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 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?