The Grammar of English Grammars Part 59

Mistaking _annex_ to signify _prefix_, this author teaches thus: "ANNEX _if, though, unless, suppose, admit, grant, allow_, or any word implying a _condition_, to each tense of the _Indicative and Potential modes_, to form the subjunctive; as, If thou lovest or love. If he loves, or love. Formerly it was customary to _omit the terminations_ in the second and third persons of the present tense of the Subjunctive mode. But now the terminations are _generally retained_, except when the ellipsis of _shall_ or _should_ is implied; as, If he obey, i. e., if he _shall_, or _should_ obey."--_Weld's Grammar, Abridged Edition_, p. 71. Again: "_In general_, the form of the verb in the Subjunctive, _is the same as that of the Indicative_; but an _elliptical form_ in the second and third _person_ [persona] singular, is used in the following instances: (1.) _Future contingency_ is expressed by the _omission of the Indicative termination_; as, If he go, for, if he _shall_ go. Though he slay me, i.e., though he _should_ slay me. (2.) _Lest_ and _that_ annexed to a command are followed by the _elliptical form_ of the Subjunctive; as, Love not sleep [,] lest thou _come_ to poverty. (3.) _If_ with _but_ following it, when futurity is denoted, requires the _elliptical form_; as, If he _do_ but _touch_ the hills, they shall smoke."--_Ib._, p. 126. As for this scheme, errors and inconsistencies mark every part of it. First, the rule for forming the subjunctive is false, and is plainly contradicted _by all that is true_ in the examples: "_If thou love_," or, "_If he love_" contains not the form of the indicative. Secondly, no terminations have ever been "generally"

omitted from, or retained in, the form of the subjunctive present; because that part of the mood, as commonly exhibited, is well known to be made of the _radical verb_, without inflection. One might as well talk of suffixes for the imperative, "_Love_ thou," or "_Do_ thou love." Thirdly, _shall_ or _should_ can never be really implied in the subjunctive present; because the supposed ellipsis, needless and unexampled, would change the tense, the mood, and commonly also the meaning. "If he _shall_," properly implies a condition of _future certainty_; "If he _should_," a supposition of _duty_: the true subjunctive suggests neither of these. Fourthly, "the ellipsis of _shall_, or _should_," is most absurdly called above, "the omission of the _Indicative termination_." Fifthly, it is very strangely supposed, that to omit what pertains to the _indicative_ or the _potential_ mood, will produce an "elliptical form of _the Subjunctive_." Sixthly, such examples as the last, "If he _do_ but _touch_ the hills," having the auxiliary _do_ not inflected as in the indicative, disprove the whole theory.

OBS. 10.--In J. B. Chandler's grammars, are taken nearly the same views of the "Subjunctive or Conditional Mood," that have just been noticed. "This mood," we are told, "is _only_ the indicative _or_ potential mood, with the word _if_ placed before the nominative case."--_Gram. of_ 1821, p. 48; _Gram. of_ 1847, p. 73. Yet, of even _this_, the author has said, in the former edition, "It would, perhaps, be _better to abolish the use_ of the subjunctive mood entirely. _Its use_ is a continual source of dispute among grammarians, and of perplexity to scholars."--Page 33. The suppositive verb _were_,--(as, "_Were_ I a king,"--"If I _were_ a king,"--) which this author formerly rejected, preferring _was_, is now, after six and twenty years, replaced in his own examples; and yet he still attempts to _disgrace it_, by falsely representing it as being only "the indicative _plural_"

very grossly misapplied! See _Chandler's Common School Gram._, p. 77.

OBS. 11.--The _Imperative_ mood is so called because it is chiefly used in _commanding_. It is that brief form of the verb, by which we directly urge upon others our claims and wishes. But the nature of this urging varies according to the relation of the parties. We command inferiors; exhort equals; entreat superiors; permit whom we will;--and all by this same imperative form of the verb. In answer to a request, the imperative implies nothing more than permission. The will of a superior may also be urged imperatively by the indicative, future. This form is particularly common in solemn prohibitions; as, "Thou _shalt not kill_. * * * Thou _shalt not steal_."--_Exodus_, xx, 13 and 15. Of the ten commandments, eight are negative, and all these are indicative in form. The other two are in the imperative mood: "_Remember_ the sabbath day to keep it holy. _Honour_ thy father and thy mother."--_Ib._ But the imperative form may also be negative: as, "_Touch not; taste not; handle not_."--_Colossians_, ii, 21.

TENSES.

Tenses are those modifications of the verb, which distinguish time. There are six tenses; the _Present_, the _Imperfect_, the _Perfect_, the _Pluperfect_, the _First-future_, and the _Second-future_.

The _Present tense_ is that which expresses what _now exists_, or _is taking_ place: as, "I _hear_ a noise; somebody _is coming_."

The _Imperfect tense_ is that which expresses what _took place_, or _was occurring_, in time fully past: as, "I _saw_ him yesterday, and _hailed_ him as he _was pa.s.sing_."

The _Perfect tense_ is that which expresses what _has taken_ place, within some period of time not yet fully past: as, "I _have seen_ him to-day; something _must have detained_ him."

The _Pluperfect tense_ is that which expresses what _had taken_ place, at some past time mentioned: as, "I _had seen_ him, when I met you."

The _First-future tense_ is that which expresses what _will take_ place hereafter: as, "I _shall see_ him again, and I _will inform_ him."

The _Second-future tense_ is that which expresses what _will have taken_ place, at some future time mentioned: as, "I _shall have seen_ him by tomorrow noon."

OBSERVATIONS.

OBS. 1.--The terms here defined are the names usually given to those parts of the verb to which they are in this work applied; and though some of them are not so strictly appropriate as scientific names ought to be, it is thought inexpedient to change them. In many old grammars, and even in the early editions of Murray, the three past tenses are called the _Preterimperfect, Preterperfect_, and _Preterpluperfect_. From these names, the term _Preter_, (which is from the Latin preposition _praeter_, meaning _beside, beyond_, or _past_,) has been well dropped for the sake of brevity.[233]

OBS. 2.--The distinctive epithet _Imperfect_, or _Preterimperfect_, appears to have been much less accurately employed by the explainers of our language, than it was by the Latin grammarians from whom it was borrowed.

That tense which pa.s.ses in our schools for the _Imperfect_, (as, I _slept, did sleep_, or _was sleeping_,) is in fact, so far as the indicative mood is concerned, _more completely past_, than that which we call the _Perfect_. Murray indeed has attempted to show that the name is right; and, for the sake of consistency, one could wish he had succeeded. But every scholar must observe, that the simple preterit, which is the first form of this tense, and is never found in any other, as often as the sentence is declarative, tells what _happened_ within some period of time _fully past_, as _last week, last year_; whereas the perfect tense is used to express what _has happened_ within some period of time _not yet fully past_, as _this week, this year_. As to the completeness of the action, there is no difference; for what _has been done_ to-day, is as _completely done_, as what _was achieved_ a year ago. Hence it is obvious that the term _Imperfect_ has no other applicability to the English tense so called, than what it may have derived from the participle in _ing_, which we use in translating the Latin imperfect tense: as, _Dormiebam, I was sleeping; Legebam, I was reading; Docebam, I was teaching_. And if for this reason the whole English tense, with all its variety of forms in the different moods, "may, with propriety, be denominated _imperfect_;" surely, the participle itself should be so denominated _a fortiori_: for it always conveys this same idea, of "_action not finished_," be the tense of its accompanying auxiliary what it may.

OBS. 3.--The tenses do not all express time with equal precision; nor can the whole number in any language supersede the necessity of adverbs of time, much less of dates, and of nouns that express periods of duration.

The tenses of the indicative mood, are the most definite; and, for this reason, as well as for some others, the explanations of all these modifications of the verb, are made with particular reference to that mood.

Some suppose the compound or participial form, as _I am writing_, to be more definite in time, than the simple form, as _I write_, or the emphatic form, as _I do write_; and accordingly they divide all the tenses into _Indefinite_ and _Definite_. Of this division Dr. Webster seems to claim the invention; for he gravely accuses Murray of copying it unjustly from him, though the latter acknowledges in a note upon his text, it "is, _in part_, taken from Webster's Grammar."--_Murray's Octavo Gram._, p. 73. The distribution, as it stands in either work, is not worth quarrelling about: it is evidently more c.u.mbersome than useful. Nor, after all, is it true that the compound form is more definite in time than the other. For example; "Dionysius, tyrant of Syracuse, _was always betraying_ his unhappiness."--_Art of Thinking_, p. 123. Now, if _was betraying_ were a more definite tense than _betrayed_, surely the adverb "_always_" would require the latter, rather than the former.

OBS. 4.--The present tense, of the indicative mood, expresses not only what is now actually going on, but general truths, and customary actions: as, "Vice _produces_ misery."--"He _hastens_ to repent, who _gives_ sentence quickly."--_Grant's Lat. Gram._, p. 71. "Among the Parthians, the signal _is given_ by the drum, and not by the trumpet."--_Justin_. Deceased authors may be spoken of in the present tense, because they seem to live in their works; as, "Seneca _reasons_ and _moralizes_ well."--_Murray_.

"Women _talk_ better than men, from the superior shape of their tongues: an ancient writer _speaks_ of their loquacity three thousand years ago."--_Gardiner's Music of Nature_, p. 27.

OBS. 5.--The text, John, viii, 58, "Before Abraham _was_, I _am_," is a literal Grecism, and not to be cited as an example of pure English: our idiom would seem to require, "Before Abraham _was_, I _existed_." In animated narrative, however, the present tense is often subst.i.tuted for the past, by the figure _enallage_. In such cases, past tenses and present may occur together; because the latter are used merely to bring past events more vividly before us: as, "Ulysses _wakes_, not knowing where he _was_."--_Pope_. "The dictator _flies_ forward to the cavalry, beseeching them to dismount from their horses. They _obeyed_; they _dismount, rush_ onward, and for vancouriers _show_ their bucklers."--_Livy_. On this principle, perhaps, the following couplet, which Murray condemns as bad English, may be justified:--

"Him portion'd maids, apprentic'd orphans blest, The young who _labour_, and the old who _rest_."

See _Murray's Key_, R. 13.

OBS. 6.--The present tense of the subjunctive mood, and that of the indicative when preceded by _as soon as, after, before, till_, or _when_, is generally used with reference to future time; as, "If he _ask_ a fish, will he give him a serpent?"--_Matt._, vii, 10. "If I _will_ that he _tarry_ till I _come_, what is that to thee? Follow thou me."--_John_, xxi, 22. "When he _arrives_, I will send for you." The imperative mood has but one tense, and that is always present with regard to the giving of the command; though what is commanded, must be done in the future, if done at all. So the subjunctive may convey a present supposition of what the will of an other may make uncertain: as, "If thou _count_ me therefore a partner, _receive_ him as myself."--_St. Paul to Philemon_, 17. The perfect indicative, like the present, is sometimes used with reference to time that is relatively future; as, "He will be fatigued before he _has walked_ a mile."--"My lips shall utter praise, when thou _hast taught_ me thy statutes."--_Psalms_, cxix, 171. "Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that _are_ in the graves, shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that _have done_ good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that _have done_ evil, unto the resurrection of d.a.m.nation."--_John_, v, 28.

OBS. 7.--What is called the _present_ infinitive, can scarcely be said to express any particular time.[234] It is usually dependent on an other verb, and therefore relative in time. It may be connected with any tense of any mood: as, "I _intend to do_ it; I _intended to do_ it; I _have intended to do_ it; I _had intended to do_ it;" &c. For want of a better mode of expression, we often use the infinitive to denote futurity, especially when it seems to be taken adjectively; as, "The time _to come_,"--"The world _to come_,"--"Rapture yet _to be_." This, sometimes with the awkward addition of _about_, is the only subst.i.tute we have for the Latin future participle in _rus_, as _venturus, to come_, or _about to come_. This phraseology, according to Horne Tooke, (see _Diversions of Purley_, Vol. ii, p. 457,) is no fitter than that of our ancestors, who for this purpose used the same preposition, but put the participle in _ing_ after it, in lieu of the radical verb, which we choose to employ: as, "Generacions of eddris, who shewide to you to fle fro wraththe _to comynge?_"--_Matt._, iii, 7. Common Version: "O generation of vipers! who hath warned you to flee from the wrath _to come_?" "Art thou that art _to comynge_, ether abiden we another?"--_Matt._, xi, 3. Common Version: "Art thou he that _should come_, or do we look for another?" "Sotheli there the s.h.i.+p was _to puttyng out_ the charge."--_Dedis_, xxi, 3. Common Version: "For there the s.h.i.+p was _to unlade_ her burden."--_Acts_, xxi, 3. Churchill, after changing the names of the two infinitive tenses to "_Future imperfect_" and "_Future perfect_," adds the following note: "The tenses of the infinitive mood are usually termed _present_ and _preterperfect_: but this is certainly improper; for they are so completely future, that what is called the present tense of the infinitive mood is often employed simply to express futurity; as, 'The life _to come_.'"--_New Gram._, p. 249.

OBS. 8.--The pluperfect tense, when used conditionally, in stead of expressing what actually _had taken place_ at a past time, almost always implies that the action thus supposed _never was performed_; on the contrary, if the supposition be made in a _negative form_, it suggests that the event _had occurred_: as, "Lord, if thou _hadst been here_, my brother _had not died_."--_John_, xi, 32. "If I _had not come_ and spoken unto them, they _had not had_ sin; but now they have no cloak for their sin."--_John_, xv, 22. "If thou _hadst known_, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! But now they are hid from thine eyes."--_Luke_, xix, 42. The supposition is sometimes indicated by a mere transposition of the verb and its subject; in which case, the conjunction _if_ is omitted; as, "_Had ye believed_ Moses, ye would have believed me."--_John_, v, 46.

"_Had I but fought_ as wont, one thrust _Had laid_ De Wilton in the dust."--_Scott_

OBS. 9.--In the language of prophecy we find the past tenses very often subst.i.tuted for the future, especially when the prediction is remarkably clear and specific. Man is a creature of present knowledge only; but it is certain, that He who sees the end from the beginning, has sometimes revealed to him, and by him, things deep in futurity. Thus the sacred seer who is esteemed the most eloquent of the ancient prophets, more than _seven hundred years_ before the events occurred, spoke of the vicarious sufferings of Christ as of things already past, and even then described them in the phraseology of historical facts: "Surely he _hath borne_ our griefs, _and carried_ our sorrows: yet we _did esteem_ him stricken, smitten of G.o.d, and afflicted. But he _was wounded_ for our transgressions; he _was bruised_ for our iniquities: the chastis.e.m.e.nt of our peace _was_ upon him; and by his stripes we are healed."--_Isaiah_, liii, 4 and 5.

Multiplied instances of a similar application of the past tenses to future events, occur in the Bible, especially in the writings of this prophet.

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 dest.i.tute 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 fas.h.i.+onable subst.i.tution 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.[235]

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 p.r.o.nouns, 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, princ.i.p.ally 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 p.r.o.noun _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 p.r.o.noun, 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 ill.u.s.tration, 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 cla.s.s, 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 p.r.o.noun.[236] 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 p.r.o.noun being used in that form.[237] This practice, which confounds one of the most important distinctions of the language, affords a striking instance of the power of fas.h.i.+on. 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 fas.h.i.+onable in speech, the mere disciples of fas.h.i.+on 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 fas.h.i.+onable youyouing, must needs be poor judges of what belongs to their own justification, either as grammarians or as moral agents. A fas.h.i.+on 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 fas.h.i.+on 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 fas.h.i.+onable French, and printed at Paris, and also at New York, with the form of address everywhere plural; as, "Jesus antic.i.p.ated 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 p.r.o.noun in place of the singular; and, in the familiarity of friends.h.i.+p, 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 G.o.d, than a heathen poet; and whether the plural language here used, does not lack the reverence of the original, which is singular:--