Chapter VI: Verbs (2)

OBS. 5.--The text, John, viii, 58, "Before Abraham _was_, I _am_," is a literal Grecism, and not to be cited as an example of pure English: our idiom would seem to require, "Before Abraham _was_, I _existed_." In animated narrative, however, the present tense is often substituted for the past, by the figure _enallage_. In such cases, past tenses and present may occur together; because the latter are used merely to bring past events more vividly before us: as, "Ulysses _wakes_, not knowing where he _was_."--_Pope_. "The dictator _flies_ forward to the cavalry, beseeching them to dismount from their horses. They _obeyed_; they _dismount, rush_ onward, and for vancouriers _show_ their bucklers."--_Livy_. On this principle, perhaps, the following couplet, which Murray condemns as bad English, may be justified:--

"Him portion'd maids, apprentic'd orphans blest,
The young who _labour_, and the old who _rest_."
See _Murray's Key_, R. 13.

OBS. 6.--The present tense of the subjunctive mood, and that of the indicative when preceded by _as soon as, after, before, till_, or _when_, is generally used with reference to future time; as, "If he _ask_ a fish, will he give him a serpent?"--_Matt._, vii, 10. "If I _will_ that he _tarry_ till I _come_, what is that to thee? Follow thou me."--_John_, xxi, 22. "When he _arrives_, I will send for you." The imperative mood has but one tense, and that is always present with regard to the giving of the command; though what is commanded, must be done in the future, if done at all. So the subjunctive may convey a present supposition of what the will of an other may make uncertain: as, "If thou _count_ me therefore a partner, _receive_ him as myself."--_St. Paul to Philemon_, 17. The perfect indicative, like the present, is sometimes used with reference to time that is relatively future; as, "He will be fatigued before he _has walked_ a mile."--"My lips shall utter praise, when thou _hast taught_ me thy statutes."--_Psalms_, cxix, 171. "Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that _are_ in the graves, shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that _have done_ good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that _have done_ evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."--_John_, v, 28.

OBS. 7.--What is called the _present_ infinitive, can scarcely be said to express any particular time.[234] It is usually dependent on an other verb, and therefore relative in time. It may be connected with any tense of any mood: as, "I _intend to do_ it; I _intended to do_ it; I _have intended to do_ it; I _had intended to do_ it;" &c. For want of a better mode of expression, we often use the infinitive to denote futurity, especially when it seems to be taken adjectively; as, "The time _to come_,"--"The world _to come_,"--"Rapture yet _to be_." This, sometimes with the awkward addition of _about_, is the only substitute we have for the Latin future participle in _rus_, as _venturus, to come_, or _about to come_. This phraseology, according to Horne Tooke, (see _Diversions of Purley_, Vol. ii, p. 457,) is no fitter than that of our ancestors, who for this purpose used the same preposition, but put the participle in _ing_ after it, in lieu of the radical verb, which we choose to employ: as, "Generacions of eddris, who shewide to you to fle fro wraththe _to comynge?_"--_Matt._, iii, 7. Common Version: "O generation of vipers! who hath warned you to flee from the wrath _to come_?" "Art thou that art _to comynge_, ether abiden we another?"--_Matt._, xi, 3. Common Version: "Art thou he that _should come_, or do we look for another?" "Sotheli there the ship was _to puttyng out_ the charge."--_Dedis_, xxi, 3. Common Version: "For there the ship was _to unlade_ her burden."--_Acts_, xxi, 3. Churchill, after changing the names of the two infinitive tenses to "_Future imperfect_" and "_Future perfect_," adds the following note: "The tenses of the infinitive mood are usually termed _present_ and _preterperfect_: but this is certainly improper; for they are so completely future, that what is called the present tense of the infinitive mood is often employed simply to express futurity; as, 'The life _to come_.'"--_New Gram._, p. 249.

OBS. 8.--The pluperfect tense, when used conditionally, in stead of expressing what actually _had taken place_ at a past time, almost always implies that the action thus supposed _never was performed_; on the contrary, if the supposition be made in a _negative form_, it suggests that the event _had occurred_: as, "Lord, if thou _hadst been here_, my brother _had not died_."--_John_, xi, 32. "If I _had not come_ and spoken unto them, they _had not had_ sin; but now they have no cloak for their sin."--_John_, xv, 22. "If thou _hadst known_, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! But now they are hid from thine eyes."--_Luke_, xix, 42. The supposition is sometimes indicated by a mere transposition of the verb and its subject; in which case, the conjunction _if_ is omitted; as, "_Had ye believed_ Moses, ye would have believed me."--_John_, v, 46.

"_Had I but fought_ as wont, one thrust
_Had laid_ De Wilton in the dust."--_Scott_

OBS. 9.--In the language of prophecy we find the past tenses very often substituted for the future, especially when the prediction is remarkably clear and specific. Man is a creature of present knowledge only; but it is certain, that He who sees the end from the beginning, has sometimes revealed to him, and by him, things deep in futurity. Thus the sacred seer who is esteemed the most eloquent of the ancient prophets, more than _seven hundred years_ before the events occurred, spoke of the vicarious sufferings of Christ as of things already past, and even then described them in the phraseology of historical facts: "Surely he _hath borne_ our griefs, _and carried_ our sorrows: yet we _did esteem_ him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he _was wounded_ for our transgressions; he _was bruised_ for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace _was_ upon him; and by his stripes we are healed."--_Isaiah_, liii, 4 and 5. Multiplied instances of a similar application of the past tenses to future events, occur in the Bible, especially in the writings of this prophet.

PERSONS AND NUMBERS.

The person and number of a verb are those modifications in which it agrees with its subject or nominative.

In each number, there are three persons; and in each person, two numbers: thus,

_Singular._ _Plural._ 1st per. I love, 1st per. We love, 2d per. Thou lovest, 2d per. You love, 3d per. He loves; 3d per. They love.

Definitions universally applicable have already been given of all these things; it is therefore unnecessary to define them again in this place.

Where the verb is varied, the second person singular is regularly formed by adding _st_ or _est_ to the first person; and the third person singular, in like manner, by adding _s_ or _es_: as, I _see_, thou _seest_, he _sees_; I _give_, thou _givest_, he _gives_; I _go_, thou _goest_, he _goes_; I _fly_, thou _fliest_, he _flies_; I _vex_, thou _vexest_, he _vexes_; I _lose_, thou _losest_, he _loses._

Where the verb is not varied to denote its person and number, these properties are inferred from its subject or nominative: as, If I _love_, if thou _love_, if he _love_; if we _love_, if you _love_, if they _love_.

OBSERVATIONS.

OBS. 1.--It is considered a principle of Universal Grammar, that a finite verb must agree with its subject or nominative in person and number. Upon this principle, we ascribe to every such verb the person and number of the nominative word, whether the verb itself be literally modified by the relation or not. The doctrine must be constantly taught and observed, in every language in which the verbs have _any variations_ of this kind. But suppose an instance, of a language in which all the verbs were entirely destitute of such inflections; the principle, as regards that language, must drop. Finite verbs, in such a case, would still relate to their subjects, or nominatives, agreeably to the sense; but they would certainly be rendered incapable of adding to this relation any agreement or disagreement. So the concords which belong to adjectives and participles in Latin and Greek, are rejected in English, and there remains to these parts of speech nothing but a simple relation to their nouns according to the sense. And by the fashionable substitution of _you_ for _thou_, the concord of English verbs with their nominatives, is made to depend, in common practice, on little more than one single terminational _s_, which is used to mark one person of one number of one tense of one mood of each verb. So near does this practice bring us to the dropping of what is yet called a universal principle of grammar.[235]

OBS. 2.--In most languages, there are in each tense, through all the moods of every verb, six different terminations to distinguish the different persons and numbers. This will be well understood by every one who has ever glanced at the verbs as exhibited in any Latin, Greek, French, Spanish, or Italian grammar. To explain it to others, a brief example shall be given: (with the remark, that the Latin pronouns, here inserted, are seldom expressed, except for emphasis:) "_Ego amo_, I love; _Tu amas_, Thou lovest; _Ille amat_, He loves; _Nos amamus_, We love; _Vos amatis_, You love; _Illi amant_, They love." Hence it may be perceived, that the paucity of variations in the English verb, is a very striking peculiarity of our language. Whether we are gainers or losers by this simplicity, is a question for learned idleness to discuss. The common people who speak English, have far less inclination to add new endings to our verbs, than to drop or avoid all the remains of the old. Lowth and Murray tell us, "This scanty provision of terminations _is sufficient_ for all the purposes of discourse;" and that, "_For this reason_, the plural termination _en_, (they _loven_, they _weren_,) formerly in use, was laid aside as _unnecessary_, and has long been obsolete."--_Lowth's Gram._, p. 31; _Murray's_, 63.

OBS. 3.--Though modern usage, especially in common conversation, evidently inclines to drop or shun all unnecessary suffixes and inflections, still it is true, that the English verb in some of its parts, varies its termination, to distinguish, or agree with, the different persons and numbers. The change is, however, principally confined to the second and third persons singular of the present tense of the indicative mood, and to the auxiliaries _hast_ and _has_ of the perfect. In the ancient biblical style, now used only on solemn occasions, the second person singular is distinguished through all the tenses of the indicative and potential moods. And as the use of the pronoun _thou_ is now mostly confined to the solemn style, the terminations of that style are retained in connexion with it, through all the following examples of the conjugation of verbs. In the plural number, there is no variation of ending, to denote the different persons; and the verb in the three persons plural, (with the two exceptions _are_ and _were_, from _am_ and _was_,) is the same as in the first person singular. Nor does the use of _you_ for the singular, warrant its connexion with any other than the plural form of the verb. This strange and needless confusion of the numbers, is, in all languages that indulge it, a practical inconvenience. It would doubtless have been much better, had _thou_ and _you_ still kept their respective places--the one, nominative singular--the other, objective plural--as they appear in the Bible. But as the English verb is always attended by a noun or a pronoun, expressing the subject of the affirmation, no ambiguity arises from the want of particular terminations in the verb, to distinguish the different persons and numbers.

OBS. 4.--Although our language, in its ordinary use, exhibits the verbs in such forms only, as will make, when put together, but a very simple conjugation; there is probably no other language on earth, in which it would be so difficult for a learned grammarian to fix, settle, and exhibit, to the satisfaction of himself and others, the principles, paradigms, rules, and exceptions, which are necessary for a full and just exhibition of this part of speech. This difficulty is owing, partly to incompatibilities or unsettled boundaries between the solemn and the familiar style; partly to differences in the same style between ancient usage and modern; partly to interfering claims of new and old forms of the preterit and the perfect participle; partly to the conflicting notions of different grammarians respecting the subjunctive mood; and partly to the blind tenacity with which many writers adhere to rugged derivatives, and prefer unutterable contractions to smooth and easy abbreviations. For example: a clergyman says to a lucky gamester, (1.) "_You dwell_ in a house which _you_ neither _planned_ nor _built_." A member of the Society of Friends would say, (2.) "_Thou dwellst_ in a house which _thou_ neither _planned_ nor _built_." Or, if not a scholar, as likely as not, (3.) "_Thee dwells_ in a house which _thee_ neither _planned_ nor _built_." The old or solemn style would b3, (4.) "_Thou dwellest_ in a house which _thou_ neither _plannedst_ nor _buildedst_." Some untasteful and overgrammatical poet will have it, (5.) "_Thou dwell'st_ in halls _thou_ neither _plann'dst_ nor _build'dst_." The doctrine of Murray's Grammar, and of most others, would require, (6.) "_Thou dwellest_ in a house which _thou_ neither _plannedst_ nor _builtest_." Or, (according to this author's method of avoiding unpleasant sounds,) the more complex form, (7.) "_Thou dost dwell_ in a house which _thou_ neither _didst plan_ nor _didst build_." Out of these an other poet will make the line, (8.) "_Dost dwell_ in halls which _thou_ nor _plann'dst_ nor _built'st_." An other, more tastefully, would drop the _st_ of the preterit, and contract the present, as in the second instance above: thus,

(9.) "_Thou dwellst_ in halls _thou_ neither _planned_ nor _built_,
And _revelst_ there in riches won by guilt."

OBS. 5.--Now let all these nine different forms of saying the same thing, by the same verbs, in the same mood, and the same two tenses, be considered. Let it also be noticed, that for these same verbs within these limits, there are yet other forms, of a complex kind; as, "_You do dwell_," or, "_You are dwelling_;" used in lieu of, "_Thou dost dwell_," or, "_Thou art dwelling_:" so, "_You did plan_," or, "_You were planning_;" used in lieu of, "_Thou didst plan_," or, "_Thou wast planning_." Take into the account the opinion of Dr. Webster and others, that, "_You was planning_," or, "_You was building_," is a still better form for the singular number; and well "established by national usage, both here and in England."--_Improved Gram._, p. 25. Add the less inaccurate practice of some, who use _was_ and _did_ familiarly with _thou_; as, "_Thou was planning, did thou build?_" Multiply all this variety tenfold, with a view to the other moods and tenses of these three verbs, _dwell, plan_, and _build_; then extend the product, whatever it is, from these three common words, to _all_ the verbs in the English language. You will thus begin to have some idea of the difficulty mentioned in the preceding observation. But this is only a part of it; for all these things relate only to the second person singular of the verb. The double question is, Which of these forms ought to be approved and taught for that person and number? and which of them ought to be censured and rejected as bad English? This question is perhaps as important, as any that can arise in English grammar. With a few candid observations by way of illustration, it will be left to the judgement of the reader.

OBS. 6.--The history of _youyouing_ and _thoutheeing_ appears to be this. Persons in high stations, being usually surrounded by attendants, it became, many centuries ago, a species of court flattery, to address individuals of this class, in the plural number, as if a great man were something more than one person. In this way, the notion of greatness was agreeably _multiplied_, and those who laid claim to such honour, soon began to think themselves insulted whenever they were addressed with any other than the plural pronoun.[236] Humbler people yielded through fear of offence; and the practice extended, in time, to all ranks of society: so that at present the customary mode of familiar as well as complimentary address, is altogether plural; both the verb and the pronoun being used in that form.[237] This practice, which confounds one of the most important distinctions of the language, affords a striking instance of the power of fashion. It has made propriety itself _seem_ improper. But shall it be allowed, in the present state of things, to confound our conjugations and overturn our grammar? Is it right to introduce it into our paradigms, as the only form of the second person singular, that modern usage acknowledges? Or is it expedient to augment by it that multiplicity of other forms, which must either take this same place or be utterly rejected? With due deference to those grammarians who have adopted one or the other of these methods, the author of this work answers all these questions decidedly in the negative. It is not to be denied, that the use of the plural _for the singular_ is now so common as to form the _customary mode_ of address to individuals of every rank. The Society of Friends, or Quakers, however, continue to employ the singular number in familiar discourse; and custom, which has now destroyed the compliment of the plural, has removed also the supposed opprobrium of the singular, and placed it on an equality with the plural in point of respect. The singular is universally employed in reference to the Supreme Being; and is generally preferred in poetry. It is the language of Scripture, and of the Prayer-Book; and is consistently retained in nearly all our grammars; though not always, perhaps, consistently treated.

OBS. 7.--Whatever is fashionable in speech, the mere disciples of fashion will always approve; and, probably, they will think it justifiable to despise or neglect all that is otherwise. These may be contented with the sole use of such forms of address as, "_You, you, sir_;"--"_You, you, madam_." But the literati who so neglect all the services of religion, as to forget that these are yet conducted in English independently of all this fashionable youyouing, must needs be poor judges of what belongs to their own justification, either as grammarians or as moral agents. A fashion by virtue of which millions of youths are now growing up in ignorance of that form of address which, in their own tongue, is most appropriate to poetry, and alone adapted to prayer, is perhaps not quite so light a matter as some people imagine. It is at least so far from being a good reason for displacing that form from the paradigms of our verbs in a grammar, that indeed no better needs be offered for tenaciously retaining it. Many children may thus learn at school what all should know, and what there is little chance for them to learn elsewhere. Not all that presume to minister in religion, are well acquainted with what is called the solemn style. Not all that presume to explain it in grammars, do know what it is. A late work, which boasted the patronage of De Witt Clinton, and through the influence of false praise came nigh to be imposed by a law of New York on all the common schools of that State; and which, being subsequently sold in Philadelphia for a great price, was there republished under the name of the "National School Manual;" gives the following account of this part of grammar: "In the solemn and poetic styles, the second person singular, in both the above tenses, is thou; and the second person plural, is ye, _or you_. The verb, to agree with the second person singular, changes its termination. Thus: 2d person, sing. Pres. Tense, Thou walkest, _or Thou walketh_. Imperfect Tense, Thou walkedst. In the third person singular, _in the above styles_, the verb has sometimes _a different_ termination; as, Present Tense, He, she, or _it walks_ or walketh. The _above form of inflection_ may be applied _to all verbs_ used in the solemn _or_ poetic _styles_; but for ordinary purposes, I have supposed it proper to employ the form of the verb, adopted in common conversation, as least perplexing to young minds."--_Bartlett's Common School Manual_, Part ii, p. 114. What can be hoped from an author who is ignorant enough to think "_Thou walketh_" is good English? or from one who tells us, that "_It walks_" is of the solemn style? or from one who does not know that _you_ is never a _nominative_ in the style of the Bible?

OBS. 8.--Nowhere on earth is fashion more completely mistress of all the tastes and usages of society, than in France. Though the common French Bible still retains the form of the second person singular, which in that language is shorter and perhaps smoother than the plural; yet even that sacred book, or at least the New Testament, and that by different persons, has been translated into more fashionable French, and printed at Paris, and also at New York, with the form of address everywhere plural; as, "Jesus anticipated him, saying, 'What _do you think_, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take taxes and tribute?'"--_Matt._, xvii, 24. "And, going to prayers, they said, '0 Lord, _you who know_ the hearts of all men, show which of these two _you have chosen_.'"--_Acts_, i, 24. This is one step further in the progress of politeness, than has yet been taken in English. The French grammarians, however, as far as I can perceive, have never yet disturbed the ancient order of their conjugations and declensions, by inserting the plural verb and pronoun in place of the singular; and, in the familiarity of friendship, or of domestic life, the practice which is denominated _tutoyant_, or _thoutheeing_, is far more prevalent in France than in England. Also, in the prayers of the French, the second person singular appears to be yet generally preserved, as it is in those of the English and the Americans. The less frequent use of it in the familiar conversation of the latter, is very probably owing to the general impression, that it cannot be used with propriety, except in the solemn style. Of this matter, those who have laid it aside themselves, cannot with much modesty pretend to judge for those who have not; or, if they may, there is still a question how far it is right to lay it aside. The following lines are a sort of translation from Horace; and I submit it to the reader, whether it is comely for a Christian divine to be less reverent toward God, than a heathen poet; and whether the plural language here used, does not lack the reverence of the original, which is singular:--

"Preserve, Almighty Providence!
Just what _you gave_ me, competence."--_Swift_.

OBS. 9.--The terms, _solemn style, familiar style, modern style, ancient style, legal style, regal style, nautic style, common style_, and the like, as used in grammar, imply no certain divisions of the language; but are designed merely to distinguish, in a general way, the _occasions_ on which some particular forms of expression may be considered proper, or the _times_ to which they belong. For what is grammatical sometimes, may not be so always. It would not be easy to tell, definitely, in what any one of these styles consists; because they all belong to one language, and the number or nature of the peculiarities of each is not precisely fixed. But whatever is acknowledged to be peculiar to any one, is consequently understood to be improper for any other: or, at least, the same phraseology cannot belong to styles of an opposite character; and words of general use belong to no particular style.[238] For example: "So then it is not of him that _willeth_, nor of him that _runneth_, but of God that _showeth_ mercy."--_Rom._, ix, 16. If the termination _eth_ is not obsolete, as some say it is, all verbs to which this ending is added, are of the solemn style; for the common or familiar expression would here be this; "So then it is not of him that _wills_, nor of him that _runs_, but of God that _shows_ mercy." Ben Jonson, in his grammar, endeavoured to arrest this change of _eth_ to _s_; and, according to Lindley Murray, (_Octavo Gram._, p. 90,) Addison also injudiciously disapproved it. In spite of all such objections, however, some future grammarian will probably have to say of the singular ending _eth_, as Lowth and Murray have already said of the plural _en_: "It was laid aside as unnecessary."

OBS. 10.--Of the origin of the personal terminations of English verbs, that eminent etymologist Dr. Alexander Murray, gives the following account: "The readers of our modern tongue may be reminded, that the terminations, _est, eth_, and _s_, in our verbs, as in _layest, layeth_, and _laid'st_, or _laidest_; are the faded _remains of the pronouns_ which were formerly joined to the verb itself, and placed the language, in respect of concise expression, on a level with the Greek, Latin, and Sanscrit, its sister dialects."--_History of European Languages_, Vol. i, p. 52. According to this, since other signs of the persons and numbers are now employed with the verb, it is not strange that there should appear a tendency to lay aside such of these endings as are least agreeable and least necessary. Any change of this kind will of course occur first in the familiar style. For example: "Thou _wentest_ in to men uncircumcised, and _didst eat_ with them."--_Acts_, xi, 3. "These things write I unto thee, that thou _mayst_ know how thou _oughtest_ to behave thyself in the house of God."--_1 Tim._, iii, 15. These forms, by universal consent, are now of the solemn style; and, consequently, are really good English in no other. For nobody, I suppose, will yet pretend that the inflection of our preterits and auxiliaries by _st_ or _est_, is entirely _obsolete_;[239] and surely no person of any literary taste ever uses the foregoing forms familiarly. The termination _est_, however, has _in some instances_ become obsolete; or has faded into _st_ or _t_, even in the solemn style. Thus, (if indeed, such forms ever were in good use,) _diddest_ has become _didst; havest, hast; haddest, hadst; shallest, shalt; willest, wilt_; and _cannest, canst. Mayest, mightest, couldest, wouldest_, and _shouldest_, are occasionally found in books not ancient; but _mayst, mightst, couldst, wouldst_, and _shouldst_, are abundantly more common, and all are peculiar to the solemn style. _Must, burst, durst, thrust, blest, curst, past, lost, list, crept, kept, girt, built, felt, dwelt, left, bereft_, and many other verbs of similar endings, are seldom, if ever, found encumbered with an additional _est_. For the rule which requires this ending, has always had many exceptions that have not been noticed by grammarians.[240] Thus Shakspeare wrote even in the present tense, "Do as thou _list_," and not "Do as thou _listest_." Possibly, however, _list_ may here be reckoned of the subjunctive mood; but the following example from Byron is certainly in the indicative:--

"And thou, who never yet of human wrong
_Lost_ the unbalanced scale, great Nemesis!"--_Harold_, C. iv, st. 132.

OBS. 11.--Any phraseology that is really obsolete, is no longer fit to be imitated even in the solemn style; and what was never good English, is no more to be respected in that style, than in any other. Thus: "Art not thou that Egyptian, _which_ before these days _madest_ an uproar, and _leddest_ out into the wilderness four thousand men that were murderers?"--_Acts_, xxi, 38. Here, (I think,) the version ought to be, "Art not thou that Egyptian, _who_ a while ago _made_ an uproar, and _led_ out into the wilderness four thousand men, that were murderers?" If so, there is in this no occasion to make a difference between the solemn and the familiar style. But what is the familiar form of expression for the texts cited before? The fashionable will say, it is this: "_You went_ in to men uncircumcised, and _did eat_ with them."--"I write these things to _you_, that _you may know_ how _you ought_ to behave _yourself_ in the house of God." But this is not _literally_ of the singular number: it is no more singular, than _vos_ in Latin, or _vous_ in French, or _we_ used for _I_ in English, is singular. And if there remains to us any other form, that is both singular and grammatical, it is unquestionably the following: "_Thou went_ in to men uncircumcised, and _did eat_ with them."--"I write these things to _thee_, that thou _may know_ how _thou ought_ to behave _thyself_ in the house of God." The acknowledged doctrine of all the teachers of English grammar, that the inflection of our auxiliaries and preterits by _st_ or _est_ is peculiar to "the solemn style," leaves us no other alternative, than either to grant the propriety of here dropping the suffix for the familiar style, or to rob our language of any familiar use of the pronoun _thou_ forever. Who, then, are here the neologists, the innovators, the impairers of the language? And which is the greater _innovation_, merely to drop, on familiar occasions, or _when it suits our style_, one obsolescent verbal termination,--a termination often dropped _of old_ as well as now,--or to strike from the conjugations of all our verbs one sixth part of their entire scheme?[241]

"O mother myn, that cleaped _were_ Argyue,
Wo worth that day that thou me _bare_ on lyue."--_Chaucer_.

OBS. 12.--The grammatical propriety of distinguishing from the solemn style both of the forms presented above, must be evident to every one who considers with candour the reasons, analogies, and authorities, for this distinction. The support of the latter is very far from resting solely on the practice of a particular sect; though this, if they would forbear to corrupt the pronoun while they simplify the verb, would deserve much more consideration than has ever been allowed it. Which of these modes of address is the more grammatical, it is useless to dispute; since fashion rules the one, and a scruple of conscience is sometimes alleged for the other. A candid critic will consequently allow all to take their choice. It is enough for him, if he can demonstrate to the candid inquirer, what phraseology is in any view allowable, and what is for any good reason reprehensible. That the use of the plural for the singular is ungrammatical, it is neither discreet nor available to affirm; yet, surely, it did not originate in any regard to grammar rules. Murray the schoolmaster, whose English Grammar appeared some years before that of Lindley Murray, speaks of it as follows: "_Thou_, the second person singular, though _strictly grammatical_, is seldom used, except in addresses to God, in poetry, and by the people called Quakers. In all other cases, a _fondness for foreign manners_,[242] and the power of custom, have given a sanction to the use of _you_, for the second person singular, though _contrary to grammar_,[243] and attended with this particular inconveniency, that a plural verb must be used to agree with the pronoun in number, and both applied to a _single person_; as, _you are_, or _you were_,--not _you wast_, or _you was_."--_Third Edition_, Lond., 1793, p. 34. This author everywhere exhibits the auxiliaries, _mayst, mightst, couldst, wouldst_, and _shouldst_, as words of one syllable; and also observes, in a marginal note, "Some writers begin to say, '_Thou may, thou might_,' &c."--_Ib._, p. 36. Examples of this are not very uncommon: "Thou _shall_ want ere I want."--_Old Motto; Scott's Lay_, Note 1st to Canto 3. "Thyself the mournful tale _shall_ tell."--_Felton's Gram._, p. 20.

"One sole condition would I dare suggest,
That _thou would save_ me from my own request."--_Jane Taylor_.

OBS. 13.--In respect to the second person singular, the grammar of Lindley Murray makes no distinction between the solemn and the familiar style; recognizes in no way the fashionable substitution of _you_ for _thou_; and, so far as I perceive, takes it for granted, that every one who pretends to speak or write grammatically, must always, in addressing an individual, employ the singular pronoun, and inflect the verb with _st_ or _est_, except in the imperative mood and the subjunctive present. This is the more remarkable, because the author was a valued member of the Society of Friends; and doubtless his own daily practice contradicted his doctrine, as palpably as does that of every other member of the Society. And many a schoolmaster, taking that work for his text-book, or some other as faulty, is now doing precisely the same thing. But what a teacher is he, who dares not justify as a grammarian that which he constantly practices as a man! What a scholar is he, who can be led by a false criticism or a false custom, to condemn his own usage and that of every body else! What a casuist is he, who dares pretend conscience for practising that which he knows and acknowledges to be wrong! If to speak in the second person singular without inflecting our preterits and auxiliaries, is a censurable corruption of the language, the Friends have no alternative but to relinquish their scruple about the application of _you_ to one person; for none but the adult and learned can ever speak after the manner of ancient books: children and common people can no more be brought to speak agreeably to any antiquated forms of the English language, than according to the imperishable models of Greek and Latin. He who traces the history of our vernacular tongue, will find it has either simplified or entirely dropped several of its ancient terminations; and that the _st_ or _est_ of the second person singular, _never was adopted_ in any thing like the extent to which our modern grammarians have attempted to impose it. "Thus becoming unused to inflections, we lost the perception of their meaning and nature."--_Philological Museum_, i, 669. "You cannot make a whole people all at once talk in a different tongue from that which it has been used to talk in: you cannot force it to unlearn the words it has learnt from its fathers, in order to learn a set of newfangled words out of [a grammar or] a dictionary."--_Ib._, i, 650. Nor can you, in this instance, restrain our poets from transgressing the doctrine of Lowth and Murray:--

"Come, thou pure Light,--which first in Eden _glowed._
And _threw_ thy splendor round man's calm abode."--_Alonzo Lewis_.

OBS. 14.--That which has passed away from familiar practice, may still be right in the solemn style, and may there remain till it becomes obsolete. But no obsolescent termination has ever yet been recalled into the popular service. This is as true in other languages as in our own: "In almost every word of the Greek," says a learned author, "we meet with contractions and abbreviations; but, I believe, the flexions of no language allow of extension or amplification. In our own we may write _sleeped_ or _slept_, as the metre of a line or the rhythm of a period may require; but by no license may we write _sleepeed._"--_Knight, on the Greek Alphabet_, 4to, p. 107. But, if after contracting _sleeped_ into _slept_, we add an _est_ and make _sleptest_, is there not here an extension of the word from one syllable to two? Is there not an amplification that is at once novel, disagreeable, unauthorized, and unnecessary? Nay, even in the regular and established change, as of _loved_ to _lovedst_, is there not a syllabic increase, which is unpleasant to the ear, and unsuited to familiar speech? Now, to what extent do these questions apply to the verbs in our language? Lindley Murray, it is presumed, had no conception of that extent; or of the weight of the objection which is implied in the second. With respect to a vast number of our most common verbs, he himself never knew, nor does the greatest grammarian now living know, in what way he ought to form the simple past tense in the second person singular, otherwise than by the mere uninflected preterit with the pronoun _thou_. Is _thou sleepedst_ or _thou sleptest, thou leavedst_ or _thou leftest, thou feeledst_ or _thou feltest, thou dealedst_ or _thou dealtest, thou tossedst_ or _thou tostest, thou losedst_ or _thou lostest, thou payedst_ or _thou paidest, thou layedst_ or _thou laidest_, better English than _thou slept, thou left, thou felt, thou dealt, thou tossed, thou lost, thou paid, thou laid?_ And, if so, of the two forms in each instance, which is the right one? and why? The Bible has "_saidst_" and "_layedst_;" Dr. Alexander Murray, "_laid'st_" and "_laidest!_" Since the inflection of our preterits has never been orderly, and is now decaying and waxing old, shall we labour to recall what is so nearly ready to vanish away?

"Tremendous Sea! what time _thou lifted_ up
Thy waves on high, and with thy winds and storms
Strange pastime _took_, and _shook_ thy mighty sides
Indignantly, the pride of navies fell."--_Pollok_, B. vii, l. 611.

OBS. 15.--Whatever difficulty there is in ascertaining the true form of the preterit itself, not only remains, but is augmented, when _st_ or _est_ is to be added for the second person of it. For, since we use sometimes one and sometimes the other of these endings; (as, said_st_, saw_est_, bid_st_, knew_est_, loved_st_, went_est_;) there is yet need of some rule to show which we ought to prefer. The variable formation or orthography of verbs in the simple past tense, has always been one of the greatest difficulties that the learners of our language have had to encounter. At present, there is a strong tendency to terminate as many as we can of them in _ed_, which is the only regular ending. The pronunciation of this ending, however, is at least threefold; as in _remembered, repented, relinquished._ Here the added sounds are, first _d_, then _ed_, then _t_; and the effect of adding _st_, whenever the _ed_ is sounded like _t_, will certainly be a perversion of what is established as the true pronunciation of the language. For the solemn and the familiar pronunciation of _ed_ unquestionably differ. The present tendency to a regular orthography, ought rather to be encouraged than thwarted; but the preferring of _mixed_ to _mixt, whipped_ to _whipt, worked_ to _wrought, kneeled_ to _knelt_, and so forth, does not make _mixedst, whippedst, workedst, kneeledst_, and the like, any more fit for modern English, than are _mixtest, whiptest, wroughtest, kneltest, burntest, dweltest, heldest, giltest_, and many more of the like stamp. And what can be more absurd than for a grammarian to insist upon forming a great parcel of these strange and crabbed words for which he can quote no good authority? Nothing; except it be for a poet or a rhetorician to huddle together great parcels of consonants which no mortal man can utter,[244] (as _lov'dst, lurk'dst, shrugg'dst_,) and call them "_words_." Example: "The clump of _subtonick_ and _atonick_ elements at the termination of _such words_ as the following, is frequently, to the no small injury of articulation, particularly slighted: couldst, wouldst, hadst, prob'st, _prob'dst_, hurl'st, _hurl'dst_, arm'st, _arm'dst_, want'st, _want'dst_, burn'st, _burn'dst_, bark'st, _bark'dst_, bubbl'st, _bubbl'dst, troubbl'st, troubbl'dst._"--_Kirkham's Elocution_, p. 42. The word _trouble_ may receive the additional sound of _st_, but this gentleman does not here _spell_ so accurately as a great author should. Nor did they who penned the following lines, write here as poets should:--

"Of old thou _build'st_ thy throne on righteousness."
--_Pollok's C. of T._, B. vi, l. 638.

"For though thou _work'dst_ my mother's ill."
--_Byron's Parasina_.

"Thou thyself _doat'dst_ on womankind, admiring."
--_Milton's P. R._, B. ii, l. 175.

"But he, the sev'nth from thee, whom thou _beheldst_."
--_Id., P. L._, B. xi, l. 700.

"Shall build a wondrous ark, as thou _beheldst_."
--_Id., ib._, B. xi, l. 819.

"Thou, who _inform'd'st_ this clay with active fire!"
--_Savage's Poems_, p. 247.

"Thy valiantness was mine, thou _suck'dst_ it from me."
--_Shak., Coriol._, Act iii.

"This cloth thou _dipp'dst_ in blood of my sweet boy."
--_Id., Henry VI_, P. i.

"Great Queen of arms, whose favour Tydeus won;
As thou _defend'st_ the sire, defend the son."
--_Pope, Iliad_, B. x, l. 337.

OBS. 16.--Dr. Lowth, whose popular little Grammar was written in or about 1758, made no scruple to hem up both the poets and the Friends at once, by a criticism which I must needs consider more dogmatical than true; and which, from the suppression of what is least objectionable in it, has become, her hands, the source of still greater errors: "_Thou_ in the polite, and even _in the familiar style, is disused_, and the plural _you_ is employed instead of it; we say, _you have_, not _thou hast._ Though in this case, we apply _you_ to a single person, yet the verb too _must agree with it in the plural number_; it must necessarily be, _you have_, not _you hast._ _You was_ is an enormous solecism,[245] and yet authors of the first rank have inadvertently fallen into it. * * * On the contrary, the solemn style admits not of you for a single person. This _hath led_ Mr. Pope into _a great impropriety_ in the beginning of his Messiah:--

'O thou my voice inspire,
Who _touch'd_ Isaiah's hallow'd lips with fire!'

The solemnity of the style would not admit of _you_ for _thou_, in the pronoun; nor the measure of the verse _touchedst_, or _didst touch_, in the verb, as it _indispensably ought to be_, in the one or the other of those two forms; _you_, who _touched_, or _thou_, who _touchedst_, or _didst touch._

'Just of _thy_ word, in every thought sincere;
Who _knew_ no wish, but what the world might hear.'--Pope.

It ought to be _your_ in the first line, or _knewest_ in the second. In order to avoid this _grammatical inconvenience_, the two distinct forms of _thou_ and _you_, are often used promiscuously by our modern poets, in the same paragraph, and even in the same sentence, very inelegantly and improperly:--

'Now, now, I seize, I clasp _thy_ charms;
And now _you burst_, ah cruel! from my arms.'--Pope."
--_Lowth's English Gram._, p. 34.

OBS. 17.--The points of Dr. Lowth's doctrine which are not sufficiently true, are the following: First, it is not true, that _thou_, in the familiar style, is _totally disused_, and the plural _you_ employed universally in its stead; though Churchill, and others, besides the good bishop, seem to represent it so. It is now nearly two hundred years since the rise of the Society of Friends: and, whatever may have been the practice of others before or since, it is certain, that from their rise to the present day, there have been, at every point of time, many thousands who made no use of _you_ for _thou_; and, but for the clumsy forms which most grammarians hold to be indispensable to verbs of the second person singular, the beautiful, distinctive, and poetical words, _thou, thyself, thy, thine_, and _thee_, would certainly be in no danger yet of becoming obsolete. Nor can they, indeed, at any rate, become so, till the fairest branches of the Christian Church shall wither; or, what should seem no gracious omen, her bishops and clergy learn to _pray in the plural number_, for fashion's sake. Secondly, it is not true, that, "_thou_, who _touch'd_," ought _indispensably_ to be, "_thou_, who _touchedst_, or _didst touch_." It is far better to dispense with the inflection, in such a case, than either to impose it, or to resort to the plural pronoun. The "grammatical inconvenience" of dropping the _st_ or _est_ of a preterit, even in the solemn style, cannot be great, and may be altogether imaginary; that of imposing it, except in solemn prose, is not only real, but is often insuperable. It is not very agreeable, however, to see it added to some verbs, and dropped from others, in the same sentence: as,

"Thou, who _didst call_ the Furies from the abyss,
And round Orestes _bade_ them howl and hiss."
--_Byron's Childe Harold_, Canto iv, st. 132.

"Thou _satt'st_ from age to age insatiate,
And _drank_ the blood of men, and _gorged_ their flesh."
--_Pollok's Course of Time_, B. vii, l. 700.

OBS. 18.--We see then, that, according to Dr. Lowth and others, _the only good English_ in which one can address an individual on any ordinary occasion, is _you_ with a plural verb; and that, according to Lindley Murray and others, _the only good English_ for the same purpose, is _thou_ with a verb inflected with _st_ or _est_. Both parties to this pointed contradiction, are more or less in the wrong. The respect of the Friends for those systems of grammar which deny them the familiar use of the pronoun _thou_, is certainly not more remarkable, than the respect of the world for those which condemn the substitution of the plural _you_. Let grammar be a true record of existing facts, and all such contradictions must vanish. And, certainly, these great masters here contradict each other, in what every one who reads English, ought to know. They agree, however, in requiring, as indispensable to grammar, what is not only inconvenient, but absolutely impossible. For what "the measure of verse _will not admit_," cannot be used in poetry; and what may possibly be crowded into it, will often be far from ornamental. Yet our youth have been taught to spoil the versification of Pope and others, after the following manner: "Who _touch'd_ Isaiah's hallow'd lips with fire." Say, "Who _touchedst_ or _didst touch_."--_Murray's Key_, 8vo, p. 180. "For thee that ever _felt_ another's wo." Say, "_Didst feel_."--_Ib._ "Who _knew_ no wish but what the world might hear." Say, "Who _knewest_ or _didst know_."--_Ib._ "Who all my sense _confin'd_." Say, "_Confinedst_ or _didst confine_."--_Ib._, p. 186. "Yet _gave_ me in this dark estate." Say, "_Gavedst_ or _didst give_."--_Ib._ "_Left_ free the human will."--_Pope_. Murray's criticism extends not to this line, but by the analogy we must say, "_Leavedst_ or _leftest_." Now it would be easier to fill a volume with such quotations, and such corrections, than to find sufficient authority to prove one such word as _gavedst, leavedst_, or _leftest_, to be really good English. If Lord Byron is authority for "_work'dst_," he is authority also for dropping the _st_, even where it might be added:--

----"Thou, who with thy frown
_Annihilated_ senates."
--_Childe Harold's Pilgrimage_, Canto iv, st. 83.

OBS. 19.--According to Dr. Lowth, as well as Coar and some others, those preterits in which _ed_ is sounded like _t_, "admit the change of _ed_ into _t_; as, _snacht, checkt, snapt, mixt_, dropping also one of the double letters, _dwelt, past_."--_Lowth's Gram._, p. 46. If this principle were generally adopted, the number of our regular verbs would be greatly diminished, and irregularities would be indefinitely increased. What confusion the practice must make in the language, especially when we come to inflect this part of the verb with _st_ or _est_, has already been suggested. Yet an ingenious and learned writer, an able contributor to the Philological Museum, published at Cambridge, England, in 1832; tracing the history of this class of derivatives, and finding that after the _ed_ was contracted in pronunciation, several eminent writers, as Spenser, Milton, and others, adopted in most instances a contracted form of orthography; has seriously endeavoured to bring us back to their practice. From these authors, he cites an abundance of such contractions as the following: 1. "Stowd, hewd, subdewd, joyd, cald, expeld, compeld, spoild, kild, seemd, benumbd, armd, redeemd, staind, shund, paynd, stird, appeard, perceivd, resolvd, obeyd, equald, foyld, hurld, ruind, joynd, scatterd, witherd," and others ending in _d_. 2. "Clapt, whipt, worshipt, lopt, stopt, stampt, pickt, knockt, linkt, puft, stuft, hist, kist, abasht, brusht, astonisht, vanquisht, confest, talkt, twicht," and many others ending in _t_. This scheme divides our regular verbs into three classes; leaving but very few of them to be written as they now are. It proceeds upon the principle of accommodating our orthography to the familiar, rather than to the solemn pronunciation of the language. "This," as Dr. Johnson observes, "is to measure by a shadow." It is, whatever show of learning or authority may support it, a pernicious innovation. The critic says, "I have not ventured to follow the example of Spenser and Milton throughout, but have merely attempted to revive the old form of the preterit in _t_."--_Phil. Museum_, Vol. i, p. 663. "We ought not however to stop here," he thinks; and suggests that it would be no small improvement, "to write _leveld_ for _levelled, enameld_ for _enamelled, reformd_ for _reformed_," &c.

OBS. 20.--If the multiplication of irregular preterits, as above described, is a grammatical error of great magnitude; the forcing of our old and well-known irregular verbs into regular forms that are seldom if ever used, is an opposite error nearly as great. And, in either case, there is the same embarrassment respecting the formation of the second person. Thus _Cobbett_, in his English Grammar in a Series of Letters, has dogmatically given us a list of _seventy_ verbs, which, he says, are, "by some persons, _erroneously deemed irregular_;" and has included in it the words, _blow, build, cast, cling, creep, freeze, draw, throw_, and the like, to the number of _sixty_; so that he is really right in no more than one seventh part of his catalogue. And, what is more strange, for several of the irregularities which he censures, his own authority may be quoted from the early editions of this very book: as, "For you could have _thrown_ about seeds."--Edition of 1818, p. 13. "For you could have _throwed_ about seeds."--Edition of 1832, p. 13. "A tree is _blown_ down."--Ed. of 1818, p. 27. "A tree is _blowed_ down."--Ed. of 1832, p. 25. "It _froze_ hard last night. Now, what was it that _froze_ so hard?"--Ed. of 1818, p. 38. "It _freezed_ hard last night. Now, what was it that _freezed_ so hard?"--Ed. of 1832, p. 35. A whole page of such contradictions may be quoted from this one grammarian, showing that _he did not know_ what form of the preterit he ought to prefer. From such an instructor, who can find out what is good English, and what is not? Respecting the inflections of the verb, this author says, "There are three persons; _but, our verbs have no variation in their spelling, except for the third person singular_."--_Cobbett's E. Gram._, ¶ 88. Again: "Observe, however, that, in our language, there is no very great use in this distinction of modes; because, for the most part, our little _signs_ do the business, and _they never vary in the letters of which they are composed_."--_Ib._, ¶ 95. One would suppose, from these remarks, that Cobbett meant to dismiss the pronoun _thou_ entirely from his conjugations. Not so at all. In direct contradiction to himself, he proceeds to inflect the verb as follows: "I work, _Thou workest_, He works; &c. I worked, _Thou workedst_, He worked; &c. I shall or will work, _Thou shalt or wilt work_, He shall or will work;" &c.--_Ib._, ¶ 98. All the _compound_ tenses, except the future, he rejects, as things which "can only serve to fill up a book."

OBS. 21.--It is a common but erroneous opinion of our grammarians, that the unsyllabic suffix _st_, wherever found, is a modern contraction of the syllable _est_. No writer, however, thinks it always necessary to remind his readers of this, by inserting the sign of contraction; though English books are not a little disfigured by questionable apostrophes inserted for no other reason. Dr. Lowth says, "The nature of our language, the accent and pronunciation of it, inclines [incline] us to contract even all our regular verbs: thus _loved, turned_, are commonly pronounced in one syllable _lov'd, turn'd_: and the second person, which was originally in three syllables, _lovedest, turnedest_, is [say _has_] now become a dissyllable, _lovedst, turnedst_."--_Lowth's Gram._, p. 45; _Hiley's_, 45; _Churchill's_, 104. See also _Priestley's Gram._, p. 114; and _Coar's_, p. 102. This latter doctrine, with all its vouchers, still needs confirmation. What is it but an idle conjecture? If it were _true_, a few quotations might easily prove it; but when, and by whom, have any such words as _lovedest, turnedest_, ever been used? For aught I see, the simple _st_ is as complete and as old a termination for the second person singular of an English verb, as _est_; indeed, it appears to be _older_: and, for the preterit, it is, and (I believe) _always has been_, the _most_ regular, if not the _only_ regular, addition. If _sufferedest, woundedest_, and _killedest_, are words more regular than _sufferedst, woundedst, killedst_, then are _heardest, knewest, slewest, sawest, rannest, metest, swammest_, and the like, more regular than _heardst, knewst, slewst, sawst, ranst, metst, swamst, satst, saidst, ledst, fledst, toldst_, and so forth; but not otherwise.[246] So, in the solemn style, we write _seemest, deemest, swimmest_, like _seemeth, deemeth, swimmeth_, and so forth; but, when we use the form which has no increase of syllables, why is an apostrophe more necessary in the second person, than in the third?--in _seemst, deemst, swimst_, than in _seems, deems, swims_? When final _e_ is dropped from the verb, the case is different; as,