“Some writers have given our moods a much greater extent than we have assigned to them.  They assert that the english language may be said, without any great impropriety, to have as many moods as it has auxiliary verbs; and they allege, in support of their opinion, that the compound expression which they help to form, point out those various dispositions and actions, which, in other languages, are expressed by moods.  This would be to multiply the moods without advantage.  It is, however, certain, that the conjugation or variation of verbs, in the english language, is effected, almost entirely, by the means of auxiliaries.  We must, therefore, accommodate ourselves to this circumstance; and do that by their assistance, which has been done in the learned languages (a few instances to the contrary excepted) in another manner, namely, by varying the form of the verb itself.  At the same time, it is necessary to set proper bounds to this business, so as not to occasion obscurity and perplexity, when we mean to be simple and perspicuous.  Instead, therefore, of making a separate mood for every auxiliary verb, and introducing moods interrogative, optative, promissive, hortative, precative, &c., we have exhibited such only as are obviously distinct; and which, whilst they are calculated to unfold and display the subject intelligibly to the learner, seem to be sufficient, and not more than sufficient, to answer all the purposes for which moods were introduced.

“From grammarians who form their ideas, and make their decisions, respecting this part of english grammar, on the principles and constructions of languages which, in these points, do not suit the peculiar nature of our own, but differ considerably from it, we may naturally expect grammatical schemes that are not very perspicuous nor perfectly consistent, and which will tend more to perplex than to inform the learner.”

Had he followed this rule, he would have saved weeks and months to every student in grammar in the community.  But his remarks were aimed at Mr. Harris, who was by far the most popular writer on language in England at that time.  He has adopted the very rules of Mr. Murray, and carried them out.  By a careful observance of the different forms and changes of the verb and its auxiliaries, he makes out quite evidently to his own mind, fourteen moods, which I forbear to name.

Most grammarians contend for five moods, two of which, the potential or powerful, and the subjunctive, are predicated on the same principles as Mr. Harris’ optative, interrogative, etc., which they condemn.  It is impossible to explain the character of these moods so as to be understood. If, it is said, is the sign of the subjunctive, and may and can of the potential; and yet they are often found together; as, “I will go if I can.”  No scholar can determine in what mood to put this last verb.  It of right belongs to both the potential and subjunctive. If I may be allowed to speak my mind, I should say that such distinctions were false.