The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-09-01
The ADVERTISERS
 V HOME STUDY CIRCLE

fiections in modern English it's gram mar may be said to depend more upon the relation that words sustain to each | other than upon their agreement with each other. For this reason there Is a greater necessity for the observance of the logical arrangement of words than in language where the infec- ttens of words determine their agrec- ment. Many words in modern Eng fish may be either noun or verb, au- I cording to the position occupied in the sentence. Thus. love is noun when | ii IS the subject or object of verb, but a verb. when it expresses an action of the subject. But in Latin amor dove) | is always a noun with but one excep- i ton. while the verb to love is infected to indicate it's tense, person and mum. Der. Again, noun in modern English may be either in the nominatfve or in the objective case. according to the po- sition that 1t occupies. Thus. in the sentence. Friendship begets love-" l friendship Is in the nominative case, because it is the subject of the verb
 begets. while love Is in the objective
 case because 1t is the object of the verb begets. But if we reverse the po- sition of the subject and object as 1 Love begets friendship we then re- verse the cases. but the forms remain unchanged. This is not the case in | Latin. for when the noun changes | from the nominative to the objective | case 1t undergoes corresponding change of form or infection; so that it's infection and not it's position deter | mines its case. Thus. Love begets friendship" translated into Latin be- comes Amor general amicitiam." lated becomes "Amicitia general amor em." The ending of infection and not its position determines the case on the I noun. for if the positions of the subject and the object were to be reversed and this frequently occurs in Latin
 the case of the noun would remain un- | changed.
 These illustrations exempiify the diff ference between modern English and infected languages. For 1t Is the ab- | sence of infections that distinguishes modern English not only from old Eng | fish. but from all other languages. l COMMON ERRORS OF THE CARE, LESS SPEAKER.
 It Is the careless speaker who says. T wish 1 was going to Europe" and, 'If was going would study French" instead of the correct forms; T wish I were going to Europe and, If were would be better plan for the careless | speaker to stay at home and study English. However, many persons who l are not careless in speech have difficult ty in determining when to use If 1 was" and when to use If I were" The essential difference between these two forms is that If was expresses past event about which there is cer- tainty. while If I were" expresses a past event about which there is un- certainty. Again, If I were" and "I wish I were with the infiective form of some verb. expresses a future event about which there is uncertainty. So that. If I were" has not only doubt ful past. but a doubtful future as well. In order that the mystery developed in this uncertain past and equally uncer- l tain future may be cleared away the entire work on grammatical construc- tion in this article will be devoted to the proper use of If was," if 1 were" | and T wish I were"
 | COMMON ERROSR OF THE CARE FUL SPEAKER.
 It Is the careful speaker who says "I should have been obliged to have gone, ! although I should have found 1t difficult l to have done so." instead of the correct | form. T should have been obliged to | go, although I should have found it difficult to do so." Having introduced all of these hayes our careful speak CT experiences feeling of satisfaction. He did not err in saying T would have been obligedS for T should have been obliged" not did he say II would have found 1t difficult" instead of 'I should have found 1t difficult;" put he found
 his Waterloo in HAVE. One will have no difficulty in using the infini- tive if one will remember that the time of the action recorded by the infinitive | Is not absolute. but dependent upon the time of the principal verb. Thus, T should have been obliged to have gone is incorrect because 1t is impossible for | person to feel obliged to do some thing in the past. T should have found | 1t difficult to have done so," is incor- rect because the difficulty would arise | from the speakers attempt to go and not from his having gone. The follow
 ing rule will be helpful in enabling a | person to remember when to use the
 present infinitive and when to use the
 perfect. Rule: When the inflnitive re- | fers to a time coincident with or after
 that of the principal verb, the present
 (as. to be of the verb to bel should be
 used. But when the reference is to a
 time prior to that indicated by the
 principal verb tor it's equivalent) the
 perfect inflnitive Gas, to have been of
 the veIb to bel should be used.
 | GRAMMATICAL CONSTRUCTION
 If was and if I were.
 PAST TENSE.
 First person-If was. If we were.
 Second person-If thou vast. If you | were.
 Third person-If he was. If they were
 PAST TENSE (ANOTHER FORM. )
 First person-If were. If We were Second person--If thou were. If you were.
 Third person-If he were. If they were
 Note-If we were. if you were and if
 they were are the samS in both forms consequently it is only necessary to de-
 termine when to use if was. if I were
 if he was and If he were. 'If were"
 and If he were" (modern grammarians regard If I was and If he was' as
 past forms of the indicative mood. and
 If were" and If he were" as past
 forms of the subjunctive mood) are the | proper forms to use when the supposi-
 tion of the action or state is merely
 thought of.