dent the
correct use and application of the verbs of our language. By such an
arrangement, he cannot learn when it is proper to use the phrases,
_shall have walked, might have gone, have seen_, instead of, _shall
walk, might go_, and _saw_; because this theory has nothing to do
with the combining of verbs. If it be alleged, that the speaker or
writer's own good sense must guide him in combining these verbs,
and, therefore, that the directions of the grammarian are
unnecessary, it must be recollected, that such an argument would
bear, equally, against every principle of grammar whatever. In
short, the theory of the compound tenses, and of the passive verb,
appears to be so firmly based in the genius of our language, and so
practically important to the student, as to defy all the engines of
the paralogistic speculator, and the philosophical quibbler, to
batter it down.

But the most plausible objection to the old theory is, that it is
encumbered with much useless technicality and tedious prolixity,
which are avoided by the _simple_ process of exploding the passive
verb, and reducing the number of the moods to three, and of the
tenses to two. It is certain, however, that if we reject the _names_
of the perfect, pluperfect, and future tenses, the _names_ of the
potential and subjunctive moods, and of the passive verb, in writing
and discourse we must still employ those _verbal combinations_ which
form them; and it is equally certain, that the proper mode of
employing such combinations, is as easily taught or learned by the
old theory, which _names_ them, as by the new, which gives them _no
name_.

On philosophical principles, we might, perhaps, dispense with the
_future_ tenses of the verb, by analyzing each word separately; but,
as illustrated on page 79, the combined words which form our perfect
and pluperfect tenses have an _associated_ meaning, which is
destroyed by analyzing each word separately. That arrangement,
therefore, which rejects these tenses, appears to be, not only
_unphilosophical_, but inconsistent and inaccurate.

For the satisfaction of those teachers who prefer it, and for their
adoption, too, a modernized _philosophical_ theory of the moods and
tenses is here presented. If it is not quite so convenient and
useful as the old one, they need not hesitate to