[241] Dr. Latham, who, oftener perhaps than any other modern writer, corrupts the grammar of our language by efforts to revive in it things really and deservedly obsolete, most strangely avers that “The words thou and thee are, except in the mouths of Quakers, obsolete.  The plural forms, ye and you, have replaced them.”—­Hand-Book, p. 284.  Ignoring also any current or “vital” process of forming English verbs in the second person singular, he gravely tells us that the old form, as “callest” (which is still the true form for the solemn style,) “is becoming obsolete.”—­Ib., p. 210.  “In phrases like you are speaking, &c.,” says he rightlier, “even when applied to a single individual, the idea is really plural; in other words, the courtesy consists in treating one person as more than one, and addressing him as such, rather than in using a plural form in a singular sense.  It is certain that, grammatically considered, you=thou is a plural, since the verb with which it agrees is plural.”—­Ib., p. 163.  If these things be so, the English Language owes much to the scrupulous conservatism of the Quakers; for, had their courtesy consented to the grammar of the fashionables, the singular number would now have had but two persons!

[242] For the substitution of you for thou, our grammarians assign various causes.  That which is most commonly given in modern books, is certainly not the original one, because it concerns no other language than ours:  “In order to avoid the unpleasant formality which accompanies 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,