OBS. 41.—­Ho man deserves more praise for his attention to English pronunciation, than John Walker.  His Pronouncing Dictionary was, for a long period, the best standard of orthoepy, that our schools possessed.  But he seems to me to have missed a figure, in preferring such words as quick’nest, strength’nest, to the smoother and more regular forms, quickenst, strengthenst.  It is true that these are rough words, in any form you can give them; but let us remember, that needless apostrophes are as rough to the eye, as needless st’s to the ear.  Our common grammarians are disposed to encumber the language with as many of both as they can find any excuse for, and vastly more than can be sustained by any good argument.  In words that are well understood to be contracted in pronunciation, the apostrophe is now less frequently used than it was formerly.  Walker says, “This contraction of the participial ed, and the verbal en, is so fixed an idiom of our pronunciation, that to alter it, would be to alter the sound of the whole language.  It must, however, be regretted that it subjects our tongue to some of the most hissing, snapping, clashing, grinding sounds that ever grated the ears of a Vandal; thus, rasped, scratched, wrenched, bridled, fangled, birchen, hardened, strengthened, quickened, &c. almost frighten us when written as they are actually pronounced, as rapt, scratcht, wrencht, bridl’d, fangl’d, birch’n, strength’n’d, quick’n’d, &c.; they become still more formidable when used contractedly in the solemn style, which never ought to be the case; for here instead of thou strength’n’st or strength’n’d’st, thou quick’n’st or quick’n’d’st, we ought to pronounce thou strength’nest or strength’nedst, thou quick’nest or quick’nedst, which are sufficiently harsh of all conscience.”—­Principles, No. 359.  Here are too many apostrophes; for it does not appear that such words as strengthenedest and quickenedest ever existed, except in the imagination of certain grammarians.  In solemn prose one may write, thou quickenest, thou strengthenest, or thou quickenedst, thou strengthenedst; but, in the familiar style, or in poetry, it is better to write, thou quickenst, thou strengthenst, thou quickened, thou strengthened.  This is language which it is possible to utter; and it is foolish to strangle ourselves with strings of rough consonants, merely because they are insisted on by some superficial grammarians.  Is it not strange, is it not incredible, that the same hand should have written the two following lines, in the same sentence?  Surely, the printer has been at fault.

   “With noiseless foot, thou walkedst the vales of earth”—­
    “Most honourable thou appeared, and most
    To be desired.”—­Pollok’s Course of Time, B. ix, l. 18, and l. 24.

OBS. 42.—­It was once a very common practice, to retain the final y, in contractions of the preterit or of the second person of most verbs that end in y, and to add the consonant terminations d, st, and dst, with an apostrophe before each; as, try’d for tried, reply’d for replied, try’st for triest, try’dst for triedst.  Thus Milton:—­