The Grammar of English Grammars

by Goold Brown

[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 Again: "Thou in the singular is obsolete, except among the Society of Friends; and ye is an obsolete plural!"—Guy's School Gram., p. 25.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 Charles Adams, A. M., Principal of Newbury Seminary," the second person singular is everywhere superseded by the plural; the former being silently dropped from all his twenty pages of conjugations, without so much as a hint, or a saving clause, respecting it; and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.