e
subjunctive mood, without any variation; as, 'if I _love_, if thou _love_,
if he _love_.' But this usage _must be ranked amongst the anomalies_ of our
language."--_Ib._, p. 41. Cooper, in his pretended "_Abridgment of Murray's
Grammar, Philad._, 1828," gave to the subjunctive mood the following form,
which contains all six of the tenses: "2d pers. If thou love, If thou do
love, If thou loved, If thou did love, If thou have loved, If thou had
loved, If thou shall (or will) love, If thou shall (or will) have loved."
This is almost exactly what Murray at first adopted, and afterwards
rejected; though it is probable, from the abridger's preface, that the
latter was ignorant of this fact. Soon afterwards, a perusal of Dr.
Wilson's Essay on Grammar dashed from the reverend gentleman's mind the
whole of this fabric; and in his "Plain and Practical Grammar, Philad.,
1831," he acknowledges but four moods, and concludes some pages of argument
thus: "From the above considerations, it will appear _to every sound
grammarian_, that our language does not admit a subjunctive mode, at least,
separate and distinct from the indicative and potential."--_Cooper's New
Gram._, p. 63.

OBS. 8.--The true _Subjunctive_ mood, in English, is virtually rejected by
some later grammarians, who nevertheless acknowledge under that name a
greater number and variety of forms than have ever been claimed for it in
any other tongue. All that is peculiar to the Subjunctive, all that should
constitute it a distinct mood, they represent as an archaism, an obsolete
or antiquated mode of expression, while they willingly give to it every
form of both the indicative and the potential, the two other moods which
sometimes follow an _if_. Thus Wells, in his strange entanglement of the
moods, not only gives to the subjunctive, as well as to the indicative, a
"Simple" or "Common Form," and a "Potential Form;" not only recognizes in
each an "Auxiliary Form," and a "Progressive Form;" but encumbers the whole
with distinctions of style,--with what he calls the "Common Style," and the
"Ancient Style;" or the "Solemn Style," and the "Familiar Style:" yet,
after all, his own example of the Subjunctive, "Take heed, lest any man
_deceive_ you," is obviously different from all these, and not explainable
under any of his paradigms! Nor is it truly consonant with any part of his
theory, which is this: "The subjunctive of all verbs except _be_, takes
_the same form as the indicat