and as those combinations which go by the name of compound tenses and passive verbs, are necessary in writing and discourse, it follows, conclusively, that that theory which does not explain these verbs in their combined state, cannot teach the student 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 adopt it.  It has the advantage of being new; and, moreover, it sounds large, and will make the commonalty stare.  Let it be distinctly understood, that you teach "philosophical grammar, founded on reason and common sense,” and you will pass for a very learned man, and make all the good housewives wonder at the rapid march of intellect, and the vast improvements of the age.

    MOOD.