duct, 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.[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 pronoun 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
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;