[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.
[260] "The substantive form, or, as it is commonly termed, infinitive mood, contains at the same time the essence of verbal meaning, and the literal ROOT on which all inflections of the verb are to be grafted. This character being common to the infinitive in all languages, it [this mood] ought to precede the [other] moods of verbs, instead of being made to follow them, as is absurdly practised in almost all grammatical systems."—Enclytica, p. 14.
[261] By this, I mean, that the verb in all the persons, both singular and plural, is the same in form. But Lindley Murray, when he speaks of not varying or not changing the termination of the verb, most absurdly means by it, that the verb is inflected, just as it is in the indicative or the potential mood; and when he speaks of changes or variations of termination, he means, that the verb remains the same as in the first person singular! For example: "The second person singular of the imperfect tense in the subjunctive mood, is also very frequently varied in its termination: as, 'If thou loved him truly, thou wouldst obey him.'"—Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 209. "The auxiliaries of the potential mood, when applied to the subjunctive, do not change the termination of the second person singular; as, 'If thou mayst or canst go.'"—Ib., p. 210. "Some authors think, that the termination of these auxiliaries should be varied: as, I advise thee, that thou may beware."—Ib., p. 210. "When the circumstances of contingency and futurity concur, it is proper to vary the terminations of the second and third persons singular."—Ib., 210. "It may be considered as a rule, that the changes of termination are necessary, when these two circumstances concur."—Ib., p. 207. "It may be considered as a rule, that no changes of termination are necessary, when these two circumstances concur."—Ingersoll's Gram., p. 264. Now Murray and Ingersoll here mean precisely the same thing! Whose fault is that? If Murray's, he has committed many such. But, in this matter, he is contradicted not only by Ingersoll, but, on one occasion, by himself. For he declares it to be an opinion in which he concurs. "That the definition and nature of the subjunctive mood, have no reference to change of termination."—Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 211. And yet, amidst his strange blunders, he seems to have ascribed the meaning which a verb has in this mood, to the inflections which it receives in the indicative: saying. "That part of the verb which grammarians call the present tense of the subjunctive mood, has a future signification. This is effected by varying the terminations of the second and third persons singular of the indicative!"—Ib., p. 207. But the absurdity which he really means to teach, is, that the subjunctive mood is derived from the indicative,—the primitive or radical verb, from it's derivatives or branches!
[262] Wert is sometimes used in lieu of wast; and, in such instances, both by authority and by analogy, it appears to belong here, if anywhere. See OBS. 2d and 3d, below.