FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   2418   2419   2420   2421   2422   2423   2424   2425   2426   2427   2428   2429   2430   2431   2432   2433   2434   2435   2436   2437   2438   2439   2440   2441   2442  
2443   2444   2445   2446   2447   2448   2449   2450   2451   2452   2453   2454   2455   2456   2457   2458   2459   2460   2461   2462   2463   2464   2465   2466   2467   >>   >|  
the use of _thou_ with a correspondent verb, its plural _you_, is usually adopted to familiar conversation; as, Charles, _will you_ walk? instead of--_wilt thou_ walk? _You read_ too fast, instead of--_thou readest_ too fast."--_Jaudon's Gram._, p. 33. [243] This position, as may be seen above, I do not suppose it competent for any critic to maintain. The use of _you_ for _thou_ is no more "contrary to grammar," than the use of _we_ for _I_; which, it seems, is grammatical enough for all editors, compilers, and crowned heads, if not for others. But both are _figures of syntax_; and, as such, they stand upon the same footing. Their only contrariety to grammar consists in this, that the words are not the _literal representatives_ of the number for which they are put. But in what a posture does the grammarian place himself, who condemns, as _bad English_, that phraseology which he constantly and purposely uses? The author of the following remark, as well as all who have praised his work, ought immediately to adopt the style of the Friends, or Quakers: "The word _thou_, in grammatical construction, is preferable to _you_, in the second person singular: however, custom has familiarized the latter, and consequently made it more general, though BAD GRAMMAR. To say, '_You are a man_.' is NOT GRAMMATICAL LANGUAGE; the word _you_ having reference to _a plural noun only_. It should be, '_Thou art a man_.'"--_Wright's Philosoph. Gram._, p. 55. This author, like Lindley Murray and many others, continually calls _himself_ WE; and it is probable, that neither he, nor any one of his sixty reverend commenders, _dares address_ any man otherwise than by the above-mentioned "BAD GRAMMAR!" [244] "We are always given to cut our words short; and, _with very few exceptions_, you find people writing _lov'd, mov'd, walk'd_; instead of _loved, moved, walked._ They wish to make the _pen_ correspond with the _tongue._ From _lov'd, mov'd, walk'd_, it is very easy to slide into _lovt, movt, walkt._ And this has been the case with regard to _curst, dealt, dwelt, leapt, helpt_, and many others in the last inserted list. It is just as proper to say _jumpt_, as it is to say _leapt_; and just as proper to say _walkt_ as either; and thus we might go on till the orthography of the whole language were changed. When the love of contraction came to operate on such verbs as _to burst_ and _to light_, it found such a clump of consonants already at the end of t
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   2418   2419   2420   2421   2422   2423   2424   2425   2426   2427   2428   2429   2430   2431   2432   2433   2434   2435   2436   2437   2438   2439   2440   2441   2442  
2443   2444   2445   2446   2447   2448   2449   2450   2451   2452   2453   2454   2455   2456   2457   2458   2459   2460   2461   2462   2463   2464   2465   2466   2467   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

grammatical

 

GRAMMAR

 

proper

 

author

 

grammar

 
plural
 

people

 

Charles

 

exceptions

 

writing


conversation

 

adopted

 
correspond
 

tongue

 
walked
 

familiar

 

reverend

 
probable
 
continually
 

commenders


address

 

mentioned

 

contraction

 

changed

 

orthography

 

language

 
operate
 
consonants
 

correspondent

 

regard


Murray

 

inserted

 

number

 

posture

 
representatives
 

literal

 

consists

 
position
 

grammarian

 

phraseology


constantly

 

purposely

 
English
 

condemns

 

contrariety

 

compilers

 

competent

 

crowned

 

editors

 

critic