The Grammar of English Grammars by Goold Brown (free ebook reader .txt) 📕

ed is sounded like t, "admit the change of ed into t; as, snacht, checkt, snapt, mixt, dropping also one of the double letters, dwelt, past."—Lowth's Gram., p. 46. If this principle were generally adopted, the number of our regular verbs would be greatly diminished, and irregularities would be indefinitely increased. What confusion the practice must make in the language, especially when we come to inflect this part of the verb with st or est, has already been suggested. Yet an ingenious and learned writer, an able contributor to the Philological Museum, published at Cambridge, England, in 1832; tracing the history of this class of derivatives, and finding that after the ed was contracted in pronunciation, several eminent writers, as Spenser, Milton, and others, adopted in most instances a contracted form of orthography; has seriously endeavoured to bring us back to their practice. From these authors, he cites an abundance of such contractions as the following: 1. "Stowd, hewd, subdewd, joyd, cald, expeld, compeld, spoild, kild, seemd, benumbd, armd, redeemd, staind, shund, paynd, stird, appeard, perceivd, resolvd, obeyd, equald, foyld, hurld, ruind, joynd, scatterd, witherd," and others ending in d. 2. "Clapt, whipt, worshipt, lopt, stopt, stampt, pickt, knockt, linkt, puft, stuft, hist, kist, abasht, brusht, astonisht, vanquisht, confest, talkt, twicht," and many others ending in t. This scheme divides our regular verbs into three classes; leaving but very few of them to be written as they now are. It proceeds upon the principle of accommodating our orthography to the familiar, rather than to the solemn pronunciation of the language. "This," as Dr. Johnson observes, "is to measure by a shadow." It is, whatever show of learning or authority may support it, a pernicious innovation. The critic says, "I have not ventured to follow the example of Spenser and Milton throughout, but have merely attempted to revive the old form of the preterit in t."—Phil. Museum, Vol. i, p. 663. "We ought not however to stop here," he thinks; and suggests that it would be no small improvement, "to write leveld for levelled, enameld for enamelled, reformd for reformed," &c.

OBS. 20.—If the multiplication of irregular preterits, as above described, is a grammatical error of great magnitude; the forcing of our old and well-known irregular verbs into regular forms that are seldom if ever used, is an opposite error nearly as great. And, in either case, there is the same embarrassment respecting the formation of the second person. Thus Cobbett, in his English Grammar in a Series of Letters, has dogmatically given us a list of seventy verbs, which, he says, are, "by some persons, erroneously deemed irregular;" and has included in it the words, blow, build, cast, cling, creep, freeze, draw, throw, and the like, to the number of sixty; so that he is really right in no more than one seventh part of his catalogue. And, what is more strange, for several of the irregularities which he censures, his own authority may be quoted from the early editions of this very book: as, "For you could have thrown about seeds."—Edition of 1818, p. 13. "For you could have throwed about seeds."—Edition of 1832, p. 13. "A tree is blown down."—Ed. of 1818, p. 27. "A tree is blowed down."—Ed. of 1832, p. 25. "It froze hard last night. Now, what was it that froze so hard?"—Ed. of 1818, p. 38. "It freezed hard last night. Now, what was it that freezed so hard?"—Ed. of 1832, p. 35. A whole page of such contradictions may be quoted from this one grammarian, showing that he did not know what form of the preterit he ought to prefer. From such an instructor, who can find out what is good English, and what is not? Respecting the inflections of the verb, this author says, "There are three persons; but, our verbs have no variation in their spelling, except for the third person singular."—Cobbett's E. Gram., ¶ 88. Again: "Observe, however, that, in our language, there is no very great use in this distinction of modes; because, for the most part, our little signs do the business, and they never vary in the letters of which they are composed."—Ib., ¶ 95. One would suppose, from these remarks, that Cobbett meant to dismiss the pronoun thou entirely from his conjugations. Not so at all. In direct contradiction to himself, he proceeds to inflect the verb as follows: "I work, Thou workest, He works; &c. I worked, Thou workedst, He worked; &c. I shall or will work, Thou shalt or wilt work, He shall or will work;" &c.—Ib., ¶ 98. All the compound tenses, except the future, he rejects, as things which "can only serve to fill up a book."

OBS. 21.—It is a common but erroneous opinion of our grammarians, that the unsyllabic suffix st, wherever found, is a modern contraction of the syllable est. No writer, however, thinks it always necessary to remind his readers of this, by inserting the sign of contraction; though English books are not a little disfigured by questionable apostrophes inserted for no other reason. Dr. Lowth says, "The nature of our language, the accent and pronunciation of it, inclines [incline] us to contract even all our regular verbs: thus loved, turned, are commonly pronounced in one syllable lov'd, turn'd: and the second person, which was originally in three syllables, lovedest, turnedest, is [say has] now become a dissyllable, lovedst, turnedst."—Lowth's Gram., p. 45; Hiley's, 45; Churchill's, 104. See also Priestley's Gram., p. 114; and Coar's, p. 102. This latter doctrine, with all its vouchers, still needs confirmation. What is it but an idle conjecture? If it were true, a few quotations might easily prove it; but when, and by whom, have any such words as lovedest, turnedest, ever been used? For aught I see, the simple st is as complete and as old a termination for the second person singular of an English verb, as est; indeed, it appears to be older: and, for the preterit, it is, and (I believe) always has been, the most regular, if not the only regular, addition. If sufferedest, woundedest, and killedest, are words more regular than sufferedst, woundedst, killedst, then are heardest, knewest, slewest, sawest, rannest, metest, swammest, and the like, more regular than heardst, knewst, slewst, sawst, ranst, metst, swamst, satst, saidst, ledst, fledst, toldst, and so forth; but not otherwise.[246] So, in the solemn style, we write seemest, deemest, swimmest, like seemeth, deemeth, swimmeth, and so forth; but, when we use the form which has no increase of syllables, why is an apostrophe more necessary in the second person, than in the third?—in seemst, deemst, swimst, than in seems, deems, swims? When final e is dropped from the verb, the case is different; as,

   "Thou cutst my head off with a golden axe,
    And smil'st upon the stroke that murders me."—Shakspeare.

OBS. 22.—Dr. Lowth supposes the verbal termination s or es to have come from a contraction of eth. He says, "Sometimes, by the rapidity of our pronunciation, the vowels are shortened or lost; and the consonants, which are thrown together, do not coalesce with one another, and are therefore changed into others of the same organ, or of a kindred species. This occasions a farther deviation from the regular form: thus, loveth, turneth, are contracted into lov'th, turn'th, and these, for easier pronunciation, immediately become loves, turns."—Lowth's Gram., p. 46; Hiley's, 45. This etymology may possibly be just, but certainly such contractions as are here spoken of, were not very common in Lowth's age, or even in that of Ben Jonson, who resisted the s. Nor is the sound of sharp th very obviously akin to flat s. The change would have been less violent, if lov'st and turnst had become loves and turns; as some people nowadays are apt to change them, though doubtless this is a grammatical error: as,

   "And wheresoe'er thou casts thy view."
        —Cowley.

    "Nor thou that flings me floundering from thy back."
        —Bat. of Frogs and Mice, 1,123.

    "Thou sitt'st on high, and measures destinies."
        —Pollok, Course of Time, B. vi, 1, 668.

OBS. 23.—Possibly, those personal terminations of the verb which do not form syllables, are mere contractions or relics of est and eth, which are syllables; but it is perhaps not quite so easy to prove them so, as some authors imagine. In the oldest specimens given by Dr. Johnson in his History of the English Language,—specimens bearing a much earlier date than the English language can claim,—even in what he calls "Saxon in its highest state of purity," both st and th are often added to verbs, without forming additional syllables, and without any sign of contraction. Nor were verbs of the second person singular always inflected of old, in those parts to which est was afterwards very commonly added. Examples: "Buton ic wat 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[247] these things shall be performed, because thou believest not my words, which shall be fulfilled in their season."—Luke, i, 20.

   "In chaungyng of her course, the chaunge shewth this,
    Vp startth a knaue, and downe there falth a knight."
        —Sir Thomas More.

OBS. 24.—The corollary towards which the foregoing observations are directed, is this. As most of the peculiar terminations by which the second person singular is properly distinguished in the solemn style, are not only difficult of utterance, but are quaint and formal in conversation; the preterits and auxiliaries of our verbs are seldom varied in familiar discourse, and the present is generally simplified by contraction, or by the adding of st without increase of syllables. A distinction between the solemn and the familiar style has long been admitted, in the pronunciation of the termination ed, and in the ending of the verb in the third person singular; and it is evidently according to good taste and the best usage, to admit such a distinction in the second person singular. In the familiar use of the second person singular, the verb is usually varied only in the present tense of the indicative mood, and in the auxiliary hast of the perfect. This method of varying the verb renders the second person singular analogous to the third, and accords with the practice of the most intelligent of those who retain the common use of this distinctive and consistent mode of address. It disencumbers their familiar dialect of a multitude of harsh and useless terminations, which serve only, when uttered, to give an uncouth prominency to words not often emphatic; and, without impairing the strength or perspicuity of the language, increases its harmony, and reduces the form of the verb in the second person singular nearly to the same simplicity as in the other persons and numbers. It may serve also, in some instances, to justify the poets, in those abbreviations for which they have been so unreasonably censured by Lowth, Murray, and some other grammarians: as,

   "And thou their natures knowst, and gave them names,
    Needless to thee repeated."—Milton, P. L., Book vii, line 494.

OBS. 25.—The writings of the Friends, being mostly of a grave cast, afford but few examples of their customary manner of forming the verb in connexion with the pronoun thou, in familiar discourse. The following may serve to illustrate it: "Suitable to the office thou layst claim to."—R. BARCLAY'S Works, Vol. i, p. 27. "Notwithstanding thou may have sentiments opposite to mine."—THOMAS STORY. "To devote all thou had to his service;"—"If thou should come;"—"What thou said;"—"Thou kindly contributed;"—"The epistle which thou sent me;"—"Thou would perhaps allow;"—"If thou submitted;"—"Since thou left;"—"Should thou act;"—"Thou may be ready;"—"That thou had met;"—"That thou had intimated;"—"Before thou puts" [putst];—"What thou meets" [meetst];—"If thou had made;"—"I observed thou was;"—"That thou might put thy trust;"—"Thou had been at my house."—JOHN KENDALL. "Thou may be plundered;"—"That thou may feel;"—"Though thou waited long, and sought him;"—"I hope thou will bear my style;"—"Thou also knows" [knowst];—"Thou grew up;"—"I wish thou would yet take my counsel."—STEPHEN CRISP. "Thou manifested thy tender regard, stretched forth thy delivering hand, and fed and sustained us."—SAMUEL FOTHERGILL. The writer has met