relinquish their scruple about the application of _you_ to one person; for none but the adult and learned can ever speak after the manner of ancient books: children and common people can no more be brought to speak agreeably to any antiquated forms of the English language, than according to the imperishable models of Greek and Latin. He who traces the history of our vernacular tongue, will find it has either simplified or entirely dropped several of its ancient terminations; and that the _st_ or _est_ of the second person singular, _never was adopted_ in any thing like the extent to which our modern grammarians have attempted to impose it. “Thus becoming unused to inflections, we lost the perception of their meaning and nature.”–_Philological Museum_, i, 669. “You cannot make a whole people all at once talk in a different tongue from that which it has been used to talk in: you cannot force it to unlearn the words it has learnt from its fathers, in order to learn a set of newfangled words out of [a grammar or] a dictionary.”–_Ib._, i, 650. Nor can you, in this instance, restrain our poets from transgressing the doctrine of Lowth and Murray:–
“Come, thou pure Light,–which first in Eden _glowed._ And _threw_ thy splendor round man’s calm abode.”–_Alonzo Lewis_.
OBS. 14.–That which has passed away from familiar practice, may still be right in the solemn style, and may there remain till it becomes obsolete. But no obsolescent termination has ever yet been recalled into the popular service. This is as true in other languages as in our own: “In almost every word of the Greek,” says a learned author, “we meet with contractions and abbreviations; but, I believe, the flexions of no language allow of extension or amplification. In our own we may write _sleeped_ or _slept_, as the metre of a line or the rhythm of a period may require; but by no license may we write _sleepeed._”–_Knight, on the Greek Alphabet_, 4to, p. 107. But, if after contracting _sleeped_ into _slept_, we add an _est_ and make _sleptest_, is there not here an extension of the word from one syllable to two? Is there not an amplification that is at once novel, disagreeable, unauthorized, and unnecessary? Nay, even in the regular and established change, as of _loved_ to _lovedst_, is there not a syllabic increase, which is unpleasant to the ear, and unsuited to familiar speech? Now, to what extent do these questions apply to the verbs in our language? Lindley Murray, it is presumed, had no conception of that extent; or of the weight of the objection which is implied in the second. With respect to a vast number of our most common verbs, he himself never knew, nor does the greatest grammarian now living know, in what way he ought to form the simple past tense in the second person singular, otherwise than by the mere uninflected preterit with the pronoun _thou_. Is _thou sleepedst_ or _thou sleptest, thou leavedst_ or _thou leftest, thou feeledst_ or _thou feltest, thou dealedst_ or _thou dealtest, thou tossedst_ or _thou tostest, thou losedst_ or _thou lostest, thou payedst_ or _thou paidest, thou layedst_ or _thou laidest_, better English than _thou slept, thou left, thou felt, thou dealt, thou tossed, thou lost, thou paid, thou laid?_ And, if so, of the two forms in each instance, which is the right one? and why? The Bible has “_saidst_” and “_layedst_;” Dr. Alexander Murray, “_laid’st_” and “_laidest!_” Since the inflection of our preterits has never been orderly, and is now decaying and waxing old, shall we labour to recall what is so nearly ready to vanish away?
“Tremendous Sea! what time _thou lifted_ up Thy waves on high, and with thy winds and storms Strange pastime _took_, and _shook_ thy mighty sides Indignantly, the pride of navies fell.”–_Pollok_, B. vii, l. 611.
OBS. 15.–Whatever difficulty there is in ascertaining the true form of the preterit itself, not only remains, but is augmented, when _st_ or _est_ is to be added for the second person of it. For, since we use sometimes one and sometimes the other of these endings; (as, said_st_, saw_est_, bid_st_, knew_est_, loved_st_, went_est_;) there is yet need of some rule to show which we ought to prefer. The variable formation or orthography of verbs in the simple past tense, has always been one of the greatest difficulties that the learners of our language have had to encounter. At present, there is a strong tendency to terminate as many as we can of them in _ed_, which is the only regular ending. The pronunciation of this ending, however, is at least threefold; as in _remembered, repented, relinquished._ Here the added sounds are, first _d_, then _ed_, then _t_; and the effect of adding _st_, whenever the _ed_ is sounded like _t_, will certainly be a perversion of what is established as the true pronunciation of the language. For the solemn and the familiar pronunciation of _ed_ unquestionably differ. The present tendency to a regular orthography, ought rather to be encouraged than thwarted; but the preferring of _mixed_ to _mixt, whipped_ to _whipt, worked_ to _wrought, kneeled_ to _knelt_, and so forth, does not make _mixedst, whippedst, workedst, kneeledst_, and the like, any more fit for modern English, than are _mixtest, whiptest, wroughtest, kneltest, burntest, dweltest, heldest, giltest_, and many more of the like stamp. And what can be more absurd than for a grammarian to insist upon forming a great parcel of these strange and crabbed words for which he can quote no good authority? Nothing; except it be for a poet or a rhetorician to huddle together great parcels of consonants which no mortal man can utter,[244] (as _lov’dst, lurk’dst, shrugg’dst_,) and call them “_words_.” Example: “The clump of _subtonick_ and _atonick_ elements at the termination of _such words_ as the following, is frequently, to the no small injury of articulation, particularly slighted: couldst, wouldst, hadst, prob’st, _prob’dst_, hurl’st, _hurl’dst_, arm’st, _arm’dst_, want’st, _want’dst_, burn’st, _burn’dst_, bark’st, _bark’dst_, bubbl’st, _bubbl’dst, troubbl’st, troubbl’dst._”–_Kirkham’s Elocution_, p. 42. The word _trouble_ may receive the additional sound of _st_, but this gentleman does not here _spell_ so accurately as a great author should. Nor did they who penned the following lines, write here as poets should:–
“Of old thou _build’st_ thy throne on righteousness.” –_Pollok’s C. of T._, B. vi, l. 638.
“For though thou _work’dst_ my mother’s ill.” –_Byron’s Parasina_.
“Thou thyself _doat’dst_ on womankind, admiring.” –_Milton’s P. R._, B. ii, l. 175.
“But he, the sev’nth from thee, whom thou _beheldst_.” –_Id., P. L._, B. xi, l. 700.
“Shall build a wondrous ark, as thou _beheldst_.” –_Id., ib._, B. xi, l. 819.
“Thou, who _inform’d’st_ this clay with active fire!” –_Savage’s Poems_, p. 247.
“Thy valiantness was mine, thou _suck’dst_ it from me.” –_Shak., Coriol._, Act iii.
“This cloth thou _dipp’dst_ in blood of my sweet boy.” –_Id., Henry VI_, P. i.
“Great Queen of arms, whose favour Tydeus won; As thou _defend’st_ the sire, defend the son.” –_Pope, Iliad_, B. x, l. 337.
OBS. 16.–Dr. Lowth, whose popular little Grammar was written in or about 1758, made no scruple to hem up both the poets and the Friends at once, by a criticism which I must needs consider more dogmatical than true; and which, from the suppression of what is least objectionable in it, has become, her hands, the source of still greater errors: “_Thou_ in the polite, and even _in the familiar style, is disused_, and the plural _you_ is employed instead of it; we say, _you have_, not _thou hast._ Though in this case, we apply _you_ to a single person, yet the verb too _must agree with it in the plural number_; it must necessarily be, _you have_, not _you hast._ _You was_ is an enormous solecism,[245] and yet authors of the first rank have inadvertently fallen into it. * * * On the contrary, the solemn style admits not of you for a single person. This _hath led_ Mr. Pope into _a great impropriety_ in the beginning of his Messiah:–
‘O thou my voice inspire,
Who _touch’d_ Isaiah’s hallow’d lips with fire!’
The solemnity of the style would not admit of _you_ for _thou_, in the pronoun; nor the measure of the verse _touchedst_, or _didst touch_, in the verb, as it _indispensably ought to be_, in the one or the other of those two forms; _you_, who _touched_, or _thou_, who _touchedst_, or _didst touch._
‘Just of _thy_ word, in every thought sincere; Who _knew_ no wish, but what the world might hear.’–Pope.
It ought to be _your_ in the first line, or _knewest_ in the second. In order to avoid this _grammatical inconvenience_, the two distinct forms of _thou_ and _you_, are often used promiscuously by our modern poets, in the same paragraph, and even in the same sentence, very inelegantly and improperly:–
‘Now, now, I seize, I clasp _thy_ charms; And now _you burst_, ah cruel! from my arms.’–Pope.” –_Lowth’s English Gram._, p. 34.
OBS. 17.–The points of Dr. Lowth’s doctrine which are not sufficiently true, are the following: First, it is not true, that _thou_, in the familiar style, is _totally disused_, and the plural _you_ employed universally in its stead; though Churchill, and others, besides the good bishop, seem to represent it so. It is now nearly two hundred years since the rise of the Society of Friends: and, whatever may have been the practice of others before or since, it is certain, that from their rise to the present day, there have been, at every point of time, many thousands who made no use of _you_ for _thou_; and, but for the clumsy forms which most grammarians hold to be indispensable to verbs of the second person singular, the beautiful, distinctive, and poetical words, _thou, thyself, thy, thine_, and _thee_, would certainly be in no danger yet of becoming obsolete. Nor can they, indeed, at any rate, become so, till the fairest branches of the Christian Church shall wither; or, what should seem no gracious omen, her bishops and clergy learn to _pray in the plural number_, for fashion’s sake. Secondly, it is not true, that, “_thou_, who _touch’d_,” ought _indispensably_ to be, “_thou_, who _touchedst_, or _didst touch_.” It is far better to dispense with the inflection, in such a case, than either to impose it, or to resort to the plural pronoun. The “grammatical inconvenience” of dropping the _st_ or _est_ of a preterit, even in the solemn style, cannot be great, and may be altogether imaginary; that of imposing it, except in solemn prose, is not only real, but is often insuperable. It is not very agreeable, however, to see it added to some verbs, and dropped from others, in the same sentence: as,
“Thou, who _didst call_ the Furies from the abyss, And round Orestes _bade_ them howl and hiss.” –_Byron’s Childe Harold_, Canto iv, st. 132.
“Thou _satt’st_ from age to age insatiate, And _drank_ the blood of men, and _gorged_ their flesh.” –_Pollok’s Course of Time_, B. vii, l. 700.
OBS. 18.–We see then, that, according to Dr. Lowth and others, _the only good English_ in which one can address an individual on any ordinary occasion, is _you_ with a plural verb; and that, according to Lindley Murray and others, _the only good English_ for the same purpose, is _thou_ with a verb inflected with _st_ or _est_. Both parties to this pointed contradiction, are more or less in the wrong. The respect of the Friends for those systems of grammar which deny them the familiar use of the pronoun _thou_, is certainly not more remarkable, than the respect of the world for those which condemn the substitution of the plural _you_. Let grammar be a true record of existing facts, and all such contradictions must vanish. And, certainly, these great masters here contradict each other, in what every one who reads English, ought to know. They agree, however, in requiring, as indispensable to grammar, what is not only inconvenient, but absolutely impossible. For what “the measure of verse _will not admit_,” cannot be used in poetry; and what may possibly be crowded into it, will often be far from ornamental. Yet our youth have been taught to spoil the versification of Pope and others, after the following manner: “Who _touch’d_ Isaiah’s hallow’d lips with fire.” Say, “Who _touchedst_ or _didst touch_.”–_Murray’s Key_, 8vo, p. 180. “For thee that ever _felt_ another’s wo.” Say, “_Didst feel_.”–_Ib._ “Who _knew_ no wish but what the world might hear.” Say, “Who _knewest_ or _didst know_.”–_Ib._ “Who all my sense _confin’d_.” Say, “_Confinedst_ or _didst confine_.”–_Ib._, p. 186. “Yet _gave_ me in this dark estate.” Say, “_Gavedst_ or _didst give_.”–_Ib._ “_Left_ free the human will.”–_Pope_. Murray’s criticism extends not to this line, but by the analogy we must say, “_Leavedst_ or _leftest_.” Now it would be easier to fill a volume with such quotations, and such corrections, than to find sufficient authority to prove one such word as _gavedst, leavedst_, or _leftest_, to be really good English. If Lord Byron is authority for “_work’dst_,” he is authority also for dropping the _st_, even where it might be added:–
—-“Thou, who with thy frown
_Annihilated_ senates.”
–_Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage_, Canto iv, st. 83.
OBS. 19.–According to Dr. Lowth, as well as Coar and some others, those preterits in which _ed_ is sounded like _t_, “admit the change of _ed_ into _t_; as, _snacht, checkt, snapt, mixt_, dropping also one of the double letters, _dwelt, past_.”–_Lowth’s Gram._, p. 46. If this principle were generally adopted, the number of our regular verbs would be greatly diminished, and irregularities would be indefinitely increased. What confusion the practice must make in the language, especially when we come to inflect this part of the verb with _st_ or _est_, has already been suggested. Yet an ingenious and learned writer, an able contributor to the Philological Museum, published at Cambridge, England, in 1832; tracing the history of this class of derivatives, and finding that after the _ed_ was contracted in pronunciation, several eminent writers, as Spenser, Milton, and others, adopted in most instances a contracted form of orthography; has seriously endeavoured to bring us back to their practice. From these authors, he cites an abundance of such contractions as the following: 1. “Stowd, hewd, subdewd, joyd, cald, expeld, compeld, spoild, kild, seemd, benumbd, armd, redeemd, staind, shund, paynd, stird, appeard, perceivd, resolvd, obeyd, equald, foyld, hurld, ruind, joynd, scatterd, witherd,” and others ending in _d_. 2. “Clapt, whipt, worshipt, lopt, stopt, stampt, pickt, knockt, linkt, puft, stuft, hist, kist, abasht, brusht, astonisht, vanquisht, confest, talkt, twicht,” and many others ending in _t_. This scheme divides our regular verbs into three classes; leaving but very few of them to be written as they now are. It proceeds upon the principle of accommodating our orthography to the familiar, rather than to the solemn pronunciation of the language. “This,” as Dr. Johnson observes, “is to measure by a shadow.” It is, whatever show of learning or authority may support it, a pernicious innovation. The critic says, “I have not ventured to follow the example of Spenser and Milton throughout, but have merely attempted to revive the old form of the preterit in _t_.”–_Phil. Museum_, Vol. i, p. 663. “We ought not however to stop here,” he thinks; and suggests that it would be no small improvement, “to write _leveld_ for _levelled, enameld_ for _enamelled, reformd_ for _reformed_,” &c.
OBS. 20.–If the multiplication of irregular preterits, as above described, is a grammatical error of great magnitude; the forcing of our old and well-known irregular verbs into regular forms that are seldom if ever used, is an opposite error nearly as great. And, in either case, there is the same embarrassment respecting the formation of the second person. Thus _Cobbett_, in his English Grammar in a Series of Letters, has dogmatically given us a list of _seventy_ verbs, which, he says, are, “by some persons, _erroneously deemed irregular_;” and has included in it the words, _blow, build, cast, cling, creep, freeze, draw, throw_, and the like, to the number of _sixty_; so that he is really right in no more than one seventh part of his catalogue. And, what is more strange, for several of the irregularities which he censures, his own authority may be quoted from the early editions of this very book: as, “For you could have _thrown_ about seeds.”–Edition of 1818, p. 13. “For you could have _throwed_ about seeds.”–Edition of 1832, p. 13. “A tree is _blown_ down.”–Ed. of 1818, p. 27. “A tree is _blowed_ down.”–Ed. of 1832, p. 25. “It _froze_ hard last night. Now, what was it that _froze_ so hard?”–Ed. of 1818, p. 38. “It _freezed_ hard last night. Now, what was it that _freezed_ so hard?”–Ed. of 1832, p. 35. A whole page of such contradictions may be quoted from this one grammarian, showing that _he did not know_ what form of the preterit he ought to prefer. From such an instructor, who can find out what is good English, and what is not? Respecting the inflections of the verb, this author says, “There are three persons; _but, our verbs have no variation in their spelling, except for the third person singular_.”–_Cobbett’s E. Gram._, 88. Again: “Observe, however, that, in our language, there is no very great use in this distinction of modes; because, for the most part, our little _signs_ do the business, and _they never vary in the letters of which they are composed_.”–_Ib._, 95. One would suppose, from these remarks, that Cobbett meant to dismiss the pronoun _thou_ entirely from his conjugations. Not so at all. In direct contradiction to himself, he proceeds to inflect the verb as follows: “I work, _Thou workest_, He works; &c. I worked, _Thou workedst_, He worked; &c. I shall or will work, _Thou shalt or wilt work_, He shall or will work;” &c.–_Ib._, 98. All the _compound_ tenses, except the future, he rejects, as things which “can only serve to fill up a book.”
OBS. 21.–It is a common but erroneous opinion of our grammarians, that the unsyllabic suffix _st_, wherever found, is a modern contraction of the syllable _est_. No writer, however, thinks it always necessary to remind his readers of this, by inserting the sign of contraction; though English books are not a little disfigured by questionable apostrophes inserted for no other reason. Dr. Lowth says, “The nature of our language, the accent and pronunciation of it, inclines [incline] us to contract even all our regular verbs: thus _loved, turned_, are commonly pronounced in one syllable _lov’d, turn’d_: and the second person, which was originally in three syllables, _lovedest, turnedest_, is [say _has_] now become a dissyllable, _lovedst, turnedst_.”–_Lowth’s Gram._, p. 45; _Hiley’s_, 45; _Churchill’s_, 104. See also _Priestley’s Gram._, p. 114; and _Coar’s_, p. 102. This latter doctrine, with all its vouchers, still needs confirmation. What is it but an idle conjecture? If it were _true_, a few quotations might easily prove it; but when, and by whom, have any such words as _lovedest, turnedest_, ever been used? For aught I see, the simple _st_ is as complete and as old a termination for the second person singular of an English verb, as _est_; indeed, it appears to be _older_: and, for the preterit, it is, and (I believe) _always has been_, the _most_ regular, if not the _only_ regular, addition. If _sufferedest, woundedest_, and _killedest_, are words more regular than _sufferedst, woundedst, killedst_, then are _heardest, knewest, slewest, sawest, rannest, metest, swammest_, and the like, more regular than _heardst, knewst, slewst, sawst, ranst, metst, swamst, satst, saidst, ledst, fledst, toldst_, and so forth; but not otherwise.[246] So, in the solemn style, we write _seemest, deemest, swimmest_, like _seemeth, deemeth, swimmeth_, and so forth; but, when we use the form which has no increase of syllables, why is an apostrophe more necessary in the second person, than in the third?–in _seemst, deemst, swimst_, than in _seems, deems, swims_? When final _e_ is dropped from the verb, the case is different; as,
“Thou _cutst_ my head off with a golden axe, And _smil’st_ upon the stroke that murders me.”–_Shakspeare_.
OBS. 22.–Dr. Lowth supposes the verbal termination _s_ or _es_ to have come from a contraction of _eth_. He says, “Sometimes, by the rapidity of our pronunciation, the vowels are shortened or lost; and the consonants, which are thrown together, do not coalesce with one another, and are therefore changed into others of the same organ, or of a kindred species. This occasions a farther deviation from _the regular form_: thus, _loveth, turneth_, are contracted into _lov’th, turn’th_, and these, for easier pronunciation, _immediately_ become _loves, turns_.”–_Lowth’s Gram._, p. 46; _Hiley’s_, 45. This etymology may possibly be just, but certainly such contractions as are here spoken of, were not very common in Lowth’s age, or even in that of Ben Jonson, who resisted the _s_. Nor is the sound of sharp _th_ very obviously akin to flat _s_. The change would have been less violent, if _lov’st_ and _turnst_ had become _loves_ and _turns_; as some people nowadays are apt to change them, though doubtless this is a grammatical error: as,
“And wheresoe’er thou _casts_ thy view.” –_Cowley_.
“Nor thou that _flings_ me floundering from thy back.” –_Bat. of Frogs and Mice_, 1,123.
“Thou _sitt’st_ on high, and _measures_ destinies.” –_Pollok, Course of Time_, B. vi, 1, 668.
OBS. 23.–Possibly, those personal terminations of the verb which do not form syllables, are mere contractions or relics of _est_ and _eth_, which are syllables; but it is perhaps not quite so easy to prove them so, as some authors imagine. In the oldest specimens given by Dr. Johnson in his History of the English Language,–specimens bearing a much earlier date than the English language can claim,–even in what he calls “Saxon in its highest state of purity,” both _st_ and _th_ are often added to verbs, without forming additional syllables, and without any sign of contraction. Nor were verbs of the second person singular always inflected of old, in those parts to which _est_ was afterwards very commonly added. Examples: “Buton ic wat thaet thu _hoefst_ thara waepna.”–_King Alfred_. “But I know that thou _hast_ those weapons.” “Thaet thu _oncnawe_ thara worda sothfaestnesse. of tham the thu _geloered eart_.”–_Lucae_, i, 4. “That thou _mightest know_ the certainty of those things wherein thou _hast been instructed_.”–_Luke_, i, 4. “And thu _nemst_ his naman Johannes.”–_Lucae_, i, 13. “And his name _schal be clepid_ Jon.”–_Wickliffe’s Version_. “And thou _shalt call_ his name John.”–_Luke_, i, 13. “And he ne _drincth_ win ne beor.”–_Lucae_, i, 15. “He _schal_ not _drinke_ wyn ne sydyr.”–_Wickliffe_. “And _shall drink_ neither wine nor strong drink.”–_Luke_, i, 15. “And nu thu _bist_ suwigende. and thu _sprecan_ ne _miht_ oth thone daeg the thas thing _gewurthath_. fortham thu minum wordum ne _gelyfdest_. tha _beoth_ on hyra timan _gefyllede_.”–_Lucae_, i, 20. “And lo, thou _schalt_ be doumbe, and thou _schalt_ not mowe _speke_, til into the day in which these thingis _schulen be don_, for thou _hast_ not _beleved_ to my wordis, whiche _schulen be fulfild_ in her tyme.”–_Wickliffe_. “And, behold, thou _shalt_ be dumb, and not able to speak, until the day _that_[247] these things _shall be performed_, because thou _believest_ not my words, which _shall be fulfilled_ in their season.”–_Luke_, i, 20.
“In chaungyng of her course, the chaunge _shewth_ this, Vp _startth_ a knaue, and downe there _falth_ a knight.” –_Sir Thomas More_.
OBS. 24.–The corollary towards which the foregoing observations are directed, is this. As most of the peculiar terminations by which the second person singular is properly distinguished in the solemn style, are not only difficult of utterance, but are quaint and formal in conversation; the preterits and auxiliaries of our verbs are seldom varied in familiar discourse, and the present is generally simplified by contraction, or by the adding of _st_ without increase of syllables. A distinction between the solemn and the familiar style has long been admitted, in the pronunciation of the termination _ed_, and in the ending of the verb in the third person singular; and it is evidently according to good taste and the best usage, to admit such a distinction in the second person singular. In the familiar use of the second person singular, the verb is usually varied only in the present tense of the indicative mood, and in the auxiliary _hast_ of the perfect. This method of varying the verb renders the second person singular analogous to the third, and accords with the practice of the most intelligent of those who retain the common use of this distinctive and consistent mode of address. It disencumbers their familiar dialect of a multitude of harsh and useless terminations, which serve only, when uttered, to give an uncouth prominency to words not often emphatic; and, without impairing the strength or perspicuity of the language, increases its harmony, and reduces the form of the verb in the second person singular nearly to the same simplicity as in the other persons and numbers. It may serve also, in some instances, to justify the poets, in those abbreviations for which they have been so unreasonably censured by Lowth, Murray, and some other grammarians: as,
“And thou their natures _knowst_, and _gave_ them names, Needless to thee repeated.”–_Milton_, P. L., Book vii, line 494.
OBS. 25.–The writings of the Friends, being mostly of a grave cast, afford but few examples of their customary manner of forming the verb in connexion with the pronoun _thou_, in familiar discourse. The following may serve to illustrate it: “Suitable to the office thou _layst_ claim to.”–R. BARCLAY’S _Works_, Vol. i, p. 27. “Notwithstanding thou _may have_ sentiments opposite to mine.”–THOMAS STORY. “To devote all thou _had_ to his service;”–“If thou _should come_;”–“What thou _said_;”–“Thou kindly _contributed_;”–“The epistle which thou _sent_ me;”–“Thou _would_ perhaps _allow_;”–“If thou _submitted_;”–“Since thou _left_;”–“_Should_ thou _act_;”–“Thou _may be_ ready;”–“That thou _had met_;”–“That thou _had intimated_;”–“Before thou _puts_” [putst];–“What thou _meets_” [meetst];–“If thou _had made_;”–“I observed thou _was_;”–“That thou _might put_ thy trust;”–“Thou _had been_ at my house.”–JOHN KENDALL. “Thou _may be plundered_;”–“That thou _may feel_;”–“Though thou _waited_ long, and _sought_ him;”–“I hope thou _will bear_ my style;”–“Thou also _knows_” [knowst];–“Thou _grew_ up;”–“I wish thou _would_ yet _take_ my counsel.”–STEPHEN CRISP. “Thou _manifested_ thy tender regard, _stretched_ forth thy delivering hand, and _fed_ and _sustained_ us.”–SAMUEL FOTHERGILL. The writer has met with thousands that used the second person singular in conversation, but never with any one that employed, on ordinary occasions, all the regular endings of the solemn style. The simplification of the second person singular, which, to a greater or less extent, is everywhere adopted by the Friends, and which is here defined and explained, removes from each verb eighteen of these peculiar terminations; and, (if the number of English verbs be, as stated by several grammarians, 8000,) disburdens their familiar dialect of 144,000 of these awkward and useless appendages.[248] This simplification is supported by usage as extensive as the familiar use of the pronoun _thou_; and is also in accordance with the canons of criticism: “The _first_ canon on this subject is, All words and phrases which are remarkably harsh and unharmonious, and not absolutely necessary, should be rejected.” See _Campbell’s Philosophy of Rhetoric_, B. ii, Ch. ii, Sec. 2, Canon Sixth, p. 181. See also, in the same work, (B. hi, Ch. iv, Sec. 2d,) an _express defence_ of “those elisions whereby the sound is improved;” especially of the suppression of the “feeble vowel in the last syllable of the preterits of our regular verbs;” and of “such abbreviations” as “the eagerness of conveying one’s sentiments, the rapidity and ease of utterance, necessarily produce, in the dialect of conversation.”–Pages 426 and 427. Lord Kames says, “That the English tongue, originally harsh, is at present much softened by dropping many _redundant consonants_, is undoubtedly true; that it is not capable of being further mellowed without suffering in its force and energy, will scarce be thought by any one who possesses an ear.”–_Elements of Criticism_, Vol. ii, p. 12.
OBS. 26.–The following examples are from a letter of an African Prince, translated by Dr. Desaguillier of Cambridge, England, in 1743, and published in a London newspaper: “I lie there too upon the bed _thou presented_ me;”–“After _thou_ left me, in thy swimming house;”–“Those good things _thou presented_ me;”–“When _thou spake_ to the Great Spirit and his Son.” If it is desirable that our language should retain this power of a simple literal version of what in others may be familiarly expressed by the second person singular, it is clear that our grammarians must not continue to dogmatize according to the letter of some authors hitherto popular. But not every popular grammar condemns such phraseology as the foregoing. “I improved, Thou _improvedst_, &c. This termination of the second person preterit, on account of its harshness, _is seldom used_, and especially in the irregular verbs.”–_Harrison’s Gram._, p. 26. “The termination _est_, annexed to the preter tenses of verbs, is, at best, a very harsh one, when it is contracted, according to our general custom of throwing out the _e_; as _learnedst_, for _learnedest_; and especially, if it be again contracted into one syllable, _as it is commonly pronounced_, and made _learndst._ * * * I believe a writer or speaker would have recourse to any periphrasis rather than say _keptest_, or _keptst_. * * * Indeed this harsh termination _est_ is _generally quite dropped in common conversation_, and sometimes by the poets, in writing.”–_Priestley’s Gram._, p. 115. The fact is, it never was added with much uniformity. Examples: “But like the hell hounde _thou waxed_ fall furious, expressing thy malice when _thou_ to honour _stied_.”–FABIAN’S CHRONICLE, V. ii, p. 522: in _Tooke’s Divers._, T. ii, p. 232.
“Thou from the arctic regions came. Perhaps Thou noticed on thy way a little orb,
Attended by one moon–her lamp by night.” –_Pollok_, B. ii, l. 5.
“‘So I believ’d.’–No, Abel! to thy grief, So thou _relinquish’d_ all that was belief.” –_Crabbe, Borough_, p. 279.
OBS. 27.–L. Murray, and his numerous copyists, Ingersoll, Greenleaf, Kirkham, Fisk, Flint, Comly, Alger, and the rest; though they insist on it, that the _st_ of the second person can never be dispensed with, except in the imperative mood and some parts of the subjunctive; are not altogether insensible of that monstrous harshness which their doctrine imposes upon the language. Some of them tell us to avoid this by preferring the auxiliaries _dost_ and _didst_: as _dost burst_, for _burstest; didst check_, for _checkedst._ This recommendation proceeds on the supposition that _dost_ and _didst_ are smoother syllables than _est_ and _edst_; which is not true: _didst learn_ is harsher than either _learnedst_ or _learntest_; and all three of them are intolerable in common discourse. Nor is the “_energy_, or _positiveness_,” which grammarians ascribe to these auxiliaries, always appropriate. Except in a question, _dost_ and _didst_, like _do, does_, and _did_, are usually signs of _emphasis_; and therefore unfit to be substituted for the _st, est_, or _edst_, of an unemphatic verb. Kirkham, who, as we have seen, graces his Elocution with such unutterable things, as “_prob’dst, hurl’dst, arm’dst, want’dst, burn’dst, bark’dst, bubbl’dst, troubbl’dst_,” attributes the use of the plural for the singular, to a design of avoiding the raggedness of the latter. “In order to avoid the disagreeable harshness of sound, occasioned by the frequent recurrence of the termination _est, edst_, in the adaptation of our verbs to the nominative _thou_, a _modern innovation_ which substitutes _you_ for _thou_, in familiar style, has generally been adopted. This innovation contributes greatly to the harmony of our colloquial style. _You_ was formerly restricted to the plural number; but now it is employed to represent either a singular or a plural noun.”–_Kirkham’s Gram._, p. 99. A modern innovation, forsooth! Does not every body know it was current four hundred years ago, or more? Certainly, both _ye_ and _you_ were applied in this manner, to the great, as early as the fourteenth century. Chaucer sometimes used them so, and he died in 1400. Sir T. More uses them so, in a piece dated 1503.
“O dere cosyn, Dan Johan, she sayde, What eyleth _you_ so rathe to aryse?”–_Chaucer_.
Shakspeare most commonly uses _thou_, but he sometimes has _you_ in stead of it. Thus, he makes Portia say to Brutus:
“_You_ suddenly arose, and walk’d about, Musing, and sighing, with _your_ arms across; And when I ask’d _you_ what the matter was, _You_ star’d upon me with ungentle looks.”–_J. Caesar_, Act ii, Sc. 2.
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_.
“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 synaeresis 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 _goest_, he _goeth_; I _undo_, thou _undoest_, he _undoeth_; I _fly_, thou _fliest_, he _flieth_; I _pity_, thou _pitiest_, he _pitieth_.
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 orthoepy, 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 VERBS.
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.
OBSERVATIONS.
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.
OBS. 4.–Though most of the auxiliaries are defective, when compared with other verbs; yet these three, _do, be_, and _have_, being also principal verbs, are complete: but the participles of _do_ and _have_ are not used as auxiliaries; unless _having_, which helps to form the third or “compound perfect” participle, (as _having loved_,) may be considered such. The other auxiliaries have no participles.
OBS. 5.–English verbs are principally conjugated by means of auxiliaries; the only tenses which can be formed by the simple verb, being the present and the imperfect; as, I _love_, I _loved_. And even here an auxiliary is usually preferred in questions and negations; as, “_Do_ you love?”–“You _do_ not _love_.” “_Did_ he _love_?”–“He _did_ not _love_.” “_Do_ I not yet _grieve_?”–“_Did_ she not _die_?” All the other tenses, even in their simplest form, are compounds.
OBS. 6.–Dr. Johnson says, “_Do_ is sometimes used superfluously, as _I_ do _love, I_ did _love_; simply for _I love_, or _I loved_; but this is considered as a _vitious_ mode of speech.”–_Gram., in 4to Dict._, p. 8. He also somewhere tells us, that these auxiliaries “are not proper before _be_ and _have_;” as, “_I do be_,” for _I am_; “_I did have_,” for _I had_. The latter remark is generally true, and it ought to be remembered;[257] but, in the _imperative mood, be_ and _have_ will perhaps admit the emphatic word _do_ before them, in a colloquial style: as, “Now _do be_ careful;”–“_Do have_ a little discretion.” Sanborn repeatedly puts _do_ before _be_, in this mood: as, “_Do_ you _be. Do_ you _be_ guarded. _Do_ thou _be. Do_ thou _be_ guarded.”–_Analytical Gram._, p. 150. “_Do_ thou _be_ watchful.”–_Ib._, p. 155. In these instances, he must have forgotten that he had elsewhere said positively, that, “_Do_, as an auxiliary, _is never used_ with the verb _be_ or _am_.”–_Ib._, p. 112. In the other moods, it is seldom, if ever, proper before _be_; but it is sometimes used before _have_, especially with a negative: as, “Those modes of charity which _do not have_ in view the cultivation of moral excellence, are essentially defective.”–_Wayland’s Moral Science_, p. 428. “Surely, the law of God, whether natural or revealed, _does not have_ respect merely to the external conduct of men.”–_Stuart’s Commentary on Romans_, p. 158. “And each day of our lives _do we have_ occasion to see and lament it.”–_Dr. Bartlett’s Lecture on Health_, p. 5. “Verbs, in themselves considered, _do not have_ person and number.”–_R. C. Smith’s New Gram._, p. 21. [This notion of Smith’s is absurd. Kirkham taught the same as regards “person.”] In the following example, _does he_ is used for _is_,–the auxiliary _is_,–and perhaps allowably: “It is certain from scripture, that the same person _does_ in the course of life many times offend and _be_ forgiven.”–_West’s Letters to a Young Lady_, p. 182.
OBS. 7.–In the compound tenses, there is never any variation of ending for the different persons and numbers, except in the _first auxiliary_: as, “Thou _wilt have finished_ it;” not, “Thou _wilt hast finishedst_ it;” for this is nonsense. And even for the former, it is better to say, in the familiar style, “Thou _will have finished_ it;” for it is characteristic of many of the auxiliaries, that, unlike other verbs, they are not varied by _s_ or _eth_, in the third person singular, and never by _st_ or _est_, in the second person singular, except in the solemn style. Thus all the auxiliaries of the potential mood, as well as _shall_ and _will_ of the indicative, are without inflection in the third person singular, though _will_, as a principal verb, makes _wills_ or _willeth_, as well as _willest_, in the indicative present. Hence there appears a tendency in the language, to confine the inflection of its verbs to _this tense only_; and to the auxiliary _have, hast, has_, which is essentially present, though used with a participle to form the perfect. _Do, dost, does_, and _am, art, is_, whether used as auxiliaries or as principal verbs, are always of the indicative present.
OBS. 8.–The word _need_,–(though, as a principal verb and transitive, it is unquestionably both regular and complete,–having all the requisite parts, _need, needed, needing, needed_,–and being necessarily inflected in the indicative present, as, I _need_, thou _needst_ or _needest_, he _needs_ or _needeth_,–) is so frequently used without inflection, when placed before an other verb to express a necessity of the being, action, or passion, that one may well question whether it has not become, under these circumstances, an _auxiliary_ of the potential mood; and therefore proper to be used, like all the other auxiliaries of this mood, without change of termination. I have not yet knowingly used it so myself, nor does it appear to have been classed with the auxiliaries, by any of our grammarians, except Webster.[258] I shall therefore not presume to say now, with positiveness, that it deserves this rank; (though I incline to think it does;) but rather quote such instances as have occurred to me in reading, and leave the student to take his choice, whether to condemn as bad English the uninflected examples, or to justify them in this manner. “He that can swim, _need_ not despair to fly.”–_Johnson’s Rasselas_, p. 29. “One therefore _needs_ not expect to do it.”–_Kirkham’s Elocution_, p. 155. “In so doing I should only record some vain opinions of this age, which a future one _need_ not know.”–_Rush, on the Voice_, p. 345. “That a boy _needs_ not be kept at school.”–LISDSEY: _in Kirkham’s Elocution_, p. 164. “No man _need_ promise, unless he please.”–_Wayland’s Moral Science_, p. 312. “What better reason _needs_ be given?”–_Campbell’s Rhet._, p. 51. “He _need_ assign no other reason for his conduct.”–_Wayland, ib._, p. 214. “Sow there is nothing that a man _needs_ be ashamed of in all this.”–_Collier’s Antoninus_, p. 45. “No notice _need_ be taken of the advantages.”–_Walker’s Rhyming Dict._, Vol. ii, p. 304. “Yet it _needs_ not be repeated.”–_Bicknell’s Gram._, Part ii, p. 51. “He _need_ not be anxious.”–_Greenleaf’s Gram. Simplified_, p. 38. “He _needs_ not be afraid.”–_Fisk’s Gram. Simplified_, p. 124. “He who will not learn to spell, _needs_ not learn to write.”–_Red Book_, p. 22. “The heeder _need_ be under no fear.”–_Greenleaf’s Gram._, p. 38.[259] “More _need_ not be said about it.”–_Cobbett’s E. Gram._, 272. “The object _needs_ not be expressed.”–_Booth’s Introduct. to Dict._, p. 37. “Indeed, there _need_ be no such thing.”–_Fosdick’s De Sacy_, p. 71. “This _needs_ to be illustrated.”–_Ib._, p. 81. “And no part of the sentence _need_ be omitted.”–_Parkhurst’s Grammar for Beginners_, p. 114. “The learner _needs_ to know what sort of words are called verbs.”–_Ib._, p. 6. “No one _need_ be apprehensive of suffering by faults of this kind.”–_Sheridan’s Elocution_, p. 171. “The student who has bought any of the former copies _needs_ not repent.”–_Dr. Johnson, Adv. to Dict._ “He _need_ not enumerate their names.”–_Edward’s First Lessons in Grammar_, p. 38. “A quotation consisting of a word or two only _need_ not begin with a capital.”–_Churchill’s Gram._, p. 383. “Their sex is commonly known, and _needs_ not to be marked.”–_Ib._, p. 72; _Murray’s Octavo Gram._, 51. “One _need_ only open Lord Clarendon’s history, to find examples every where.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 108. “Their sex is commonly known, and _needs_ not be marked.”–_Lowth’s Gram._, p. 21; _Murray’s Duodecimo Gram._, p. 51. “Nobody _need_ be afraid he shall not have scope enough.”–LOCKE: _in Sanborn’s Gram._, p. 168. “No part of the science of language, _needs to be ever_ uninteresting to the pursuer.”–_Nutting’s Gram._, p. vii. “The exact amount of knowledge is not, and _need_ not be, great.”–_Todd’s Student’s Manual_, p. 44. “He _needs to_ act under a motive which is all-pervading.”–_Ib._, p. 375. “What _need_ be said, will not occupy a long space.”–_Ib._, p. 244. “The sign TO _needs_ not always be used.”–_Bucke’s Gram._, p. 96. “Such as he _need_ not be ashamed of.”–_Snelling’s Gift for Scribblers_, p. 23.
“_Needst_ thou–_need_ any one on earth–despair?”–_Ib._, p. 32.
“Take timely counsel; if your dire disease Admits no cure, it _needs_ not to displease.”–_Ib._, p. 14.
OBS. 9.–If _need_ is to be recognized as an auxiliary of the potential mood, it must be understood to belong to two tenses; the present and the perfect; like _may, can_, and _must_: as, “He _need_ not _go_, he _need_ not _have gone_; Thou _need_ not _go, Thou need_ not _have gone_;” or, in the solemn style, “Thou _needst_ not go, Thou _needst_ not _have gone_.” If, on the contrary, we will have it to be always a principal verb, the distinction of time should belong to itself, and also the distinction of person and number, in the parts which require it: as, “He _needs_ not go. He _needed_ not go; Thou _needst_ not go, Thou _needed_ not go;” or, in the solemn style, “Thou _needest_ not go, Thou _neededst_ not go.” Whether it can be right to say, “He _needed_ not _have gone_,” is at least questionable. From the observations of Murray, upon relative tenses, under his thirteenth rule of syntax, it seems fair to infer that he would have judged this phraseology erroneous. Again, “He _needs_ not _have gone_,” appears to be yet more objectionable, though for the same reason. And if, “He _need_ not _have gone_,” is a correct expression, _need_ is clearly proved to be an _auxiliary_, and the three words taken together must form the potential perfect. And so of the plural; for the argument is from the connexion of the tenses, and not merely from the tendency of auxiliaries to reject inflection: as, “They need not _have been_ under great concern about their public affairs.”–_Hutchinson’s History_, i, 194, From these examples, it may be seen that an auxiliary and a principal verb have some essential difference; though these who dislike the doctrine of compound tenses, pretend not to discern any. Take some further citations; a few of which are erroneous in respect to time. And observe also that the regular verb sometimes admits the preposition _to_ after it: “‘ There is great dignity in being waited for,’ said one who had the habit of tardiness, and who _had_ not much else of which he _need_ be vain.”–_Students Manual_, p. 64. “But he _needed_ not _have gone_ so far for more instances.”– _Johnson’s Gram._ _Com._, p. 143. “He _need_ not _have said_, ‘perhaps the virtue.'”–_Sedgwick’s Economy_, p. 196. “I _needed_ not _to ask_ how she felt.”–_Abbott’s Young Christian_, p. 84. “It _need_ not _have been_ so.”–_Ib._, p. 111. “The most unaccommodating politician _need_ not absolutely _want_ friends.”–_Hunts Feast of the Poets_, p. iii. “Which therefore _needs_ not be introduced with much precaution.”–_Campbell’s Rhet._, p. 326. “When an obscurer term _needs_ to be explained by one that is clearer.”–_Ib._, p. 367. “Though, if she had died younger, she _need_ not _have known it_.”–_West’s Letters_, p. 120. “Nothing _need_ be said, but that they were the _most perfect_ barbarisms.”–_Blair’s Rhet._, p. 470. “He _need_ not go.”–_Goodenow’s Gram._, p. 36. “He _needed_ but use the word _body_.”–LOCKE: _in Joh. Dict._ “He _need_ not be required to use them.”–_Parker’s Eng. Composition_, p. 50. “The last consonant of _appear_ need not be doubled.”–_Dr. Webster_. “It _needs_ the less _to be inforced_.”–_Brown’s Estimate_, ii, 158. “Of these pieces of his, we _shall not need to give_ any particular account.”–_Seneca’s Morals_, p. vi “And therefore I _shall need say_ the less of them.”–_Scougal_, p. 1101. “This compounding of words _need_ occasion no surprise.”–_Cardell’s Essay on Language_, p. 87.
“Therefore stay, thou _needst_ not to be gone.”–_Shakspeare_.
“Thou _need_ na _start_ awa sae hasty.”–_Burns, Poems_, p. 15.
“Thou _need_ na _jouk_ behint the hallan.”–_Id., ib._, p. 67.
OBS. 10.–The auxiliaries, except _must_, which is invariable, have severally two forms in respect to tense, or time; and when inflected in the second and third persons singular, are usually varied in the following manner:–
TO DO.
PRESENT TENSE; AND SIGN OF THE INDICATIVE PRESENT.
_Sing_. I do, thou dost, he does;
_Plur_. We do, you do, they do.
IMPERFECT TENSE; AND SIGN of THE INDICATIVE IMPERFECT.
_Sing_. I did, thou didst, he did;
_Plur_. We did, you did, they did.
TO BE.
PRESENT TENSE; AND SIGN OF THE INDICATIVE PRESENT.
_Sing_. I am, thou art, he is;
_Plur_. We are, you are, they are.
IMPERFECT TENSE; AND SIGN OF THE INDICATIVE IMPERFECT.
_Sing_. I was, thou wast, he was;
_Plur_. We were, you were; they were.
TO HAVE.
PRESENT TENSE; BUT SIGN OF THE INDICATIVE PERFECT.
_Sing_. I have, thou hast, he has;
_Plur_. We have, you have, they have.
IMPERFECT TENSE; BUT SIGN OF THE INDICATIVE PLUPERFECT.
_Sing_. I had, thou hadst, he had;
_Plur_. We had, you had, they had.
SHALL AND WILL.
These auxiliaries have distinct meanings, and, as signs of the future, they are interchanged thus:
PRESENT TENSE; BUT SIGNS OF THE INDICATIVE FIRST-FUTURE.
1. Simply to express a future action or event:–
_Sing_. I shall, thou wilt, he will;
_Plur_. We shall, you will, they will.
2. To express a promise, command, or threat:–
_Sing_.: I will, thou shalt, he shall; _Plur_. We will, you shall, they shall.
IMPERFECT TENSE; BUT, AS SIGNS, AORIST, OR INDEFINITE.
1. Used with reference to duty or expediency:–
_Sing._ I should, thou shouldst, he should; _Plur._ We should, you should, they should.
2. Used with reference to volition or desire:–
_Sing._ I would, thou wouldst, he would; _Plur._ We would, you would, they would.
MAY.
PRESENT TENSE; AND SIGN OF THE POTENTIAL PRESENT.
_Sing._ I may, thou mayst, he may;
_Plur._ We may, you may, they may.
IMPERFECT TENSE; AND SIGN OF THE POTENTIAL IMPERFECT.
_Sing._ I might, thou mightst, he might; _Plur._ We might, you might, they might.
CAN.
PRESENT TENSE; AND SIGN OF THE POTENTIAL PRESENT.
_Sing._ I can, thou canst, he can;
_Plur._ We can, you can, they can.
IMPERFECT TENSE; AND SIGN OF THE POTENTIAL IMPERFECT.
_Sing._ I could, thou couldst, he could; _Plur._ We could, you could, they could.
MUST.
PRESENT TENSE; AND SIGN OF THE POTENTIAL PRESENT.
_Sing._ I must, thou must, he must;
_Plur._ We must, you must, they must.
If must is ever used in the sense of the Imperfect tense, or Preterit, the form is the same as that of the Present: this word is entirely invariable.
OBS. 11.–Several of the auxiliaries are occasionally used as mere expletives, being quite unnecessary to the sense: as, 1. DO and DID: “And it is night, wherein all the beasts of the forest _do_ creep forth.”–_Psalms_, civ, 20. “And ye, that on the sands with printless foot _do_ chase the ebbing Neptune, and _do_ fly him when he comes back.”–_Shak._ “And if a man _did_ need a poison now.”–_Id._ This needless use of do and did is now avoided by good writers. 2. SHALL, SHOULD, and COULD: “‘Men _shall_ deal unadvisedly sometimes, which after-hours give leisure to repent of.’ I _should_ advise you to proceed. I _should_ think it would succeed. He, it _should_ seem, thinks otherwise.”–_W. Allen’s Gram._, p. 65. “I _could_ wish you to go.”–_Ib._, p. 71. 3. WILL, &c. The following are nearly of the same character, but not exactly: “The isle is full of noises; sometimes a thousand twanging instruments _will_ hum about mine ears.”–_Shak._ “In their evening sports she _would_ steal in amongst them.”–_Barbauld_.
“His listless length at noontide _would_ he stretch.”–_Gray_.
OBS. 12.–As our old writers often formed the infinitive in _en_, so they sometimes dropped the termination of the perfect participle. Hence we find, in the infancy of the language, _done_ used for _do_, and _do_ for _done_; and that by the same hand, with like changes in other verbs: as, “Thou canst nothing _done_.”–_Chaucer_. “As he was wont to _done_.”–_Id._ “The treson that to women hath be _do_.”–_Id._ “For to _ben_ honourable and free.”–_Id._ “I am sworn to _holden_ it secre.”–_Id._ “Our nature God hath to him _unyte_.”–_Douglas_. “None otherwise negligent than I you saie haue I not _bee_.”–_Id._ See _W. Allen’s E. Gram._, p. 97.
“But netheless the thynge is _do_,
That fals god was soone _go_.”–GOWER: _H. Tooke_, Vol. i, p. 376.
OBS. 13.–“_May_ is from the Anglo-Saxon, _maegan_, to be able. In the parent language also, it is used as an auxiliary. It is exhibited by Fortescue, as a principal verb; ‘They shall _may_ do it:’ i. e. they shall be able (to) do it.”–_W. Allen’s Gram._, p. 70. “_May not_, was formerly used for _must not_; as, ‘Graces for which we _may not_ cease to sue.’ Hooker.”–_Ib._, p. 91. “_May_ frequently expresses doubt of the fact; as, ‘I _may_ have the book in my library, but I think I have not.’ It is used also, to express doubt, or a consequence, with a future signification; as, ‘I _may_ recover the use of my limbs, but I see little probability of it.’–‘That they _may_ receive me into their houses.’ _Luke_, xvi, 4.”–_Churchill’s Gram._, p. 247. In these latter instances, the potential present is akin to the subjunctive. Hence Lowth and others improperly call “I _may love_,” &c. the subjunctive mood. Others, for the same reason, and with as little propriety, deny that we have any subjunctive mood; alleging an ellipsis in every thing that bears that name: as, “‘If it (_may_) _be_ possible, live peaceably with all men.’ Scriptures.”–_W. Allen’s Gram._, p. 61. _May_ is also a sign of wishing, and consequently occurs often in prayer: as, “_May_ it be thy good pleasure;”–“O that it _may_ please thee;”–“_Mayst_ thou be pleased.” Hence the potential is akin also to the imperative: the phrases, “Thy will be done,”–“_May_ thy will be done,”–“Be thy will done,”–“_Let_ thy will be done,”–are alike in meaning, but not in mood or construction.
OBS. 14.–_Can_, to be able, is etymologically the same as the regular verbs _ken_, to see, and _con_, to learn; all of them being derived from the Saxon _connan_ or _cunnan_, to know: whence also the adjective cunning, which was formerly a participle. In the following example _will_ and _can_ are principal verbs: “In evil, the best condition is, not to _will_; the second, not to _can_.”–_Ld. Bacon_. “That a verb which signifies knowledge, may also signify power, appears from these examples: _Je ne saurois, I should not know how_, (i. e. _could_ not.) [Greek: Asphalisasthe hos oidate], Strengthen it as you _know how_, (i. e. as you _can_.) _Nescio_ mentiri, I _know not how to_ (i.e. _I cannot_) lie.”–_W. Allen’s Gram._, p. 71. _Shall_, Saxon _sceal_, originally signified to _owe_; for which reason _should_ literally means _ought_. In the following example from Chaucer, _shall_ is a principal verb, with its original meaning:
“For, by the faith I _shall_ to God, I wene, Was neuer straungir none in hir degre.”–_W. Allen’s Gram._, p. 64.
OBS. 15.–_Do_ and _did_ are auxiliary only to the present infinitive, or the radical verb; as, _do throw, did throw_: thus the mood of _do throw_ or _to throw_ is marked by _do_ or _to_. _Be_, in all its parts, is auxiliary to either of the simple participles; as, _to be throwing, to be thrown; I am throwing, I am thrown_: and so, through the whole conjugation. _Have_ and _had_, in their literal use, are auxiliary to the perfect participle only; as, _have thrown, had thrown. Have_ is from the Saxon _habban_, to possess; and, from the nature of the perfect participle, the tenses thus formed, suggest in general a completion of the action. The French idiom is similar to this: as, _J’ai vu_, I have seen. _Shall_ and _should, will_ and _would, may_ and _might, can_ and _could, must_, and also _need, (if we call the last a helping verb,) are severally auxiliary to both forms of the infinitive, and to these only: as, shall throw, shall have thrown; should throw, should have thrown_; and so of all the rest.
OBS. 16.–The form of the indicative pluperfect is sometimes used in lieu of the potential pluperfect; as, “If all the world could have seen it, the wo _had been_ universal.”–_Shakspeare_. That is,–“_would have been_ universal.” “I _had been drowned_, but that the shore was shelvy and shallow.”–_Id._ That is,–“I _should have been drowned_.” This mode of expression may be referred to the figure _enallage_, in which one word or one modification is used for an other. Similar to this is the use of _were_ for _would be_: “It _were_ injustice to deny the execution of the law to any individual;” that is, “it _would_ be injustice.”–_Murray’s Grammar_, p. 89. In some instances, _were_ and _had been_ seem to have the same import; as, “Good _were_ it for that man if he had never been born.”–_Mark_, xiv, 21. “It _had been_ good for that man if he had not been born.”–_Matt._, xxvi, 24. In prose, all these licenses are needless, if not absolutely improper. In poetry, their brevity may commend them to preference; but to this style, I think, they ought to be confined: as,
“That _had been_ just, replied the reverend bard; But done, fair youth, thou ne’er _hadst met_ me here.”–_Pollok_.
“The keystones of the arch!–though all were o’er, For us repeopled _were_ the solitary shore.”–_Byron_.
OBS. 17.–With an adverb of comparison or preference, as _better, rather, best, as lief_, or _as lieve_, the auxiliary _had_ seems sometimes to be used before the infinitive to form the potential imperfect or pluperfect: as, “He that loses by getting, _had better lose_ than get.”–_Penn’s Maxims_. “Other prepositions _had better have been substituted_.”– _Priestley’s Gram._, p. 166. “I had as lief say.”–LOWTH: _ib._, p. 110. “It compels me to think of that which I _had rather forget_.”– _Bickersteth, on Prayer_, p. 25. “You _had much better say_ nothing upon the subject.”–_Webster’s Essays_, p. 147. “I _had much rather show_ thee what hopes thou hast before thee.”–_Baxter_. “I _had rather speak_ five words with my understanding, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.”–_1 Cor._, xiv, 19. “I knew a gentleman in America who told me _how much rather he had be_ a woman than the man he is.”–_Martineau’s Society in America_, Vol. i, p. 153. “I _had as lief go_ as not.”– _Webster’s Dict., w. Lief_. “I _had as lieve_ the town crier spoke my lines.”–SHAK.: _Hamlet_. “We _had best leave_ nature to her own operations.”–_Kames, El. of Crit._, Vol. i, p. 310. “What method _had he best take_?”–_Harris’s Hermes_, p. ix. These are equivalent to the phrases, _might better lose–might_ better have been substituted–_would_ as lief say–_would_ rather forget–_might_ much better say–_would_ much rather show–_would_ rather speak–how much rather he _would_ be–_would_ as lief go–_should_ best leave–_might_ he best take; and, for the sake of regularity, these latter forms ought to be preferred, as they sometimes are: thus, “For my own part, I _would rather look_ upon a tree in all its luxuriancy.”–_Addison, Spect._, No. 414; _Blair’s Rhet._, p. 223. The following construction is different: “Augustus _had like to_ have been slain.”–_S. Butler_. Here _had_ is a principal verb of the indicative imperfect. The following examples appear to be positively erroneous: “Much that was said, _had better remained_ unsaid.”–_N. Y. Observer_. Say, “_might better have remained_.” “A man that is lifting a weight, if he put not sufficient strength to it, _had as good_ put none at all.”–_Baxter_. Say, “_might as well put_.” “You _were better pour_ off the first infusion, and use the latter.”–_Bacon_. Say, “_might better pour_;” or, if you prefer it, “_had better pour._” Shakspeare has an expression which is still worse:–
“Or, by the worth of mine eternal soul, Thou _hadst been better have been born_ a dog.”–_Beauties_, p. 295.
OBS. 18.–The form of conjugating the active verb, is often called the _Active Voice_, and that of the passive verb, the _Passive Voice_. These terms are borrowed from the Latin and Greek grammars, and, except as serving to diversify expression, are of little or no use in English grammar. Some grammarians deny that there is any propriety in them, with respect to any language. De Sacy, after showing that the import of the verb does not always follow its form of voice, adds: “We must, therefore, carefully distinguish the Voice of a Verb from its signification. To facilitate the distinction, I denominate that an _Active_ Verb which contains an Attribute in which the action is considered as performed by the Subject; and that a _Passive_ Verb which contains an Attribute in which the action is considered as suffered by the Subject, and performed upon it by some agent. I call that voice a _Subjective_ Voice which is generally appropriated to the Active Verb, and that an _Objective_ Voice which is generally appropriated to the Passive Verb. As to the Neuter Verbs, if they possess a peculiar form, I call it a Neuter Voice.”–_Fosdick’s Translation_, p. 99.
OBS. 19.–A recognition of the difference between actives and passives, in our original classification of verbs with respect to their signification,– a principle of division very properly adopted in a great majority of our grammars and dictionaries, but opinionately rejected by Webster, Bolles, and sundry late grammarians,–renders it unnecessary, if not improper, to place Voices, the Active Voice and the Passive, among the _modifications_ of our verbs, or to speak of them as such in the conjugations. So must it be in respect to “a Neuter Voice,” or any other distinction which the classification involves. The significant characteristic is not overlooked; the distinction is not neglected as nonessential; but it is transferred to a different category. Hence I cannot exactly approve of the following remark, which “the Rev. W. Allen” appears to cite with approbation: “‘The distinction of active or passive,’ says the accurate Mr. Jones, ‘_is not essential_ to verbs. In the infancy of language, it was, in all probability, not known. In Hebrew, the difference but imperfectly exists, and, in the early periods of it, probably did not exist at all. In Arabic, the only distinction which obtains, arises from the vowel points, a late invention compared with the antiquity of that language. And in our own tongue, the names of _active_ and _passive_ would have remained unknown, if they had not been learnt in Latin.'”–_Allen’s Elements of English Gram._, p. 96.
OBS. 20.–By _the conjugation_ of a verb, some teachers choose to understand nothing more than the naming of its principal parts; giving to the arrangement of its numbers and persons, through all the moods and tenses, the name of _declension._ This is a misapplication of terms, and the distinction is as needless, as it is contrary to general usage. Dr. Bullions, long silent concerning principal parts, seems now to make a singular distinction between “_conjugating_” and “_conjugation._” His _conjugations_ include the moods, tenses, and inflections of verbs; but he teaches also, with some inaccuracy, as follows: “The principal parts of the verb are the _Present indicative_, the _Past indicative_ and the _Past participle._ The mentioning of these parts is called CONJUGATING THE VERB.”–_Analyt. and Pract. Gram._, 1849, p. 80.
OBS. 21.–English verbs having but very few inflections to indicate to what part of the scheme of moods and tenses they pertain, it is found convenient to insert in our conjugations the preposition _to_, to mark the infinitive; personal _pronouns_, to distinguish the persons and numbers; the conjunction _if_, to denote the subjunctive mood; and the adverb _not_, to show the form of negation. With these additions, or indexes, a verb may be conjugated in _four ways_:–
1. Affirmatively; as, I write, I do write, or, I am writing; and so on.
2. Negatively; as, I write not, I do not write, or, I am not writing.
3. Interrogatively; as, Write I? Do I write? or, Am I writing?
4. Interrogatively and negatively; as, Write I not? Do I not write? or, Am I not writing?
1. SIMPLE FORM, ACTIVE OR NEUTER.
The simplest form of an English conjugation, is that which makes the present and imperfect tenses without auxiliaries; but, even in these, auxiliaries are required for the potential mood, and are often preferred for the indicative.
FIRST EXAMPLE.
_The regular active verb LOVE, conjugated affirmatively_.
PRINCIPAL PARTS.
_Present. Preterit. Imperfect Participle. Perfect Participle._ Love. Loved. Loving. Loved.
INFINITIVE MOOD.[260]
The infinitive mood is that form of the verb, which expresses the being, action, or passion, in an unlimited manner, and without person or number. It is used only in the present and perfect tenses.
PRESENT TENSE.
This tense is the _root_, or _radical verb_; and is usually preceded by the preposition _to_, which shows its relation to some other word: thus,
To love.
PERFECT TENSE.
This tense prefixes the auxiliary _have_ to the perfect participle; and, like the infinitive present, is usually preceded by the preposition _to_: thus,
To have loved.
INDICATIVE MOOD.
The indicative mood is that form of the verb, which simply indicates or declares a thing, or asks a question. It is used in all the tenses.
PRESENT TENSE.
The present indicative, in its simple form, is essentially the same as the present infinitive, or radical verb; except that the verb _be_ has _am_ in the indicative.
1. The simple form of the present tense is varied thus:–
_Singular_. _Plural_.
1st person, I love, 1st person. We love, 2d person, Thou lovest, 2d person, You love, 3d person, He loves; 3d person, They love.
2. This tense may also be formed by prefixing the auxiliary _do_ to the verb: thus,
_Singular_. _Plural_.
1. I do love, 1. We do love,
2. Thou dost love, 2. You do love, 3. He does love; 3. They do love.
IMPERFECT TENSE.
This tense, in its simple form is _the preterit_; which, in all regular verbs, adds _d_ or _ed_ to the present, but in others is formed variously.
1. The simple form of the imperfect tense is varied thus:–
_Singular_. _Plural_.
1. I loved, 1. We loved,
2. Thou lovedst, 2. You loved,
3. He loved; 3. They loved.
2. This tense may also be formed by prefixing the auxiliary _did_ to the present: thus,
_Singular_. _Plural_.
1. I did love, 1. We did love,
2. Thou didst love, 2. You did love, 3. He did love; 3. They did love.
PERFECT TENSE.
This tense prefixes the auxiliary _have_ to the perfect participle: thus,
_Singular_. _Plural_.
1. I have loved, 1. We have loved, 2. Thou hast loved, 2. You have loved,
3. He has loved; 3. They have loved.
IMPERFECT TENSE.
This tense prefixes the auxiliary _had_ to the perfect participle: thus,
_Singular_. _Plural_.
1. I had loved, 1. We had loved, 2. Thou hadst loved, 2. You had loved,
3. He had loved; 3. They had loved.
FIRST-FUTURE TENSE.
This tense prefixes the auxiliary _shall_ or _will_ to the present: thus,
1. Simply to express a future action or event:–
_Singular_. _Plural_.
1. I shall love, 1. We shall love, 2. Thou wilt love, 2. You will love,
3. He will love; 3. They will love;
2. To express a promise, volition, command, or threat:–
_Singular_. _Plural_.
1. I will love, 1. We will love, 2. Thou shalt love, 2. You shall love,
3. He shall love; 3. They shall love.
SECOND-FUTURE TENSE.
This tense prefixes the auxiliaries _shall have_ or _will have_ to the perfect participle: thus,
_Singular_. _Plural_.
1. I shall have loved, 1. We shall have loved, 2. Thou wilt have loved, 2. You will have loved, 3. He will have loved; 3. They will have loved.
OBS.–The auxiliary _shall_ may also be used in the second and third persons of this tense, when preceded by a conjunction expressing condition or contingency; as, “_If_ he _shall have completed_ the work by midsummer.”–_L. Murray’s Gram._, p. 80. So, with the conjunctive adverb _when_; as, “Then cometh the end, _when_ he _shall have delivered_ up the kingdom to God, even the Father; _when_ he _shall have put_ down all rule and all authority and power.”–_1 Cor._, xv, 24. And perhaps _will_ may here be used in the first person to express a promise, though such usage, I think, seldom occurs. Professor Fowler has given to this tense, first, the “_Predictive_” form, as exhibited above, and then a form which he calls “_Promissive_,” and in which the auxiliaries are varied thus: “Singular. 1. I _will_ have taken. 2. Thou _shalt_ have taken, you _shall_ have taken. 3. He _shall_ have taken. Plural. 1. We _will_ have taken. 2. Ye _or_ you _shall_ have taken. 3. He [say _They_,] _shall_ have taken.”–_Fowler’s E. Gram._, 8vo., N. Y., 1850, p. 281. But the other instances just cited show that such a form is not always promissory.
POTENTIAL MOOD.
The potential mood is that form of the verb, which expresses the power, liberty, possibility, or necessity of the being, action, or passion. It is used in the first four tenses; but the potential _imperfect_ is properly an _aorist_: its time is very indeterminate; as, “He _would be_ devoid of sensibility were he not greatly satisfied.”–_Lord Kames, El. of Crit._, Vol. i, p. 11.
PRESENT TENSE.
This tense prefixes the auxiliary _may, can_, or _must_, to the radical verb: thus,
_Singular_. _Plural_.
1. I may love, 1. We may love, 2. Thou mayst love, 2. You may love, 3. He may love; 3. They may love.
IMPERFECT TENSE.
This tense prefixes the auxiliary _might, could, would_, or _should_, to the radical verb: thus,
_Singular_. _Plural_.
1. I might love, 1. We might love, 2. Thou mightst love, 2. You might love, 3. He might love; 3. They might love.
PERFECT TENSE.
This tense prefixes the auxiliaries, _may have, can have_, or _must have_, to the perfect participle: thus,
_Singular_. _Plural_.
1. I may have loved, 1. We may have loved, 2. Thou mayst have loved, 2. You may have loved, 3. He may have loved; 3. They may have loved.
PLUPERFECT TENSE.
This tense prefixes the auxiliaries, _might have, could have, would have_, or _should have_, to the perfect participle: thus,
_Singular_. _Plural_.
1. I might have loved, 1. We might have loved, 2. Thou mightst have loved, 2. You might have loved, 3. He might have loved; 3. They might have loved.
SUBJUNCTIVE MOOD.
The subjunctive mood is that form of the verb, which represents the being, action, or passion, as conditional, doubtful, or contingent. This mood is generally preceded by a conjunction; as, _if, that, though, lest, unless, except_. But sometimes, especially in poetry, it is formed by a mere placing of the verb before the nominative; as, “_Were I_,” for, “_If I were_;”–“_Had he_,” for, “_If he had_;”–“_Fall we_” for, “_If we fall_;”–“_Knew they_,” for, “_If they knew_.” It does not vary its termination at all, in the different persons.[261] It is used in the present, and sometimes in the imperfect tense; rarely–and perhaps never _properly_–in any other. As this mood can be used only in a dependent clause, the _time_ implied in its tenses is always relative, and generally indefinite; as,
“It shall be in eternal restless change, Self-fed, and self-consum’d: _if this fail_, The pillar’d firmament is rottenness.”–_Milton, Comus_, l. 596.
PRESENT TENSE.
This tense is generally used to express some condition on which a future action or event is affirmed. It is therefore erroneously considered by some grammarians, as an elliptical form of the future.
_Singular_. _Plural_.
1. If I love, 1. If we love,
2. If Thou love, 2. If you love,
3. If He love; 3. If they love.
OBS.–In this tense, the auxiliary _do_ is sometimes employed; as, “If thou _do prosper_ my way.”–_Genesis_, xxiv, 42. “If he _do_ not _utter_ it.”–_Leviticus_, v, 1. “If he _do_ but _intimate_ his desire.”–_Murray’s Key_, p. 207. “If he _do promise_, he will certainly perform.”–_Ib._, p. 208. “An event which, if it ever _do occur_, must occur in some future period.”–_Hiley’s Gram._, (3d Ed., Lond.,) p. 89. “If he _do_ but _promise_, thou art safe.”–_Ib._, 89.
“Till old experience _do attain_
To something like prophetic strain.”–MILTON: _Il Penseroso_.
These examples, if they are right, prove the tense to be _present_, and not _future_, as Hiley and some others suppose it to be.
IMPERFECT TENSE.
This tense, like the imperfect of the potential mood, with which it is frequently connected, is properly an aorist, or indefinite tense; for it may refer to time past, present, or future: as, “If therefore perfection _were_ by the Levitical priesthood, what further need _was_ there that an other priest _should rise_?”–_Heb._, vii, 11. “They must be viewed _exactly_ in the same light, as if the intention to purchase _now existed_.”–_Murray’s Parsing Exercises_, p. 24. “If it _were_ possible, they _shall deceive_ the very elect.”–_Matt._, xxiv, 24. “If the whole body _were_ an eye, where _were_ the hearing?”–_1 Corinthians_, xii, 17. “If the thankful _refrained_, it _would be_ pain and grief to them.”–_Atterbury_.
_Singular_. _Plural_.
1. If I loved, 1. If we loved,
2. If thou loved, 2. If you loved,
3. If he loved; 3. If they loved.
OBS.–In this tense, the auxiliary _did_ is sometimes employed. The subjunctive may here be distinguished from the indicative, by these circumstances; namely, that the time is indefinite, and that the supposition is always contrary to the fact: as, “Great is the number of those who might attain to true wisdom, if they _did not already think_ themselves wise.”–_Dillwyn’s Reflections_, p. 36. This implies that they _do think_ themselves wise; but an indicative supposition or concession–(as, “Though they _did not think_ themselves wise, they were so–“) accords with the fact, and with the literal time of the tense,–here time past. The subjunctive imperfect, suggesting the idea of what is not, and known by the sense, is sometimes introduced without any of the _usual signs_; as, “In a society of perfect men, _where all understood_ what was morally right, and _were determined_ to act accordingly, it is obvious, that human laws, or even human organization to enforce God’s laws, would be altogether unnecessary, and could serve no valuable purpose.”–PRES. SHANNON: _Examiner_, No. 78.
IMPERATIVE MOOD.
The imperative mood is that form of the verb, which is used in commanding, exhorting, entreating, or permitting. It is commonly used only in the second person of the present tense.
PRESENT TENSE.
_Singular._ 2. Love [thou,] _or_ Do thou love;
_Plural._ 2. Love [ye _or_ you,] _or_ Do you love.
OBS.–In the Greek language, which has three numbers, the imperative mood is used in the second and third persons of them all; and has also several different tenses, some of which cannot be clearly rendered in English. In Latin, this mood has a distinct form for the third person, both singular and plural. In Italian, Spanish, and French, the first person plural is also given it. Imitations of some of these forms are occasionally employed in English, particularly by the poets. Such imitations must be referred to this mood, unless by ellipsis and transposition we make them out to be something else; and against this there are strong objections. Again, as imprecation on one’s self is not impossible, the first person singular may be added; so that this mood _may possibly have_ all the persons and numbers. Examples: “_Come we_ now to his translation of the Iliad.”–_Pope’s Pref. to Dunciad_. “_Proceed we_ therefore in our subject.”–_Ib._ “_Blessed be he_ that blesseth thee.”–_Gen._, xxvii, 29. “Thy _kingdom come_.”–_Matt._, vi, 10. “But _pass we_ that.”–_W. Scott_. “Third person: _Be he, Be they_.”–_Churchill’s Gram._, p. 92.
“My soul, _turn_ from them–_turn we_ to survey,” &c.–_Goldsmith_.
“Then _turn we_ to her latest tribune’s name.”–_Byron_.
“Where’er the eye could light these words you read: ‘Who _comes_ this way–_behold_, and _fear_ to sin!'”–_Pollok_.
“_Fall he_ that must, beneath his rival’s arms, And _live the rest_, secure of future harms.”–_Pope_.
“_Cursed be I_ that did so!–All the _charms_ Of Sycorax, toads, beetles, bats, _light_ on you!”–_Shakspeare_.
“_Have done_ thy charms, thou hateful wither’d hag!”–_Idem_.
PARTICIPLES.
1. _The Imperfect_. 2. _The Perfect_. 3. _The Preperfect_. Loving. Loved. Having loved.
SYNOPSIS OF THE FIRST EXAMPLE.
FIRST PERSON SINGULAR.
IND. I love _or_ do love, I loved _or_ did love, I have loved. I had loved, I shall _or_ will love, I shall _or_ will have loved. POT. I may, can, _or_ must love; I might, could, would, _or_ should love; I may, can, _or_ must have loved; I might, could, would, _or_ should have loved. SUBJ. If I love, If I loved.
SECOND PERSON SINGULAR.
IND. Thou lovest _or_ dost love, Thou lovedst _or_ didst love, Thou hast loved, Thou hadst loved, Thou shalt _or_ wilt love, Thou shalt _or_ wilt have loved. POT. Thou mayst, canst, _or_ must love; Thou mightst, couldst, wouldst, _or_ shouldst love; Thou mayst, canst, _or_ must have loved; Thou mightst, couldst, wouldst _or_ shouldst have loved. SUBJ. If thou love, If thou loved. IMP. Love [thou,] _or_ Do thou love.
THIRD PERSON SINGULAR.
IND. He loves _or_ does love, He loved _or_ did love, He has loved, He had loved, He shall _or_ will love, He shall _or_ will have loved. POT. He may, can, _or_ must love; He might, could, would, _or_ should love; He may, can, _or_ must have loved; He might, could, would, _or_ should have loved. SUBJ. If he love, If he loved.
FIRST PERSON PLURAL.
IND. We love _or_ do love, We loved _or_ did loved, We have loved, We had loved, We shall _or_ will love, We shall _or_ will have loved. POT. We may, can, _or_ must love, We might, could, would, _or_ should love; We may, can, _or_ must have loved; We might, could, would, _or_ should have loved. SUBJ. If we love, If we loved.
SECOND PERSON PLURAL.
IND. You love _or_ do love, You loved _or_ did love, You have loved, You had loved, You shall _or_ will love, You shall _or_ will have loved. POT. You may, can, _or_ must love; You might, could, would, _or_ should love; You may, can, _or_ must have loved; You might, could, would, _or_ should have loved. SUBJ. If you love, If you loved. IMP. Love [ye _or_ you,] _or_ Do you love.
THIRD PERSON PLURAL.
IND. They love _or_ do love, They loved _or_ did love, They have loved, They had loved, They shall _or_ will love, They shall _or_ will have loved. POT. They may, can, _or_ must love; They might, could, would, _or_ should love; They may, can, _or_ must have loved; They might, could, would, _or_ should have loved. SUBJ. If they love, If they loved.
FAMILIAR FORM WITH ‘THOU.’
NOTE.–In the familiar style, the second person singular of this verb, is usually and more properly formed thus:
IND. Thou lov’st _or_ dost love, Thou loved _or_ did love, Thou hast loved, Thou had loved, Thou shall _or_ will love, Thou shall _or_ will have loved. POT. Thou may, can, _or_ must love; Thou might, could, would, _or_ should love; Thou may, can, _or_ must have loved; Thou might, could, would, _or_ should have loved. SUBJ. If thou love, If thou loved. IMP. Love [thou,] _or_ Do thou love.
SECOND EXAMPLE.
_The irregular active verb SEE, conjugated affirmatively._
PRINCIPAL PARTS.
_Present_. _Preterit_. _Imp. Participle_. _Perf. Participle_. See. Saw. Seeing. Seen.
INFINITIVE MOOD.
PRESENT TENSE. To See.
PERFECT TENSE. To have seen.
INDICATIVE MOOD.
PRESENT TENSE.
_Singular_. 1. I see, 2. Thou seest, 3. He sees;
_Plural_. 1. We see, 2. You see, 3. They see.
IMPERFECT TENSE.