The Grammar of English Grammars · Chapter 125Persons and Numbers. (3)
This chapter is not translated yet. You are reading the original.
"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.
"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. —Id., B. x, l. 60.
OBS. 33.—Some of the Friends (perhaps from an idea that it is less formal) misemploy thee for thou; and often join it to the third person of the verb in stead of the second. Such expressions as, thee does, thee is, thee has, thee thinks, &c., are double solecisms; they set all grammar at defiance. Again, many persons who are not ignorant of grammar, and who employ the pronoun aright, sometimes improperly sacrifice concord to a slight improvement in sound, and give to the verb the ending of the third person, for that of the second. Three or four instances of this, occur in the examples which have been already quoted. See also the following, and many more, in the works of the poet Burns; who says of himself, "Though it cost the schoolmaster some thrashings, I made an excellent English scholar; and, by the time I was ten or eleven years of age, I was a critic in substantives, VERBS, and particles:"—"But when thou pours;"—"There thou shines chief;"—"Thou clears the head;"—"Thou strings the nerves;"—"Thou brightens black despair;"—"Thou comes;"—"Thou travels far;"—"Now thou's turned out;"—"Unseen thou lurks;"—"O thou pale orb that silent shines." This mode of simplifying the verb, confounds the persons; and, as it has little advantage in sound, over the regular contracted form of the second person, it ought to be avoided. With this author it may be, perhaps, a Scotticism: as,
"Thou paints auld nature to the nines, In thy sweet Caledonian lines."—Burns to Ramsay.
"Thou paintst old nature," would be about as smooth poetry, and certainly much better English. This confounding of the persons of the verb, however, is no modern peculiarity. It appears to be about as old as the use of s for th or eth. Spenser, the great English poet of the sixteenth century, may be cited in proof: as,
"Siker, thou's but a lazy loord, And rekes much of thy swinke."—Joh. Dict., w. Loord.
OBS. 34.—In the solemn style, (except in poetry, which usually contracts these forms,) the second person singular of the present indicative, and that of the irregular preterits, commonly end in est, pronounced as a separate syllable, and requiring the duplication of the final consonant, according to Rule 3d for Spelling: as, I run, thou runnest; I ran, thou rannest. But as the termination ed, in solemn discourse, constitutes a syllable, the regular preterits form the second person singular by assuming st, without further increase of syllables: as, I loved, thou lovedst; not, "lovedest," as Chandler made it in his English Grammar, p. 41, Edition of 1821; and as Wells's rule, above cited, if literally taken, would make it. Dost and hast, and the three irregular preterits, wast, didst, and hadst, are permanently contracted; though doest and diddest are sometimes seen in old books. Saidst is more common, and perhaps more regular, than saidest. Werest has long been contracted into wert: "I would thou werest either cold or hot."—W. Perkins, 1608.[251] The auxiliaries shall and will change the final l to t, and become shalt and wilt. To the auxiliaries, may, can, might, could, would, and should, the termination est was formerly added; but they are now generally written with st only, and pronounced as monosyllables, even in solemn discourse. Murray, in quoting the Scriptures, very often charges mayest to mayst, mightest to mightst, &c. Some other permanent contractions are occasionally met with, in what many grammarians call the solemn style; as bidst for biddest, fledst for fleddest, satst for sattest:
"Riding sublime, thou bidst the world adore, And humblest nature with thy northern blast." —Thomson.
"Fly thither whence thou fledst." —Milton, P. L., B. iv, l. 963.
"Unspeakable, who sitst above these heavens." —Id., ib., B. v, l. 156.
"Why satst thou like an enemy in wait?" —Id., ib., B. iv, l. 825.
OBS. 35.—The formation of the third person singular of verbs, is now precisely the same as that of the plural number of nouns: as, love, loves; show, shows; boast, boasts; fly, flies; reach, reaches. This form began to be used about the beginning of the sixteenth century. The ending seems once to have been es, sounded as s or z: as,
"And thus I see among these pleasant thynges Eche care decayes, and yet my sorrow sprynges."—Earl of Surry.
"With throte yrent, he roares, he lyeth along."—Sir T. Wyat.
"He dyeth, he is all dead, he pantes, he restes."—Id., 1540.
In all these instances, the e before the s has become improper. The es does not here form a syllable; neither does the eth, in "lyeth" and "dyeth." In very ancient times, the third person singular appears to have been formed by adding th or eth nearly as we now add s or es[252] Afterwards, as in our common Bible, it was formed by adding th to verbs ending in e, and eth to all others; as, "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself."—1 Cor., xi, 29. "He quickeneth man, who is dead in trespasses and sins; he keepeth alive the quickened soul, and leadeth it in the paths of life; he scattereth, subdueth, and conquereth the enemies of the soul."—I. Penington. This method of inflection, as now pronounced, always adds a syllable to the verb. It is entirely confined to the solemn style, and is little used. Doth, hath, and saith, appear to be permanent contractions of verbs thus formed. In the days of Shakspeare, both terminations were common, and he often mixed them, in a way which is not very proper now: as,
"The quality of mercy is not strained; It droppeth, as the gentle rain from heaven Upon the place beneath: it is twice bless'd; It blesseth him that gives, and him that takes." —Merchant of Venice.
OBS. 36.—When the second person singular is employed in familiar discourse, with any regard to correctness, it is usually formed in a manner strictly analogous to that which is now adopted in the third person singular. When the verb ends with a sound which will unite with that of st or s, the second person singular is formed by adding s only, and the third, by adding s only; and the number of syllables is not increased: as, I read, thou readst, he reads; I know, thou knowst, he knows; I take, thou takest, he takes; I free, thou freest, he frees. For, when the verb ends in mute a, no termination renders this a vocal in the familiar style, if a synæresis can take place. To prevent their readers from ignorantly assuming the pronunciation of the solemn style, the poets have generally marked such words with an apostrophe: as,
"Look what thy soul holds dear, imagine it To lie the way thou go'st, not whence thou com'st."—Shak.
OBS. 37.—But when the verb ends in a sound which will not unite with that of st or s, the second and third persons are formed by adding est and es; or, if the first person end in mute e, the st and s render that e vocal; so that the verb acquires an additional syllable: as, I trace, thou tracest, he traces; I pass, thou passest, he passes; I fix, thou fixest, he fixes; I preach, thou preachest, he preaches; I blush, thou blushest, he blushes; I judge, thou judgest, he judges. But verbs ending in o or y preceded by a consonant, do not exactly follow either of the foregoing rules. In these, y is changed into i; and, to both o and i, est and es are added without increase of syllables: as, I go, thou goest, he goes; I undo, thou undoest,[253] he undoes; I fly, thou fliest, he flies; I pity, thou pitiest, he pities. Thus, in the following lines, goest must be pronounced like ghost; otherwise, we spoil the measure of the verse:
"Thou goest not now with battle, and the voice Of war, as once against the rebel hosts; Thou goest a Judge, and findst the guilty bound; Thou goest to prove, condemn, acquit, reward."—Pollok, B. x.
In solemn prose, however, the termination is here made a separate syllable: as, I go, thou goëst, he goëth; I undo, thou undoëst, he undoëth; I fly, thou fliëst, he fliëth; I pity, thou pitiëst, he pitiëth.
OBS. 38.—The auxiliaries do, dost, does,—(pronounced doo, dust, duz; and not as the words dough, dosed, doze,—) am, art, is,—have, hast, has,—being also in frequent use as principal verbs of the present tense, retain their peculiar forms, with distinction of person and number, when they help to form the compound tenses of other verbs. The other auxiliaries are not varied, or ought not to be varied, except in the solemn style. Example of the familiar use: "That thou may be found truly owning it."—Barclay's Works, Vol. i, p. 234.
OBS. 39.—The only regular terminations that are added to English verbs, are ing, d or e, st or est, s or es, th or eth[254] Ing, and th or eth, always add a syllable to the verb; except in doth, hath, saith.[255] The rest, whenever their sound will unite with that of the final syllable of the verb, are usually added without increasing the number of syllables; otherwise, they are separately pronounced. In solemn discourse, however, ed and est are by most speakers uttered distinctly in all cases; except sometimes when a vowel precedes: as in sanctified, glorified, which are pronounced as three syllables only. Yet, in spite of this analogy, many readers will have sanctifiest and glorifiest to be words of four syllables. If this pronunciation is proper, it is only so in solemn prose. The prosody of verse will show how many syllables the poets make: as,
"Thou diedst, a most rare boy, of melancholy!" —Shak., Cymb., Act iv, sc. 2.
"Had not a voice thus warn'd me: What thou seest, What there thou seest, fair creature, is thyself." —Milton, B. iv, l. 467.
"By those thou wooedst from death to endless life." —Pollok, B. ix, l. 7.
"Attend: that thou art happy, owe to God; That thou continuest such, owe to thyself" —Milton, B. v, l. 520.
OBS. 40.—If the grave and full form of the second person singular must needs be supposed to end rather with the syllable est than with st only, it is certain that this form may be contracted, whenever the verb ends in a sound which will unite with that of st. The poets generally employ the briefer or contracted forms; but they seem not to have adopted a uniform and consistent method of writing them. Some usually insert the apostrophe, and, after a single vowel, double the final consonant before st; as, hold'st, bidd'st, said'st, ledd'st, wedd'st, trimm'st, may'st, might'st, and so forth: others, in numerous instances, add st only, and form permanent contractions; as, holdst, bidst, saidst, ledst, wedst, trimst, mayst, mightst, and so forth. Some retain the vowel e, in the termination of certain words, and suppress a preceding one; as, quick'nest, happ'nest, scatt'rest, rend'rest, rend'redst, slumb'rest, slumb'redst: others contract the termination of such words, and insert the apostrophe; as, quicken'st, happen'st, scatter'st, render'st, render'dst, slumber'st, slumber'dst. The nature and idiom of our language, "the accent and pronunciation of it," incline us to abbreviate or "contract even all our regular verbs;" so as to avoid, if possible, an increase of syllables in the inflection of them. Accordingly, several terminations which formerly constituted distinct syllables, have been either wholly dropped, or blended with the final syllables of the verbs to which they are added. Thus the plural termination en has become entirely obsolete; th or eth is no longer in common use; ed is contracted in pronunciation; the ancient ys or is, of the third person singular, is changed to s or es, and is usually added without increase of syllables; and st or est has, in part, adopted the analogy. So that the proper mode of forming these contractions of the second person singular, seems to be, to add st only; and to insert no apostrophe, unless a vowel is suppressed from the verb to which this termination is added: as, thinkst, sayst, bidst, sitst, satst, lov'st, lov'dst, slumberst, slumber'dst.
"And know, for that thou slumberst on the guard, Thou shalt be made to answer at the bar."—Cotton.
OBS. 41.—Ho man deserves more praise for his attention to English pronunciation, than John Walker. His Pronouncing Dictionary was, for a long period, the best standard of orthoëpy, that our schools possessed. But he seems to me to have missed a figure, in preferring such words as quick'nest, strength'nest, to the smoother and more regular forms, quickenst, strengthenst. It is true that these are rough words, in any form you can give them; but let us remember, that needless apostrophes are as rough to the eye, as needless st's to the ear. Our common grammarians are disposed to encumber the language with as many of both as they can find any excuse for, and vastly more than can be sustained by any good argument. In words that are well understood to be contracted in pronunciation, the apostrophe is now less frequently used than it was formerly. Walker says, "This contraction of the participial ed, and the verbal en, is so fixed an idiom of our pronunciation, that to alter it, would be to alter the sound of the whole language. It must, however, be regretted that it subjects our tongue to some of the most hissing, snapping, clashing, grinding sounds that ever grated the ears of a Vandal; thus, rasped, scratched, wrenched, bridled, fangled, birchen, hardened, strengthened, quickened, &c. almost frighten us when written as they are actually pronounced, as rapt, scratcht, wrencht, bridl'd, fangl'd, birch'n, strength'n'd, quick'n'd, &c.; they become still more formidable when used contractedly in the solemn style, which never ought to be the case; for here instead of thou strength'n'st or strength'n'd'st, thou quick'n'st or quick'n'd'st, we ought to pronounce thou strength'nest or strength'nedst, thou quick'nest or quick'nedst, which are sufficiently harsh of all conscience."—Principles, No. 359. Here are too many apostrophes; for it does not appear that such words as strengthenedest and quickenedest ever existed, except in the imagination of certain grammarians. In solemn prose one may write, thou quickenest, thou strengthenest, or thou quickenedst, thou strengthenedst; but, in the familiar style, or in poetry, it is better to write, thou quickenst, thou strengthenst, thou quickened, thou strengthened. This is language which it is possible to utter; and it is foolish to strangle ourselves with strings of rough consonants, merely because they are insisted on by some superficial grammarians. Is it not strange, is it not incredible, that the same hand should have written the two following lines, in the same sentence? Surely, the printer has been at fault.
"With noiseless foot, thou walkedst the vales of earth"— "Most honourable thou appeared, and most To be desired."—Pollok's Course of Time, B. ix, l. 18, and l. 24.
OBS. 42.—It was once a very common practice, to retain the final y, in contractions of the preterit or of the second person of most verbs that end in y, and to add the consonant terminations d, st, and dst, with an apostrophe before each; as, try'd for tried, reply'd for replied, try'st for triest, try'dst for triedst. Thus Milton:—
"Thou following cry'dst aloud, Return, fair Eve; Whom fly'st thou? whom thou fly'st, of him thou art." —P. L., B. iv, l. 481.
This usage, though it may have been of some advantage as an index to the pronunciation of the words, is a palpable departure from the common rule for spelling such derivatives. That rule is, "The final y of a primitive word, when preceded by a consonant, is changed into i before an additional termination." The works of the British poets, except those of the present century, abound with contractions like the foregoing; but late authors, or their printers, have returned to the rule; and the former practice is wearing out and becoming obsolete. Of regular verbs that end in ay, ey, or oy, we have more than half a hundred; all of which usually retain the y in their derivatives, agreeably to an other of the rules for spelling. The preterits of these we form by adding ed without increase of syllables; as, display, displayed; survey, surveyed; enjoy, enjoyed. These also, in both tenses, may take st without increase of syllables; as, display'st, display'dst; survey'st, survey'dst; enjoy'st, enjoy'dst. All these forms, and such as these, are still commonly considered contractions, and therefore written with the apostrophe; but if the termination st is sufficient of itself to mark the second person singular, as it certainly is considered to be as regards one half of them, and as it certainly was in the Saxon tongue still more generally, then for the other half there is no need of the apostrophe, because nothing is omitted. Est, like es, is generally a syllabic termination; but st, like s, is not. As signs of the third person, the s and the es are always considered equivalent; and, as signs of the second person, the st and the est are sometimes, and ought to be always, considered so too. To all verbs that admit the sound, we add the s without marking it as a contraction for es; and there seems to be no reason at all against adding the st in like manner, whenever we choose to form the second person without adding a syllable to the verb. The foregoing observations I commend to the particular attention of all those who hope to write such English as shall do them honour—to every one who, from a spark of literary ambition, may say of himself,
————-"I twine My hopes of being remembered in my line With my land's language."—Byron's Childe Harold, Canto iv, st. 9.
The conjugation of a verb is a regular arrangement of its moods, tenses, persons, numbers, and participles.
There are four PRINCIPAL PARTS in the conjugation of every simple and complete verb; namely, the Present, the Preterit, the Imperfect Participle, and the Perfect Participle.[256] A verb which wants any of these parts, is called defective; such are most of the auxiliaries.
An auxiliary is a short verb prefixed to one of the principal parts of an other verb, to express some particular mode and time of the being, action, or passion. The auxiliaries are do, be, have, shall, will, may, can, and must, with their variations.
OBS. 1.—The present, or the verb in the present tense, is radically the same in all the moods, and is the part from which all the rest are formed. The present infinitive is commonly considered the root, or simplest form, of the English verb. We usually place the preposition TO before it; but never when with an auxiliary it forms a compound tense that is not infinitive: there are also some other exceptions, which plainly show, that the word to is neither a part of the verb, as Cobbett, R. C. Smith, S. Kirkham, and Wells, say it is; nor a part of the infinitive mood, as Hart and many others will have it to be, but a distinct preposition. (See, in the Syntax of this work, Observations on Rule 18th.) The preterit and the perfect participle are regularly formed by adding d or ed, and the imperfect participle, by adding ing, to the present.
OBS. 2.—The moods and tenses, in English, are formed partly by inflections, or changes made in the verb itself, and partly by the combination of the verb or its participle, with a few short verbs, called auxiliaries, or helping verbs. This view of the subject, though disputed by some, is sustained by such a preponderance both of authority and of reason, that I shall not trouble the reader with any refutation of those who object to it. Murray the schoolmaster observes, "In the English language, the times and modes of verbs are expressed in a perfect, easy, and beautiful manner, by the aid of a few little words called auxiliaries, or helping verbs. The possibility of a thing is expressed by can or could; the liberty to do a thing, by may or might; the inclination of the will, by will or would; the necessity of a thing, by must or ought, shall or should. The preposition to is never expressed after the helping verbs, except after ought."—Alex. Murray's Gram., p. 112. See nearly the same words in Buchanan's English Syntax, p. 36; and in the British Gram., p. 125.
OBS. 3.—These authors are wrong in calling ought a helping verb, and so is Oliver B. Peirce, in calling "ought to," and "ought to have" auxiliaries; for no auxiliary ever admits the preposition to after it or into it: and Murray of Holdgate is no less in fault, for calling let an auxiliary; because no mere auxiliary ever governs the objective case. The sentences, "He ought to help you," and, "Let him help you," severally involve two different moods: they are equivalent to, "It is his duty to help you;"—"Permit him to help you." Hence ought and let are not auxiliaries, but principal verbs.