The passive by the addition of the letter r=s to the person-endings of the active forms, with the exceptions mentioned before. second person plural of the passive is of such rare occurrence, that we cannot draw any decided conclusions respecting it; but if such a form as audi-ébamini occurred, it would certainly occasion some difficulty; for one could scarcely understand how the é, which seems to be the augment of the auxiliary suffix, could appear in this apparently participial form. Without stopping to inquire whether we have any instances of the kind, or whether ama-bamini might not be a participle as well as ama-bundus (compare ama-bilis, &c.), it is sufficient to remark that when the origin of a form is forgotten, a false analogy is often adopted and maintained. This secondary process is fully exemplified by the Greek ἐτίθεσαν, τυπτέτωσαν, &c. New Crat. § 363). Nor need we find any stumblingblock in the appendage of passive endings to this neuter auxiliary verb. For the construction of neuter verbs with a passive affix is common enough in Latin (e. g. peccatur, ventum est, &c.); and the passive infinitive fieri, and the usual periphrasis of iri with the supine, for the future infinitive of a passive verb, furnish us with indubitable instances of a similar inflexion. We might suppose that the Latin future was occasionally formed periphrastically with eo as an auxiliary like the Greek a λéywv, Fr. j'allois dire, "I was going to say." If so, amatum eo, amatum ire, would be the active futures of the indicative and infinitive, to which the passive forms amatum cor, amatum iri, would correspond. The latter of these actually occurs, and, indeed, is the only known form of the passive infinitive future. § 11. The Modal Distinctions—their Syntax. Properly speaking, there are only three main distinctions of mood in the forms of the Latin and Greek verb, namely, the indicative, the imperative, and the infinitive. The Greek grammars practically assign five distinct moods to the regular verb, namely, the indicative, imperative, conjunctive, optative, and infinitive. But it has been already proved (New Crat. § 388), that, considered in their relation to one another and to the other moods, the Greek conjunctive and optative must be regarded as differing in tense only. The Latin grammarians are contented with four moods, namely, the indicative, subjunctive, imperative, and infinitive; and according to this arrangement, the present subjunctive Latin answers to the Greek conjunctive, while the imperfect subjunctive Latin finds its equivalent in the optative of the Greek verb: for instance, scribo, ut discas corresponds to γράφω, ἵνα μανθάνης, and scripsi, ut disceres to ἔγραψα, ἵνα paveávois. If, however, we extend the syntactical comparison a little farther, we shall perhaps be induced to conclude that there is not always the same modal distinction between the Latin indicative and subjunctive which we find in the opposition of the Greek indicative to the conjunctive + optative. Thus, to take one or two instances, among many which might be adduced, one of the first lessons which the Greek student has to learn is, to distinguish accurately between the four cases of protasis and apodosis, and, among these, more especially between the third, in which two optatives are used, and the fourth, in which two past tenses of the indicative are employed'. Now the Latin syntax makes no such distinction between the third and fourth cases, only taking care in the fourth case to use past tenses, and in the third case, where the hypothesis is possible, to employ present tenses of the subjunctive mood. Thus, e.g., in the third 1 This is, indeed, a very simple and obvious matter: but it may be convenient to some readers, if I subjoin a tabular comparison of the Greek and Latin usages in this respect. The classification is borrowed from Buttmann's Mittlere Grammatik, § 139 (p. 394, Lachmann's edition, 1833). 1. Possibility without the expression of uncertainty: εἴ τι ἔχει, δίδωσι (δός) = si quid habet, dat (da). 2. Uncertainty with the prospect of decision: ἐάν τι ἔχωμεν, δώσομεν = si quid habeamus, dabimus. 3. Uncertainty without any such subordinate idea: 4. Impossibility, or when we wish to indicate that the thing is not so: (6) εἴ τι ἔσχεν, ἔδωκεν ἄν = si quid habuisset, dedisset. The distinction between cases (3) and (4) is also observed in the expression of a wish: thus, utinam salvus sis! pronounces no opinion respecting the health of the party addressed; but utinam salvus esses! implies that he is no longer in good health. case: si hoc nunc vociferari velim, me dies, vox, latera deficiant; where we should have in Greek: ei TOUTO EV TO παραυτίκα γεγωνεῖν ἐθέλοιμι, ἡμέρας ἄν μοι καὶ φωνῆς καὶ σlévovs évdenσELEV. In the fourth case: (a) si scirem, dicerem σθένους ἐνδεήσειεν. ei åv. = εἰ ἠπιστάμην, ἔλεγον ἄν. (b) si voluissem plura, non negasses = εἰ πλεόνων ἐπεθύμησα, οὐκ ἂν ἠρνήσω. And this âv confusion becomes greater still, when, by a rhetorical figure, the impossible is supposed possible; as in Ter. Andr. II. 1, 10: tu si hic sis, aliter sentias. For in this instance the only difference between the two cases, which is one of tense, is overlooked. In the apodosis of case 4, b, the Romans sometimes used the plusquam-perfectum of the indicative, as in Seneca, de Ira, I. 11: perierat imperium, si Fabius tantum ausus esset, quantum ira suadebat; and Horace, II. Carm. 17, 27: me truncus illapsus cerebro sustulerat, nisi Faunus ictum dextra levasset. Sometimes the perfect was used in this apodosis, as in Juvenal, X. 123: Antoni gladios potuit contemnere, si sic omnia dixisset; or even the imperfect, as in Tacitus, Annal. XII. 39: nec ideo fugam sistebat, ni legiones pugnam excepissent. Again, particles of time, like donec, require the subjunctive when future time is spoken of; as in Hor. I. Epist. 20, 10: carus eris Romæ, donec te deserat atas. But this becomes a past tense of the indicative when past time is referred to; as in Hor. I. Epist. 10, 36: cervus equum-pellebat-donec [equus] imploravit opes hominis frænumque recepit. The confusion between the Latin indicative and subjunctive is also shown by the use of the subjunctive present as a future indicative (a phenomenon equally remarkable in Greek, New Crat. § 393), and conversely by the employment of the periphrastic future (which is, after all, the same kind of form as the ordinary composite form of the future indicative) as an equivalent for a tense of the subjunctive mood. Thus Cicero uses dicam and dicere instituo in the same construction; Phil. I. 1: "antequam de republica dicam ea, quæ dicenda hoc tempore arbitror, exponam breviter consilium profectionis meæ." Pro Murena, 1: "antequam pro L. Murena dicere instituo, pro me ipso pauca dicam." And we have always the indicative in apodosis to the subjunctive when the future in -rus is used: e. g. Liv. XXXVIII. 47: "si tribuni prohiberent, testes citaturus fui" (for "citarem"); and Cic. Verr. III. 52: “illi ipsi aratores, qui remanserant, relicturi omnes agros erant” (for "reliquissent"), "nisi ad eos Metellus Roma literas misisset." The Romans also used the perfect subjunctive exactly as the Greeks used their perfect indicative with xal Sn in suppositions. On the whole, it must be confessed that the Latin subjunctive, meaning by that term the set of tenses which are formed by the insertion of -i-, differs modally from the indicative only in this, that it is uniformly employed in dependent clauses where the idiom of the language repudiates the indicative; and it is not a little remarkable, that in almost all these cases-in all, except when final particles are used, or when an indirect question follows a past tense-the indicative is expressly required in Greek syntax. The title subjunctive, therefore, does but partially characterise the Latin tenses in -i-; and their right to a separate modal classification is scarcely less doubtful than that of the Greek optative as distinguished from the conjunctive. The differences between the indicative, imperative, and infinitive equally exist between the two latter and the subjunctive. The indicative and subjunctive alone possess a complete apparatus of person-endings; the imperative being sometimes merely the crude form of the verb, and the infinitive being strictly impersonal. § 12. Forms of the Infinitive and Participle-how connected in derivation and meaning. He who would investigate accurately the forms of the Latin language must always regard the infinitive as standing in intimate connexion with the participles. There are, in fact, three distinct forms of the Latin infinitive: (a) the residuum of an abstractum verbale in -sis, which remains uninflected; (b) a similar verbal in -tus, of which two cases are employed; (c) the participial word in -ndus, which is used both as three cases of the infinitive governing the object of the verb, and also as an adjective in concord with the object. There are also three forms of the participle: (a) one in -ns= -nts, sometimes lengthened into -ndus; (B) another in -tus; and a third (y) in -tūrus. The participle in -ns is always active; its by-form in -ndus is properly active, though it often seems to be passive. The participle in -tus is always passive, except when derived from a deponent verb, in which case it corresponds in meaning to the Greek aorist middle. The participle in -tūrus is always active and future. It is, in fact, an extension of the noun of agency in -tor; compare prætor, prætura; scriptor, scriptura, &c. with the corresponding future in -turus of præo, scribo, &c. (see New Crat. $267). The Greek future participle is sometimes used as a mere expression of agency; thus we have in Soph. Antig. 261: οὐδ ̓ ὁ κωλύσων παρῆν. Aristot. Εth. Nic. II. 1, § 7: οὐδὲν ἂν ἔδει τοῦ διδάξοντος—where we should use the mere nouns of agency" the make-peace"" the teacher." Now it is impossible to take an instructive view of these forms without considering them together. The participle in -turus (y) is a derivative from the verbal in -tus (b); and it would be difficult to avoid identifying the participle in -ndus and the corresponding gerundial infinitive. In the following remarks, therefore, I shall presume, what has been proved elsewhere (New Crat. § 416), the original identity of the infinitive and the participle. That the verbal (a), which acts as the ordinary infinitive in re-se, is derived from the crude form of the verb by the addition of a pronominal ending si- or sy-, is clear, no less from the analogy of the Æolic Greek forms in -s, where the is transposed (comp. N. Crat. § 410, (3)), than from the original form of the passive, which is -rier--syer, and not merely -rer. This infinitive, therefore, is the indeclinable state of a derivative precisely similar to the Greek nouns in -σις (πρᾶξις, ῥῆ-σις, &c.), which express the action of the verb. This Greek ending in -σs appears to have been the same in effect as another ending in Tús, which, however, is of less frequent occurrence (en-Tús, ἐδη-τύς, ὀρχησ-τύς, &c.), but which may be compared with the Latin infinitive (b) in -tum, -tu, (the supine, as it is called), and with the Sanscrit gerund in -tva. The verbal in -tus, which is assumed as the origin of these supines, must be carefully distinguished from the passive participle (B) in -tus. For it appears, from forms like venum, &c., and the Oscan infinitives moltaum, &c., that the t of the supine is not organic, but that the infinitive (b) is formed like the infinitive (a) by a suffix belonging to the second pronominal element, so that the labial (u=v) is an essential part of the ending. On the other hand, the participle (6) has merely a dental suffix derived from the third pronomi |