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,