Owen—-Interrogative Thought—Means of Its Expression . 397 
possible, I think, to exhibit, as apparent only, all exceptions* 
and especially the exception offered by the imperative. 
c. the imperative judgment (expressed by a command ). 
The fallacy of the imperative mode. 
By ranking imperative expressions as modally different from 
the assertive forms of the' indicative, grammarians create an em¬ 
barrassment, of'which I wish to rid myself, so far as may be, by 
discrediting the authority of Grammar. As an indication that 
this authority ought not to be trusted, I note that forms like “to 
fell” are, in the grammars of some languages, ranked as the 
causative mode of “to fall.” As “to fall” and “to fell” have 
each its own indicative, subjunctive, etc.; and as some gram¬ 
marians further recognize “conditional” modes of both indica¬ 
tive and subjunctive value (as in some Spanish Grammars) ; it 
may be imagined how a rational mind will fare with modes of 
modes, continuable, if fortitude fail not, to the nth degree of 
absurdity. 
Again, if “to fell” must rank as a mode of some other verb, 
I cannot confine myself to conceiving it as the causal mode of 
falling. So far as. meaning goes—and even also mental domi¬ 
nance—it seems to me that felling (and raising) are much more 
modes of causing, than of falling (and rising)—modes 
which, at a. pinch, might bear the names of cadent and ascendant 
modes of causing. So too with “Move!”; I cannot perceive it 
solely as the imperative or commanding mode of motion; I must 
also see it as the mobile mode of command. 
*Thus the subjunctive (or other mode) in the conclusion of a com 
dition, I should rank as a pseudo-subjunctive with really full assertive 
“intensity”. For, even at its weakest, the conclusion is what I be¬ 
lieve to be true in impossible cases (see p. 393); and such restriction of 
cases can hardly more invalidate assertion (or belief in truth) than 
restriction to no cases at all, as in “Lemons never exceed oranges”. 
Yet, so far as I have observed, no claim is made that in this sentence 
“exceed” is stripped of any assertive intensity, although the scope of 
assertion is obviously reduced to zero. Again, as the merest piece of 
introspection, I note that, answering your “If you were three men, you 
wouldn’t eat more”, my “Yes, I should” appears to me to be as dis¬ 
tinctly an assertion as any “shall” or “did” that I could utter. 
