n 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 wr