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 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