you mad-here think is only another word for consider, and you may say shall or will, according to your feelings. In promissory answers, where there is no doubt of power, will is more satisfactory, as being more decisive, than shall. I shall think of your claim-here, the shall is only a may or perhaps, but will assures me that my claim is to be taken into consideration. In promises where nothing is asked, shall is generally preferred, but this has been already explained.

Should and if are sometimes the same. Should his father hear of it, he will be vexed. Put if in place of should, and there will not be a shade of difference. For in the present instance, any strained conception of a past sense to should, is unworthy of notice, and I take the opportunity to compli ment Mr. Lennie, for venturing to insert in his grammar, some excellent observations on this head. Speaking of the "auxiliaries" he says, "the precise time is generally determined by the drift or scope of the sentence, or rather by the adverb or participle that is subjoined or understood, and not by these auxiliaries." This is a cruel blow to the schoolmen. It deprives them of a constant source of harmless amusement, in displaying a vast fund of learning to prove, what no one ever denied that the " auxiliaries," particularly must and ought, "appear," to have, occasionally, a present and past time or signification.

Having already given you an example where none of the signs" can be substituted for would, I shall now present should in a similar situation. When you say, I should not now know John if I saw him, it means, that his features have glided out of your recollection, but would gives us to understand, that you do not choose to know him. This is, indeed, a very important difference, but here Englishmen do not make mistakes-it is for the benefit of the Scotch and Irish that the remark is offered, and since my hand is in, I may as well give them another warning, about a blunder which is confined to them. They ask, will I, instead of shall I, as the English do, and this is a great fault. When asked, will I go? will I do this or that? it would be a proper answer to ask in turn, How can I tell whether you will or no? It is folly to argue that the construction holds good in the most refined

tongues, and even in German which has its sollen or shall. Every language has its own peculiarities, and this is, I think, a great beauty in English. It invests shall with all the various shades of permission or opinion, for, shall I go to the meeting? may mean, according to the station of the person addressed, may I go, is it your wish that I go, do you think it right for me to go, to the meeting? But we often use if and should, though it is plain tautology, thus, If his father should hear of it. Leaving out the should, we have complete and grammatical sense, for it is but a disguised repetition of if under the name of should—indeed, according to Horne Tooke, they are here the same, for he says, that if signifies granted, and certainly so does should, when put in its place. Must it not, therefore, be a great breach of propriety to say, If his father should hear of it? However, as the double contingency is sanctioned by the first writers, we cannot object to its use. I have offered my remarks only to show you what various shapes and forms those little important words sometimes assume. Here is should precisely the same thing as if, while its root shall has no such bearing. Shall his father hear of it becomes interrogative, and, since shall cannot take the place of if, it seems to make the conditional future character somewhat stronger, by saying, If his father shall hear of it, he will be vexed.

I shall now proceed to show, why the term CONJUGATORS is preferable to "signs," or "auxiliary," or "helping," or "defective verbs." There are, in reality, but three auxiliary verbs in our language, that of existence to be, that of possession to have, and that of action to do. These are truly verbs, because they have not only infinitives but active and passive participles. When an English verb loses its infinitive, it ceases to be a verb, and it ought to take some other title. But suppose I admit, to quiet the grammatical "dogs of war," that it may be called a defective verb, will they insist that words, like some of our conjugators, as must or can, which perhaps never had infinitives, should be called verbs? To me it appears of no consequence whether they ever had infinitives, for I maintain that will, which has the strongest claim, is, as a conjugator, Now very different from the verb

to will, and our grammarians, by confounding them, prevent their being clearly understood.

Mr. Walker gives "SHALL, v. def.," and "WILL, v. a." It is time to lay aside distinctions that tend to nothing but misconception. As an active verb, will is now so oldfashioned, that it may be very fairly considered obsolete. Who uses it at the present day? Who says I will that you or I willed, I have or had willed, I shall will, I might will, or any of its regular verbal constructions? Should any one now understand the imperative will? No. Instead of Will

that, we now say, Order or Command that.

It is, indeed,

still continued in a testamentary sense, nor do I wish to disturb that application, but in any other usage, it is only a kind of metonymy, for, I would that he may reform is nothing more than I wish that he may reform.

Will has, therefore, virtually, and by common consent, laid down its claims as a verb, except for testamentary expression, and even there, bequeathed and leave have nearly extinguished it. How then can we call it an auxiliary verb, when it is, evidently, but a sort of stronger shall? Take it in its undisputed verbal form, and what is the result of that test? If I say I will my house, it tells nothing, though in a sense the most advantageous-we ask, To whom? But our three real auxiliaries have no such defects. I am a man, or my own cook, I have a horse, I do my duty, or my own business, are expressions that stand alone and unsupported. The auxiliaries themselves, however, can be only partially varied or inflected without the conjugators, which are, to all intents and purposes, the same as the different terminations in Latin and other languages. I therefore respectfully submit, that the name, CONJUGATORS, which I have adopted, be henceforth their designation. It removes much distracting ambiguity, tells, at once, the parts that they have to play in the grammatical drama, gives the pupil an instantaneous conception of their duties, and saves a great deal of very unprofitable discussion.

The inflection of English verbs is effected by the three auxiliaries mentioned, to be, to have, and to do, and ten words which are properly our conjugators :—

Thus is the whole business of English conjugation managed. If is only a word generally selected, to explain subjunctive or conditional construction, for others, as lest, though, unless, and even whether, or except, would answer the purpose. The same may be said of let, for, though not a conjunction, it no more belongs to the imperative, than if does to the subjunctive mood. Let is a perfect verb of itself, and has a meaning similar to permit, though formerly it implied the opposite, to hinder, as where Hamlet exclaims, "I'll make a ghost of him that lets me." Mr. Lennie has, very judiciously, excluded it from the imperative, and gives only the second person, singular and plural. He also evinces good judgment in rejecting so many tenses from the subjunctive, and referring them to the indicative, mood, but he ought to have given the past or imperfect of the passive thus, Were I loved, or if I were loved, and so on through the persons. That would show the true dignity of the mood, to which it is entitled, when not absolutely depending upon if or any other conjunction. We see that even the present tense can work by itself, for, instead of, If I be loved, we can say, Be I, or any of the other persons, loved. No one who understands English, could mistake the sense of this, Be I loved, or be I not, I will court the lady. There can be no grammatical objection-the only charge is, that it appears quaint or unfashionable, like our discarded hath. All those subjunctive or imperative examples that require conjunctions or extraneous verbs are, therefore, nothing more than ordinarily constructed sentences, and do not properly belong to English conjugation.

But grammarians may be alarmed at this word conjugator, lest it might put them under the necessity of admitting a new part of speech. There is no reasonable ground for any fear in this respect. What are the verbal terminations in

other languages but conjugators? As well might one say, that our genitive case is a part of speech. We may still keep sacred the tuneful Nine, without the slightest danger of misleading the youthful pupil :

Q. What are conjugators?

A. They are certain words that were, in ancient times, verbs, but which, from the difficulty of managing them in that manner, were insensibly stripped of their verbal functions, and now only serve for conjugation, as change of termination in other languages.

Q. How many conjugators are there?

A. Ten. Here name them.

Q. To what part of speech do they belong?

A. As they were formerly verbs, we may still consider them as belonging to the fifth, but in parsing we call them conjugators, as more plainly denoting their present use.

So far, to quiet the fears of innovation in grammar systems, and questions like the following might safely elucidate times :

Q. Are the derivatives always the past times of their roots?

A. Not now, though they formerly were, for the different times of them, as well as of their roots, are chiefly denoted by the words that precede or follow. Q. Is this the reason that must and ought, which have no derivatives, appear occasionally in different times?

A. Yes.

The following will explain some of the uses of our conjugators, for it would be very difficult to comprise them all, in any exhibition of examples :

I CAN do it, and I think I WILL-SO COULD John if he woULD but take courage, though I SHOULD not like to urge him, because his father MIGHT be displeased. We SHALL find, however, that John MAY lawfully do it, but he MUST be responsible himself, for he OUGHT to consult his father.

Having mentioned the verb to love, of which our grammar writers are so fond, I cannot forbear saying a word upon the subject. As it is of the greatest importance that things should, as nearly as possible, have their right names and functions, especially when we undertake instruction, this word is a most unfortunate selection, and I am certain that it much retards the improvement of the pupil. But grammarians too often work mechanically-not intellectually. Would they but mentally consider this word through all its moods and tenses, its inefficiency, nay its absurdity, as an explicator, must be manifest.

Every school-child has a notion of what love is, and can understand it even beyond the sense of esteem. Love can. ot