OBS. 8.—The true Subjunctive mood, in English, is virtually rejected by some later grammarians, who nevertheless acknowledge under that name a greater number and variety of forms than have ever been claimed for it in any other tongue. All that is peculiar to the Subjunctive, all that should constitute it a distinct mood, they represent as an archaism, an obsolete or antiquated mode of expression, while they willingly give to it every form of both the indicative and the potential, the two other moods which sometimes follow an if. Thus Wells, in his strange entanglement of the moods, not only gives to the subjunctive, as well as to the indicative, a "Simple" or "Common Form," and a "Potential Form;" not only recognizes in each an "Auxiliary Form," and a "Progressive Form;" but encumbers the whole with distinctions of style,—with what he calls the "Common Style," and the "Ancient Style;" or the "Solemn Style," and the "Familiar Style:" yet, after all, his own example of the Subjunctive, "Take heed, lest any man deceive you," is obviously different from all these, and not explainable under any of his paradigms! Nor is it truly consonant with any part of his theory, which is this: "The subjunctive of all verbs except be, takes the same form as the indicative. Good writers were formerly much accustomed to drop the personal termination in the subjunctive present, and write 'If he have,' 'If he deny,' etc., for 'If he has,' 'If he denies,' etc.; but this termination is now generally retained, unless an auxiliary is understood. Thus, 'If he hear,' may properly be used for 'If he shall hear' or 'If he should hear,' but not for 'If he hears.'"—Wells's School Gram., 1st Ed., p. 83; 3d Ed., p. 87. Now every position here taken is demonstrably absurd. How could "good writers" indite "much" bad English by dropping from the subjunctive an indicative ending which never belonged to it? And how can a needless "auxiliary" be "understood," on the principle of equivalence, where, by awkwardly changing a mood or tense, it only helps some grammatical theorist to convert good English into bad, or to pervert a text? The phrases above may all be right, or all be wrong, according to the correctness or incorrectness of their application: when each is used as best it may be, there is no exact equivalence. And this is true of half a dozen more of the same sort; as, "If he does hear,"—"If he do hear,"—"If he is hearing,"—"If he be hearing,"—"If he shall be hearing,"—"If he should be hearing."
OBS. 9.—Similar to Wells's, are the subjunctive forms of Allen H. Weld. Mistaking annex to signify prefix, this author teaches thus: "ANNEX if, though, unless, suppose, admit, grant, allow, or any word implying a condition, to each tense of the Indicative and Potential modes, to form the subjunctive; as, If thou lovest or love. If he loves, or love. Formerly it was customary to omit the terminations in the second and third persons of the present tense of the Subjunctive mode. But now the terminations are generally retained, except when the ellipsis of shall or should is implied; as, If he obey, i. e., if he shall, or should obey."—Weld's Grammar, Abridged Edition, p. 71. Again: "In general, the form of the verb in the Subjunctive, is the same as that of the Indicative; but an elliptical form in the second and third person [persona] singular, is used in the following instances: (1.) Future contingency is expressed by the omission of the Indicative termination; as, If he go, for, if he shall go. Though he slay me, i.e., though he should slay me. (2.) Lest and that annexed to a command are followed by the elliptical form of the Subjunctive; as, Love not sleep [,] lest thou come to poverty. (3.) If with but following it, when futurity is denoted, requires the elliptical form; as, If he do but touch the hills, they shall smoke."—Ib., p. 126. As for this scheme, errors and inconsistencies mark every part of it. First, the rule for forming the subjunctive is false, and is plainly contradicted by all that is true in the examples: "If thou love," or, "If he love" contains not the form of the indicative. Secondly, no terminations have ever been "generally" omitted from, or retained in, the form of the subjunctive present; because that part of the mood, as commonly exhibited, is well known to be made of the radical verb, without inflection. One might as well talk of suffixes for the imperative, "Love thou," or "Do thou love." Thirdly, shall or should can never be really implied in the subjunctive present; because the supposed ellipsis, needless and unexampled, would change the tense, the mood, and commonly also the meaning. "If he shall," properly implies a condition of future certainty; "If he should," a supposition of duty: the true subjunctive suggests neither of these. Fourthly, "the ellipsis of shall, or should," is most absurdly called above, "the omission of the Indicative termination." Fifthly, it is very strangely supposed, that to omit what pertains to the indicative or the potential mood, will produce an "elliptical form of the Subjunctive." Sixthly, such examples as the last, "If he do but touch the hills," having the auxiliary do not inflected as in the indicative, disprove the whole theory.
OBS. 10.—In J. B. Chandler's grammars, are taken nearly the same views of the "Subjunctive or Conditional Mood," that have just been noticed. "This mood," we are told, "is only the indicative or potential mood, with the word if placed before the nominative case."—Gram. of 1821, p. 48; Gram. of 1847, p. 73. Yet, of even this, the author has said, in the former edition, "It would, perhaps, be better to abolish the use of the subjunctive mood entirely. Its use is a continual source of dispute among grammarians, and of perplexity to scholars."—Page 33. The suppositive verb were,—(as, "Were I a king,"—"If I were a king,"—) which this author formerly rejected, preferring was, is now, after six and twenty years, replaced in his own examples; and yet he still attempts to disgrace it, by falsely representing it as being only "the indicative plural" very grossly misapplied! See Chandler's Common School Gram., p. 77.
OBS. 11.—The Imperative mood is so called because it is chiefly used in commanding. It is that brief form of the verb, by which we directly urge upon others our claims and wishes. But the nature of this urging varies according to the relation of the parties. We command inferiors; exhort equals; entreat superiors; permit whom we will;—and all by this same imperative form of the verb. In answer to a request, the imperative implies nothing more than permission. The will of a superior may also be urged imperatively by the indicative, future. This form is particularly common in solemn prohibitions; as, "Thou shalt not kill. * * * Thou shalt not steal."—Exodus, xx, 13 and 15. Of the ten commandments, eight are negative, and all these are indicative in form. The other two are in the imperative mood: "Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy. Honour thy father and thy mother."—Ib. But the imperative form may also be negative: as, "Touch not; taste not; handle not."—Colossians, ii, 21.
TENSES.
Tenses are those modifications of the verb, which distinguish time. There are six tenses; the Present, the Imperfect, the Perfect, the Pluperfect, the First-future, and the Second-future.
The Present tense is that which expresses what now exists, or is taking place: as, "I hear a noise; somebody is coming."
The Imperfect tense is that which expresses what took place, or was occurring, in time fully past: as, "I saw him yesterday, and hailed him as he was passing."
The Perfect tense is that which expresses what has taken place, within some period of time not yet fully past: as, "I have seen him to-day; something must have detained him."
The Pluperfect tense is that which expresses what had taken place, at some past time mentioned: as, "I had seen him, when I met you."
The First-future tense is that which expresses what will take place hereafter: as, "I shall see him again, and I will inform him."
The Second-future tense is that which expresses what will have taken place, at some future time mentioned: as, "I shall have seen him by tomorrow noon."
OBSERVATIONS.
OBS. 1.—The terms here defined are the names usually given to those parts of the verb to which they are in this work applied; and though some of them are not so strictly appropriate as scientific names ought to be, it is thought inexpedient to change them. In many old grammars, and even in the early editions of Murray, the three past tenses are called the Preterimperfect, Preterperfect, and Preterpluperfect. From these names, the term Preter, (which is from the Latin preposition præter, meaning beside, beyond, or past,) has been well dropped for the sake of brevity.[233]
OBS. 2.—The distinctive epithet Imperfect, or Preterimperfect, appears to have been much less accurately employed by the explainers of our language, than it was by the Latin grammarians from whom it was borrowed. That tense which passes in our schools for the Imperfect, (as, I slept, did sleep, or was sleeping,) is in fact, so far as the indicative mood is concerned, more completely past, than that which we call the Perfect. Murray indeed has attempted to show that the name is right; and, for the sake of consistency, one could wish he had succeeded. But every scholar must observe, that the simple preterit, which is the first form of this tense, and is never found in any other, as often as the sentence is declarative, tells what happened within some period of time fully past, as last week, last year; whereas the perfect tense is used to express what has happened within some period of time not yet fully past, as this week, this year. As to the completeness of the action, there is no difference; for what has been done to-day, is as completely done, as what was achieved a year ago. Hence it is obvious that the term Imperfect has no other applicability to the English tense so called, than what it may have derived from the participle in ing, which we use in translating the Latin imperfect tense: as, Dormiebam, I was sleeping; Legebam, I was reading; Docebam, I was teaching. And if for this reason the whole English tense, with all its variety of forms in the different moods, "may, with propriety, be denominated imperfect;" surely, the participle itself should be so denominated a fortiori: for it always conveys this same idea, of "action not finished," be the tense of its accompanying auxiliary what it may.
OBS. 3.—The tenses do not all express time with equal precision; nor can the whole number in any language supersede the necessity of adverbs of time, much less of dates, and of nouns that express periods of duration. The tenses of the indicative mood, are the most definite; and, for this reason, as well as for some others, the explanations of all these modifications of the verb, are made with particular reference to that mood. Some suppose the compound or participial form, as I am writing, to be more definite in time, than the simple form, as I write, or the emphatic form, as I do write; and accordingly they divide all the tenses into Indefinite and Definite. Of this division Dr. Webster seems to claim the invention; for he gravely accuses Murray of copying it unjustly from him, though the latter acknowledges in a note upon his text, it "is, in part, taken from Webster's Grammar."—Murray's Octavo Gram., p. 73. The distribution, as it stands in either work, is not worth quarrelling about: it is evidently more cumbersome than useful. Nor, after all, is it true that the compound form is more definite in time than the other. For example; "Dionysius, tyrant of Syracuse, was always betraying his unhappiness."—Art of Thinking, p. 123. Now, if was betraying were a more definite tense than betrayed, surely the adverb "always" would require the latter, rather than the former.
OBS. 4.—The present tense, of the indicative mood, expresses not only what is now actually going on, but general truths, and customary actions: as, "Vice produces misery."—"He hastens to repent, who gives sentence quickly."—Grant's Lat. Gram., p. 71. "Among the Parthians, the signal is given by the drum, and not by the trumpet."—Justin. Deceased authors may be spoken of in the present tense, because they seem to live in their works; as, "Seneca reasons and moralizes well."—Murray. "Women talk better than men, from the superior shape of their tongues: an ancient writer speaks of their loquacity three thousand years ago."—Gardiner's Music of Nature, p. 27.
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,
"Thou cutst my head off with a golden axe,
And smil'st upon the stroke that murders me."—Shakspeare.
OBS. 22.—Dr. Lowth supposes the verbal termination s or es to have come from a contraction of eth. He says, "Sometimes, by the rapidity of our pronunciation, the vowels are shortened or lost; and the consonants, which are thrown together, do not coalesce with one another, and are therefore changed into others of the same organ, or of a kindred species. This occasions a farther deviation from the regular form: thus, loveth, turneth, are contracted into lov'th, turn'th, and these, for easier pronunciation, immediately become loves, turns."—Lowth's Gram., p. 46; Hiley's, 45. This etymology may possibly be just, but certainly such contractions as are here spoken of, were not very common in Lowth's age, or even in that of Ben Jonson, who resisted the s. Nor is the sound of sharp th very obviously akin to flat s. The change would have been less violent, if lov'st and turnst had become loves and turns; as some people nowadays are apt to change them, though doubtless this is a grammatical error: as,
"And wheresoe'er thou casts thy view."
—Cowley.
"Nor thou that flings me floundering from thy back."
—Bat. of Frogs and Mice, 1,123.
"Thou sitt'st on high, and measures destinies."
—Pollok, Course of Time, B. vi, 1, 668.
OBS. 23.—Possibly, those personal terminations of the verb which do not form syllables, are mere contractions or relics of est and eth, which are syllables; but it is perhaps not quite so easy to prove them so, as some authors imagine. In the oldest specimens given by Dr. Johnson in his History of the English Language,—specimens bearing a much earlier date than the English language can claim,—even in what he calls "Saxon in its highest state of purity," both st and th are often added to verbs, without forming additional syllables, and without any sign of contraction. Nor were verbs of the second person singular always inflected of old, in those parts to which est was afterwards very commonly added. Examples: "Buton ic wat thæt thu hoefst thara wæpna."—King Alfred. "But I know that thou hast those weapons." "Thæt thu oncnawe thara worda sothfæstnesse. of tham the thu geloered eart."—Lucæ, i, 4. "That thou mightest know the certainty of those things wherein thou hast been instructed."—Luke, i, 4. "And thu nemst his naman Johannes."—Lucæ, i, 13. "And his name schal be clepid Jon."—Wickliffe's Version. "And thou shalt call his name John."—Luke, i, 13. "And he ne drincth win ne beor."—Lucæ, i, 15. "He schal not drinke wyn ne sydyr."—Wickliffe. "And shall drink neither wine nor strong drink."—Luke, i, 15. "And nu thu bist suwigende. and thu sprecan ne miht oth thone dæg the thas thing gewurthath. fortham thu minum wordum ne gelyfdest. tha beoth on hyra timan gefyllede."—Lucæ, i, 20. "And lo, thou schalt be doumbe, and thou schalt not mowe speke, til into the day in which these thingis schulen be don, for thou hast not beleved to my wordis, whiche schulen be fulfild in her tyme."—Wickliffe. "And, behold, thou shalt be dumb, and not able to speak, until the day that[247] these things shall be performed, because thou believest not my words, which shall be fulfilled in their season."—Luke, i, 20.
"In chaungyng of her course, the chaunge shewth this,
Vp startth a knaue, and downe there falth a knight."
—Sir Thomas More.
OBS. 24.—The corollary towards which the foregoing observations are directed, is this. As most of the peculiar terminations by which the second person singular is properly distinguished in the solemn style, are not only difficult of utterance, but are quaint and formal in conversation; the preterits and auxiliaries of our verbs are seldom varied in familiar discourse, and the present is generally simplified by contraction, or by the adding of st without increase of syllables. A distinction between the solemn and the familiar style has long been admitted, in the pronunciation of the termination ed, and in the ending of the verb in the third person singular; and it is evidently according to good taste and the best usage, to admit such a distinction in the second person singular. In the familiar use of the second person singular, the verb is usually varied only in the present tense of the indicative mood, and in the auxiliary hast of the perfect. This method of varying the verb renders the second person singular analogous to the third, and accords with the practice of the most intelligent of those who retain the common use of this distinctive and consistent mode of address. It disencumbers their familiar dialect of a multitude of harsh and useless terminations, which serve only, when uttered, to give an uncouth prominency to words not often emphatic; and, without impairing the strength or perspicuity of the language, increases its harmony, and reduces the form of the verb in the second person singular nearly to the same simplicity as in the other persons and numbers. It may serve also, in some instances, to justify the poets, in those abbreviations for which they have been so unreasonably censured by Lowth, Murray, and some other grammarians: as,