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 pronunciation 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 pronounce 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 pronoun 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 pronoun 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 substituted for thou, without much inconvenience; and so may we be substituted 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 pronouns in the following couplet are put for the first person singular, the second person singular, and the second person plural; yet nobody 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 assumption. 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 pronoun 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 circumstances 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 pronounced 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 assemblies, 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 pronoun thou in conversation.

"But thou, false Arcite, never shall obtain," &c.
—Dryden, Fables.