Owen—Hybrid Parts of Speech. 
219 
fact that the condition is posed as past, the conclusion will 
be conceived as in the post-past. 
The reason of this is apparent to the most hasty observation. 
The conclusion which is realized a long time after its condition, 
thereby forfeits something of impressiveness. If I threaten 
you by saying “If you don’t give 'up your purse, you will in 
1950 be a dead man,” I fail to cause you serious alarm. To 
impress you forcibly, I even violate all common sense, by sub¬ 
stituting “You are a dead man.” In general, to maintain its 
vigor, a conclusion is put in that tense which most closely fol¬ 
lows the tense of the condition. 
Wow, the condition being put in the past, the tense which 
allows the closest sequence in time is the post-past, or future 
measured from that past. For, whatever be the time elapsing 
between a period in the past and any other subsequent period, 
the post-past alone can certainly include the initial moment of 
that time. Accordingly, my illustration may be completed as 
follows : “If men were horses, they would eat more oats.” 
That the verb of the conclusion in this case has complete as¬ 
sertive intensity, although by the condition restricted in scope 
—and that it should accordingly rank as. merely a tense-form 
of the indicative (and not at all as of another mode) even 
when, as in Latin, it is of the subjunctive form—has been ar¬ 
gued at some length in “Interrogatives,” pages 393 and 397, 
note. Long employment of “would eat” in usage of this na¬ 
ture has however dimmed perception of its value as only a 
tense. Such perception is easier in the Weo-Latin forms of the 
type exemplified by “mangeraient,” of which the meaning, 
historically established beyond a doubt, is “were to eat,” and 
which accordingly is plainly a future indicative reckoned from 
a point of starting, in the past. Indeed the assertive meaning, 
which should rank “would eat” as an indicative form, is plain 
present instant. “Remoter districts” are always still to be beard from. 
The untruth of men’s being horses, though confirmed by all reports 
thus far received, may have been overthrown by information still on 
the way. It is again the part of rhetorical prudence to put the untrue 
condition in that part of time in which it may have at least the look 
of being history. It is better then to use the past. 
15—S. & A. 
