S. What are moods?

M. The various ways of considering the action affirmed, either by itself, or with respect to other events with which it is compared, with respect to the time of the performance, or relation thereof.

S. How many moods are there?

M. Five; the infinitive (including the participle), indicative or affirmative, imperative, conditional, and subjunctive.

S. What do you mean by the word conjugation.

M. This word, which is borrowed from the Latin, signifies union, assemblage. The conjugation of a verb is the regular arrangement of all its endings or terminations, according to its moods, tenses, number, and persons: to conjugate a verb, is to recite the whole of it, beginning at the infinitive.

French grammarians have observed, that different verbs of the same termination in the infinitive have similar endings in their corresponding tenses; they therefore range them into one class, which they also term a conjugation. They successively made the number of those conjugations amount to four, six, seven, ten, eleven, twelve, and thirteen,— designated as regular verbs. They afterwards collected all the verbs ending alike in the infinitive, but deviating from their models in the terminations of the other tenses; and these, by way of contrast, they designated IRREGULAR VERBS. The IRREGULAR VERBS were next assorted into various classes.

Considerable and successful experience, in an extensive line of tuition, has authorised me to adopt a system of conjugation, the simplicity of which will, I trust, recommend it.

S. Be kind enough to impart it.

M. With pleasure. I admit eight regular conjugations, and eight classes of irregulars, as follow:

EIGHT REGULAR CONJUGATIONS.

TABLE 1.

1. er; as, porter, to carry.

2. ir; as, punir, to punish.

3. tir, vir, or mir; as sentir, servir, dormir, to feel, to serve, to

sleep.

4. enir; as, tenir, to hold.

5. evoir; as, recevoir, to receive. 6. re; as, vendre, to sell.

7. uire; as, traduire, to translate.

8, indre; as, joindre, peindre, craindre, to join, to paint, to fear.

By a free command of the conjugation of the foregoing, you will be enabled to conjugate about 4700 verbs, 4051 of which, including those which have been introduced since the French Revolution, belong to the first conjugation.

S. Do the foregoing tables embrace the conjugation of the whole? M. Not entirely. A few remaining ones, which I could not possibly class, will be found in the alphabetical order of conjugation in this work, following the eight classes of irregulars above mentioned.

CONVERSATION IX.*

OF MOODS AND TENSES.

Scholar. Having much to ask, concerning your system of conjugation, exemplified in porter, be pleased first to let me know what you mean by the infinitive mood?

Master. The infinitive simply expresses the action in itself, without any reference to person and number; from its independence in that respect, it is called infinitive, which means, unlimited or unbounded. Another property, which, in a conspicuous manner, distinguishes it from the other moods, is, that it admits of some prepo

• This conversation.is to be attended to as-soon-as the conjugation of porter is committed to memory.

sitions before it, like the nouns, and even, like them, serves as a subject or object in the phrase; while some infinitives, in French, will admit the article before them, as we have before observed. S. What is the participle?

M. The participle, which some grammarians have made a distinct mood from the infinitive, takes its name from the double part it performs, first, by expressing an action, like the verb; and, secondly, by possessing, like an adjective, the property of being affirmed of a subject.

S. What is the indicative?

M. A mood, the tenses of which directly express the existence of an action at the different times at which it took place, without forming any contrast with that of another; the indicative, with which other modes cau seldom dispense, thus becomes independent. It is conspicuous in affirmation or narrative, and hence proceed the names of affirmative or declarative, which some grammarians have judiciously conferred on it.

S. I confess, that I have been much astonished to see the denominations, present-anterior, present-anterior-periodical, present-posterior, &c. substituted for the ancient and established terms, imperfect, perfect, preterite, &c. and I am apprehensive that this innovation, unless supported by decisive argument, will be strenuously oppugned by the disapprobation, if not opposition, of tutors in general.

M. After a long and serious deliberation, I have adopted the system of the celebrated and profound grammarian, Bauzée, from a full conviction of its truth and simplicity; but by no means through the spirit of innovation, or the pride of singularity, so baneful to the advancement of science.

By an explanation of the use of the tenses, you will be competent to judge and decide whether my denominations are properly adapted, and whether they are calculated to impress the scholar with so clear an idea of their use in language, as may demand a preference to for

mer terms.

I call the old imperfect, present-anterior; first, because it expresses an idea of presence; and, secondly, because it strikes the mind with a clear notion of anteriority, or what is past; but, as the idea of presence is the principal, while that of anteriority is subordinate, we term the tense primarily present (which seemed a paradox to you) and then anterior. An example, in a familiar phrase, will, I am confident, convince you of the propriety of this denomination. EXAMPLE-Je portais vos livres, lorsque vous m'avez recontré; I was carrying your books when you met with me. My meaning is, not to inform you that the action of carrying was elapsed, but that it was on a level, or co-existed, with the time of meeting with you, which makes it present with that time. The idea of anteriority, or what is past, afterwards arises from comparing the circumstance with the present ut

terance of speech, which is a fixed point, determining the different periods of time, in our social communications.

The term present-anterior is, therefore, so expressive, that it must certainly be adopted, by those who would express themselves with precision, and conceive accurate ideas of the objects of their studies.

The addition of periodical, to present-anterior, to denote the next tense, which is called by most grammarians preterite, is also founded in reason, and declarative of the nice distinction between the two tenses, which, being synonymous, in some degree, as they imply ideas both of presence and anteriority, learners are apt to confound. It is now my business to explain its signification.

Periodical is derived from period, a portion of time circumscribed and determinate; for instance, when I say-Je portai hier votre lettre à la poste; I carried your letter yesterday to the post-office; the action of carrying is performed within the bounds of yesterday, a space of fixed time, and is present with respect to that day, which I mean to express therefore, the term, periodical, joined to the two others, fully explaining the meaning of this tense, recommends its adoption. I must observe, however, that you could not say, Je portai ce matin, &c. I carried this morning, &c. J'ai porté ce matin, must be used; this tense being devoted to the relation of transactions which have happened within such periods as yesterday, the week past, the month past, &c.

As I have now maintained the propriety of using the present-anterior, &c. in the place of the imperfect and preterite, I have to prove that the future is well termed the present-posterior; for instanceJe porterai demain vos effets à bord du paquebot ; I will carry your goods to-morrow on board the packet. This manner of expression, (Je porterai demain,) is, to all intents and purposes, a present tense, relative to a time posterior to the immediate utterance of speech, as being the equivalent of Je porte demain, which is certainly a present posterior. Je porterai demain, which fills the place of Je porte demain, is therefore justly denominated a present posterior, and not a future. But, as many may not be convinced of the propriety of substituting the new for the old denominations, in order to give genera. satisfaction, we have brought both into use at the same time.*

S. Are the present-anterior, or imperfect, and present-anterior-periodical, or preterite, always looked upon as presents?

• Condillac expresses his opinion of the old terms for the tenses of verbs in the following manner: "For my part, I confess, I could never understand what they (the grammarians) meant by imperfect, perfect, pluperfect, &c.—I understand better what they mean by simple and compound. These names denote, at least, the forms which the verb assumes when past: but they do not express any of the accessories which the former awake. It is, however, after these accessories, that the tenses should have been named."This is what we have endeavoured to do.

M. Yes; when compared with the fixed time expressed in the respective sentences above mentioned; but, deprived of this, they can no longer be considered present; if compared, then, with the present utterance of speech only, which embraces them as anterior, they become past tenses, and simply remain so: on this account, you may with propriety, as no determinate period is mentioned, use either of the following phrases:

"Les médecins portaient des perruques

"Les médecins portèrent des perruques Physicians were wigs.
"Les médecins ont porté des perruques

I must observe also, that, by depriving the present-posterior of the determinate period, it becomes a real future.

S. I begin to understand the nervous simplicity of the new system, and already behold the strong light it has thrown on the use of the tenses you mention, by the introduction of the terms anterior, anterior-periodical, &c. which have been so fitly adapted to the subject. May these terms, however, be with equal propriety applied to the past tenses?

M. Equally; and this must finally reconcile you to our system, together with those who may first oppose it, on account of its apparent novelty and singularity. I shall have recourse to examples, to satisfy you in this respect.

When you tell me, for instance, J'avais écrit lorsque vous êtes entré; I had written when you came in: what idea do you wish to convey to me? Is it not, that your action of writing was completed when my coming took place? This coming-in of mine is anterior to your present utterance of speech to me, and of course past; it is, therefore, denominated, as expressing a double view of the mind, a past-anterior; it is called in many grammars a compound of the imperfect.

The past-anterior periodical, or compound of the preterite, is much the same with the above, except that it is periodical; that is to say, it expresses the existence of an action anterior to another action, transacted in a period entirely elapsed. It is exemplified in the following sentence: J'eus écrit hier à midi; I had written yesterday at twelve o'clock.

With regard to the past-posterior, or compound of the future, when you say, J'aurai fait mes affaires quand vous viendrez; I shall have finished my business when you come; your intention is to show, that the action of finishing your business is past, with regard to my coming, which is subsequently to take place; it is, therefore, with propriety, denominated a past-posterior?

S. What is the difference between je porterai (when without the determinate period it becomes a future), and je dois porter, which seems invariably a future, in your conjugation?

M. The difference is this: je porterai indicates a strong resolution