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,

"And thou their natures _knowst_, and _gave_ them names,

Needless to thee repeated."--_Milton_, P. L., Book vii, line 494.

OBS. 25.--The writings of the Friends, being mostly of a grave cast, afford

but few examples of their customary manner of forming the verb in connexion

with the pronoun _thou_, in familiar discourse. The following may serve to

illustrate it: "Suitable to the office thou _layst_ claim to."--R.

BARCLAY'S _Works_, Vol. i, p. 27. "Notwithstanding thou _may have_

sentiments opposite to mine."--THOMAS STORY. "To devote all thou _had_ to

his service;"--"If thou _should come_;"--"What thou _said_;"--"Thou kindly

_contributed_;"--"The epistle which thou _sent_ me;"--"Thou _would_ perhaps

_allow_;"--"If thou _submitted_;"--"Since thou _left_;"--"_Should_ thou

_act_;"--"Thou _may be_ ready;"--"That thou _had met_;"--"That thou _had

intimated_;"--"Before thou _puts_" [putst];--"What thou _meets_"

[meetst];--"If thou _had made_;"--"I observed thou _was_;"--"That thou

_might put_ thy trust;"--"Thou _had been_ at my house."--JOHN KENDALL.

"Thou _may be plundered_;"--"That thou _may feel_;"--"Though thou _waited_

long, and _sought_ him;"--"I hope thou _will bear_ my style;"--"Thou also

_knows_" [knowst];--"Thou _grew_ up;"--"I wish thou _would_ yet _take_ my

counsel."--STEPHEN CRISP. "Thou _manifested_ thy tender regard, _stretched_

forth thy delivering hand, and _fed_ and _sustained_ us."--SAMUEL

FOTHERGILL. The writer has met with thousands that used the second person

singular in conversation, but never with any one that employed, on ordinary

occasions, all the regular endings of the solemn style. The simplification

of the second person singular, which, to a greater or less extent, is

everywhere adopted by the Friends, and which is here defined and explained,

removes from each verb eighteen of these peculiar terminations; and, (if

the number of English verbs be, as stated by several grammarians, 8000,)

disburdens their familiar dialect of 144,000 of these awkward and useless

appendages.[248] This simplification is supported by usage as extensive as

the familiar use of the pronoun _thou_; and is also in accordance with the

canons of criticism: "The _first_ canon on this subject is, All words and

phrases which are remarkably harsh and unharmonious, and not absolutely

necessary, should be rejected." See _Campbell's Philosophy of Rhetoric_, B.

ii, Ch. ii, Sec. 2, Canon Sixth, p. 181. See also, in the same work, (B.

hi, Ch. iv, Sec. 2d,) an _express defence_ of "those elisions whereby the

sound is improved;" especially of the suppression of the "feeble vowel in

the last syllable of the preterits of our regular verbs;" and of "such

abbreviations" as "the eagerness of conveying one's sentiments, the

rapidity and ease of utterance, necessarily produce, in the dialect of

conversation."--Pages 426 and 427. Lord Kames says, "That the English

tongue, originally harsh, is at present much softened by dropping many

_redundant consonants_, is undoubtedly true; that it is not capable of

being further mellowed without suffering in its force and energy, will

scarce be thought by any one who possesses an ear."--_Elements of

Criticism_, Vol. ii, p. 12.

OBS. 26.--The following examples are from a letter of an African Prince,

translated by Dr. Desaguillier of Cambridge, England, in 1743, and

published in a London newspaper: "I lie there too upon the bed _thou

presented_ me;"--"After _thou_ left me, in thy swimming house;"--"Those

good things _thou presented_ me;"--"When _thou spake_ to the Great Spirit

and his Son." If it is desirable that our language should retain this power

of a simple literal version of what in others may be familiarly expressed

by the second person singular, it is clear that our grammarians must not

continue to dogmatize according to the letter of some authors hitherto

popular. But not every popular grammar condemns such phraseology as the

foregoing. "I improved, Thou _improvedst_, &c. This termination of the

second person preterit, on account of its harshness, _is seldom used_, and

especially in the irregular verbs."--_Harrison's Gram._, p. 26. "The

termination _est_, annexed to the preter tenses of verbs, is, at best, a

very harsh one, when it is contracted, according to our general custom of

throwing out the _e_; as _learnedst_, for _learnedest_; and especially, if

it be again contracted into one syllable, _as it is commonly pronounced_,

and made _learndst._ * * * I believe a writer or speaker would have

recourse to any periphrasis rather than say _keptest_, or _keptst_. * * *

Indeed this harsh termination _est_ is _generally quite dropped in common

conversation_, and sometimes by the poets, in writing."--_Priestley's

Gram._, p. 115. The fact is, it never was added with much uniformity.

Examples: "But like the hell hounde _thou waxed_ fall furious, expressing

thy malice when _thou_ to honour _stied_."--FABIAN'S CHRONICLE, V. ii, p.

522: in _Tooke's Divers._, T. ii, p. 232.

"Thou from the arctic regions came. Perhaps

Thou noticed on thy way a little orb,

Attended by one moon--her lamp by night."

--_Pollok_, B. ii, l. 5.

"'So I believ'd.'--No, Abel! to thy grief,

So thou _relinquish'd_ all that was belief."

--_Crabbe, Borough_, p. 279.

OBS. 27.--L. Murray, and his numerous copyists, Ingersoll, Greenleaf,

Kirkham, Fisk, Flint, Comly, Alger, and the rest; though they insist on it,

that the _st_ of the second person can never be dispensed with, except in

the imperative mood and some parts of the subjunctive; are not altogether

insensible of that monstrous harshness which their doctrine imposes upon

the language. Some of them tell us to avoid this by preferring the

auxiliaries _dost_ and _didst_: as _dost burst_, for _burstest; didst

check_, for _checkedst._ This recommendation proceeds on the supposition

that _dost_ and _didst_ are smoother syllables than _est_ and _edst_; which

is not true: _didst learn_ is harsher than either _learnedst_ or

_learntest_; and all three of them are intolerable in common discourse. Nor

is the "_energy_, or _positiveness_," which grammarians ascribe to these

auxiliaries, always appropriate. Except in a question, _dost_ and _didst_,

like _do, does_, and _did_, are usually signs of _emphasis_; and therefore

unfit to be substituted for the _st, est_, or _edst_, of an unemphatic

verb. Kirkham, who, as we have seen, graces his Elocution with such

unutterable things, as "_prob'dst, hurl'dst, arm'dst, want'dst, burn'dst,

bark'dst, bubbl'dst, troubbl'dst_," attributes the use of the plural for

the singular, to a design of avoiding the raggedness of the latter. "In

order to avoid the disagreeable harshness of sound, occasioned by the

frequent recurrence of the termination _est, edst_, in the adaptation of

our verbs to the nominative _thou_, a _modern innovation_ which substitutes

_you_ for _thou_, in familiar style, has generally been adopted. This

innovation contributes greatly to the harmony of our colloquial style.

_You_ was formerly restricted to the plural number; but now it is employed

to represent either a singular or a plural noun."--_Kirkham's Gram._, p.

99. A modern innovation, forsooth! Does not every body know it was current

four hundred years ago, or more? Certainly, both _ye_ and _you_ were

applied in this manner, to the great, as early as the fourteenth century.

Chaucer sometimes used them so, and he died in 1400. Sir T. More uses them

so, in a piece dated 1503.

"O dere cosyn, Dan Johan, she sayde,

What eyleth _you_ so rathe to aryse?"--_Chaucer_.

Shakspeare most commonly uses _thou_, but he sometimes has _you_ in stead

of it. Thus, he makes Portia say to Brutus:

"_You_ suddenly arose, and walk'd about,

Musing, and sighing, with _your_ arms across;

And when I ask'd _you_ what the matter was,

_You_ star'd upon me with ungentle looks."--_J. Cæsar_, Act ii, Sc. 2.

OBS. 28.--"There is a natural tendency in all languages to throw out the

rugged parts which improper consonants produce, and to preserve those which

are melodious and agreeable to the ear."--_Gardiner's Music of Nature_, p.

29. "The English tongue, so remarkable for its grammatical simplicity, is

loaded with a great variety of dull unmeaning terminations. Mr. Sheridan

attributes this defect, to an utter inattention to what is easy to the

organs of speech and agreeable to the ear; and further adds, that, 'the

French having been adopted as the language of the court, no notice was

taken, of the spelling or pronunciation of our words, until the reign of

queen Anne.' So little was spelling attended to in the time of Elizabeth,

that Dr. Johnson informs us, that on referring to Shakspeare's will, to

determine how his name was spelt, he was found to have written it himself

[in] no _less_ [fewer] than three different ways."--_Ib._, p. 477. In old

books, our participial or verbal termination _ed_, is found written in

about a dozen different ways; as, _ed, de, d, t, id, it, yd, yt, ede, od,

ud_. For _est_ and _eth_, we find sometimes the consonants only; sometimes,

_ist_ or _yst, ith_ or _yth_; sometimes, for the latter, _oth_ or _ath_;

and sometimes the ending was omitted altogether. In early times also the

_th_ was an ending for verbs of the third person plural, as well as for

those of the third person singular;[249] and, in the imperative mood, it

was applied to the second person, both singular and plural: as,

"_Demith_ thyself, that demist other's dede;

And trouthe the shall deliver, it's no drede."--_Chaucer_.

OBS. 29.--It must be obvious to every one who has much acquaintance with

the history of our language, that this part of its grammar has always been

quite as unsettled as it is now; and, however we may wish to establish its

principles, it is idle to teach for absolute certainty that which every

man's knowledge may confute. Let those who desire to see our forms of

conjugation as sure as those of other tongues, study to exemplify in their

own practice what tends to uniformity. The best that can be done by the

author of a grammar, is, to exhibit usage, as it has been, and as it is;

pointing out to the learner what is most fashionable, as well as what is

most orderly and agreeable. If by these means the usage of writers and

speakers cannot be fixed to what is fittest for their occasions, and

therefore most grammatical, there is in grammar no remedy for their

inaccuracies; as there is none for the blunders of dull opinionists, none

for the absurdities of Ignorance stalled in the seats of Learning. Some

grammarians say, that, whenever the preterit of an irregular verb is like

the present, it should take _edst_ for the second person singular. This

rule, (which is adopted by Walker, in his Principles, No. 372,) gives us

such words as _cast-edst, cost-edst, bid-dedst, burst-edst, cut-tedst,

hit-tedst, let-tedst, put-tedst, hurt-edst, rid-dedst, shed-dedst_, &c. But

the rule is groundless. The few examples which may be adduced from ancient

writings, in support of this principle, are undoubtedly formed in the usual

manner from regular preterits now obsolete; and if this were not the case,

no person of taste could think of employing, on any occasion, derivatives

so uncouth. Dr. Johnson has justly remarked, that "the chief defect of our

language, is ruggedness and asperity." And this defect, as some of the

foregoing remarks have shown, is peculiarly obvious, when even the regular

termination of the second person singular is added to our preterits.

Accordingly, we find numerous instances among the poets, both ancient and

modern, in which that termination is omitted. See Percy's Reliques of

Ancient Poetry, everywhere.

"Thou, who of old the prophet's eye _unsealed_."--_Pollok_.

"Thou _saw_ the fields laid bare and waste."--_Burns_.[250]

OBS. 30.--With the familiar form of the second person singular, those who

constantly put _you_ for _thou_ can have no concern; and many may think it

unworthy of notice, because Murray has said nothing about it: others will

hastily pronounce it bad English, because they have learned at school some

scheme of the verb, which implies that this must needs be wrong. It is this

partial learning which makes so much explanation here necessary. The

formation of this part of speech, form it as you will, is _central to

grammar_, and cannot but be very important. Our language can never entirely

drop the pronoun _thou_, and its derivatives, _thy, thine, thee, thyself_,

without great injury, especially to its poetry. Nor can the distinct

syllabic utterance of the termination _ed_ be now generally practised,

except in solemn prose. It is therefore better, not to insist on those old

verbal forms against which there are so many objections, than to exclude

the pronoun of the second person singular from all such usage, whether

familiar or poetical, as will not admit them. It is true that on most

occasions _you_ may be substituted for _thou_, without much inconvenience;

and so may _we_ be substituted for _I_, with just as much propriety; though

Dr. Perley thinks the latter usage "is not to be encouraged."--_Gram._, p.

28. Our authors and editors, like kings and emperors, are making _we_ for

_I_ their most common mode of expression. They renounce their individuality

to avoid egotism. And when all men shall have adopted this enallage, the

fault indeed will be banished, or metamorphosed, but with it will go an

other sixth part of every English conjugation. The pronouns in the

following couplet are put for the first person singular, the second person

singular, and the second person plural; yet nobody will understand them so,

but by their antecedents:

"Right trusty, and so forth--_we_ let _you_ to know

_We_ are very ill used by _you mortals_ below."--_Swift._

OBS. 31.--It is remarkable that some, who forbear to use the plural for the

singular in the second person, adopt it without scruple, in the first. The

figure is the same in both; and in both, sufficiently common. Neither

practice is worthy to be made more general than it now is. If _thou_ should

not be totally sacrificed to what was once a vain compliment, neither

should _I_, to what is now an occasional, and perhaps a vain assumption.

Lindley Murray, who does not appear to have used _you_ for _thou_, and who

was sometimes singularly careful to periphrase [sic--KTH] and avoid the

latter, nowhere in his grammar speaks of himself in the first person

singular. He is often "the _Compiler_;" rarely, "the _Author_;" generally,

"We:" as, "_We_ have distributed these parts of grammar, in the mode which

_we_ think most correct and intelligible."--_Octavo Gram._, p. 58. "_We_

shall not pursue this subject any further."--_Ib._, p. 62. "_We_ shall

close these remarks on the tenses."--_Ib._, p. 76. "_We_ presume no solid

objection can be made."--_Ib._, p. 78. "The observations which _we_ have

made."--_Ib._, p. 100. "_We_ shall produce a remarkable example of this

beauty from Milton."--_Ib._, p. 331. "_We_ have now given sufficient

openings into this subject."--_Ib._, p. 334. This usage has authority

enough; for it was not uncommon even among the old Latin grammarians; but

he must be a slender scholar, who thinks the pronoun _we_ thereby becomes

_singular._ What advantage or fitness there is in thus putting _we_ for

_I_, the reader may judge. Dr. Blair did not hesitate to use _I_, as often

as ho had occasion; neither did Lowth, or Johnson, or Walker, or Webster:

as, "_I_ shall produce a remarkable example of this beauty from

Milton."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 129. "_I_ have now given sufficient openings

into this subject."--_Ib._, p. 131. So in Lowth's Preface: "_I_

believe,"--"_I_ am persuaded,"--"_I_ am sure,"--"_I_ think,"--"_I_ am

afraid,"--"_I_ will not take upon _me_ to say."

OBS. 32.--Intending to be critical without hostility, and explicit without

partiality, I write not for or against any sect, or any man; but to teach

all who desire to know _the grammar_ of our tongue. The student must

distinctly understand, that it is necessary to speak and write differently,

according to the different circumstances or occasions of writing. Who is he

that will pretend that the solemn style of the Bible may be used in

familiar discourse, without a mouthing affectation? In preaching, or in

praying, the ancient terminations of _est_ for the second person singular

and _eth_ for the third, as well as _ed_ pronounced as a separate syllable

for the preterit, are admitted to be generally in better taste than the

smoother forms of the familiar style: because the latter, though now

frequently heard in religious assemblies, are not so well suited to the

dignity and gravity of a sermon or a prayer. In grave poetry also,

especially when it treats of scriptural subjects, to which _you_ put for

_thou_ is obviously unsuitable, the personal terminations of the verb,

though from the earliest times to the present day they have usually been

contracted and often omitted by the poets, ought still perhaps to be

considered grammatically necessary, whenever they can be uttered, agreeably

to the notion of our tuneless critics. The critical objection to their

elision, however, can have no very firm foundation while it is admitted by

some of the objectors themselves, that, "Writers _generally_ have recourse

to this mode of expression, that they may avoid harsh terminations."--

_Irving's Elements of English Composition_, p. 12. But if writers of good

authority, such as Pope, Byron, and Pollok, have sometimes had recourse to

this method of simplifying the verb, even in compositions of a grave cast,

the elision may, with tenfold stronger reason, be admitted in familiar

writing or discourse, on the authority of general custom among those who

choose to employ the pronoun _thou_ in conversation.

"But thou, false Arcite, never _shall_ obtain," &c.

--_Dryden, Fables_.

"These goods _thyself can_ on thyself bestow."

--_Id., in Joh. Dict._

"What I show, _thy self may_ freely on thyself bestow."

--_Id., Lowth's Gram._, p. 26.

"That thou _might_ Fortune to thy side engage."

--_Prior_.

"Of all thou ever _conquered_, none was left."

--_Pollok_, B. vii, l. 760.

"And touch me trembling, as thou _touched_ the man," &c.

--_Id._, B. x, l. 60.

OBS. 33.--Some of the Friends (perhaps from an idea that it is less formal)

misemploy _thee_ for _thou_; and often join it to the third person of the

verb in stead of the second. Such expressions as, _thee does, thee is, thee

has, thee thinks_, &c., are double solecisms; they set all grammar at

defiance. Again, many persons who are not ignorant of grammar, and who

employ the pronoun aright, sometimes improperly sacrifice concord to a

slight improvement in sound, and give to the verb the ending of the third

person, for that of the second. Three or four instances of this, occur in

the examples which have been already quoted. See also the following, and

many more, in the works of the poet Burns; who says of himself, "Though it

cost the schoolmaster some thrashings, I made an excellent English scholar;

and, by the time I was ten or eleven years of age, I was a critic in

substantives, VERBS, and particles:"--"But when thou _pours_;"--"There thou

_shines_ chief;"--"Thou _clears_ the head;"--"Thou _strings_ the

nerves;"--"Thou _brightens_ black despair;"--"Thou _comes_;"--"Thou

_travels_ far;"--"Now _thou's turned_ out;"--"Unseen thou _lurks_;"--"O

thou pale orb that silent _shines_." This mode of simplifying the verb,

confounds the persons; and, as it has little advantage in sound, over the

regular contracted form of the second person, it ought to be avoided. With

this author it may be, perhaps, a Scotticism: as,

"Thou _paints_ auld nature to the nines,

In thy sweet Caledonian lines."--_Burns to Ramsay_.

"Thou _paintst old_ nature," would be about as smooth poetry, and certainly

much better English. This confounding of the persons of the verb, however,

is no modern peculiarity. It appears to be about as old as the use of _s_

for _th_ or _eth_. Spenser, the great English poet of the sixteenth

century, may be cited in proof: as,

"Siker, _thou's_ but a lazy loord,

And _rekes_ much of thy swinke."--_Joh. Dict., w. Loord_.

OBS. 34.--In the solemn style, (except in poetry, which usually contracts

these forms,) the second person singular of the present indicative, and

that of the irregular preterits, commonly end in _est_, pronounced as a

separate syllable, and requiring the duplication of the final consonant,

according to Rule 3d for Spelling: as, I _run_, thou _runnest_; I _ran_,

thou _rannest_. But as the termination _ed_, in solemn discourse,

constitutes a syllable, the regular preterits form the second person

singular by assuming _st_, without further increase of syllables: as, I

_loved_, thou _lovedst_; not, "_lovedest_," as Chandler made it in his

English Grammar, p. 41, Edition of 1821; and as Wells's rule, above cited,

if literally taken, would make it. _Dost_ and _hast_, and the three

irregular preterits, _wast, didst_, and _hadst_, are permanently

contracted; though _doest_ and _diddest_ are sometimes seen in old books.

_Saidst_ is more common, and perhaps more regular, than _saidest. Werest_

has long been contracted into _wert_: "I would thou _werest_ either cold or

hot."--_W. Perkins_, 1608.[251] The auxiliaries _shall_ and _will_ change

the final _l_ to _t_, and become _shalt_ and _wilt_. To the auxiliaries,

_may, can, might, could, would_, and _should_, the termination _est_ was

formerly added; but they are now generally written with _st_ only, and

pronounced as monosyllables, even in solemn discourse. Murray, in quoting

the Scriptures, very often charges _mayest_ to _mayst, mightest_ to

_mightst_, &c. Some other permanent contractions are occasionally met with,

in what many grammarians call the solemn style; as _bidst_ for _biddest,

fledst_ for _fleddest, satst_ for _sattest_:

"Riding sublime, thou _bidst_ the world adore,

And humblest nature with thy northern blast."

--_Thomson_.

"Fly thither whence thou _fledst_."

--_Milton, P. L._, B. iv, l. 963.

"Unspeakable, who _sitst_ above these heavens."

--_Id., ib._, B. v, l. 156.

"Why _satst_ thou like an enemy in wait?"

--_Id., ib._, B. iv, l. 825.

OBS. 35.--The formation of the third person singular of verbs, is _now_

precisely the same as that of the plural number of nouns: as, _love, loves;

show, shows; boast, boasts; fly, flies; reach, reaches_. This form began to

be used about the beginning of the sixteenth century. The ending seems once

to have been _es_, sounded as _s_ or _z_: as,

"And thus I see among these pleasant thynges

Eche care _decayes_, and yet my sorrow _sprynges_."--_Earl of Surry_.

"With throte yrent, he _roares_, he _lyeth_ along."--_Sir T. Wyat_.

"He _dyeth_, he is all dead, he _pantes_, he _restes_."--_Id._, 1540.

In all these instances, the _e_ before the _s_ has become improper. The

_es_ does not here form a syllable; neither does the _eth_, in "_lyeth_"

and "_dyeth_." In very ancient times, the third person singular appears to

have been formed by adding _th_ or _eth_ nearly as we now add _s_ or

_es_[252] Afterwards, as in our common Bible, it was formed by adding _th_

to verbs ending in _e_, and _eth_ to all others; as, "For he that _eateth_

and _drinketh_ unworthily, _eateth_ and _drinketh_ damnation to

himself."--_1 Cor._, xi, 29. "He _quickeneth_ man, who is dead in

trespasses and sins; he _keepeth_ alive the quickened soul, and _leadeth_

it in the paths of life; he _scattereth, subdueth_, and _conquereth_ the

enemies of the soul."--_I. Penington_. This method of inflection, as now

pronounced, always adds a syllable to the verb. It is entirely confined to

the solemn style, and is little used. _Doth, hath_, and _saith_, appear to

be permanent contractions of verbs thus formed. In the days of Shakspeare,

both terminations were common, and he often mixed them, in a way which is

not very proper now: as,

"The quality of mercy is not strained;

It _droppeth_, as the gentle rain from heaven

Upon the place beneath: it is twice bless'd;

It _blesseth_ him that _gives_, and him that _takes_."

--_Merchant of Venice_.

OBS. 36.--When the second person singular is employed in familiar

discourse, with any regard to correctness, it is usually formed in a manner

strictly analogous to that which is now adopted in the third person

singular. When the verb ends with a sound which will unite with that of

_st_ or _s_, the second person singular is formed by adding _s_ only, and

the third, by adding _s_ only; and the number of syllables is not

increased: as, I _read_, thou _readst_, he _reads_; I _know_, thou

_knowst_, he _knows_; I _take_, thou _takest_, he _takes_; I _free_, thou

_freest_, he _frees_. For, when the verb ends in mute _a_, no termination

renders this _a_ vocal in the familiar style, if a synæresis can take

place. To prevent their readers from ignorantly assuming the pronunciation

of the solemn style, the poets have generally marked such words with an

apostrophe: as,

"Look what thy soul holds dear, imagine it

To lie the way thou _go'st_, not whence thou _com'st_."--_Shak_.

OBS. 37.--But when the verb ends in a sound which will not unite with that

of _st_ or _s_, the second and third persons are formed by adding _est_ and

_es_; or, if the first person end in mute _e_, the _st_ and _s_ render that

_e_ vocal; so that the verb acquires an additional syllable: as, I _trace_,

thou _tracest_, he _traces_; I _pass_, thou _passest_, he _passes_; I

_fix_, thou _fixest_, he _fixes_; I _preach_, thou _preachest_, he

_preaches_; I _blush_, thou _blushest_, he _blushes_; I _judge_, thou

_judgest_, he _judges_. But verbs ending in _o_ or _y_ preceded by a

consonant, do not exactly follow either of the foregoing rules. In these,

_y_ is changed into _i_; and, to both _o_ and _i, est_ and _es_ are added

without increase of syllables: as, I _go_, thou _goest_, he _goes_; I

_undo_, thou _undoest_,[253] he _undoes_; I _fly_, thou _fliest_, he

_flies_; I _pity_, thou _pitiest_, he _pities_. Thus, in the following

lines, _goest_ must be pronounced like _ghost_; otherwise, we spoil the

measure of the verse:

"Thou _goest_ not now with battle, and the voice

Of war, as once against the rebel hosts;

Thou _goest_ a Judge, and _findst_ the guilty bound;

Thou _goest_ to prove, condemn, acquit, reward."--_Pollok_, B. x.

In solemn prose, however, the termination is here made a separate syllable:

as, I _go_, thou _goëst_, he _goëth_; I _undo_, thou _undoëst_, he

_undoëth_; I _fly_, thou _fliëst_, he _fliëth_; I _pity_, thou _pitiëst_,

he _pitiëth_.

OBS. 38.--The auxiliaries _do, dost, does_,--(pronounced _doo, dust, duz_;

and not as the words _dough, dosed, doze_,--) _am, art, is,--have, hast,

has_,--being also in frequent use as principal verbs of the present tense,

retain their peculiar forms, with distinction of person and number, when

they help to form the compound tenses of other verbs. The other auxiliaries

are not varied, or ought not to be varied, except in the solemn style.

Example of the familiar use: "That thou _may_ be found truly owning

it."--_Barclay's Works_, Vol. i, p. 234.

OBS. 39.--The only regular terminations that are added to English verbs,

are _ing, d_ or _e, st_ or _est, s_ or _es, th_ or _eth_[254] _Ing_, and

_th_ or _eth_, always add a syllable to the verb; except in _doth, hath,

saith_.[255] The rest, whenever their sound will unite with that of the

final syllable of the verb, are usually added without increasing the number

of syllables; otherwise, they are separately pronounced. In solemn

discourse, however, _ed_ and _est_ are by most speakers uttered distinctly

in all cases; except sometimes when a vowel precedes: as in _sanctified,

glorified_, which are pronounced as three syllables only. Yet, in spite of

this analogy, many readers will have _sanctifiest_ and _glorifiest_ to be

words of four syllables. If this pronunciation is proper, it is only so in

solemn prose. The prosody of verse will show how many syllables the poets

make: as,

"Thou _diedst_, a most rare boy, of melancholy!"

--_Shak., Cymb._, Act iv, sc. 2.

"Had not a voice thus warn'd me: What thou _seest_,

What there thou _seest_, fair creature, is thyself."

--_Milton_, B. iv, l. 467.

"By those thou _wooedst_ from death to endless life."

--_Pollok_, B. ix, l. 7.

"Attend: that thou art happy, owe to God;

That thou _continuest_ such, owe to thyself"

--_Milton_, B. v, l. 520.

OBS. 40.--If the grave and full form of the second person singular must

needs be supposed to end rather with the syllable _est_ than with _st_

only, it is certain that this form may be _contracted_, whenever the verb

ends in a sound which will unite with that of _st_. The poets generally

employ the briefer or contracted forms; but they seem not to have adopted a

uniform and consistent method of writing them. Some usually insert the

apostrophe, and, after a single vowel, double the final consonant before

_st_; as, _hold'st, bidd'st, said'st, ledd'st, wedd'st, trimm'st, may'st,

might'st_, and so forth: others, in numerous instances, add _st_ only, and

form permanent contractions; as, _holdst, bidst, saidst, ledst, wedst,

trimst, mayst, mightst_, and so forth. Some retain the vowel _e_, in the

termination of certain words, and suppress a preceding one; as,

_quick'nest, happ'nest, scatt'rest, rend'rest, rend'redst, slumb'rest,

slumb'redst_: others contract the termination of such words, and insert the

apostrophe; as, _quicken'st, happen'st, scatter'st, render'st, render'dst,

slumber'st, slumber'dst_. The nature and idiom of our language, "the accent

and pronunciation of it," incline us to abbreviate or "contract even all

our regular verbs;" so as to avoid, if possible, an increase of syllables

in the inflection of them. Accordingly, several terminations which formerly

constituted distinct syllables, have been either wholly dropped, or blended

with the final syllables of the verbs to which they are added. Thus the

plural termination _en_ has become entirely obsolete; _th_ or _eth_ is no

longer in common use; _ed_ is contracted in pronunciation; the ancient _ys_

or _is_, of the third person singular, is changed to _s_ or _es_, and is

usually added without increase of syllables; and _st_ or _est_ has, in

part, adopted the analogy. So that the proper mode of forming these

contractions of the second person singular, seems to be, to add _st_ only;

and to insert no apostrophe, unless a vowel is suppressed from the verb to

which this termination is added: as, _thinkst, sayst, bidst, sitst, satst,

lov'st, lov'dst, slumberst, slumber'dst_.

"And know, for that thou _slumberst_ on the guard,

Thou shalt be made to answer at the bar."--_Cotton_.

OBS. 41.--Ho man deserves more praise for his attention to English

pronunciation, than John Walker. His Pronouncing Dictionary was, for a long

period, the best standard of orthoëpy, that our schools possessed. But he

seems to me to have missed a figure, in preferring such words as

_quick'nest, strength'nest_, to the smoother and more regular forms,

_quickenst, strengthenst_. It is true that these are rough words, in any

form you can give them; but let us remember, that needless apostrophes are

as rough to the eye, as needless _st_'s to the ear. Our common grammarians

are disposed to encumber the language with as many of both as they can find

any excuse for, and vastly more than can be sustained by any good argument.

In words that are well understood to be contracted in pronunciation, the

apostrophe is now less frequently used than it was formerly. Walker says,

"This contraction of the participial _ed_, and the verbal _en_, is so fixed

an idiom of our pronunciation, that to alter it, would be to alter the

sound of the whole language. It must, however, be regretted that it

subjects our tongue to some of the most hissing, snapping, clashing,

grinding sounds that ever grated the ears of a Vandal; thus, _rasped,

scratched, wrenched, bridled, fangled, birchen, hardened, strengthened,

quickened_, &c. almost frighten us when written as they are actually

pronounced, as _rapt, scratcht, wrencht, bridl'd, fangl'd, birch'n,

strength'n'd, quick'n'd_, &c.; they become still more formidable when used

contractedly in the solemn style, which never ought to be the case; for

here instead of _thou strength'n'st_ or _strength'n'd'st, thou quick'n'st_

or _quick'n'd'st_, we ought to pronounce _thou strength'nest_ or

_strength'nedst, thou quick'nest_ or _quick'nedst_, which are sufficiently

harsh of all conscience."--_Principles_, No. 359. Here are too many

apostrophes; for it does not appear that such words as _strengthenedest_

and _quickenedest_ ever existed, except in the imagination of certain

grammarians. In solemn prose one may write, _thou quickenest, thou

strengthenest_, or _thou quickenedst, thou strengthenedst_; but, in the

familiar style, or in poetry, it is better to write, _thou quickenst, thou

strengthenst, thou quickened, thou strengthened_. This is language which it

is possible to utter; and it is foolish to strangle ourselves with strings

of rough consonants, merely because they are insisted on by some

superficial grammarians. Is it not strange, is it not incredible, that the

same hand should have written the two following lines, in the same

sentence? Surely, the printer has been at fault.

"With noiseless foot, thou _walkedst_ the vales of earth"--

"Most honourable thou _appeared_, and most

To be desired."--_Pollok's Course of Time_, B. ix, l. 18, and l. 24.

OBS. 42.--It was once a very common practice, to retain the final _y_, in

contractions of the preterit or of the second person of most verbs that end

in _y_, and to add the consonant terminations _d, st_, and _dst_, with an

apostrophe before each; as, _try'd_ for _tried, reply'd_ for _replied,

try'st_ for _triest, try'dst_ for _triedst_. Thus Milton:--

"Thou following _cry'dst_ aloud, Return, fair Eve;

Whom _fly'st_ thou? whom thou _fly'st_, of him thou art."

--_P. L._, B. iv, l. 481.

This usage, though it may have been of some advantage as an index to the

pronunciation of the words, is a palpable departure from the common rule

for spelling such derivatives. That rule is, "The final _y_ of a primitive

word, when preceded by a consonant, is changed into _i_ before an

additional termination." The works of the British poets, except those of

the present century, abound with contractions like the foregoing; but late

authors, or their printers, have returned to the rule; and the former

practice is wearing out and becoming obsolete. Of regular verbs that end in

_ay, ey_, or _oy_, we have more than half a hundred; all of which usually

retain the _y_ in their derivatives, agreeably to an other of the rules for

spelling. The preterits of these we form by adding _ed_ without increase of

syllables; as, _display, displayed; survey, surveyed; enjoy, enjoyed_.

These also, in both tenses, may take _st_ without increase of syllables;

as, _display'st, display'dst_; _survey'st, survey'dst; enjoy'st,

enjoy'dst_. All these forms, and such as these, are still commonly

considered contractions, and therefore written with the apostrophe; but if

the termination _st_ is sufficient of itself to mark the second person

singular, as it certainly is considered to be as regards one half of them,

and as it certainly was in the Saxon tongue still more generally, then for

the other half there is no need of the apostrophe, because nothing is

omitted. _Est_, like _es_, is generally a syllabic termination; but _st_,

like _s_, is not. As signs of the third person, the _s_ and the _es_ are

always considered equivalent; and, as signs of the second person, the _st_

and the _est_ are sometimes, and ought to be always, considered so too. To

all verbs that admit the sound, we add the _s_ without marking it as a

contraction for _es_; and there seems to be no reason at all against adding

the _st_ in like manner, whenever we choose to form the second person

without adding a syllable to the verb. The foregoing observations I commend

to the particular attention of all those who hope to write such English as

shall do them honour--to every one who, from a spark of literary ambition,

may say of himself,

---------"I twine

My hopes of being remembered in my line

With my land's language."--_Byron's Childe Harold_, Canto iv, st. 9.

THE CONJUGATION OF VERBS.

The conjugation of a verb is a regular arrangement of its moods, tenses,

persons, numbers, and participles.

There are four PRINCIPAL PARTS in the conjugation of every simple and

complete verb; namely, the _Present_, the _Preterit_, the _Imperfect

Participle_, and the _Perfect Participle_.[256] A verb which wants any of

these parts, is called _defective_; such are most of the auxiliaries.

An _auxiliary_ is a short verb prefixed to one of the principal parts of an

other verb, to express some particular mode and time of the being, action,

or passion. The auxiliaries are _do, be, have, shall, will, may, can_, and

_must_, with their variations.

OBSERVATIONS.

OBS. 1.--The _present_, or the verb in the present tense, is radically the

same in all the moods, and is the part from which all the rest are formed.

The present infinitive is commonly considered _the root_, or _simplest

form_, of the English verb. We usually place the _preposition_ TO _before_

it; but never when with an auxiliary it forms a compound tense that is not

infinitive: there are also some other exceptions, which plainly show, that

the word _to_ is neither a part of the verb, as Cobbett, R. C. Smith, S.

Kirkham, and Wells, say it is; nor a part of the infinitive mood, as Hart

and many others will have it to be, but a distinct _preposition_. (See, in

the _Syntax_ of this work, Observations on Rule 18th.) The preterit and the

perfect participle are regularly formed by adding _d_ or _ed_, and the

imperfect participle, by adding _ing_, to the present.

OBS. 2.--The moods and tenses, in English, are formed partly by

inflections, or changes made in the verb itself, and partly by the

combination of the verb or its participle, with a few short verbs, called

_auxiliaries_, or _helping verbs_. This view of the subject, though

disputed by some, is sustained by such a preponderance both of authority

and of reason, that I shall not trouble the reader with any refutation of

those who object to it. Murray the schoolmaster observes, "In the English

language, the times and modes of verbs are expressed in a perfect, easy,

and beautiful manner, by the aid of a few little words called

_auxiliaries_, or _helping verbs_. The possibility of a thing is expressed

by _can_ or _could_; the liberty to do a thing, by _may_ or _might_; the

inclination of the will, by _will_ or _would_; the necessity of a thing, by

_must_ or _ought, shall_ or _should_. The preposition _to_ is never

expressed after the helping verbs, except after _ought_."--_Alex. Murray's

Gram._, p. 112. See nearly the same words in _Buchanan's English Syntax_,

p. 36; and in _the British Gram._, p. 125.

OBS. 3.--These authors are wrong in calling _ought_ a helping verb, and so

is Oliver B. Peirce, in calling "_ought to_," and "_ought to have_"

auxiliaries; for no auxiliary ever admits the preposition _to_ after it or

into it: and Murray of Holdgate is no less in fault, for calling _let_ an

auxiliary; because no mere auxiliary ever governs the objective case. The

sentences, "He _ought_ to _help_ you," and, "_Let_ him _help_ you,"

severally involve two different moods: they are equivalent to, "It _is his

duty_ to _help_ you;"--"_Permit_ him _to help_ you." Hence _ought_ and

_let_ are not auxiliaries, but principal verbs.

OBS. 4.--Though most of the auxiliaries are defective, when compared with

other verbs; yet these three, _do, be_, and _have_, being also principal

verbs, are complete: but the participles of _do_ and _have_ are not used as

auxiliaries; unless _having_, which helps to form the third or "compound

perfect" participle, (as _having loved_,) may be considered such. The other

auxiliaries have no participles.

OBS. 5.--English verbs are principally conjugated by means of auxiliaries;

the only tenses which can be formed by the simple verb, being the present

and the imperfect; as, I _love_, I _loved_. And even here an auxiliary is

usually preferred in questions and negations; as, "_Do_ you love?"--"You

_do_ not _love_." "_Did_ he _love_?"--"He _did_ not _love_." "_Do_ I not

yet _grieve_?"--"_Did_ she not _die_?" All the other tenses, even in their

simplest form, are compounds.

OBS. 6.--Dr. Johnson says, "_Do_ is sometimes used superfluously, as _I_ do

_love, I_ did _love_; simply for _I love_, or _I loved_; but this is

considered as a _vitious_ mode of speech."--_Gram., in 4to Dict._, p. 8. He

also somewhere tells us, that these auxiliaries "are not proper before _be_

and _have_;" as, "_I do be_," for _I am_; "_I did have_," for _I had_. The

latter remark is generally true, and it ought to be remembered;[257] but,

in the _imperative mood, be_ and _have_ will perhaps admit the emphatic

word _do_ before them, in a colloquial style: as, "Now _do be_

careful;"--"_Do have_ a little discretion." Sanborn repeatedly puts _do_

before _be_, in this mood: as, "_Do_ you _be. Do_ you _be_ guarded. _Do_

thou _be. Do_ thou _be_ guarded."--_Analytical Gram._, p. 150. "_Do_ thou

_be_ watchful."--_Ib._, p. 155. In these instances, he must have forgotten

that he had elsewhere said positively, that, "_Do_, as an auxiliary, _is

never used_ with the verb _be_ or _am_."--_Ib._, p. 112. In the other

moods, it is seldom, if ever, proper before _be_; but it is sometimes used

before _have_, especially with a negative: as, "Those modes of charity

which _do not have_ in view the cultivation of moral excellence, are

essentially defective."--_Wayland's Moral Science_, p. 428. "Surely, the

law of God, whether natural or revealed, _does not have_ respect merely to

the external conduct of men."--_Stuart's Commentary on Romans_, p. 158.

"And each day of our lives _do we have_ occasion to see and lament

it."--_Dr. Bartlett's Lecture on Health_, p. 5. "Verbs, in themselves

considered, _do not have_ person and number."--_R. C. Smith's New Gram._,

p. 21. [This notion of Smith's is absurd. Kirkham taught the same as

regards "person."] In the following example, _does he_ is used for

_is_,--the auxiliary _is_,--and perhaps allowably: "It is certain from

scripture, that the same person _does_ in the course of life many times

offend and _be_ forgiven."--_West's Letters to a Young Lady_, p. 182.

OBS. 7.--In the compound tenses, there is never any variation of ending for

the different persons and numbers, except in the _first auxiliary_: as,

"Thou _wilt have finished_ it;" not, "Thou _wilt hast finishedst_ it;" for

this is nonsense. And even for the former, it is better to say, in the

familiar style, "Thou _will have finished_ it;" for it is characteristic of

many of the auxiliaries, that, unlike other verbs, they are not varied by

_s_ or _eth_, in the third person singular, and never by _st_ or _est_, in

the second person singular, except in the solemn style. Thus all the

auxiliaries of the potential mood, as well as _shall_ and _will_ of the

indicative, are without inflection in the third person singular, though

_will_, as a principal verb, makes _wills_ or _willeth_, as well as

_willest_, in the indicative present. Hence there appears a tendency in the

language, to confine the inflection of its verbs to _this tense only_; and

to the auxiliary _have, hast, has_, which is essentially present, though

used with a participle to form the perfect. _Do, dost, does_, and _am, art,

is_, whether used as auxiliaries or as principal verbs, are always of the

indicative present.

OBS. 8.--The word _need_,--(though, as a principal verb and transitive, it

is unquestionably both regular and complete,--having all the requisite

parts, _need, needed, needing, needed_,--and being necessarily inflected in

the indicative present, as, I _need_, thou _needst_ or _needest_, he

_needs_ or _needeth_,--) is so frequently used without inflection, when

placed before an other verb to express a necessity of the being, action, or

passion, that one may well question whether it has not become, under these

circumstances, an _auxiliary_ of the potential mood; and therefore proper

to be used, like all the other auxiliaries of this mood, without change of

termination. I have not yet knowingly used it so myself, nor does it appear

to have been classed with the auxiliaries, by any of our grammarians,

except Webster.[258] I shall therefore not presume to say now, with

positiveness, that it deserves this rank; (though I incline to think it

does;) but rather quote such instances as have occurred to me in reading,

and leave the student to take his choice, whether to condemn as bad English

the uninflected examples, or to justify them in this manner. "He that can

swim, _need_ not despair to fly."--_Johnson's Rasselas_, p. 29. "One

therefore _needs_ not expect to do it."--_Kirkham's Elocution_, p. 155. "In

so doing I should only record some vain opinions of this age, which a

future one _need_ not know."--_Rush, on the Voice_, p. 345. "That a boy

_needs_ not be kept at school."--LISDSEY: _in Kirkham's Elocution_, p. 164.

"No man _need_ promise, unless he please."--_Wayland's Moral Science_, p.

312. "What better reason _needs_ be given?"--_Campbell's Rhet._, p. 51. "He

_need_ assign no other reason for his conduct."--_Wayland, ib._, p. 214.

"Sow there is nothing that a man _needs_ be ashamed of in all

this."--_Collier's Antoninus_, p. 45. "No notice _need_ be taken of the

advantages."--_Walker's Rhyming Dict._, Vol. ii, p. 304. "Yet it _needs_

not be repeated."--_Bicknell's Gram._, Part ii, p. 51. "He _need_ not be

anxious."--_Greenleaf's Gram. Simplified_, p. 38. "He _needs_ not be

afraid."--_Fisk's Gram. Simplified_, p. 124. "He who will not learn to

spell, _needs_ not learn to write."--_Red Book_, p. 22. "The heeder _need_

be under no fear."--_Greenleaf's Gram._, p. 38.[259] "More _need_ not be

said about it."--_Cobbett's E. Gram._, ¶ 272. "The object _needs_ not be

expressed."--_Booth's Introduct. to Dict._, p. 37. "Indeed, there _need_ be

no such thing."--_Fosdick's De Sacy_, p. 71. "This _needs_ to be

illustrated."--_Ib._, p. 81. "And no part of the sentence _need_ be

omitted."--_Parkhurst's Grammar for Beginners_, p. 114. "The learner

_needs_ to know what sort of words are called verbs."--_Ib._, p. 6. "No one

_need_ be apprehensive of suffering by faults of this kind."--_Sheridan's

Elocution_, p. 171. "The student who has bought any of the former copies

_needs_ not repent."--_Dr. Johnson, Adv. to Dict._ "He _need_ not enumerate

their names."--_Edward's First Lessons in Grammar_, p. 38. "A quotation

consisting of a word or two only _need_ not begin with a

capital."--_Churchill's Gram._, p. 383. "Their sex is commonly known, and

_needs_ not to be marked."--_Ib._, p. 72; _Murray's Octavo Gram._, 51. "One

_need_ only open Lord Clarendon's history, to find examples every

where."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 108. "Their sex is commonly known, and _needs_

not be marked."--_Lowth's Gram._, p. 21; _Murray's Duodecimo Gram._, p. 51.

"Nobody _need_ be afraid he shall not have scope enough."--LOCKE: _in

Sanborn's Gram._, p. 168. "No part of the science of language, _needs to be

ever_ uninteresting to the pursuer."--_Nutting's Gram._, p. vii. "The exact

amount of knowledge is not, and _need_ not be, great."--_Todd's Student's

Manual_, p. 44. "He _needs to_ act under a motive which is

all-pervading."--_Ib._, p. 375. "What _need_ be said, will not occupy a

long space."--_Ib._, p. 244. "The sign TO _needs_ not always be

used."--_Bucke's Gram._, p. 96. "Such as he _need_ not be ashamed

of."--_Snelling's Gift for Scribblers_, p. 23.

"_Needst_ thou--_need_ any one on earth--despair?"--_Ib._, p. 32.

"Take timely counsel; if your dire disease

Admits no cure, it _needs_ not to displease."--_Ib._, p. 14.

OBS. 9.--If _need_ is to be recognized as an auxiliary of the potential

mood, it must be understood to belong to two tenses; the present and the

perfect; like _may, can_, and _must_: as, "He _need_ not _go_, he _need_

not _have gone_; Thou _need_ not _go, Thou need_ not _have gone_;" or, in

the solemn style, "Thou _needst_ not go, Thou _needst_ not _have gone_."

If, on the contrary, we will have it to be always a principal verb, the

distinction of time should belong to itself, and also the distinction of

person and number, in the parts which require it: as, "He _needs_ not go.

He _needed_ not go; Thou _needst_ not go, Thou _needed_ not go;" or, in the

solemn style, "Thou _needest_ not go, Thou _neededst_ not go." Whether it

can be right to say, "He _needed_ not _have gone_," is at least

questionable. From the observations of Murray, upon relative tenses, under

his thirteenth rule of syntax, it seems fair to infer that he would have

judged this phraseology erroneous. Again, "He _needs_ not _have gone_,"

appears to be yet more objectionable, though for the same reason. And if,

"He _need_ not _have gone_," is a correct expression, _need_ is clearly

proved to be an _auxiliary_, and the three words taken together must form

the potential perfect. And so of the plural; for the argument is from the

connexion of the tenses, and not merely from the tendency of auxiliaries to

reject inflection: as, "They need not _have been_ under great concern about

their public affairs."--_Hutchinson's History_, i, 194, From these

examples, it may be seen that an auxiliary and a principal verb have some

essential difference; though these who dislike the doctrine of compound

tenses, pretend not to discern any. Take some further citations; a few of

which are erroneous in respect to time. And observe also that the regular

verb sometimes admits the preposition _to_ after it: "' There is great

dignity in being waited for,' said one who had the habit of tardiness, and

who _had_ not much else of which he _need_ be vain."--_Students Manual_, p.

64. "But he _needed_ not _have gone_ so far for more instances."--

_Johnson's Gram._ _Com._, p. 143. "He _need_ not _have said_, 'perhaps the

virtue.'"--_Sedgwick's Economy_, p. 196. "I _needed_ not _to ask_ how she

felt."--_Abbott's Young Christian_, p. 84. "It _need_ not _have been_

so."--_Ib._, p. 111. "The most unaccommodating politician _need_ not

absolutely _want_ friends."--_Hunts Feast of the Poets_, p. iii. "Which

therefore _needs_ not be introduced with much precaution."--_Campbell's

Rhet._, p. 326. "When an obscurer term _needs_ to be explained by one that

is clearer."--_Ib._, p. 367. "Though, if she had died younger, she _need_

not _have known it_."--_West's Letters_, p. 120. "Nothing _need_ be said,

but that they were the _most perfect_ barbarisms."--_Blair's Rhet._, p.

470. "He _need_ not go."--_Goodenow's Gram._, p. 36. "He _needed_ but use

the word _body_."--LOCKE: _in Joh. Dict._ "He _need_ not be required to use

them."--_Parker's Eng. Composition_, p. 50. "The last consonant of _appear_

need not be doubled."--_Dr. Webster_. "It _needs_ the less _to be

inforced_."--_Brown's Estimate_, ii, 158. "Of these pieces of his, we

_shall not need to give_ any particular account."--_Seneca's Morals_, p. vi

"And therefore I _shall need say_ the less of them."--_Scougal_, p. 1101.

"This compounding of words _need_ occasion no surprise."--_Cardell's Essay

on Language_, p. 87.

"Therefore stay, thou _needst_ not to be gone."--_Shakspeare_.

"Thou _need_ na _start_ awa sae hasty."--_Burns, Poems_, p. 15.

"Thou _need_ na _jouk_ behint the hallan."--_Id., ib._, p. 67.

OBS. 10.--The auxiliaries, except _must_, which is invariable, have

severally two forms in respect to tense, or time; and when inflected in the

second and third persons singular, are usually varied in the following

manner:--

TO DO.

PRESENT TENSE; AND SIGN OF THE INDICATIVE PRESENT.

_Sing_. I do, thou dost, he does;

_Plur_. We do, you do, they do.

IMPERFECT TENSE; AND SIGN of THE INDICATIVE IMPERFECT.

_Sing_. I did, thou didst, he did;

_Plur_. We did, you did, they did.

TO BE.

PRESENT TENSE; AND SIGN OF THE INDICATIVE PRESENT.

_Sing_. I am, thou art, he is;

_Plur_. We are, you are, they are.

IMPERFECT TENSE; AND SIGN OF THE INDICATIVE IMPERFECT.

_Sing_. I was, thou wast, he was;

_Plur_. We were, you were; they were.

TO HAVE.

PRESENT TENSE; BUT SIGN OF THE INDICATIVE PERFECT.

_Sing_. I have, thou hast, he has;

_Plur_. We have, you have, they have.

IMPERFECT TENSE; BUT SIGN OF THE INDICATIVE PLUPERFECT.

_Sing_. I had, thou hadst, he had;

_Plur_. We had, you had, they had.

SHALL AND WILL.

These auxiliaries have distinct meanings, and, as signs of the future, they

are interchanged thus:

PRESENT TENSE; BUT SIGNS OF THE INDICATIVE FIRST-FUTURE.

1. Simply to express a future action or event:--

_Sing_. I shall, thou wilt, he will;

_Plur_. We shall, you will, they will.

2. To express a promise, command, or threat:--

_Sing_.: I will, thou shalt, he shall;

_Plur_. We will, you shall, they shall.

IMPERFECT TENSE; BUT, AS SIGNS, AORIST, OR INDEFINITE.

1. Used with reference to duty or expediency:--

_Sing._ I should, thou shouldst, he should;

_Plur._ We should, you should, they should.

2. Used with reference to volition or desire:--

_Sing._ I would, thou wouldst, he would;

_Plur._ We would, you would, they would.

MAY.

PRESENT TENSE; AND SIGN OF THE POTENTIAL PRESENT.

_Sing._ I may, thou mayst, he may;

_Plur._ We may, you may, they may.

IMPERFECT TENSE; AND SIGN OF THE POTENTIAL IMPERFECT.

_Sing._ I might, thou mightst, he might;

_Plur._ We might, you might, they might.

CAN.

PRESENT TENSE; AND SIGN OF THE POTENTIAL PRESENT.

_Sing._ I can, thou canst, he can;

_Plur._ We can, you can, they can.

IMPERFECT TENSE; AND SIGN OF THE POTENTIAL IMPERFECT.

_Sing._ I could, thou couldst, he could;

_Plur._ We could, you could, they could.

MUST.

PRESENT TENSE; AND SIGN OF THE POTENTIAL PRESENT.

_Sing._ I must, thou must, he must;

_Plur._ We must, you must, they must.

If must is ever used in the sense of the Imperfect tense, or Preterit, the

form is the same as that of the Present: this word is entirely invariable.

OBS. 11.--Several of the auxiliaries are occasionally used as mere

expletives, being quite unnecessary to the sense: as, 1. DO and DID: "And

it is night, wherein all the beasts of the forest _do_ creep

forth."--_Psalms_, civ, 20. "And ye, that on the sands with printless foot

_do_ chase the ebbing Neptune, and _do_ fly him when he comes

back."--_Shak._ "And if a man _did_ need a poison now."--_Id._ This

needless use of do and did is now avoided by good writers. 2. SHALL,

SHOULD, and COULD: "'Men _shall_ deal unadvisedly sometimes, which

after-hours give leisure to repent of.' I _should_ advise you to proceed. I

_should_ think it would succeed. He, it _should_ seem, thinks

otherwise."--_W. Allen's Gram._, p. 65. "I _could_ wish you to go."--_Ib._,

p. 71. 3. WILL, &c. The following are nearly of the same character, but not

exactly: "The isle is full of noises; sometimes a thousand twanging

instruments _will_ hum about mine ears."--_Shak._ "In their evening sports

she _would_ steal in amongst them."--_Barbauld_.

"His listless length at noontide _would_ he stretch."--_Gray_.

OBS. 12.--As our old writers often formed the infinitive in _en_, so they

sometimes dropped the termination of the perfect participle. Hence we find,

in the infancy of the language, _done_ used for _do_, and _do_ for _done_;

and that by the same hand, with like changes in other verbs: as, "Thou

canst nothing _done_."--_Chaucer_. "As he was wont to _done_."--_Id._ "The

treson that to women hath be _do_."--_Id._ "For to _ben_ honourable and

free."--_Id._ "I am sworn to _holden_ it secre."--_Id._ "Our nature God

hath to him _unyte_."--_Douglas_. "None otherwise negligent than I you saie

haue I not _bee_."--_Id._ See _W. Allen's E. Gram._, p. 97.

"But netheless the thynge is _do_,

That fals god was soone _go_."--GOWER: _H. Tooke_, Vol. i, p. 376.

OBS. 13.--"_May_ is from the Anglo-Saxon, _mægan_, to be able. In the

parent language also, it is used as an auxiliary. It is exhibited by

Fortescue, as a principal verb; 'They shall _may_ do it:' i. e. they shall

be able (to) do it."--_W. Allen's Gram._, p. 70. "_May not_, was formerly

used for _must not_; as, 'Graces for which we _may not_ cease to sue.'

Hooker."--_Ib._, p. 91. "_May_ frequently expresses doubt of the fact; as,

'I _may_ have the book in my library, but I think I have not.' It is used

also, to express doubt, or a consequence, with a future signification; as,

'I _may_ recover the use of my limbs, but I see little probability of

it.'--'That they _may_ receive me into their houses.' _Luke_, xvi,

4."--_Churchill's Gram._, p. 247. In these latter instances, the potential

present is akin to the subjunctive. Hence Lowth and others improperly call

"I _may love_," &c. the subjunctive mood. Others, for the same reason, and

with as little propriety, deny that we have any subjunctive mood; alleging

an ellipsis in every thing that bears that name: as, "'If it (_may_) _be_

possible, live peaceably with all men.' Scriptures."--_W. Allen's Gram._,

p. 61. _May_ is also a sign of wishing, and consequently occurs often in

prayer: as, "_May_ it be thy good pleasure;"--"O that it _may_ please

thee;"--"_Mayst_ thou be pleased." Hence the potential is akin also to the

imperative: the phrases, "Thy will be done,"--"_May_ thy will be

done,"--"Be thy will done,"--"_Let_ thy will be done,"--are alike in

meaning, but not in mood or construction.

OBS. 14.--_Can_, to be able, is etymologically the same as the regular

verbs _ken_, to see, and _con_, to learn; all of them being derived from

the Saxon _connan_ or _cunnan_, to know: whence also the adjective cunning,

which was formerly a participle. In the following example _will_ and _can_

are principal verbs: "In evil, the best condition is, not to _will_; the

second, not to _can_."--_Ld. Bacon_. "That a verb which signifies

knowledge, may also signify power, appears from these examples: _Je ne

saurois, I should not know how_, (i. e. _could_ not.) [Greek: Asphalisasthe

hos oidate], Strengthen it as you _know how_, (i. e. as you _can_.)

_Nescio_ mentiri, I _know not how to_ (i.e. _I cannot_) lie."--_W. Allen's

Gram._, p. 71. _Shall_, Saxon _sceal_, originally signified to _owe_; for

which reason _should_ literally means _ought_. In the following example

from Chaucer, _shall_ is a principal verb, with its original meaning:

"For, by the faith I _shall_ to God, I wene,

Was neuer straungir none in hir degre."--_W. Allen's Gram._, p. 64.

OBS. 15.--_Do_ and _did_ are auxiliary only to the present infinitive, or

the radical verb; as, _do throw, did throw_: thus the mood of _do throw_ or

_to throw_ is marked by _do_ or _to_. _Be_, in all its parts, is auxiliary

to either of the simple participles; as, _to be throwing, to be thrown; I

am throwing, I am thrown_: and so, through the whole conjugation. _Have_

and _had_, in their literal use, are auxiliary to the perfect participle

only; as, _have thrown, had thrown. Have_ is from the Saxon _habban_, to

possess; and, from the nature of the perfect participle, the tenses thus

formed, suggest in general a completion of the action. The French idiom is

similar to this: as, _J'ai vu_, I have seen. _Shall_ and _should, will_ and

_would, may_ and _might, can_ and _could, must_, and also _need, (if we

call the last a helping verb,) are severally auxiliary to both forms of the

infinitive, and to these only: as, shall throw, shall have thrown; should

throw, should have thrown_; and so of all the rest.