The Grammar of English Grammars Part 61

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 p.r.o.noun _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 p.r.o.nunciation of it, inclines [incline] us to contract even all our regular verbs: thus _loved, turned_, are commonly p.r.o.nounced 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 p.r.o.nunciation, 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 p.r.o.nunciation, _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 thaet thu _hoefst_ thara waepna."--_King Alfred_. "But I know that thou _hast_ those weapons." "Thaet thu _oncnawe_ thara worda sothfaestnesse. of tham the thu _geloered eart_."--_Lucae_, 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."--_Lucae_, 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."--_Lucae_, 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 daeg the thas thing _gewurthath_. fortham thu minum wordum ne _gelyfdest_. tha _beoth_ on hyra timan _gefyllede_."--_Lucae_, 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 p.r.o.nunciation 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 a.n.a.logous 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 disenc.u.mbers their familiar dialect of a mult.i.tude 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 p.r.o.noun _thou_, in familiar discourse. The following may serve to ill.u.s.trate 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 p.r.o.noun _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. .h.i.therto 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 p.r.o.nounced_, 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 h.e.l.l 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 subst.i.tuted 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 subst.i.tutes _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. Caesar_, 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 p.r.o.nunciation 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 p.r.o.nounce 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 p.r.o.noun _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 p.r.o.noun 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 subst.i.tuted for _thou_, without much inconvenience; and so may _we_ be subst.i.tuted 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 p.r.o.nouns in the following couplet are put for the first person singular, the second person singular, and the second person plural; yet n.o.body 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 a.s.sumption.

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 p.r.o.noun _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 circ.u.mstances 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_ p.r.o.nounced 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 a.s.semblies, 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 p.r.o.noun _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.