Persons and Numbers

The person and number of a verb are those modifications in which it agrees with its subject or nominative.

In each number, there are three persons; and in each person, two numbers: thus,

Singular. Plural. 1st per. I love, 1st per. We love, 2d per. Thou lovest, 2d per. You love, 3d per. He loves; 3d per. They love.

Definitions universally applicable have already been given of all these things; it is therefore unnecessary to define them again in this place.

Where the verb is varied, the second person singular is regularly formed by adding st or est to the first person; and the third person singular, in like manner, by adding s or es: as, I see, thou seest, he sees; I give, thou givest, he gives; I go, thou goest, he goes; I fly, thou fliest, he flies; I vex, thou vexest, he vexes; I lose, thou losest, he loses.

Where the verb is not varied to denote its person and number, these properties are inferred from its subject or nominative: as, If I love, if thou love, if he love; if we love, if you love, if they love.

Observations.

OBS. 1.—It is considered a principle of Universal Grammar, that a finite verb must agree with its subject or nominative in person and number. Upon this principle, we ascribe to every such verb the person and number of the nominative word, whether the verb itself be literally modified by the relation or not. The doctrine must be constantly taught and observed, in every language in which the verbs have any variations of this kind. But suppose an instance, of a language in which all the verbs were entirely destitute of such inflections; the principle, as regards that language, must drop. Finite verbs, in such a case, would still relate to their subjects, or nominatives, agreeably to the sense; but they would certainly be rendered incapable of adding to this relation any agreement or disagreement. So the concords which belong to adjectives and participles in Latin and Greek, are rejected in English, and there remains to these parts of speech nothing but a simple relation to their nouns according to the sense. And by the fashionable substitution of you for thou, the concord of English verbs with their nominatives, is made to depend, in common practice, on little more than one single terminational s, which is used to mark one person of one number of one tense of one mood of each verb. So near does this practice bring us to the dropping of what is yet called a universal principle of grammar.

OBS. 2.—In most languages, there are in each tense, through all the moods of every verb, six different terminations to distinguish the different persons and numbers. This will be well understood by every one who has ever glanced at the verbs as exhibited in any Latin, Greek, French, Spanish, or Italian grammar. To explain it to others, a brief example shall be given: (with the remark, that the Latin pronouns, here inserted, are seldom expressed, except for emphasis:) "Ego amo, I love; Tu amas, Thou lovest; Ille amat, He loves; Nos amamus, We love; Vos amatis, You love; Illi amant, They love." Hence it may be perceived, that the paucity of variations in the English verb, is a very striking peculiarity of our language. Whether we are gainers or losers by this simplicity, is a question for learned idleness to discuss. The common people who speak English, have far less inclination to add new endings to our verbs, than to drop or avoid all the remains of the old. Lowth and Murray tell us, "This scanty provision of terminations is sufficient for all the purposes of discourse;" and that, "For this reason, the plural termination en, (they loven, they weren,) formerly in use, was laid aside as unnecessary, and has long been obsolete."—Lowth's Gram., p. 31; Murray's, 63.

OBS. 3.—Though modern usage, especially in common conversation, evidently inclines to drop or shun all unnecessary suffixes and inflections, still it is true, that the English verb in some of its parts, varies its termination, to distinguish, or agree with, the different persons and numbers. The change is, however, principally confined to the second and third persons singular of the present tense of the indicative mood, and to the auxiliaries hast and has of the perfect. In the ancient biblical style, now used only on solemn occasions, the second person singular is distinguished through all the tenses of the indicative and potential moods. And as the use of the pronoun thou is now mostly confined to the solemn style, the terminations of that style are retained in connexion with it, through all the following examples of the conjugation of verbs. In the plural number, there is no variation of ending, to denote the different persons; and the verb in the three persons plural, (with the two exceptions are and were, from am and was,) is the same as in the first person singular. Nor does the use of you for the singular, warrant its connexion with any other than the plural form of the verb. This strange and needless confusion of the numbers, is, in all languages that indulge it, a practical inconvenience. It would doubtless have been much better, had thou and you still kept their respective places—the one, nominative singular—the other, objective plural—as they appear in the Bible. But as the English verb is always attended by a noun or a pronoun, expressing the subject of the affirmation, no ambiguity arises from the want of particular terminations in the verb, to distinguish the different persons and numbers.

OBS. 4.—Although our language, in its ordinary use, exhibits the verbs in such forms only, as will make, when put together, but a very simple conjugation; there is probably no other language on earth, in which it would be so difficult for a learned grammarian to fix, settle, and exhibit, to the satisfaction of himself and others, the principles, paradigms, rules, and exceptions, which are necessary for a full and just exhibition of this part of speech. This difficulty is owing, partly to incompatibilities or unsettled boundaries between the solemn and the familiar style; partly to differences in the same style between ancient usage and modern; partly to interfering claims of new and old forms of the preterit and the perfect participle; partly to the conflicting notions of different grammarians respecting the subjunctive mood; and partly to the blind tenacity with which many writers adhere to rugged derivatives, and prefer unutterable contractions to smooth and easy abbreviations. For example: a clergyman says to a lucky gamester, (1.) "You dwell in a house which you neither planned nor built." A member of the Society of Friends would say, (2.) "Thou dwellst in a house which thou neither planned nor built." Or, if not a scholar, as likely as not, (3.) "Thee dwells in a house which thee neither planned nor built." The old or solemn style would b3, (4.) "Thou dwellest in a house which thou neither plannedst nor buildedst." Some untasteful and overgrammatical poet will have it, (5.) "Thou dwell'st in halls thou neither plann'dst nor build'dst." The doctrine of Murray's Grammar, and of most others, would require, (6.) "Thou dwellest in a house which thou neither plannedst nor builtest." Or, (according to this author's method of avoiding unpleasant sounds,) the more complex form, (7.) "Thou dost dwell in a house which thou neither didst plan nor didst build." Out of these an other poet will make the line, (8.) "Dost dwell in halls which thou nor plann'dst nor built'st." An other, more tastefully, would drop the st of the preterit, and contract the present, as in the second instance above: thus,

(9.) "Thou dwellst in halls thou neither planned nor built, And revelst there in riches won by guilt."

OBS. 5.—Now let all these nine different forms of saying the same thing, by the same verbs, in the same mood, and the same two tenses, be considered. Let it also be noticed, that for these same verbs within these limits, there are yet other forms, of a complex kind; as, "You do dwell," or, "You are dwelling;" used in lieu of, "Thou dost dwell," or, "Thou art dwelling:" so, "You did plan," or, "You were planning;" used in lieu of, "Thou didst plan," or, "Thou wast planning." Take into the account the opinion of Dr. Webster and others, that, "You was planning," or, "You was building," is a still better form for the singular number; and well "established by national usage, both here and in England."—Improved Gram., p. 25. Add the less inaccurate practice of some, who use was and did familiarly with thou; as, "Thou was planning, did thou build?" Multiply all this variety tenfold, with a view to the other moods and tenses of these three verbs, dwell, plan, and build; then extend the product, whatever it is, from these three common words, to all the verbs in the English language. You will thus begin to have some idea of the difficulty mentioned in the preceding observation. But this is only a part of it; for all these things relate only to the second person singular of the verb. The double question is, Which of these forms ought to be approved and taught for that person and number? and which of them ought to be censured and rejected as bad English? This question is perhaps as important, as any that can arise in English grammar. With a few candid observations by way of illustration, it will be left to the judgement of the reader.

OBS. 6.—The history of youyouing and thoutheeing appears to be this. Persons in high stations, being usually surrounded by attendants, it became, many centuries ago, a species of court flattery, to address individuals of this class, in the plural number, as if a great man were something more than one person. In this way, the notion of greatness was agreeably multiplied, and those who laid claim to such honour, soon began to think themselves insulted whenever they were addressed with any other than the plural pronoun. Humbler people yielded through fear of offence; and the practice extended, in time, to all ranks of society: so that at present the customary mode of familiar as well as complimentary address, is altogether plural; both the verb and the pronoun being used in that form. This practice, which confounds one of the most important distinctions of the language, affords a striking instance of the power of fashion. It has made propriety itself seem improper. But shall it be allowed, in the present state of things, to confound our conjugations and overturn our grammar? Is it right to introduce it into our paradigms, as the only form of the second person singular, that modern usage acknowledges? Or is it expedient to augment by it that multiplicity of other forms, which must either take this same place or be utterly rejected? With due deference to those grammarians who have adopted one or the other of these methods, the author of this work answers all these questions decidedly in the negative. It is not to be denied, that the use of the plural for the singular is now so common as to form the customary mode of address to individuals of every rank. The Society of Friends, or Quakers, however, continue to employ the singular number in familiar discourse; and custom, which has now destroyed the compliment of the plural, has removed also the supposed opprobrium of the singular, and placed it on an equality with the plural in point of respect. The singular is universally employed in reference to the Supreme Being; and is generally preferred in poetry. It is the language of Scripture, and of the Prayer-Book; and is consistently retained in nearly all our grammars; though not always, perhaps, consistently treated.

OBS. 7.—Whatever is fashionable in speech, the mere disciples of fashion will always approve; and, probably, they will think it justifiable to despise or neglect all that is otherwise. These may be contented with the sole use of such forms of address as, "You, you, sir;"—"You, you, madam." But the literati who so neglect all the services of religion, as to forget that these are yet conducted in English independently of all this fashionable youyouing, must needs be poor judges of what belongs to their own justification, either as grammarians or as moral agents. A fashion by virtue of which millions of youths are now growing up in ignorance of that form of address which, in their own tongue, is most appropriate to poetry, and alone adapted to prayer, is perhaps not quite so light a matter as some people imagine. It is at least so far from being a good reason for displacing that form from the paradigms of our verbs in a grammar, that indeed no better needs be offered for tenaciously retaining it. Many children may thus learn at school what all should know, and what there is little chance for them to learn elsewhere. Not all that presume to minister in religion, are well acquainted with what is called the solemn style. Not all that presume to explain it in grammars, do know what it is. A late work, which boasted the patronage of De Witt Clinton, and through the influence of false praise came nigh to be imposed by a law of New York on all the common schools of that State; and which, being subsequently sold in Philadelphia for a great price, was there republished under the name of the "National School Manual;" gives the following account of this part of grammar: "In the solemn and poetic styles, the second person singular, in both the above tenses, is thou; and the second person plural, is ye, or you. The verb, to agree with the second person singular, changes its termination. Thus: 2d person, sing. Pres. Tense, Thou walkest, or Thou walketh. Imperfect Tense, Thou walkedst. In the third person singular, in the above styles, the verb has sometimes a different termination; as, Present Tense, He, she, or it walks or walketh. The above form of inflection may be applied to all verbs used in the solemn or poetic styles; but for ordinary purposes, I have supposed it proper to employ the form of the verb, adopted in common conversation, as least perplexing to young minds."—Bartlett's Common School Manual, Part ii, p. 114. What can be hoped from an author who is ignorant enough to think "Thou walketh" is good English? or from one who tells us, that "It walks" is of the solemn style? or from one who does not know that you is never a nominative in the style of the Bible?

OBS. 8.—Nowhere on earth is fashion more completely mistress of all the tastes and usages of society, than in France. Though the common French Bible still retains the form of the second person singular, which in that language is shorter and perhaps smoother than the plural; yet even that sacred book, or at least the New Testament, and that by different persons, has been translated into more fashionable French, and printed at Paris, and also at New York, with the form of address everywhere plural; as, "Jesus anticipated him, saying, 'What do you think, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take taxes and tribute?'"—Matt., xvii, 24. "And, going to prayers, they said, '0 Lord, you who know the hearts of all men, show which of these two you have chosen.'"—Acts, i, 24. This is one step further in the progress of politeness, than has yet been taken in English. The French grammarians, however, as far as I can perceive, have never yet disturbed the ancient order of their conjugations and declensions, by inserting the plural verb and pronoun in place of the singular; and, in the familiarity of friendship, or of domestic life, the practice which is denominated tutoyant, or thoutheeing, is far more prevalent in France than in England. Also, in the prayers of the French, the second person singular appears to be yet generally preserved, as it is in those of the English and the Americans. The less frequent use of it in the familiar conversation of the latter, is very probably owing to the general impression, that it cannot be used with propriety, except in the solemn style. Of this matter, those who have laid it aside themselves, cannot with much modesty pretend to judge for those who have not; or, if they may, there is still a question how far it is right to lay it aside. The following lines are a sort of translation from Horace; and I submit it to the reader, whether it is comely for a Christian divine to be less reverent toward God, than a heathen poet; and whether the plural language here used, does not lack the reverence of the original, which is singular:—

"Preserve, Almighty Providence!
Just what you gave me, competence."—Swift.

OBS. 9.—The terms, solemn style, familiar style, modern style, ancient style, legal style, regal style, nautic style, common style, and the like, as used in grammar, imply no certain divisions of the language; but are designed merely to distinguish, in a general way, the occasions on which some particular forms of expression may be considered proper, or the times to which they belong. For what is grammatical sometimes, may not be so always. It would not be easy to tell, definitely, in what any one of these styles consists; because they all belong to one language, and the number or nature of the peculiarities of each is not precisely fixed. But whatever is acknowledged to be peculiar to any one, is consequently understood to be improper for any other: or, at least, the same phraseology cannot belong to styles of an opposite character; and words of general use belong to no particular style. For example: "So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy."—Rom., ix, 16. If the termination eth is not obsolete, as some say it is, all verbs to which this ending is added, are of the solemn style; for the common or familiar expression would here be this; "So then it is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy." Ben Jonson, in his grammar, endeavoured to arrest this change of eth to s; and, according to Lindley Murray, (Octavo Gram., p. 90,) Addison also injudiciously disapproved it. In spite of all such objections, however, some future grammarian will probably have to say of the singular ending eth, as Lowth and Murray have already said of the plural en: "It was laid aside as unnecessary."

OBS. 10.—Of the origin of the personal terminations of English verbs, that eminent etymologist Dr. Alexander Murray, gives the following account: "The readers of our modern tongue may be reminded, that the terminations, est, eth, and s, in our verbs, as in layest, layeth, and laid'st, or laidest; are the faded remains of the pronouns which were formerly joined to the verb itself, and placed the language, in respect of concise expression, on a level with the Greek, Latin, and Sanscrit, its sister dialects."—History of European Languages, Vol. i, p. 52. According to this, since other signs of the persons and numbers are now employed with the verb, it is not strange that there should appear a tendency to lay aside such of these endings as are least agreeable and least necessary. Any change of this kind will of course occur first in the familiar style. For example: "Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them."—Acts, xi, 3. "These things write I unto thee, that thou mayst know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God."—1 Tim., iii, 15. These forms, by universal consent, are now of the solemn style; and, consequently, are really good English in no other. For nobody, I suppose, will yet pretend that the inflection of our preterits and auxiliaries by st or est, is entirely obsolete; and surely no person of any literary taste ever uses the foregoing forms familiarly. The termination est, however, has in some instances become obsolete; or has faded into st or t, even in the solemn style. Thus, (if indeed, such forms ever were in good use,) diddest has become didst; havest, hast; haddest, hadst; shallest, shalt; willest, wilt; and cannest, canst. Mayest, mightest, couldest, wouldest, and shouldest, are occasionally found in books not ancient; but mayst, mightst, couldst, wouldst, and shouldst, are abundantly more common, and all are peculiar to the solemn style. Must, burst, durst, thrust, blest, curst, past, lost, list, crept, kept, girt, built, felt, dwelt, left, bereft, and many other verbs of similar endings, are seldom, if ever, found encumbered with an additional est. For the rule which requires this ending, has always had many exceptions that have not been noticed by grammarians. Thus Shakspeare wrote even in the present tense, "Do as thou list," and not "Do as thou listest." Possibly, however, list may here be reckoned of the subjunctive mood; but the following example from Byron is certainly in the indicative:—

"And thou, who never yet of human wrong Lost the unbalanced scale, great Nemesis!"—Harold, C. iv, st. 132.

OBS. 11.—Any phraseology that is really obsolete, is no longer fit to be imitated even in the solemn style; and what was never good English, is no more to be respected in that style, than in any other. Thus: "Art not thou that Egyptian, which before these days madest an uproar, and leddest out into the wilderness four thousand men that were murderers?"—Acts, xxi, 38. Here, (I think,) the version ought to be, "Art not thou that Egyptian, who a while ago made an uproar, and led out into the wilderness four thousand men, that were murderers?" If so, there is in this no occasion to make a difference between the solemn and the familiar style. But what is the familiar form of expression for the texts cited before? The fashionable will say, it is this: "You went in to men uncircumcised, and did eat with them."—"I write these things to you, that you may know how you ought to behave yourself in the house of God." But this is not literally of the singular number: it is no more singular, than vos in Latin, or vous in French, or we used for I in English, is singular. And if there remains to us any other form, that is both singular and grammatical, it is unquestionably the following: "Thou went in to men uncircumcised, and did eat with them."—"I write these things to thee, that thou may know how thou ought to behave thyself in the house of God." The acknowledged doctrine of all the teachers of English grammar, that the inflection of our auxiliaries and preterits by st or est is peculiar to "the solemn style," leaves us no other alternative, than either to grant the propriety of here dropping the suffix for the familiar style, or to rob our language of any familiar use of the pronoun thou forever. Who, then, are here the neologists, the innovators, the impairers of the language? And which is the greater innovation, merely to drop, on familiar occasions, or when it suits our style, one obsolescent verbal termination,—a termination often dropped of old as well as now,—or to strike from the conjugations of all our verbs one sixth part of their entire scheme?

"O mother myn, that cleaped were Argyue,
Wo worth that day that thou me bare on lyue."—Chaucer.

OBS. 12.—The grammatical propriety of distinguishing from the solemn style both of the forms presented above, must be evident to every one who considers with candour the reasons, analogies, and authorities, for this distinction. The support of the latter is very far from resting solely on the practice of a particular sect; though this, if they would forbear to corrupt the pronoun while they simplify the verb, would deserve much more consideration than has ever been allowed it. Which of these modes of address is the more grammatical, it is useless to dispute; since fashion rules the one, and a scruple of conscience is sometimes alleged for the other. A candid critic will consequently allow all to take their choice. It is enough for him, if he can demonstrate to the candid inquirer, what phraseology is in any view allowable, and what is for any good reason reprehensible. That the use of the plural for the singular is ungrammatical, it is neither discreet nor available to affirm; yet, surely, it did not originate in any regard to grammar rules. Murray the schoolmaster, whose English Grammar appeared some years before that of Lindley Murray, speaks of it as follows: "Thou, the second person singular, though strictly grammatical, is seldom used, except in addresses to God, in poetry, and by the people called Quakers. In all other cases, a fondness for foreign manners, and the power of custom, have given a sanction to the use of you, for the second person singular, though contrary to grammar, and attended with this particular inconveniency, that a plural verb must be used to agree with the pronoun in number, and both applied to a single person; as, you are, or you were,—not you wast, or you was."—Third Edition, Lond., 1793, p. 34. This author everywhere exhibits the auxiliaries, mayst, mightst, couldst, wouldst, and shouldst, as words of one syllable; and also observes, in a marginal note, "Some writers begin to say, 'Thou may, thou might,' &c."—Ib., p. 36. Examples of this are not very uncommon: "Thou shall want ere I want."—Old Motto; Scott's Lay, Note 1st to Canto 3. "Thyself the mournful tale shall tell."—Felton's Gram., p. 20.

"One sole condition would I dare suggest,
That thou would save me from my own request."—Jane Taylor.

OBS. 13.—In respect to the second person singular, the grammar of Lindley Murray makes no distinction between the solemn and the familiar style; recognizes in no way the fashionable substitution of you for thou; and, so far as I perceive, takes it for granted, that every one who pretends to speak or write grammatically, must always, in addressing an individual, employ the singular pronoun, and inflect the verb with st or est, except in the imperative mood and the subjunctive present. This is the more remarkable, because the author was a valued member of the Society of Friends; and doubtless his own daily practice contradicted his doctrine, as palpably as does that of every other member of the Society. And many a schoolmaster, taking that work for his text-book, or some other as faulty, is now doing precisely the same thing. But what a teacher is he, who dares not justify as a grammarian that which he constantly practices as a man! What a scholar is he, who can be led by a false criticism or a false custom, to condemn his own usage and that of every body else! What a casuist is he, who dares pretend conscience for practising that which he knows and acknowledges to be wrong! If to speak in the second person singular without inflecting our preterits and auxiliaries, is a censurable corruption of the language, the Friends have no alternative but to 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, (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, 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. 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 thæt thu hoefst thara wæpna."—King Alfred. "But I know that thou hast those weapons." "Thæt thu oncnawe thara worda sothfæstnesse. of tham the thu geloered eart."—Lucæ, 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."—Lucæ, 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."—Lucæ, 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 dæg the thas thing gewurthath. fortham thu minum wordum ne gelyfdest. tha beoth on hyra timan gefyllede."—Lucæ, 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 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. 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. Cæsar, 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; 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.

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. 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 Afterwards, as in our common Bible, it was formed by adding th to verbs ending in e, and eth to all others; as, "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself."—1 Cor., xi, 29. "He quickeneth man, who is dead in trespasses and sins; he keepeth alive the quickened soul, and leadeth it in the paths of life; he scattereth, subdueth, and conquereth the enemies of the soul."—I. Penington. This method of inflection, as now pronounced, always adds a syllable to the verb. It is entirely confined to the solemn style, and is little used. Doth, hath, and saith, appear to be permanent contractions of verbs thus formed. In the days of Shakspeare, both terminations were common, and he often mixed them, in a way which is not very proper now: as,

"The quality of mercy is not strained;
It droppeth, as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath: it is twice bless'd;
It blesseth him that gives, and him that takes."
—Merchant of Venice.

OBS. 36.—When the second person singular is employed in familiar discourse, with any regard to correctness, it is usually formed in a manner strictly analogous to that which is now adopted in the third person singular. When the verb ends with a sound which will unite with that of st or s, the second person singular is formed by adding s only, and the third, by adding s only; and the number of syllables is not increased: as, I read, thou readst, he reads; I know, thou knowst, he knows; I take, thou takest, he takes; I free, thou freest, he frees. For, when the verb ends in mute a, no termination renders this a vocal in the familiar style, if a synæresis can take place. To prevent their readers from ignorantly assuming the pronunciation of the solemn style, the poets have generally marked such words with an apostrophe: as,

"Look what thy soul holds dear, imagine it
To lie the way thou go'st, not whence thou com'st."—Shak.

OBS. 37.—But when the verb ends in a sound which will not unite with that of st or s, the second and third persons are formed by adding est and es; or, if the first person end in mute e, the st and s render that e vocal; so that the verb acquires an additional syllable: as, I trace, thou tracest, he traces; I pass, thou passest, he passes; I fix, thou fixest, he fixes; I preach, thou preachest, he preaches; I blush, thou blushest, he blushes; I judge, thou judgest, he judges. But verbs ending in o or y preceded by a consonant, do not exactly follow either of the foregoing rules. In these, y is changed into i; and, to both o and i, est and es are added without increase of syllables: as, I go, thou goest, he goes; I undo, thou undoest, he undoes; I fly, thou fliest, he flies; I pity, thou pitiest, he pities. Thus, in the following lines, goest must be pronounced like ghost; otherwise, we spoil the measure of the verse:

"Thou goest not now with battle, and the voice
Of war, as once against the rebel hosts;
Thou goest a Judge, and findst the guilty bound;
Thou goest to prove, condemn, acquit, reward."—Pollok, B. x.

In solemn prose, however, the termination is here made a separate syllable: as, I go, thou goëst, he goëth; I undo, thou undoëst, he undoëth; I fly, thou fliëst, he fliëth; I pity, thou pitiëst, he pitiëth.

OBS. 38.—The auxiliaries do, dost, does,—(pronounced doo, dust, duz; and not as the words dough, dosed, doze,—) am, art, is,—have, hast, has,—being also in frequent use as principal verbs of the present tense, retain their peculiar forms, with distinction of person and number, when they help to form the compound tenses of other verbs. The other auxiliaries are not varied, or ought not to be varied, except in the solemn style. Example of the familiar use: "That thou may be found truly owning it."—Barclay's Works, Vol. i, p. 234.

OBS. 39.—The only regular terminations that are added to English verbs, are ing, d or e, st or est, s or es, th or eth Ing, and th or eth, always add a syllable to the verb; except in doth, hath, saith. The rest, whenever their sound will unite with that of the final syllable of the verb, are usually added without increasing the number of syllables; otherwise, they are separately pronounced. In solemn discourse, however, ed and est are by most speakers uttered distinctly in all cases; except sometimes when a vowel precedes: as in sanctified, glorified, which are pronounced as three syllables only. Yet, in spite of this analogy, many readers will have sanctifiest and glorifiest to be words of four syllables. If this pronunciation is proper, it is only so in solemn prose. The prosody of verse will show how many syllables the poets make: as,

"Thou diedst, a most rare boy, of melancholy!"
—Shak., Cymb., Act iv, sc. 2.

"Had not a voice thus warn'd me: What thou seest,
What there thou seest, fair creature, is thyself."
—Milton, B. iv, l. 467.

"By those thou wooedst from death to endless life."
—Pollok, B. ix, l. 7.

"Attend: that thou art happy, owe to God;
That thou continuest such, owe to thyself"
—Milton, B. v, l. 520.

OBS. 40.—If the grave and full form of the second person singular must needs be supposed to end rather with the syllable est than with st only, it is certain that this form may be contracted, whenever the verb ends in a sound which will unite with that of st. The poets generally employ the briefer or contracted forms; but they seem not to have adopted a uniform and consistent method of writing them. Some usually insert the apostrophe, and, after a single vowel, double the final consonant before st; as, hold'st, bidd'st, said'st, ledd'st, wedd'st, trimm'st, may'st, might'st, and so forth: others, in numerous instances, add st only, and form permanent contractions; as, holdst, bidst, saidst, ledst, wedst, trimst, mayst, mightst, and so forth. Some retain the vowel e, in the termination of certain words, and suppress a preceding one; as, quick'nest, happ'nest, scatt'rest, rend'rest, rend'redst, slumb'rest, slumb'redst: others contract the termination of such words, and insert the apostrophe; as, quicken'st, happen'st, scatter'st, render'st, render'dst, slumber'st, slumber'dst. The nature and idiom of our language, "the accent and pronunciation of it," incline us to abbreviate or "contract even all our regular verbs;" so as to avoid, if possible, an increase of syllables in the inflection of them. Accordingly, several terminations which formerly constituted distinct syllables, have been either wholly dropped, or blended with the final syllables of the verbs to which they are added. Thus the plural termination en has become entirely obsolete; th or eth is no longer in common use; ed is contracted in pronunciation; the ancient ys or is, of the third person singular, is changed to s or es, and is usually added without increase of syllables; and st or est has, in part, adopted the analogy. So that the proper mode of forming these contractions of the second person singular, seems to be, to add st only; and to insert no apostrophe, unless a vowel is suppressed from the verb to which this termination is added: as, thinkst, sayst, bidst, sitst, satst, lov'st, lov'dst, slumberst, slumber'dst.

"And know, for that thou slumberst on the guard,
Thou shalt be made to answer at the bar."—Cotton.

OBS. 41.—Ho man deserves more praise for his attention to English pronunciation, than John Walker. His Pronouncing Dictionary was, for a long period, the best standard of orthoëpy, that our schools possessed. But he seems to me to have missed a figure, in preferring such words as quick'nest, strength'nest, to the smoother and more regular forms, quickenst, strengthenst. It is true that these are rough words, in any form you can give them; but let us remember, that needless apostrophes are as rough to the eye, as needless st's to the ear. Our common grammarians are disposed to encumber the language with as many of both as they can find any excuse for, and vastly more than can be sustained by any good argument. In words that are well understood to be contracted in pronunciation, the apostrophe is now less frequently used than it was formerly. Walker says, "This contraction of the participial ed, and the verbal en, is so fixed an idiom of our pronunciation, that to alter it, would be to alter the sound of the whole language. It must, however, be regretted that it subjects our tongue to some of the most hissing, snapping, clashing, grinding sounds that ever grated the ears of a Vandal; thus, rasped, scratched, wrenched, bridled, fangled, birchen, hardened, strengthened, quickened, &c. almost frighten us when written as they are actually pronounced, as rapt, scratcht, wrencht, bridl'd, fangl'd, birch'n, strength'n'd, quick'n'd, &c.; they become still more formidable when used contractedly in the solemn style, which never ought to be the case; for here instead of thou strength'n'st or strength'n'd'st, thou quick'n'st or quick'n'd'st, we ought to pronounce thou strength'nest or strength'nedst, thou quick'nest or quick'nedst, which are sufficiently harsh of all conscience."—Principles, No. 359. Here are too many apostrophes; for it does not appear that such words as strengthenedest and quickenedest ever existed, except in the imagination of certain grammarians. In solemn prose one may write, thou quickenest, thou strengthenest, or thou quickenedst, thou strengthenedst; but, in the familiar style, or in poetry, it is better to write, thou quickenst, thou strengthenst, thou quickened, thou strengthened. This is language which it is possible to utter; and it is foolish to strangle ourselves with strings of rough consonants, merely because they are insisted on by some superficial grammarians. Is it not strange, is it not incredible, that the same hand should have written the two following lines, in the same sentence? Surely, the printer has been at fault.

"With noiseless foot, thou walkedst the vales of earth"—
"Most honourable thou appeared, and most
To be desired."—Pollok's Course of Time, B. ix, l. 18, and l. 24.

OBS. 42.—It was once a very common practice, to retain the final y, in contractions of the preterit or of the second person of most verbs that end in y, and to add the consonant terminations d, st, and dst, with an apostrophe before each; as, try'd for tried, reply'd for replied, try'st for triest, try'dst for triedst. Thus Milton:—

"Thou following cry'dst aloud, Return, fair Eve;
Whom fly'st thou? whom thou fly'st, of him thou art."
—P. L., B. iv, l. 481.

This usage, though it may have been of some advantage as an index to the pronunciation of the words, is a palpable departure from the common rule for spelling such derivatives. That rule is, "The final y of a primitive word, when preceded by a consonant, is changed into i before an additional termination." The works of the British poets, except those of the present century, abound with contractions like the foregoing; but late authors, or their printers, have returned to the rule; and the former practice is wearing out and becoming obsolete. Of regular verbs that end in ay, ey, or oy, we have more than half a hundred; all of which usually retain the y in their derivatives, agreeably to an other of the rules for spelling. The preterits of these we form by adding ed without increase of syllables; as, display, displayed; survey, surveyed; enjoy, enjoyed. These also, in both tenses, may take st without increase of syllables; as, display'st, display'dst; survey'st, survey'dst; enjoy'st, enjoy'dst. All these forms, and such as these, are still commonly considered contractions, and therefore written with the apostrophe; but if the termination st is sufficient of itself to mark the second person singular, as it certainly is considered to be as regards one half of them, and as it certainly was in the Saxon tongue still more generally, then for the other half there is no need of the apostrophe, because nothing is omitted. Est, like es, is generally a syllabic termination; but st, like s, is not. As signs of the third person, the s and the es are always considered equivalent; and, as signs of the second person, the st and the est are sometimes, and ought to be always, considered so too. To all verbs that admit the sound, we add the s without marking it as a contraction for es; and there seems to be no reason at all against adding the st in like manner, whenever we choose to form the second person without adding a syllable to the verb. The foregoing observations I commend to the particular attention of all those who hope to write such English as shall do them honour—to every one who, from a spark of literary ambition, may say of himself,

————-"I twine
My hopes of being remembered in my line
With my land's language."—Byron's Childe Harold, Canto iv, st. 9.

The Conjugation of 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. 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; 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. 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. "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, mægan, 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.

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. 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.

Singular. 1. I saw, 2. Thou sawest, 3. He saw;

Plural. 1. We saw, 2. You saw, 3. They saw.

Perfect Tense.

Singular. 1. I have seen, 2. Thou hast seen, 3. He has seen;

Plural. 1. We have seen, 2. You have seen, 3. They have seen.

Pluperfect Tense.

Singular. 1. I had seen, 2. Thou hadst seen, He had seen;

Plural. 1. We had seen, 2. You had seen, 3. They had seen.

First-Future Tense.

Singular. 1. I shall see, 2. Thou wilt see, He will see;

Plural. 1. We shall see, 2. You will see, 3. They will see.

Second-Future Tense.

Singular. 1. I shall have seen, 2. Thou wilt have seen, 3. He will have seen;

Plural. 1. We shall have seen, 2. You will have seen, 3. They will have seen.

Potential Mood.

Present Tense.

Singular. 1. I may see, 2. Thou mayst see, 3. He may see;

Plural. 1. We may see, 2. You may see, 3. They may see.

Imperfect Tense.

Singular. 1. I might see, 2. Thou mightst see, 3. He might see;

Plural. 1. We might see, 2. You might see, 3. They might see.

Perfect Tense.

Singular. 1. I may have seen, 2. Thou mayst have seen, 3. He may have seen;

Plural. 1. We may have seen, 2. You may have seen, 3. They may have seen.

Pluperfect Tense.

Singular. 1. I might have seen, 2. Thou mightst have seen, 3. He might have seen;

Plural. 1. We might have seen, 2. You might have seen, 3. They might have seen.

Subjunctive Mood.

Present Tense.

Singular. 1. If I see, 2. If thou see, 3. If he see;

Plural. 1. If we see, 2. If you see, 3. If they see.

Imperfect Tense.

Singular. 1. If I saw, 2. If thou saw, 3. If he saw;

Plural. 1. If we saw, 2. If you saw, 3. If they saw.

Imperative Mood.

Present Tense.

Singular. 2. See [thou,] or Do thou see; Plural. 2. See [ye or you,] or Do you see.

Participles.

1. The Imperfect. 2. The Perfect. 3. The Preperfect.

Seeing. Seen. Having seen.