the like, are used before verbs, they
lose their terminations of _est, eth_, and _s_, in those persons which
commonly have them. No speaker of good English, expressing himself
conditionally, says, Though thou _fallest_, or Though he _falls_, but,
Though thou _fall_, and Though he _fall_; nor, Though thou _camest_, but,
Though, or although, thou _came_."--_History of European Languages_, Vol.
i, p. 55.

OBS. 6.--Nothing is more important in the grammar of any language, than a
knowledge of the _true forms_ of its verbs. Nothing is more difficult in
the grammar of our own, than to learn, in this instance and some others,
what forms we ought to prefer. Yet some authors tell us, and Dr. Lowth
among the rest, that our language is wonderfully simple and easy. Perhaps
it is so. But do not its "simplicity and facility" appear greatest to those
who know least about it?--i.e., least of its grammar, and least of its
history? In citing a passage from the eighteenth chapter of Ezekiel, Lord
Kames has taken the liberty to change the word _hath_ to _have_ seven times
in one sentence. This he did, upon the supposition that the subjunctive
mood has a perfect tense which differs from that of the indicative; and for
such an idea he had the authority of Dr. Johnson's Grammar, and others. The
sentence is this: "But if he _be_ a robber, a shedder of blood; if he
_have_ eaten upon the mountains, and defiled his neighbour's wife; if he
_have_ oppressed the poor and needy, _have_ spoiled by violence, _have_ not
restored the pledge, _have lift_ up his eyes to idols, _have_ given forth
upon usury, and _have_ taken increase: shall he live? he shall not
live."--_Elements of Criticism_, Vol. ii, p. 261. Now, is this good
English, or is it not? One might cite about half of our grammarians in
favour of this reading, and the other half against it; with Murray, the
most noted of all, first on one side, and then on the other. Similar
puzzles may be presented concerning three or four other tenses, which are
sometimes ascribed, and sometimes denied, to this mood. It seems to me,
after much examination, that the subjunctive mood in English should have
_two tenses_, and no more; the _present_ and the _imperfect_. The present
tense of this mood naturally implies contingency and futurity, while the
imperfect here becomes an _aorist_, and serves to suppose a case as a mere
supposition, a case contrary to fact. Consequently the foregoing sentence,
if expressed by