loved, or did love; Perfect, If thou have loved; Pluperfect, If thou had loved; Future, If thou should or would love.”—­Staniford’s Gram., p. 22.  But there are no sufficient reasons for even this extension of its tenses.—­Fisk, speaking of this mood, says:  “Lowth restricts it entirely to the present tense.”—­“Uniformity on this point is highly desirable.”—­“On this subject, we adopt the opinion of Dr. Lowth.”—­English Grammar Simplified, p. 70.  His desire of uniformity he has both heralded and backed by a palpable misstatement.  The learned Doctor’s subjunctive mood, in the second person singular, is this:  “Present time.  Thou love; AND, Thou mayest love. Past time.  Thou mightest love; AND, Thou couldst, &c. love; and have loved.”—­Lowth’s Gram., p. 38.  But Fisk’s subjunctive runs thus:  “Indic. form, If thou lovest; varied form, If thou love.”  And again:  “Present tense, If thou art, If thou be; Imperfect tense, If thou wast, If thou wert.”—­Fisk’s Grammar Simplified, p. 70.  His very definition of the subjunctive mood is illustrated only by the indicative; as, “If thou walkest.”—­“I will perform the operation, if he desires it.”—­Ib., p. 69.  Comly’s subjunctive mood, except in some of his early editions, stands thus:  “Present tense, If thou lovest; Imperfect tense, If thou lovedst or loved; First future tense, If thou (shalt) love.”—­Eleventh Ed., p. 41.  This author teaches, that the indicative or potential, when preceded by an if, “should be parsed in the subjunctive mood.”—­Ib., p. 42.  Of what is in fact the true subjunctive, he says:  “Some writers use the singular number in the present tense of the 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.