and "the Principles of English Grammar,"--are equally pliable, or changeable; and, what is very remarkable, a comparison of different editions will show, that the fundamental doctrines of a whole "Series of Grammars, English, Latin, and Greek," may so change in a single lustrum, as to rest upon authorities altogether different. Dr. Bullions's grammars, a few years ago, like those of his great oracles, Adam, Murray, and Lennie, divided verbs into "three kinds, _Active, Passive_, and _Neuter_." Now they divide them into two only, "_Transitive_ and _Intransitive_;" and absurdly aver, that "_Verbs in the passive form are really transitive as in the active form_."--_Prin. of E. Gram._, 1843, p. 200. Now, as if no verb could be plural, and no transitive act could be future, conditional, in progress, or left undone, they define thus: "A _Transitive_ verb expresses an _act done_ by one person or thing to another."--_Ib._, p. 29; _Analyt. and Pract. Gram._, 60; _Latin Gram._, 77. Now, the division which so lately as 1842 was pronounced by the Doctor to be "more useful than any other," and advantageously accordant with "most dictionaries of the English language,"
(see his _Fourth Edition_, p. 30,) is wholly rejected from this notable "_Series_." Now, the "_vexed question_" about "the classification of verbs," which, at some revision still later, drew from this author whole pages of weak arguments for his faulty _changes_, is complacently supposed to have been _well settled_ in his favour! Of this matter, now, in 1849, he speaks thus: "The division of verbs into transitive and intransitive has been so generally adopted and approved by the best grammarians, that any discussion of the subject is now unnecessary."--_Bullions's Analyt. and Pract. Gram._, p. 59.
[227] This late writer seems to have published his doctrine on this point as a _novelty_; and several teachers ignorantly received and admired it as such: I have briefly shown, in the Introduction to this work, how easily they were deceived. "By this, that Question may be resolv'd, whether every Verb not Passive governs always an Accusative, at least understood: '_Tis the Opinion of some very able_ GRAMMARIANS, but for _our_ Parts _we_ don't think it."--_Grammar published by John Brightland_, 7th Ed., London, 1746, p. 115.
[228] Upon this point, Richard Johnson cites and criticises Lily's system thus: "'A Verb Neuter endeth in _o_ or _m_, and cannot take _r_ to make _him_ a Passive; as, _Curro_, I run; _Sum_, I am.'--_Grammar, Eng_. p. 13.
This Definition, is founded upon the Notion abovementioned, viz. That none but Transitives are Verbs Active, which is contrary to the reason of Things, and the common sense of Mankind. And what can shock a Child more, of any Ingenuity, than to be told, That _Ambuto_ and _Curro_ are Verbs Neuter; that is, to speak according to the common Apprehensions of Mankind, that they signifie neither to do, nor suffer."--_Johnson's Grammatical Commentaries_, 8vo, London, 1706, p. 273.
[229] Murray says, "_Mood_ or _Mode_ is a particular form of the verb, showing the manner in which the being, action, or passion is represented."--_Octavo Gram._, p. 63. By many grammarians, the term _Mode_ is preferred to _Mood_; but the latter is, for this use, the more distinctive, and by far the more common word. In some treatises on grammar, as well as in books of logic, certain _parts of speech_, as _adjectives_ and _adverbs_, are called _Modes_, because they qualify or modify other terms. E.g., "Thus all the parts of speech are reducible to four; viz., _Names, Verbs, Modes, Connectives_."--_Enclytica, or Universal Gram._, p.
8. "_Modes_ are naturally divided, by their attribution to names or verbs, into _adnames_ and _adverbs_."--_Ibid._, p. 24. After making this application of the name _modes_, was it not improper for the learned author to call the moods also "_modes_?"
[230] "We have, in English, no genuine subjunctive mood, except the preterimperfect, if I _were_, if thou _wert_, &c. of the verb _to be_. [See Notes and Observations on the Third Example of Conjugation, in this chapter.] The phrase termed _the subjunctive mood_, is elliptical; _shall, may_, &c. being understood: as, 'Though hand (shall) join in hand, the wicked shall not be unpunished.' 'If it (may) be possible, live peaceably with all.' Scriptures."--_Rev. W. Allen's Gram._, p. 61. Such expressions as, "If thou _do love_, If he _do love_," appear to disprove this doctrine.
[See Notes and Remarks on the Subjunctive of the First Example conjugated below.]
[231] "Mr. Murray has changed his opinion, as often as Laban changed Jacob's wages. In the edition we print from, we find _shall_ and _will_ used in each person of the _first_ and _second_ future tenses of the subjunctive, but he now states that in the second future tense, _shalt, shall_, should be used instead of _wilt, will_. Perhaps this is _the only improvement_ he has made in his Grammar since 1796."--_Rev. T. Smith's Edition of Lindley Murray's English Grammar_, p. 67.
[232] Notwithstanding this expression, Murray did not teach, as do many modern grammarians, that _inflected_ forms of the present tense, such as, "If he _thinks_ so," "Unless he _deceives_ me," "If thou _lov'st_ me," are of the subjunctive mood; though, when he rejected his changeless forms of the other tenses of this mood, he _improperly_ put as many indicatives in their places. With him, and his numerous followers, the ending determines the mood in one tense, while the conjunction controls it in the other five!
In his syntax, he argues, "that in cases wherein contingency and futurity do not occur, it is not proper to turn the verb from its signification of present time, _nor to vary_ [he means, _or to forbear to change_] its form or termination. [Fist] _The verb would then be in the indicative mood, whatever conjunctions might attend it_."--_L. Murray's Gram._, 8vo, p. 208: 12mo, p. 167.
[233] Some grammarians--(among whom are Lowth, Dalton, Cobbett, and Cardell--) recognize only three tenses, or "_times_," of English verbs; namely, _the present, the past_, and _the future_. A few, like Latham and Child, denying all the compound tenses to be tenses, acknowledge only the first two, _the present_ and _the past_; and these they will have to consist only of the simple or radical verb and the simple preterit. Some others, who acknowledge six tenses, such as are above described, have endeavoured of late to _change the names_ of a majority of them; though with too little agreement among themselves, as may be seen by the following citations: (1.) "We have six tenses; three, the _Present, Past_, and _Future_, to represent time in a general way; and three, the _Present Perfect, Past Perfect_, and _Future Perfect_, to represent the precise time of _finishing_ the action."--_Perley's Gram._, 1834, p. 25. (2.) "There are six tenses; the _present_, the _past_, the _present-perfect_, the _past-perfect_, the _future_, and the _future-perfect_."--_Hiley's Gram._, 1840, p. 28. (3.) "There are six tenses; the _Present_ and _Present Perfect_, the _Past_ and _Past Perfect_, and the _Future_ and _Future Perfect_."--_Farnum's Gram._, 1842, p. 34. (4.) "The names of the tenses will then be, _Present, Present Perfect; Past, Past Perfect; Future, Future Perfect_. They are _usually_ named as follows: _Present, Perfect, Imperfect, Pluperfect, Future, Second Future_."--_N. Butler's Gram_, 1845, p. 69. (5.) "We have six tenses;--the _present_, the _past_, the _future_, the _present perfect_, the _past perfect_, and the _future perfect_."--_Wells's School Gram._, 1846. p. 82. (6.) "The tenses in English are six--the _Present_, the _Present-perfect_, the _Past_, the _Past-perfect_, the _Future_, and the _Future-perfect_."--_Bullions's Gram._, 1849. p. 71. (7.) "Verbs have _Six Tenses_, called the _Present_, the _Perfect-Present_, the _Past_, the _Perfect-Past_, the _Future_, and the _Perfect-Future_."--_Spencer's Gram._, 1852, p. 53. (8.) "There are six tenses: the _present, past, future, present perfect, past perfect_, and _future perfect_."--_Covell's Gram._, 1853, p. 62. (9.) "The tenses are--the _present_, the _present perfect_; the _past_, the _past perfect_; the _future_, the _future perfect_."--_S. S. Greene's Gram._, 1853, p. 65.
(10.) "There are six tenses; _one present_, and _but one, three past_, and _two future_." They are named thus: "_The Present, the First Past, the Second Past, the Third Past, the First Future, the Second Future_."--"For the sake of symmetry, to call _two_ of them _present_, and _two_ only past, while _one_ only is _present_, and _three_ are _past_ tenses, is to sacrifice truth to beauty."--_Pinneo's Gram._, 1853, pp. 69 and 70. "The old names, _imperfect, perfect_, and _pluperfect_," which, in 1845, Butler justly admitted to be the _usual_ names of the three past tenses. Dr.
Pinneo, who dates his copy-right from 1850, most unwarrantably declares to be "_now generally discarded_!"--_Analytical Gram._, p. 76; _Same Revised_, p. 81. These terms, still predominant in use, he strangely supposes to have been suddenly superseded by others which are no better, if so good: imagining that the scheme which Perley or Hiley introduced, of "_two present, two past_, and _two future_ tenses,"--a scheme which, he says, "has no foundation in truth, and is therefore to be rejected,"--had prepared the way for the above-cited innovation of his own, which merely presents the old ideas under new terms, or terms partly new, and wholly unlikely to prevail. William Ward, one of the ablest of our old grammarians, rejecting in 1765 the two terms _imperfect_ and _perfect_, adopted others which resemble Pinneo's; but few, if any, have since named the tenses as he did, thus: "_The Present, the First Preterite, the Second Preterite, the Pluperfect, the First Future, the Second Future_."--_Ward's Gram._, p. 47.
[234] "The infinitive mood, as '_to shine_,' may be called the name of the verb; it carries _neither time nor affirmation_; but simply expresses that attribute, action, or state of things, which is to be the subject of the other moods and tenses."--_Blair's Lectures_, p. 81. By the word "_subject_" the Doctor does not here mean the _nominative to_ the other moods and tenses, but the _material of_ them, or that which is formed into them.
[235] Some grammarians absurdly deny that persons and numbers are properties of verbs at all: not indeed because our verbs have so few inflections, or because these authors wish to discard the little distinction that remains; but because they have some fanciful conception, that these properties cannot pertain to a verb. Yet, when they come to their syntax, they all forget, that if a verb has no person and number, it cannot agree with a nominative in these respects. Thus KIRKHAM: "_Person_, strictly speaking, is a quality that belongs _not to verbs_, but to nouns and pronouns. We say, however, that the verb _must agree_ with its nominative in _person_, as well as in number."--_Gram. in Familiar Lect._, p. 46. So J. W. WRIGHT: "In truth, number and person _are not properties of verbs_. Mr. Murray grants that, 'in philosophical strictness, both number and person might (say, _may_) be excluded from every verb, as they are, in fact, the properties of substantives, not a part of the essence of the verb.'"--_Philosophical Gram._, p. 68. This author's rule of syntax for verbs, makes them agree with their nominatives, not in person and number, but in _termination_, or else in _nobody knows what_: "A verb _must vary its terminations_, so as to agree with the nominative to which it is connected."--_Ib._, p. 168. But Murray's rule is, "A verb must agree with its nominative case in _number and person_:" and this doctrine is directly repugnant to that interpretation of his words above, by which these gentlemen have so egregiously misled themselves and others. Undoubtedly, both the numbers and the persons of all English verbs might be abolished, and the language would still be intelligible. But while any such distinctions remain, and the verb is actually modified to form them, they belong as properly to this part of speech as they can to any other. De Sacy says, "The distinction of number _occurs_ in the verb;" and then adds, "yet this distinction does not properly _belong to_ the verb, as it signifies nothing which can be numbered."--_Fosdick's Version_, p. 64. This deceptive reason is only a new form of the blunder which I have once exposed, of confounding the numbers in grammar with numbers in arithmetic. J. M.
Putnam, after repeating what is above cited from Murray, adds: "The terms _number_ and _person_, as applied to the verb are _figurative_. The properties which belong to one thing, for convenience' sake are ascribed to another."--_Gram._, p. 49. Kirkham imagines, if ten men _build_ a house, or _navigate_ a ship round the world, they perform just "_ten actions_," and no more. "Common sense teaches you," says he, "that _there must be as many actions as there are actors_; and that the verb when it has no form or ending to show it, is as strictly plural, as when it has. So, in the phrase, '_We walk_,' the verb _walk_ is [of the] first person, because it expresses the _actions_ performed by the _speakers_. The verb, then, when correctly written, always agrees, _in sense_, with its nominative in number and person."--_Kirkham's Gram._, p. 47. It seems to me, that these authors do not very well know what persons or numbers, in grammar, are.
[236] John Despauter, whose ample Grammar of the Latin language appeared in its third edition in 1517, represents this practice as a corruption originating in false pride, and maintained by the wickedness of hungry flatterers. On the twentieth leaf of his Syntax, he says, "Videntur hodie Christiani superbiores, quam olim ethnici imperatores, qui dii haberi voluerunt; nam hi nunquam inviti audierunt pronomina _tu, tibi, tuus_. Quae si hodie alicui monachorum antistiti, aut decano, aut pontifici dicantur aut scribantur, videbitur ita loquens aut scribens blasphemasse, et anathemate dignus: nec tamen Abbas, aut pontifex, tam aegre feret, quam Malchi, aut famelici gnathones, his assistentes, et vociferantes, _Sic loqueris, aut scribis, pontifici?_ Quintilianus et Donatus dicunt barbarismum, aut soloecismum esse, siquis uni dicat. _Salvete._" The learned Erasmus also ridiculed this practice, calling those who adopted it, "_voscitatores_," or _youyouers_.
[237] "By a _perversion of language_ the pronoun _you_ is almost invariably used for the second person singular, as well as plural; always, however, retaining the plural verb; as, 'My friend, _you write_ a good hand.' _Thou_ is confined to a solemn style, or [to] poetical compositions."--_Chandler's Grammar_, Edition of 1821, p. 41; Ed. of 1847, p. 66.
[238] In regard to the inflection of our verbs, William B. Fowle, who is something of an antiquarian in grammar, and who professes now to be "conservative" of the popular system, makes a threefold distinction of style, thus: "English verbs have three _Styles_[,] or _Modes_,[;] called [the] _Familiar_, [the] _Solemn_[,] and [the] _Ancient_. The _familiar style_, or mode, is that used in common conversation; as, you _see_, he _fears_. The _solemn style_, or mode, is that used in the Bible, and in prayer; as, Thou _seest_, he _feareth_. The _ancient style_, or mode, now little used, _allows no change_ in the second and third person, [_persons_,] singular, of the verb, and generally follows the word _if_, _though, lest_, or _whether_; as, if thou _see_; though he _fear_; lest he _be_ angry; whether he _go_ or _stay_."--_Fowle's Common School Grammar_, Part Second, p. 44. Among his subsequent examples of the _Solemn style_, he gives the following: "Thou _lovest_, Thou _lovedst_, Thou _art_, Thou _wast_, Thou _hast_, Thou _hadst_, Thou _doest_ or _dost_, Thou _didst_."
And, as corresponding examples of the _Ancient style_, he has these forms: "Thou _love_, Thou _loved_, Thou _or you be_, Thou _wert_, Thou _have_, Thou _had_, Thou _do_, Thou _did_."--_Ib._, pp. 44-50. This distinction and this arrangement do not appear to me to be altogether warranted by facts.
The necessary distinction of _moods_, this author rejects; confounding the _Subjunctive_ with the _Indicative_, in order to furnish out this useless and fanciful contrast of his _Solemn_ and _Ancient styles_.
[239] In that monstrous jumble and perversion of Murray's doctrines, entitled, "English Grammar on the Productive System, by Roswell C. Smith,"
_you_ is everywhere preferred to _thou_, and the verbs are conjugated _without the latter pronoun_. At the close of his paradigms, however, the author inserts a few lines respecting "_these obsolete conjugations_," with the pronoun _thou_; for a further account of which, he refers the learner, _with a sneer_, to the common grammars in the schools. See the work, p. 79.
He must needs be a remarkable grammarian, with whom Scripture, poetry, and prayer, are all "_obsolete_!" Again: "_Thou_ in the singular _is obsolete_, except among the Society of Friends; and _ye_ is an _obsolete_ plural!"--_Guy's School Gram._, p. 25. In an other late grammar, professedly "constructed upon the _basis of Murray's_, by the _Rev. Charles Adams_, A. M., Principal of Newbury Seminary," the second person singular is everywhere superseded by the plural; the former being silently dropped from all his twenty pages of conjugations, without so much as a hint, or a saving clause, respecting it; and the latter, which is put in its stead, is falsely called _singular_. By his pupils, all forms of the verb that agree only with _thou_, will of course be conceived to be either obsolete or barbarous, and consequently ungrammatical. Whether or not the reverend gentleman makes any account of the Bible or of prayer, does not appear; he cites some poetry, in which there are examples that cannot be reconciled with his "System of English Grammar." Parkhurst, in his late "Grammar for Beginners," tells us that, "Such words as are used in the Bible, and not used in common books, are called _obsolete!_"--P. 146. Among these, he reckons all the distinctive forms of the second person singular, and all the "peculiarities" which "constitute what is commonly called the _Solemn Style_."--_Ib._, p. 148. Yet, with no great consistency, he adds: "This style _is always used_ in prayer, and _is frequently used_ in poetry."--_Ibid._ Joab Brace, Jnr., may be supposed to have the same notion of what is obsolete: for he too has perverted all Lennie's examples of the verb, as Smith and Adams did Murray's.
[240] Coar gives _durst_ in the "Indicative mood," thus: "I durst, _thou durst_, he durst;" &c.--_Coar's E. Gram._, p. 115. But when he comes to _wist_, he does not know what the second person singular should be, and so he leaves it out: "I wist, ------, he wist; we wist, ye wist, they wist."--_Coar's E. Gram._, p. 116.
[241] Dr. Latham, who, oftener perhaps than any other modern writer, corrupts the grammar of our language by efforts to revive in it things really and deservedly obsolete, most strangely avers that "The words _thou_ and _thee_ are, except in the mouths of Quakers, obsolete. The plural forms, _ye_ and _you_, have replaced them."--_Hand-Book_, p. 284. Ignoring also any current or "vital" process of forming English verbs in the second person singular, he gravely tells us that the old form, as "_callest_"
(which is still the true form for the solemn style,) "is becoming obsolete."--_Ib._, p. 210. "In phrases like _you are speaking_, &c.," says he rightlier, "even when applied to a single individual, _the idea is really plural_; in other words, the courtesy consists in treating _one_ person as _more than one_, and addressing him as such, rather than in using a plural form in a singular sense. It is certain that, grammatically considered, _you=thou_ is a plural, since the verb with which it agrees is plural."--_Ib._, p. 163. If these things be so, the English Language owes much to the scrupulous conservatism of the Quakers; for, had their courtesy consented to the grammar of the fashionables, the singular number would now have had but two persons!
[242] For the substitution of _you_ for _thou_, our grammarians assign various causes. That which is most commonly given in modern books, is certainly not the original one, because it concerns no other language than ours: "In order _to avoid the unpleasant formality_ which accompanies the use of _thou_ with a correspondent verb, its plural _you_, is usually adopted to familiar conversation; as, Charles, _will you_ walk? instead of--_wilt thou_ walk? _You read_ too fast, instead of--_thou readest_ too fast."--_Jaudon's Gram._, p. 33.
[243] This position, as may be seen above, I do not suppose it competent for any critic to maintain. The use of _you_ for _thou_ is no more "contrary to grammar," than the use of _we_ for _I_; which, it seems, is grammatical enough for all editors, compilers, and crowned heads, if not for others. But both are _figures of syntax_; and, as such, they stand upon the same footing. Their only contrariety to grammar consists in this, that the words are not the _literal representatives_ of the number for which they are put. But in what a posture does the grammarian place himself, who condemns, as _bad English_, that phraseology which he constantly and purposely uses? The author of the following remark, as well as all who have praised his work, ought immediately to adopt the style of the Friends, or Quakers: "The word _thou_, in grammatical construction, is preferable to _you_, in the second person singular: however, custom has familiarized the latter, and consequently made it more general, though BAD GRAMMAR. To say, '_You are a man_.' is NOT GRAMMATICAL LANGUAGE; the word _you_ having reference to _a plural noun only_. It should be, '_Thou art a man_.'"--_Wright's Philosoph. Gram._, p. 55. This author, like Lindley Murray and many others, continually calls _himself_ WE; and it is probable, that neither he, nor any one of his sixty reverend commenders, _dares address_ any man otherwise than by the above-mentioned "BAD GRAMMAR!"
[244] "We are always given to cut our words short; and, _with very few exceptions_, you find people writing _lov'd, mov'd, walk'd_; instead of _loved, moved, walked._ They wish to make the _pen_ correspond with the _tongue._ From _lov'd, mov'd, walk'd_, it is very easy to slide into _lovt, movt, walkt._ And this has been the case with regard to _curst, dealt, dwelt, leapt, helpt_, and many others in the last inserted list. It is just as proper to say _jumpt_, as it is to say _leapt_; and just as proper to say _walkt_ as either; and thus we might go on till the orthography of the whole language were changed. When the love of contraction came to operate on such verbs as _to burst_ and _to light_, it found such a clump of consonants already at the end of the words, that, it could add none. It could not enable the organs even of English speech to pronounce _burstedst, lightedst._ It, therefore, made really short work of it, and dropping the last syllable altogether, wrote, _burst, light_, [rather, _lit_] in the past time and passive participle."--_Cobbett's English Gram._, -- 169. How could the man who saw all this, insist on adding _st_ for the second person, where not even the _d_ of the past tense could he articulated? Am I to be called an innovator, because I do not like in conversation such _new_ and _unauthorized_ words as _littest, leaptest, curstest_; or a corrupter of the language, because I do not admire in poetry such unutterable monstrosities as, _light'dst, leap'dst, curs'dst_? The novelism, with the corruption too, is wholly theirs who stickle for these awkward forms.
[245] "You _were_, not you _was_, for you _was_ seems to be as ungrammatical, as you _hast_ would be. For the pronoun you being confessedly plural, its correspondent verb ought to be plural."--_John Burn's Gram._, 10th Ed., P. 72.
[246] Among grammarians, as well as among other writers, there is some diversity of usage concerning the personal inflections of verbs; while nearly all, nowadays, remove the chief occasion for any such diversity, by denying with a fashionable bigotry the possibility of any grammatical use of the pronoun _thou_ in a familiar style. To illustrate this, I will cite Cooper and Wells--two modern authors who earnestly agree to account _you_ and its verb literally singular, and _thou_ altogether erroneous, in common discourse: except that _Wells_ allows the phrase, "_If thou art_," for "_Common style_."--_School Gram._, p. 100.
1. Cooper, improperly referring _all_ inflection of the verb to the grave or solemn style, says: "In the colloquial or familiar style, we observe _no change_. The same is the case in the plural number." He then proceeds thus: "In the second person of the present of the indicative, in the _solemn style_, the verb takes _st_ or _est_; and in the third person _th_ or _eth_, as: _thou hast, thou lovest, thou teachest; he hath, he loveth, he goeth_. In the colloquial or _familiar style_, the verb _does not vary_ in the second person; and in the third person, it ends in _s_ or _es_, as: _he loves, he teaches, he does_. The indefinite, [i. e. the preterit,] in the second person singular of the indicative, in the _grave style_, ends in _est_, as: _thou taughtest, thou wentest_. [Fist] But, _in those verbs, where_ the sound of _st_ will unite with the last syllable of the verb, the vowel is omitted, as: _thou lovedst, thou heardst, thou didst_."--_Cooper's Murray_, p. 60; _Plain and Practical Gram._, p. 59. This, the reader will see, is somewhat contradictory; for the colloquial style varies the verb by "_s_ or _es_," and _taught'st may_ be uttered without the _e_. As for "_lovedst_," I deny that any vowel "_is omitted_" from it; but possibly one _may_ be, as _lov'dst_.
2. Wells's account of the same thing is this: "In the simple form of the present and past indicative, the second person singular of the _solemn style_ ends regularly in _st_ or _est_, as, thou _seest_, thou _hearest_, thou _sawest, thou heardest_; and the third person singular of the present, in _s_ or _es_, as, he _hears_, he _wishes_, and also in _th_ or _eth_, as, he _saith_, he _loveth_. In the simple form of the present indicative, the third person singular of the _common_ or _familiar style_, ends in _s_ or _es_; as, he _sleeps_; he _rises_. The first person singular of the _solemn style_, and the first and second persons singular of the _common style_, have _the same form_ as the three persons plural."--_Wells's School Grammar_, 1st Ed. p. 83; 3d Ed. p. 86. This, too, is both defective and inconsistent. It does not tell when to add _est_, and when, _st_ only. It does not show what the _regular preterit_, as _freed_ or _loved_, should make with _thou_: whether _freedest_ and _lovedest_, by assuming the syllable _est; fre-edst_ and _lov-edst_, by increasing syllabically from assuming _st_ only; or _freedst_ and _lov'dst_, or _lovedst_, still to be uttered as monosyllables. It absurdly makes "_s_ or _es_" a sign of two opposite styles. (See OBS. 9th, above.) And it does not except "_I am, I was, If I am, If I was, If thou art, I am loved_," and so forth, from requiring "the same form, [_are_ or _were_,] as the three persons plural."
This author prefers "_heardest_;" the other, "_heardst_," which I think better warranted:
"And _heardst_ thou why he drew his blade?
_Heardst_ thou that shameful word and blow Brought Roderick's vengeance on his foe?"--_Scott_, L. L., C. v, st. 6.
[247] Better, as Wickliffe has it, "the day _in which_;" though, after nouns of time, the relative _that_ is often used, like the Latin ablative _quo_ or _qua_, as being equivalent to _in which_ or _on which_.
[248] It is not a little strange, that some men, who _never have seen or heard_ such words as their own rules would produce for the second person singular of many hundreds of our most common verbs, will nevertheless pertinaciously insist, that it is wrong to countenance in this matter any departure from the style of King James's Bible. One of the very rashest and wildest of modern innovators,--a critic who, but for the sake of those who still speak in this person and number, would gladly consign the pronoun _thou_, and all its attendant verbal forms, to utter oblivion,--thus treats this subject and me: "The Quakers, or Friends, however, use _thou_, and its attendant form of the _asserter_, in conversation. FOR THEIR BENEFIT, _thou_ is given, in this work, in all the varieties of inflection; (in some of which it could not properly be used in an address to the Deity;) for THEY ERR MOST EGREGIOUSLY in the use of _thou_, with the form of the _asserter_ which follows _he_ or _they_, and are countenanced in their errors by G. Brown, who, instead of 'disburdening _the language_ of 144,000 useless _distinctions, increases_ their number just 144,000."--_Oliver B.
Peirce's Gram._, p. 85 Among people of sense, converts are made by teaching, and reasoning, and proving; but this man's disciples must yield to the balderdash of a _false speller, false quoter_, and _false assertor!_ This author says, that "_dropt_" is the past tense of "_drop_;" (p. 118;) let him prove, for example, that _droptest_ is not a clumsy _innovation_, and that _droppedst_ is not a formal archaism, and then tell of the egregious error of adopting neither of these forms in common conversation.
The following, with its many common contractions, is the language of POPE; and I ask this, or any other opponent of my doctrine, TO SHOW HOW SUCH VERBS ARE RIGHTLY FORMED, either for poetry or for conversation, _in the second person singular_.
"It _fled_, I _follow'd_; now in hope, now pain; It _stopt_, I _stopt_; it _mov'd_, I _mov'd_ again.
At last it _fix't_,'twas on what plant it _pleas'd_, And where it _fix'd_, the beauteous bird I _seiz'd_."
--_Dunciad_, B. IV, l. 427.
[249] The Rev. W. Allen, in his English Grammar, p. 132, says: "_Yth_ and _eth_ (from the Saxon la [sic--KTH]) were formerly, _plural terminations_; as, 'Manners _makyth_ man.' William of Wykeham's motto. 'After long advisement, they _taketh_ upon them to try the matter.' Stapleton's Translation of Bede. 'Doctrine and discourse _maketh_ nature less importune.' Bacon." The use of _eth_ as a plural termination of verbs, was evidently earlier than the use of _en_ for the same purpose. Even the latter is utterly obsolete, and the former can scarcely have been _English_. The Anglo-Saxon verb _lufian_, or _lufigean_, to love, appears to have been inflected with the several pronouns thus: Ic lufige, Thu lufast, He lufath, We lufiath, Ge lufiath, Hi lufiath. The form in Old English was this: I love, Thou lovest, He loveth, We loven, Ye loven, They loven. Dr. Priestley remarks, (though in my opinion unadvisedly,) that, "Nouns of a plural form, but of a singular signification, require a singular construction; as, mathematicks _is_ a useful study. This observation will likewise," says he, "_in some measure_, vindicate the grammatical propriety of the famous saying of William of Wykeham, Manners _maketh_ man."--_Priestley's Gram._, p. 189. I know not what _half-way_ vindication there can be, for any such construction. _Manners_ and _mathematics_ are not nouns of the singular number, and therefore both _is_ and _maketh_ are wrong. I judge it better English to say, "Mathematics _are_ a useful study."--"Manners _make_ the man." But perhaps both ideas may be still better expressed by a change of the nominative, thus: "The _study_ of mathematics _is_ useful."--"_Behaviour makes_ the man."
[250] What the state of our literature would have been, had no author attempted any thing on English grammar, must of course be a matter of mere conjecture, and not of any positive "conviction." It is my opinion, that, with all their faults, most of the books and essays in which this subject has been handled, have been in some degree _beneficial_, and a few of them highly so; and that, without their influence, our language must have been much more chaotic and indeterminable than it now is. But a late writer says, and, with respect to _some_ of our verbal terminations, says wisely: "It is my _sincere conviction_ that fewer irregularities would have crept into the language had no grammars existed, than have been authorized by grammarians; for it should be understood that the first of our grammarians, finding that good writers differed upon many points, instead of endeavouring to reconcile these discrepancies, absolutely perpetuated them by _citing opposite usages, and giving high authorities for both_. To this we owe all the irregularity which exists in the personal terminations of verbs, some of the best early writers using them _promiscuously_, some using them _uniformly_, and others making _no use_ of them; and really _they are of no use_ but to puzzle children and foreigners, perplex poets, and furnish an awkward dialect to that exemplary sect of Christians, who in every thing else study simplicity."--_Fowle's True E. Gram._, Part II, p.
26. Wells, a still later writer, gives this unsafe rule: "_When the past tense is a monosyllable not ending in a single vowel_, the second person singular of the solemn style is generally formed by the addition of _est_; as _heardest, fleddest, tookest_. _Hadst, wast, saidst, and didst_, are exceptions."--_Wells's School Gram._, 1st Ed., p. 106; 3d Ed., p. 110; 113th Ed., p. 115. Now the termination _d_ or _ed_ commonly adds no syllable; so that the regular past tense of any monosyllabic verb is, with a few exceptions, a monosyllable still; as, _freed, feed, loved, feared, planned, turned_: and how would these sound with _est_ added, which Lowth, Hiley, Churchill, and some others erroneously claim as having pertained to such preterits anciently? Again, if _heard_ is a contraction of _heared_, and _fled_, of _fleed_, as seems probable; then are _heardst_ and _fledtst_, which are sometimes used, more regular than _heardest, fleddest_: so of many other preterits.
[251] Chaucer appears not to have inflected this word in the second person: "Also ryght as _thou were_ ensample of moche folde errour, righte so thou must be ensample of manifold correction."--_Testament of Love_. "Rennin and crie as _thou were_ wode."--_House of Fame_. So others: "I wolde _thou were_ cold or hoot."--WICKLIFFE'S VERSION OF THE APOCALYPSE. "I wolde _thou were_ cold or hote."--VERSION OF EDWARD VI: _Tooke_, Vol. ii, p. 270. See Rev., iii, 15: "I would thou _wert_ cold or hot."--COMMON VERSION.
[252] See evidence of the _antiquity_ of this practice, in the examples under the twenty-third observation above. According to Churchill, it has had some local continuance even to the present time. For, in a remark upon Lowth's contractions, _lov'th, turn'th_, this author says, "These are _still in use in some country places_, the third person singular of verbs in general being formed by the addition of the sound _th_ simply, not making an additional syllable."--_Churchill's Gram._, p. 255 So the _eth_ in the following example adds no syllable:--
"Death _goeth_ about the field, rejoicing mickle To see a sword that so surpass'd his sickle."
_Harrington's Ariosto_, B. xiii: see _Singer's Shak._, Vol. ii, p. 296.
[253] The second person singular of the simple verb _do_, is now usually written _dost_, and read _dust_; being permanently contracted in orthography, as well as in pronunciation. And perhaps the compounds may follow; as, Thou _undost, outdost, misdost, overdost_, &c. But exceptions to exceptions are puzzling, even when they conform to the general rule. The Bible has _dost_ and _doth_ for auxilliaries, and _doest_ and _doeth_ for principal verbs.
[254] N. Butler avers, "The only regular terminations added to verbs are _est, s, ed, edst_, and _ing_."--_Butler's Practical Gram._, p. 81. But he adds, in a marginal note, this information: "The third person singular of the present formerly ended in _eth_. This termination is still sometimes used in the solemn style. Contractions sometimes take place; as, _sayst_ for _sayest_."--_Ibid._ This statement not only imposes a vast deal of _needless irregularity_ upon the few inflections admitted by the English verb, but is, so far as it disagrees with mine, a causeless innovation. The terminations rejected, or here regarded as _irregular_, are _d, st_, _es, th_, and _eth_; while _edst_, which is plainly a combination of _ed_ and _st_,--the past ending of the verb with the personal inflection,--is assumed to be one single and regular termination which I had overlooked! It has long been an almost universal doctrine of our grammarians, that regular verbs form their preterits and perfect participles by adding _d_ to final _e_, and _ed_ to any other radical ending. Such is the teaching of Blair, Brightland, Bullions, Churchill, Coar, Comly, Cooper, Fowle, Frazee, Ingersoll, Kirkham, Lennie, Murray, Weld, Wells, Sanborn, and others, a great multitude. But this author alleges, that, "_Loved_ is not formed by adding _d_ to _love_, but by adding _ed_, and dropping _e_ from _love_."--_Butler's Answer to Brown_. Any one is at liberty to think this, if he will. But I see not the use of playing thus with _mute Ees_, adding one to drop an other, and often pretending to drop two under one apostrophe, as in _lov'd, lov'st_! To suppose that the second person of the regular preterit, as _lovedst_, is not formed by adding _st_ to the first person, is contrary to the analogy of other verbs, and is something worse than an idle whim. And why should the formation of the third person be called _irregular_ when it requires _es_, as in _flies, denies_, _goes, vetoes, wishes, preaches_, and so forth? In forming _flies_ from _fly_, Butler changes "_y_ into _ie_," on page 20th, adding _s_ only; and, on page 11th, "into _i_" only, adding _es_. Uniformity would be better.
[255] Cooper says, "The termination _eth_ is _commonly_ contracted into _th_, to prevent the addition of a syllable to the verb, as: _doeth_, _doth_."--_Plain and Practical Gram._, p. 59. This, with reference to modern usage, is plainly erroneous. For, when _s_ or _es_ was substituted for _th_ or _eth_, and the familiar use of the latter ceased, this mode of inflecting the verb without increasing its syllables, ceased also, or at least became unusual. It appears that the inflecting of verbs with _th_ without a vowel, as well as with _st_ without a vowel, was more common in very ancient times than subsequently. Our grammarians of the last century seem to have been more willing to _encumber_ the language with syllabic endings, than to _simplify_ it by avoiding them. See Observations, 21st, 22d, and 23d, above.
[256] These are what William Ward, in his Practical Grammar, written about 1765, denominated "the CAPITAL FORMS, or ROOTS, of the English Verb." Their number too is the same. "And these Roots," says he, "are considered as _Four_ in each verb; although in many verbs two of them are alike, and in some few three are alike."--P. 50. Few modern grammarians have been careful to display these Chief Terms, or Principal Parts, properly. Many say nothing about them. Some speak of _three_, and name them faultily. Thus Wells: "The three _principal parts_ of a verb are the _present tense_, the _past tense_, and the _perfect participle_."--_School Gram._, 113th Ed., p.
92. Now a whole "_tense_" is something more than one verbal form, and Wells's "perfect participle" includes the auxiliary "_having_." Hence, in stead of _write, wrote, writing, written_, (the true principal parts of a certain verb,) one might take, under Wells's description, either of these threes, both entirely false: _am writing, did write_, and _having written_; or, _do write, wrotest_, and _having written_. But _writing_, being the root of the "Progressive Form of the Verb," is far more worthy to be here counted a chief term, than _wrote_, the preterit, which occurs only in one tense, and never receives an auxiliary. So of other verbs. This sort of treatment of the Principal Parts, is a very grave defect in sundry schemes of grammar.
[257] A grammarian should know better, than to exhibit, _as a paradigm_ for school-boys, such English as the following: "I do have, Thou dost have, He does have: We do have, You do have, They do have."--_Everest's Gram._, p.
106. "I did have, Thou didst have, He did have: We did have, You did have, They did have."--_Ib._, p. 107. I know not whether any one has yet thought of conjugating the verb _be_ after this fashion; but the attempt to introduce, "_am being, is being_," &c., is an innovation much worse.
[258] Hiley borrows from Webster the remark, that, "_Need_, when intransitive, is formed _like an auxiliary_, and is followed by a verb, without the prefix _to_; as, 'He _need go_ no farther.'"--_Hiley's Gram._, p. 90; _Webster's Imp. Gram._, p. 127; _Philos. Gram._, p. 178. But he forbears to class it with the auxiliaries, and even contradicts himself, by a subsequent remark taken from Dr. Campbell, that, for the sake of "ANALOGY, '_he needs_,' _he dares_,' are preferable to '_he need_,' '_he dare_,'"--_Hiley's Gram._, p. 145; _Campbell's Rhet._, p. 175
[259] This grammarian here uses _need_ for the third person singular, designedly, and makes a remark for the justification of the practice; but he neither calls the word an auxiliary, nor cites any other than anonymous examples, which are, perhaps, of his own invention.