The Grammar of English Grammars · Chapter 695Footnotes: (7)
This chapter is not translated yet. You are reading the original.
[227] This late writer seems to have published his doctrine on this point as a novelty; and several teachers ignorantly received and admired it as such: I have briefly shown, in the Introduction to this work, how easily they were deceived. "By this, that Question may be resolv'd, whether every Verb not Passive governs always an Accusative, at least understood: 'Tis the Opinion of some very able GRAMMARIANS, but for our Parts we don't think it."—Grammar published by John Brightland, 7th Ed., London, 1746, p. 115.
[228] Upon this point, Richard Johnson cites and criticises Lily's system thus: "'A Verb Neuter endeth in o or m, and cannot take r to make him a Passive; as, Curro, I run; Sum, I am.'—Grammar, Eng. p. 13. This Definition, is founded upon the Notion abovementioned, viz. That none but Transitives are Verbs Active, which is contrary to the reason of Things, and the common sense of Mankind. And what can shock a Child more, of any Ingenuity, than to be told, That Ambuto and Curro are Verbs Neuter; that is, to speak according to the common Apprehensions of Mankind, that they signifie neither to do, nor suffer."—Johnson's Grammatical Commentaries, 8vo, London, 1706, p. 273.
[229] Murray says, "Mood or Mode is a particular form of the verb, showing the manner in which the being, action, or passion is represented."—Octavo Gram., p. 63. By many grammarians, the term Mode is preferred to Mood; but the latter is, for this use, the more distinctive, and by far the more common word. In some treatises on grammar, as well as in books of logic, certain parts of speech, as adjectives and adverbs, are called Modes, because they qualify or modify other terms. E.g., "Thus all the parts of speech are reducible to four; viz., Names, Verbs, Modes, Connectives."—Enclytica, or Universal Gram., p. 8. "Modes are naturally divided, by their attribution to names or verbs, into adnames and adverbs."—Ibid., p. 24. After making this application of the name modes, was it not improper for the learned author to call the moods also "modes?"
[230] "We have, in English, no genuine subjunctive mood, except the preterimperfect, if I were, if thou wert, &c. of the verb to be. [See Notes and Observations on the Third Example of Conjugation, in this chapter.] The phrase termed the subjunctive mood, is elliptical; shall, may, &c. being understood: as, 'Though hand (shall) join in hand, the wicked shall not be unpunished.' 'If it (may) be possible, live peaceably with all.' Scriptures."—Rev. W. Allen's Gram., p. 61. Such expressions as, "If thou do love, If he do love," appear to disprove this doctrine. [See Notes and Remarks on the Subjunctive of the First Example conjugated below.]
[231] "Mr. Murray has changed his opinion, as often as Laban changed Jacob's wages. In the edition we print from, we find shall and will used in each person of the first and second future tenses of the subjunctive, but he now states that in the second future tense, shalt, shall, should be used instead of wilt, will. Perhaps this is the only improvement he has made in his Grammar since 1796."—Rev. T. Smith's Edition of Lindley Murray's English Grammar, p. 67.
[232] Notwithstanding this expression, Murray did not teach, as do many modern grammarians, that inflected forms of the present tense, such as, "If he thinks so," "Unless he deceives me," "If thou lov'st me," are of the subjunctive mood; though, when he rejected his changeless forms of the other tenses of this mood, he improperly put as many indicatives in their places. With him, and his numerous followers, the ending determines the mood in one tense, while the conjunction controls it in the other five! In his syntax, he argues, "that in cases wherein contingency and futurity do not occur, it is not proper to turn the verb from its signification of present time, nor to vary [he means, or to forbear to change] its form or termination. [Fist] The verb would then be in the indicative mood, whatever conjunctions might attend it."—L. Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 208: 12mo, p. 167.
[233] Some grammarians—(among whom are Lowth, Dalton, Cobbett, and Cardell—) recognize only three tenses, or "times," of English verbs; namely, the present, the past, and the future. A few, like Latham and Child, denying all the compound tenses to be tenses, acknowledge only the first two, the present and the past; and these they will have to consist only of the simple or radical verb and the simple preterit. Some others, who acknowledge six tenses, such as are above described, have endeavoured of late to change the names of a majority of them; though with too little agreement among themselves, as may be seen by the following citations: (1.) "We have six tenses; three, the Present, Past, and Future, to represent time in a general way; and three, the Present Perfect, Past Perfect, and Future Perfect, to represent the precise time of finishing the action."—Perley's Gram., 1834, p. 25. (2.) "There are six tenses; the present, the past, the present-perfect, the past-perfect, the future, and the future-perfect."—Hiley's Gram., 1840, p. 28. (3.) "There are six tenses; the Present and Present Perfect, the Past and Past Perfect, and the Future and Future Perfect."—Farnum's Gram., 1842, p. 34. (4.) "The names of the tenses will then be, Present, Present Perfect; Past, Past Perfect; Future, Future Perfect. They are usually named as follows: Present, Perfect, Imperfect, Pluperfect, Future, Second Future."—N. Butler's Gram, 1845, p. 69. (5.) "We have six tenses;—the present, the past, the future, the present perfect, the past perfect, and the future perfect."—Wells's School Gram., 1846. p. 82. (6.) "The tenses in English are six—the Present, the Present-perfect, the Past, the Past-perfect, the Future, and the Future-perfect."—Bullions's Gram., 1849. p. 71. (7.) "Verbs have Six Tenses, called the Present, the Perfect-Present, the Past, the Perfect-Past, the Future, and the Perfect-Future."—Spencer's Gram., 1852, p. 53. (8.) "There are six tenses: the present, past, future, present perfect, past perfect, and future perfect."—Covell's Gram., 1853, p. 62. (9.) "The tenses are—the present, the present perfect; the past, the past perfect; the future, the future perfect."—S. S. Greene's Gram., 1853, p. 65. (10.) "There are six tenses; one present, and but one, three past, and two future." They are named thus: "The Present, the First Past, the Second Past, the Third Past, the First Future, the Second Future."—"For the sake of symmetry, to call two of them present, and two only past, while one only is present, and three are past tenses, is to sacrifice truth to beauty."—Pinneo's Gram., 1853, pp. 69 and 70. "The old names, imperfect, perfect, and pluperfect," which, in 1845, Butler justly admitted to be the usual names of the three past tenses. Dr. Pinneo, who dates his copy-right from 1850, most unwarrantably declares to be "now generally discarded!"—Analytical Gram., p. 76; Same Revised, p. 81. These terms, still predominant in use, he strangely supposes to have been suddenly superseded by others which are no better, if so good: imagining that the scheme which Perley or Hiley introduced, of "two present, two past, and two future tenses,"—a scheme which, he says, "has no foundation in truth, and is therefore to be rejected,"—had prepared the way for the above-cited innovation of his own, which merely presents the old ideas under new terms, or terms partly new, and wholly unlikely to prevail. William Ward, one of the ablest of our old grammarians, rejecting in 1765 the two terms imperfect and perfect, adopted others which resemble Pinneo's; but few, if any, have since named the tenses as he did, thus: "The Present, the First Preterite, the Second Preterite, the Pluperfect, the First Future, the Second Future."—Ward's Gram., p. 47.
[234] "The infinitive mood, as 'to shine,' may be called the name of the verb; it carries neither time nor affirmation; but simply expresses that attribute, action, or state of things, which is to be the subject of the other moods and tenses."—Blair's Lectures, p. 81. By the word "subject" the Doctor does not here mean the nominative to the other moods and tenses, but the material of them, or that which is formed into them.
[235] Some grammarians absurdly deny that persons and numbers are properties of verbs at all: not indeed because our verbs have so few inflections, or because these authors wish to discard the little distinction that remains; but because they have some fanciful conception, that these properties cannot pertain to a verb. Yet, when they come to their syntax, they all forget, that if a verb has no person and number, it cannot agree with a nominative in these respects. Thus KIRKHAM: "Person, strictly speaking, is a quality that belongs not to verbs, but to nouns and pronouns. We say, however, that the verb must agree with its nominative in person, as well as in number."—Gram. in Familiar Lect., p. 46. So J. W. WRIGHT: "In truth, number and person are not properties of verbs. Mr. Murray grants that, 'in philosophical strictness, both number and person might (say, may) be excluded from every verb, as they are, in fact, the properties of substantives, not a part of the essence of the verb.'"—Philosophical Gram., p. 68. This author's rule of syntax for verbs, makes them agree with their nominatives, not in person and number, but in termination, or else in nobody knows what: "A verb must vary its terminations, so as to agree with the nominative to which it is connected."—Ib., p. 168. But Murray's rule is, "A verb must agree with its nominative case in number and person:" and this doctrine is directly repugnant to that interpretation of his words above, by which these gentlemen have so egregiously misled themselves and others. Undoubtedly, both the numbers and the persons of all English verbs might be abolished, and the language would still be intelligible. But while any such distinctions remain, and the verb is actually modified to form them, they belong as properly to this part of speech as they can to any other. De Sacy says, "The distinction of number occurs in the verb;" and then adds, "yet this distinction does not properly belong to the verb, as it signifies nothing which can be numbered."—Fosdick's Version, p. 64. This deceptive reason is only a new form of the blunder which I have once exposed, of confounding the numbers in grammar with numbers in arithmetic. J. M. Putnam, after repeating what is above cited from Murray, adds: "The terms number and person, as applied to the verb are figurative. The properties which belong to one thing, for convenience' sake are ascribed to another."—Gram., p. 49. Kirkham imagines, if ten men build a house, or navigate a ship round the world, they perform just "ten actions," and no more. "Common sense teaches you," says he, "that there must be as many actions as there are actors; and that the verb when it has no form or ending to show it, is as strictly plural, as when it has. So, in the phrase, 'We walk,' the verb walk is [of the] first person, because it expresses the actions performed by the speakers. The verb, then, when correctly written, always agrees, in sense, with its nominative in number and person."—Kirkham's Gram., p. 47. It seems to me, that these authors do not very well know what persons or numbers, in grammar, are.
[236] John Despauter, whose ample Grammar of the Latin language appeared in its third edition in 1517, represents this practice as a corruption originating in false pride, and maintained by the wickedness of hungry flatterers. On the twentieth leaf of his Syntax, he says, "Videntur hodie Christiani superbiores, quam olim ethnici imperatores, qui dii haberi voluerunt; nam hi nunquam inviti audierunt pronomina tu, tibi, tuus. Quæ si hodie alicui monachorum antistiti, aut decano, aut pontifici dicantur aut scribantur, videbitur ita loquens aut scribens blasphemasse, et anathemate dignus: nec tamen Abbas, aut pontifex, tam ægrè feret, quam Malchi, aut famelici gnathones, his assistentes, et vociferantes, Sic loqueris, aut scribis, pontifici? Quintilianus et Donatus dicunt barbarismum, aut soloecismum esse, siquis uni dicat. Salvete." The learned Erasmus also ridiculed this practice, calling those who adopted it, "voscitatores," or youyouers.
[237] "By a perversion of language the pronoun you is almost invariably used for the second person singular, as well as plural; always, however, retaining the plural verb; as, 'My friend, you write a good hand.' Thou is confined to a solemn style, or [to] poetical compositions."—Chandler's Grammar, Edition of 1821, p. 41; Ed. of 1847, p. 66.
[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.
2. Wells's account of the same thing is this: "In the simple form of the present and past indicative, the second person singular of the solemn style ends regularly in st or est, as, thou seest, thou hearest, thou sawest, thou heardest; and the third person singular of the present, in s or es, as, he hears, he wishes, and also in th or eth, as, he saith, he loveth. In the simple form of the present indicative, the third person singular of the common or familiar style, ends in s or es; as, he sleeps; he rises. The first person singular of the solemn style, and the first and second persons singular of the common style, have the same form as the three persons plural."—Wells's School Grammar, 1st Ed. p. 83; 3d Ed. p. 86. This, too, is both defective and inconsistent. It does not tell when to add est, and when, st only. It does not show what the regular preterit, as freed or loved, should make with thou: whether freedest and lovedest, by assuming the syllable est; fre-edst and lov-edst, by increasing syllabically from assuming st only; or freedst and lov'dst, or lovedst, still to be uttered as monosyllables. It absurdly makes "s or es" a sign of two opposite styles. (See OBS. 9th, above.) And it does not except "I am, I was, If I am, If I was, If thou art, I am loved," and so forth, from requiring "the same form, [are or were,] as the three persons plural." This author prefers "heardest;" the other, "heardst," which I think better warranted:
"And heardst thou why he drew his blade? Heardst thou that shameful word and blow Brought Roderick's vengeance on his foe?"—Scott, L. L., C. v, st. 6.
[247] Better, as Wickliffe has it, "the day in which;" though, after nouns of time, the relative that is often used, like the Latin ablative quo or quâ, as being equivalent to in which or on which.
[248] It is not a little strange, that some men, who never have seen or heard such words as their own rules would produce for the second person singular of many hundreds of our most common verbs, will nevertheless pertinaciously insist, that it is wrong to countenance in this matter any departure from the style of King James's Bible. One of the very rashest and wildest of modern innovators,—a critic who, but for the sake of those who still speak in this person and number, would gladly consign the pronoun thou, and all its attendant verbal forms, to utter oblivion,—thus treats this subject and me: "The Quakers, or Friends, however, use thou, and its attendant form of the asserter, in conversation. FOR THEIR BENEFIT, thou is given, in this work, in all the varieties of inflection; (in some of which it could not properly be used in an address to the Deity;) for THEY ERR MOST EGREGIOUSLY in the use of thou, with the form of the asserter which follows he or they, and are countenanced in their errors by G. Brown, who, instead of 'disburdening the language of 144,000 useless distinctions, increases their number just 144,000."—Oliver B. Peirce's Gram., p. 85 Among people of sense, converts are made by teaching, and reasoning, and proving; but this man's disciples must yield to the balderdash of a false speller, false quoter, and false assertor! This author says, that "dropt" is the past tense of "drop;" (p. 118;) let him prove, for example, that droptest is not a clumsy innovation, and that droppedst is not a formal archaism, and then tell of the egregious error of adopting neither of these forms in common conversation. The following, with its many common contractions, is the language of POPE; and I ask this, or any other opponent of my doctrine, TO SHOW HOW SUCH VERBS ARE RIGHTLY FORMED, either for poetry or for conversation, in the second person singular.
"It fled, I follow'd; now in hope, now pain; It stopt, I stopt; it mov'd, I mov'd again. At last it fix't,'twas on what plant it pleas'd, And where it fix'd, the beauteous bird I seiz'd." —Dunciad, B. IV, l. 427.
[249] The Rev. W. Allen, in his English Grammar, p. 132, says: "Yth and eth (from the Saxon lað [sic—KTH]) were formerly, plural terminations; as, 'Manners makyth man.' William of Wykeham's motto. 'After long advisement, they taketh upon them to try the matter.' Stapleton's Translation of Bede. 'Doctrine and discourse maketh nature less importune.' Bacon." The use of eth as a plural termination of verbs, was evidently earlier than the use of en for the same purpose. Even the latter is utterly obsolete, and the former can scarcely have been English. The Anglo-Saxon verb lufian, or lufigean, to love, appears to have been inflected with the several pronouns thus: Ic lufige, Thu lufast, He lufath, We lufiath, Ge lufiath, Hi lufiath. The form in Old English was this: I love, Thou lovest, He loveth, We loven, Ye loven, They loven. Dr. Priestley remarks, (though in my opinion unadvisedly,) that, "Nouns of a plural form, but of a singular signification, require a singular construction; as, mathematicks is a useful study. This observation will likewise," says he, "in some measure, vindicate the grammatical propriety of the famous saying of William of Wykeham, Manners maketh man."—Priestley's Gram., p. 189. I know not what half-way vindication there can be, for any such construction. Manners and mathematics are not nouns of the singular number, and therefore both is and maketh are wrong. I judge it better English to say, "Mathematics are a useful study."—"Manners make the man." But perhaps both ideas may be still better expressed by a change of the nominative, thus: "The study of mathematics is useful."—"Behaviour makes the man."
[250] What the state of our literature would have been, had no author attempted any thing on English grammar, must of course be a matter of mere conjecture, and not of any positive "conviction." It is my opinion, that, with all their faults, most of the books and essays in which this subject has been handled, have been in some degree beneficial, and a few of them highly so; and that, without their influence, our language must have been much more chaotic and indeterminable than it now is. But a late writer says, and, with respect to some of our verbal terminations, says wisely: "It is my sincere conviction that fewer irregularities would have crept into the language had no grammars existed, than have been authorized by grammarians; for it should be understood that the first of our grammarians, finding that good writers differed upon many points, instead of endeavouring to reconcile these discrepancies, absolutely perpetuated them by citing opposite usages, and giving high authorities for both. To this we owe all the irregularity which exists in the personal terminations of verbs, some of the best early writers using them promiscuously, some using them uniformly, and others making no use of them; and really they are of no use but to puzzle children and foreigners, perplex poets, and furnish an awkward dialect to that exemplary sect of Christians, who in every thing else study simplicity."—Fowle's True E. Gram., Part II, p. 26. Wells, a still later writer, gives this unsafe rule: "When the past tense is a monosyllable not ending in a single vowel, the second person singular of the solemn style is generally formed by the addition of est; as heardest, fleddest, tookest. Hadst, wast, saidst, and didst, are exceptions."—Wells's School Gram., 1st Ed., p. 106; 3d Ed., p. 110; 113th Ed., p. 115. Now the termination d or ed commonly adds no syllable; so that the regular past tense of any monosyllabic verb is, with a few exceptions, a monosyllable still; as, freed, feed, loved, feared, planned, turned: and how would these sound with est added, which Lowth, Hiley, Churchill, and some others erroneously claim as having pertained to such preterits anciently? Again, if heard is a contraction of heared, and fled, of fleed, as seems probable; then are heardst and fledtst, which are sometimes used, more regular than heardest, fleddest: so of many other preterits.