FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   669   670   671   672   673   674   675   676   677   678   679   680   681   682   683   684   685   686   687   688   689   690   691   692   693  
694   695   696   697   698   699   700   701   702   703   704   705   706   707   708   709   710   711   712   713   714   715   716   717   718   >>   >|  
form_ of the Subjunctive; as, Love not sleep [,] lest thou _come_ to poverty. (3.) _If_ with _but_ following it, when futurity is denoted, requires the _elliptical form_; as, If he _do_ but _touch_ the hills, they shall smoke."--_Ib._, p. 126. As for this scheme, errors and inconsistencies mark every part of it. First, the rule for forming the subjunctive is false, and is plainly contradicted _by all that is true_ in the examples: "_If thou love_," or, "_If he love_" contains not the form of the indicative. Secondly, no terminations have ever been "generally" omitted from, or retained in, the form of the subjunctive present; because that part of the mood, as commonly exhibited, is well known to be made of the _radical verb_, without inflection. One might as well talk of suffixes for the imperative, "_Love_ thou," or "_Do_ thou love." Thirdly, _shall_ or _should_ can never be really implied in the subjunctive present; because the supposed ellipsis, needless and unexampled, would change the tense, the mood, and commonly also the meaning. "If he _shall_," properly implies a condition of _future certainty_; "If he _should_," a supposition of _duty_: the true subjunctive suggests neither of these. Fourthly, "the ellipsis of _shall_, or _should_," is most absurdly called above, "the omission of the _Indicative termination_." Fifthly, it is very strangely supposed, that to omit what pertains to the _indicative_ or the _potential_ mood, will produce an "elliptical form of _the Subjunctive_." Sixthly, such examples as the last, "If he _do_ but _touch_ the hills," having the auxiliary _do_ not inflected as in the indicative, disprove the whole theory. OBS. 10.--In J. B. Chandler's grammars, are taken nearly the same views of the "Subjunctive or Conditional Mood," that have just been noticed. "This mood," we are told, "is _only_ the indicative _or_ potential mood, with the word _if_ placed before the nominative case."--_Gram. of_ 1821, p. 48; _Gram. of_ 1847, p. 73. Yet, of even _this_, the author has said, in the former edition, "It would, perhaps, be _better to abolish the use_ of the subjunctive mood entirely. _Its use_ is a continual source of dispute among grammarians, and of perplexity to scholars."--Page 33. The suppositive verb _were_,--(as, "_Were_ I a king,"--"If I _were_ a king,"--) which this author formerly rejected, preferring _was_, is now, after six and twenty years, replaced in his own examples; and yet he still att
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   669   670   671   672   673   674   675   676   677   678   679   680   681   682   683   684   685   686   687   688   689   690   691   692   693  
694   695   696   697   698   699   700   701   702   703   704   705   706   707   708   709   710   711   712   713   714   715   716   717   718   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
subjunctive
 

indicative

 

examples

 
Subjunctive
 
ellipsis
 

supposed

 
potential
 

author

 
present
 

commonly


elliptical

 

noticed

 

Conditional

 

inflected

 

disprove

 

theory

 
auxiliary
 

Sixthly

 

grammars

 

nominative


Chandler

 
continual
 

source

 

rejected

 

dispute

 
preferring
 

scholars

 

perplexity

 

grammarians

 

abolish


replaced

 

suppositive

 

twenty

 

edition

 

condition

 
Secondly
 
contradicted
 

forming

 

plainly

 

terminations


radical

 

exhibited

 

retained

 
generally
 

omitted

 
futurity
 

denoted

 

poverty

 

requires

 

errors