1.  Cooper, improperly referring all inflection of the verb to the grave or solemn style, says:  “In the colloquial or familiar style, we observe no change.  The same is the case in the plural number.”  He then proceeds thus:  “In the second person of the present of the indicative, in the solemn style, the verb takes st or est; and in the third person th or eth, as:  thou hast, thou lovest, thou teachest; he hath, he loveth, he goeth.  In the colloquial or familiar style, the verb does not vary in the second person; and in the third person, it ends in s or es, as:  he loves, he teaches, he does.  The indefinite, [i. e. the preterit,] in the second person singular of the indicative, in the grave style, ends in est, as:  thou taughtest, thou wentest. [Fist] But, in those verbs, where the sound of st will unite with the last syllable of the verb, the vowel is omitted, as:  thou lovedst, thou heardst, thou didst.”—­Cooper’s Murray, p. 60; Plain and Practical Gram., p. 59.  This, the reader will see, is somewhat contradictory; for the colloquial style varies the verb by “s or es,” and taught’st may be uttered without the e.  As for “lovedst,” I deny that any vowel “is omitted” from it; but possibly one may be, as lov’dst.

2.  Wells’s account of the same thing is this:  “In the simple form of the present and past indicative, the second person singular of the solemn style ends regularly in st or est, as, thou seest, thou hearest, thou sawest, thou heardest; and the third person singular of the present, in s or es, as, he hears, he wishes, and also in th or eth, as, he saith, he loveth.  In the simple form of the present indicative, the third person singular of the common or familiar style, ends in s or es; as, he sleeps; he rises.  The first person singular of the solemn style, and the first and second persons singular of the common style, have the same form as the three persons plural.”—­Wells’s School Grammar, 1st Ed. p. 83; 3d Ed. p. 86.  This, too, is both defective and inconsistent.  It does not tell when to add est, and when, st only.  It does not show what the regular preterit, as freed or loved, should make with thou:  whether freedest and lovedest, by assuming the syllable est; fre-edst and lov-edst, by increasing syllabically from assuming st only; or freedst and lov’dst, or lovedst, still to be uttered as monosyllables.  It absurdly makes “s or es” a sign of two opposite styles. (See OBS. 9th, above.) And it does not except “I am, I was, If I am, If I was, If thou art, I am loved,” and so forth, from requiring “the same form, [are or were,] as the three persons plural.”  This author prefers “heardest;” the other, “heardst,” which I think better warranted: