[260] “The substantive form, or, as it is commonly termed, infinitive mood, contains at the same time the essence of verbal meaning, and the literal ROOT on which all inflections of the verb are to be grafted.  This character being common to the infinitive in all languages, it [this mood] ought to precede the [other] moods of verbs, instead of being made to follow them, as is absurdly practised in almost all grammatical systems.”—­Enclytica, p. 14.

[261] By this, I mean, that the verb in all the persons, both singular and plural, is the same in form.  But Lindley Murray, when he speaks of not varying or not changing the termination of the verb, most absurdly means by it, that the verb is inflected, just as it is in the indicative or the potential mood; and when he speaks of changes or variations of termination, he means, that the verb remains the same as in the first person singular!  For example:  “The second person singular of the imperfect tense in the subjunctive mood, is also very frequently varied in its termination:  as, ’If thou loved him truly, thou wouldst obey him.’”—­Murray’s Gram., 8vo, p. 209.  “The auxiliaries of the potential mood, when applied to the subjunctive, do not change the termination of the second person singular; as, ‘If thou mayst or canst go.’”—­Ib., p. 210.  “Some authors think, that the termination of these auxiliaries should be varied:  as, I advise thee, that thou may beware.”—­Ib., p. 210.  “When the circumstances of contingency and futurity concur, it is proper to vary the terminations of the second and third persons singular.”—­Ib., 210.  “It may be considered as a rule, that the changes of termination are necessary, when these two circumstances concur.”—­Ib., p. 207.  “It may be considered as a rule, that no changes of termination are necessary, when these two circumstances concur.”—­Ingersoll’s Gram., p. 264.  Now Murray and Ingersoll here mean precisely the same thing!  Whose fault is that?  If Murray’s, he has committed many such.  But, in this matter, he is contradicted not only by Ingersoll, but, on one occasion, by himself.  For he declares it to be an opinion in which he concurs.  “That the definition and nature of the subjunctive mood, have no reference to change of termination.”—­Murray’s Gram., 8vo, p. 211.  And yet, amidst his strange blunders, he seems to have ascribed the meaning which a verb has in this mood, to the inflections which it receives in the indicative:  saying.  “That part of the verb which grammarians call the present tense of the subjunctive mood, has a future signification. This is effected by varying the terminations of the second and third persons singular of the indicative!”—­Ib., p. 207.  But the absurdity which he really means to teach, is, that the subjunctive mood is derived from the indicative,—­the primitive or radical verb, from it’s derivatives or branches!