c. g., />'; Osdoi/iev (T/.or.tv^ r«9 (fonz'.'i -d^ 

 zu)'^ a-^fijxv-ojv, s{)j)rj(7oiJ.s'^. Cf. with tliis the German: Haett' er 

 mein Auge, oder stuend' icli oben, das Kleinste nicht entginge 

 meinem Blick; O waerst Da wahr gewesen und gerade, nie 

 kam es daliin, Alles stuende anders. 



The meaning of the Conditional explains why its forms 

 are derived from the forms of the preterite and why languages 

 which lack the special modal forms of the Conditional use a 

 preterite of the Indicative instead. If we must assume that 

 language did not originally positively distinguish the modal 

 relations from the relations of time and represented the re- 

 ality as i^resent in time and the other modal relations as rela- 

 tions of time not present, it is then natural that language 



