H. P. Grice, "Credibility, Desirability, and Mode Operators"

The Greek name for mood was ey/cAio-is, literally 'inclination' or 'turn,' i.e. 'turn of thought.' The Romans transferred this designation to their own language as modus, which is the universal designation for mood among the Latin grammarians. Yet traces of the influence of the Greek designation are still to be seen in the definitions given by the grammarians. Thus Priscian, probably following the tradition, defines modi as diversae inclinationes animi, varios etus affectiones demonstrantes (Keil, Grammatici Latini, Vol. II., p. 421. 17). Diomedes (Keil, Gram. Lat. Vol. I., p. 338) gives the heading: De modis sive inclinationibus verborum, indicating that inclinatio was sometimes used as an alternative designation.

2. The Greeks recognized five eyKAio-eis, viz. opiori/o; (Indicative), irpoo-TaKTiKrj (Imperative), Evktikt^ (Optative), viroraKTiK-q (Subjunctive), airapefi(Infinitive).

3. 'OpioTiKij was variously rendered by the Latin grammarians as modus finitus, pronuntiativus, or indicativus. Neither of these designations was precise, however, as iyK\io-is bpiariK-q meant 'mood of definite statement' (from 6pi£w, 'bound,' 'limit,' 'define,' 'state definitely'). Hence definitivus would have been a better name.

4. "EyKAio-is irpooraicTiK-iq meant mood of command, and was literally translated by the Romans as modus imperativus,

5. *EyKA«ris evKTiiri) was the name of the Greek Optative; but the designation was good for only a small portion of the uses of the Greek Optative, viz. its employment in wishes. It did not apply with accuracy to the Potential uses of the mood. The

1 On the names of the Moods, see especially Jeep, Zur Geschichte der Lehre der Redeteile bei den lateinischen Grammatikern, Leipzig, 1893 ; pp. 216-236. Romans, having no special verbal forms recognized as Optative, had no need of the designation modus optativus. Yet they sometimes used it, ad imitationem Graecorum, as Priscian remarks (Keil, Gram. Lat. Vol. II., p. 407). But it should be noted that the Romans never used the name optativus to designate a group of inflected forms. With them it designated merely a syntactical use of the Subjunctive, viz. the Subjunctive in wishes. They thus made the name narrower than the Greek evKTiKf}, whose syntactical province extended beyond what its title designated.

6. "EyKAuns viroTaKTiK.-q meant 'mood of subordination' and was the Greek designation for what we ordinarily call the Subjunctive. But the name was a poor one, since .t applied only to the uses of the Subjunctive in subordinate clauses, and implied that these represented the original function of the mood. It ignored the independent Volitive uses (Hortatory, Jussive, Deliberative, Prohibitive), also the so-called Anticipatory uses.

The Romans translated vnoTaKTiKr] usually by subjunctivus, less frequently by conjunctivus (cf. Jeep, Redeteile, p. 224, footnote 3), names quite as misleading, of course, as the Greek original from which they were taken.

7. ''k-n-apifi^aTCK was rendered by the Roman grammarians modus infinitivus or infinitus.

The Subjunctive.

354. 1. Origin of Subjunctive Forms. — The Latin Subjunctive is the result of a fusion of two original moods of the Indo-European parent-speech, the Subjunctive and the Optative. Greek and Sanskrit kept them distinct from each other, but in Latin they early became merged in a single mood endowed with the characteristic meaning of each. The following table indicates the origin of the different formations appearing in the so-called Subjunctive:

Subjunctive Forms.

Optative Forms.

I. All regular Presents, eg. amem, I. Presents in -im, e.g. sim, fossim.

xissem, etc.; § 222. 4.

2. Original Force of the Subjunctive. — The Indo-European Subjunctive exhibits two meanings which seem to have been the source of all others:

a) The Subjunctive expresses the will of the speaker, e.g. surgat ='I will him to rise,' i.e. Met him rise.' This use implies a certain power or authority on the part of the speaker, i.e. he is represented as willing something over which he has control or volition; hence the name 'Volitive' has been given to characterize this use of the mood.

b) Alongside of this Volitive notion, the Indo-European Subjunctive also possessed a second force, — that of pure futurity (precisely like a Future Indicative). The Greek, particularly of the Homeric dialect, frequently exhibits this Future force of the Subjunctive; but it is uncertain whether we should recognize it in Latin. In Latin the Subjunctive has a Pure Future force only in subordinate clauses, and this may be traced to a different origin. Yet it should be borne in mind that the so-called Future ero was in reality a Present Subjunctive (§ 205. 3) ; also audiam, regam, etc.; while the so-called Future Perfect is an Aorist Subjunctive (§ 216). All of these formations bear witness to a Pure Future force as having once existed in the Latin Subjunctive.

The connection of meaning between the Future force and the Volitive force of the Indo-European Subjunctive is much closer than might at first appear. Thus the English he's to go clearly stands on the border line between the two meanings, and may be interpreted either as Volitive, = let him go, or as Future, = he will go.

It is probably impossible to explain satisfactorily the relationship to each other of these two uses of the Indo-European Subjunctive. Some have regarded the Volitive notion as the original one and the Future notion as derived from that.1 Others have started with the Pure Future notion as fundamental and have deduced the Volitive uses from this.2 Others have regarded the two functions as equally primitive and as representing merely two phases (the Subjective and Objective) of the same thought.3 No attempt to solve this problem, however, has commanded extensive acceptance, nor is it likely to. Fortunately its solution is not necessary to our purpose. The two meanings of the Indo-European Subjunctive may be safely accepted, even though we are unable to determine their mutual relations.

For the views of those who deny that the Indo-European Subjunctive possessed any definite fundamental force (or 'Grundbegriff'), see below, § 356.

355. Original Force of the Optative.—Here we note two different, but closely related meanings, as in the case of the Subjunctive. Thus:

a) The Optative is used to express an act as wished for by the speaker, e.g. veniat, 'may he come!' The element of power, authority, and volition which characterizes the corresponding use of the Indo-European Subjunctive is lacking here.

b) Alongside of the notion of wishing, we find both in Greek and in Latin another notion, viz. that of a contingent futurity (Delbriicks Bedingte Zukunft), e.g. aliquis dicat, 'some one may say'; crediderim,'I should believe'; quis putet,'who would think?' This is obviously a weaker type of Future than that belonging to

1 This is the view of Delbriick in his Conjunctiv und Optativ im Sanskrit und Griechischen, p. II ff.

2 Notably Goodwin in Greek Moods and Tenses, p. 371 ff. 8 The view advocated in the earlier edition of this book. the Subjunctive (in Greek), just as in its meaning of wishing the Optative expresses a weaker phase of thought than the Subjunctive.

The problem of the mutual relationship of the different meanings of the Indo-European Optative is even more difficult than for the meanings of the Subjunctive. Delbriick in his Konjunktiv und Optativ started with the wish meaning as fundamental, and derived the Potential uses from that. Subsequently (Altindische Syntax, p. 302) he has expressed the conviction that the wish meanings and Potential meanings are distinct in their origin.1 Goodwin (Greek Moods and Tenses, p. 384 ff.) starts with the Potential force as original. But scholars are far from agreed as to accepting any of these theories of relationships. It is safer, at present at least, to content ourselves with recognizing the existence of the various Optative functions, even though we cannot determine their origin and mutual relationships.

For the views of those who deny that the Indo-European Optative possessed any precise fundamental force whatever (a 'Grundbegriff'), see the following section.

356. Some eminent syntactical investigators have contested the propriety of attributing to the Indo-European Subjunctive and Optative any precise narrow fundamental value (a 'Grundbegriff'). Thus Abel Bergaigne (De Conjunctivi et Optativi . . . vi antiquissima. Paris, 1877, pp. 41-50; 57-73) urged that the Subjunctive and Optative alike originally covered the entire range of modal conception outside that of positive categorical assertion embraced by the Indicative, and that the specific Subjunctive and Optative uses found in the various Indo-European languages are the result of selection in this wide field. Closely related to this attitude of Bergaigne is that of Morris (American Journal of

1 But in his Vcrgleichende Syntax, IV. 2. p. 373, he apparently returned to his earlier view.