Would, should, could.—It must not be imagined that could is in the same predicament with these words. In will and shall the -l is part of the original word. This is not the case with can. For the form could, see § 331.
§ 315. Aught.—In Anglo-Saxon áhte, the præterite of the present form áh, plural ágon.—As late as the time of Elizabeth we find owe used for own. The present form own seems to have arisen from the plural ágon. Aught is the præterite of the Anglo-Saxon áh; owed of the English owe = debeo; owned of the English own = possideo. The word own, in the expression to own to a thing, has a totally different origin. It comes from the Anglo-Saxon an (plural, unnon) = I give, or grant = concedo.
§ 316. Durst.—The verb dare is both transitive and intransitive. We can say either I dare do such a thing, or I dare (challenge) such a man to do it. This, in the present tense, is unequivocally correct. In the past the double power of the word dare is ambiguous; still it is, to my mind at least, allowable. We can certainly say I dared him to accept my challenge; and we can, perhaps, say I dared venture on the expedition. In this last sentence, however, durst is the preferable expression.
Now, although dare is both transitive and intransitive, durst is only intransitive. It never agrees with the Latin word provoco; only with the Latin word audeo. Moreover, the word durst has both a present and a past sense. The difficulty which it presents consists in the presence of the -st, letters characteristic of the second person singular, but here found in all the persons alike; as I durst, they durst, &c.
This has still to be satisfactorily accounted for.
Must.—A form common to all persons, numbers, and tenses. That neither the -s nor the -t are part of the original root, is indicated by the Scandinavian form maae (Danish), pronounced moh; præterite maatt.
This form has still to be satisfactorily accounted for.
Wist.—In its present form a regular præterite from wiss = know. The difficulties of this word arise from the parallel forms wit (as in to wit), and wot = knew. The following are the forms of this peculiar word:—
In Mœso-Gothic, 1 sing. pres. ind. váit; 2. do., váist; 1 pl. vitum; præterite 1 s. vissa; 2 vissêss; 1 pl. vissêdum. From the form váist we see that the second singular is formed after the manner of must; that is, váist stands instead of váit-t. From the form vissêdum we see that the præterite is not strong, but weak; therefore that vissa is euphonic for vista.
In Anglo-Saxon.—Wât, wást, witon, wiste, and wisse, wiston.—Hence the double forms, wiste, and wisse, verify the statement concerning the Mœso-Gothic vissa.
In Icelandic.—Veit, veizt, vitum, vissi. Danish ved, vide, vidste. Observe the form vidste; since, in it, the d of the root (in spelling, at least) is preserved. The t of the Anglo-Saxon wiste is the t, not of the root, but of the inflection.
In respect to the four forms in question, viz., wit, wot, wiss, wisst, the first seems to be the root; the second a strong præterite regularly formed, but used (like οἶδα in Greek) with a present sense; the third a weak præterite, of which the -t has been ejected by a euphonic process, used also with a present sense; the fourth is a second singular from wiss after the manner of wert from were, a second singular from wit after the manner of must, a secondary præterite from wiss, or finally, the form wisse, anterior to the operation of the euphonic process that ejected the -t.
§ 317. In the phrase this will do = this will answer the purpose, the word do is wholly different from the word do, meaning to act. In the first case it is equivalent to the Latin valere; in the second to the Latin facere. Of the first the Anglo-Saxon inflection is deáh, dugon, dohte, dohtest, &c. Of the second it is dó, doð, dyde, &c. I doubt whether the præterite did, as equivalent to valebat = was good for, is correct. In the phrase it did for him = it finished him, either meaning may be allowed.
In the present Danish they write duger, but say duer: as duger et noget? = Is it worth anything? pronounced dooer deh note? This accounts for the ejection of the g. The Anglo-Saxon form deáh does the same.
§ 318. Mind—mind and do so and so.—In this sentence the word mind is wholly different from the noun mind. The Anglo-Saxon forms are geman, gemanst, gemunon, without the -d; this letter occurring only in the præterite tense (gemunde, gemundon), of which it is the sign. Mind is, then, a præterite form with a present sense; whilst minded (as in he minded his business) is an instance of excess of inflection; in other words, it is a præterite formed from a præterite.
§ 319. Yode.—The obsolete præterite of go, now replaced by went, the præterite of wend. Regular, except that the initial g has become y.
Did, from do = facio, is a strong verb. This we infer from the form of its participle done.
If so the final -d is not the same as the -d in moved. What is it? There are good grounds for believing that in the word did we have a single instance of the old reduplicate præterite. If so, it is the latter d which is radical, and the former which is inflectional.
ON CONJUGATION.
§ 321. Attention is directed to the following list of verbs. In the present English they all form the præterite in -d or -t; in Anglo-Saxon, they all formed it by a change of the vowel. In other words they are weak verbs that were once strong.
§ 322. Respecting the strong verb, the following general statements may be made:
1. Many strong verbs become weak; whilst no weak verb ever becomes strong.
2. All the strong verbs are of Saxon origin. None are classical.
3. The greater number of them are strong throughout the Gothic tongues.
4. No new word is ever, upon its importation, inflected according to the strong conjugation. It is always weak. As early as A.D. 1085, the French word adouber = to dub, was introduced into English. Its præterite was dubbade.
5. All derived words are inflected weak. The intransitive forms drink and lie, are strong; the transitive forms drench and lay, are weak.
This shows that the division of verbs into weak and strong is a truly natural one.
DEFECTIVENESS AND IRREGULARITY.
§ 323. The distinction between irregularity and defectiveness has been foreshadowed. It is now more urgently insisted on.
The words that have hitherto served as illustrations are the personal pronouns I or me, the adjectives good, better, and best.
The view of these words was as follows; viz., that none of them were irregular, but that they were all defective. Me wanted the nominative, I the oblique cases. Good was without a comparative, better and best had no positive degree.
Now me and better may be said to make good the defectiveness of I and good; and I and good may be said to replace the forms wanting in me and better. This gives us the principle of compensation. To introduce a new term, I and me, good and better, may be said to be complementary to each other.
What applies to nouns applies to verbs also. Go and went are not irregularities. Go is defective in the past tense. Went is without a present. The two words, however, compensate their mutual deficiencies, and are complementary to each other.
The distinction between defectiveness and irregularity, is the first instrument of criticism for coming to true views concerning the proportion of the regular and irregular verbs.
§ 324. The second instrument of criticism in determining the irregular verbs, is the meaning that we attach to the term.
It is very evident that it is in the power of the grammarian to raise the number of etymological irregularities to any amount, by narrowing the definition of the word irregular; in other words, by framing an exclusive rule. The current rule of the common grammarians is that the præterite is formed by the addition of -t, or -d, or -ed; a position sufficiently exclusive; since it proscribes not only the whole class of strong verbs, but also words like bent and sent, where -t exists, but where it does not exist as an addition. The regular forms, it may be said, should be bended and sended.
Exclusive, however, as the rule in question is, it is plain that it might be made more so. The regular forms might, by the fiat of a rule, be restricted to those in -d. In this case words like wept and burnt would be added to the already numerous list of irregulars.
Finally, a further limitation might be made, by laying down as a rule that no word was regular, unless it ended in -ed.
§ 325. Thus much concerning the modes of making rules exclusive, and, consequently, of raising the amount of irregularities. This is the last art that the philosophic grammarian is ambitious of acquiring. True etymology reduces irregularity; and that by making the rules of grammar, not exclusive, but general. The quantum of irregularity is in the inverse proportion to the generality of our rules. In language itself there is no irregularity. The word itself is only another name for our ignorance of the processes that change words; and, as irregularity is in the direct proportion to the exclusiveness of our rules, the exclusiveness of our rules is in the direct proportion to our ignorance of etymological processes.
§ 326. The explanation of some fresh terms will lead us towards the definition of the word irregular.
Vital and obsolete processes.—The word moved is formed from move, by the addition of -d. The addition of -d is the process by which the present form is rendered præterite. The word fell is formed from fall, by changing a into e. The change of vowel is the process by which the present form is rendered præterite. Of the two processes the result is the same. In what respect do they differ?
For the sake of illustration, let a new word be introduced into the language. Let a præterite tense of it be formed. This præterite would be formed, not by changing the vowel, but by adding -d. No new verb ever takes a strong præterite. The like takes place with nouns. No new substantive would form its plural, like oxen or geese, by adding -en, or by changing the vowel. It would rather, like fathers and horses, add the lene sibilant.
Now, the processes that change fall, ox and goose into fell, oxen, and geese, inasmuch as they cease to operate on the language in its present stage, are obsolete processes; whilst those that change move into moved, and horse into horses, operating on the language in its present stage, are vital processes.
A definition of the word irregular might be so framed as to include all words whose forms could not be accounted for by the vital processes. Such a definition would make all the strong verbs irregular.
The very fact of so natural a class as that of the strong verbs being reduced to the condition of irregulars, invalidates such a definition as this.
§ 327. Processes of necessity as opposed to processes of habit.—The combinations -pd, -fd, -kd, -sd, and some others, are unpronounceable. Hence words like step, quaff, back, kiss, &c., take after them the sound of -t; stept, quafft, &c., being their præterites, instead of stepd, quaffd. Here the change from -d to -t is a matter of necessity. It is not so with words like weep, and wept, &c. Here the change of vowel is not necessary. Weept might have been said if the habit of the language had permitted.
A definition of the word irregular might be so framed as to include all words whose natural form was modified by any euphonic process whatever. In this case stept (modified by a process of necessity), and wept (modified by a process of habit), would be equally irregular.
A less limited definition might account words regular as long as the process by which they are deflected from their natural form was a process of necessity. Those, however, which were modified by a process of habit it would class with the irregulars.
Definitions thus limited arise from ignorance of euphonic processes, or rather from an ignorance of the generality of their operation.
§ 328. Ordinary processes as opposed to extraordinary processes.—The whole scheme of language is analogical. A new word introduced into a language takes the forms of its cases or tenses, &c., from the forms of the cases or tenses, &c., of the old words. The analogy is extended. Now few forms (if any) are so unique as not to have some others corresponding with them; and few processes of change are so unique as not to affect more words than one. The forms wept, and slept, correspond with each other. They are brought about by the same process: viz., by the shortening of the vowel in weep and sleep. The analogy of weep is extended to sleep, and vice versâ. Changing our expression, a common influence affects both words. The alteration itself is the leading fact. The extent of its influence is an instrument of classification. When processes affect a considerable number of words, they may be called ordinary processes; as opposed to extraordinary processes, which affect one or few words.
When a word stands by itself, with no other corresponding to it, we confess our ignorance, and say that it is affected by an extraordinary process, by a process peculiar to itself, or by a process to which we know nothing similar.
A definition of the word irregular might be so framed as to include all words affected by extraordinary processes; the rest being considered regular.
§ 329. Positive processes as opposed to ambiguous processes.—The words wept and slept are similarly affected. Each is changed from weep and sleep respectively; and we know that the process which affects the one is the process that affects the other also. Here there is a positive process.
Reference is now made to words of a different sort. The nature of the word worse has been explained in the Chapter on the Comparative Degree. There the form is accounted for in two ways, of which only one can be the true one. Of the two processes, each might equally have brought about the present form. Which of the two it was, we are unable to say. Here the process is ambiguous.
A definition of the word irregular might be so framed as to include all words affected by ambiguous processes.
§ 330. Normal processes as opposed to processes of confusion.—Let a certain word come under class A. Let all words under class A be similarly affected. Let a given word come under class A. This word will be affected even as the rest of class A is affected. The process affecting, and the change resulting, will be normal, regular, or analogical.
Let, however, a word, instead of really coming under class A, only appear to do so. Let it be dealt with accordingly. The analogy then is a false one. The principle of imitation is a wrong one. The process affecting is a process of confusion.
Examples of this (a few amongst many) are words like songstress, theirs, minded, where the words songstr-, their-, mind-, are dealt with as roots, which they are not.
Ambiguous processes, extraordinary processes, processes of confusion—each, or all of these, are legitimate reasons for calling words irregular. The practice of etymologists will determine what definition is most convenient.
With extraordinary processes we know nothing about the word. With ambiguous processes we are unable to make a choice. With processes of confusion we see the analogy, but, at the same time, see that it is a false one.
§ 331. Could.—With all persons who pronounce the l this word is truly irregular. The Anglo-Saxon form is cuðe. The l is inserted by a process of confusion.
Can, cunne, canst, cunnon, cunnan, cuðe, cuðon, cuð—such are the remaining forms in Anglo-Saxon. None of them account for the l. The presence of the l makes the word could irregular. No reference to the allied languages accounts for it.
Notwithstanding this, the presence of the l is accounted for. In would and should the l has a proper place. It is part of the original words, will and shall. A false analogy looked upon could in the same light. Hence a true irregularity; provided that the L be pronounced.
The L, however, is pronounced by few, and that only in pursuance with the spelling. This reduces the word could to an irregularity, not of language, but only of orthography.
That the mere ejection of the -n in can, and that the mere lengthening of the vowel, are not irregularities, we learn from a knowledge of the processes that convert the Greek ὀδόντος (odontos) into ὀδούς (odows).
§ 332. The verb quoth is truly defective. It is found in only one tense, one number, and one person. It is the third person singular of the præterite tense. It has the further peculiarity of preceding its pronoun. Instead of saying he quoth, we say quoth he. In Anglo-Saxon, however, it was not defective. It was found in the other tenses, in the other number, and in other moods. Ic cweðe, þú cwyst, he cwyð; ic cwæð, þú cwæðe, he cwæð, we cwædon, ge cwædon, hi cwædon; imperative, cweð; participle, gecweden. In the Scandinavian it is current in all its forms. There, however, it means, not to speak but to sing. As far as its conjugation goes, it is strong. As far as its class goes, it follows the form of speak, spoke. Like speak, its Anglo-Saxon form is in æ, as cwæð. Like one of the forms of speak, its English form is in o, as quoth, spoke.
§ 333. The principle that gives us the truest views of the structure of language is that which considers no word irregular unless it be affected by either an ambiguous process, or by a process of confusion. The words affected by extraordinary processes form a provisional class, which a future increase of our etymological knowledge may show to be regular. Worse and could are the fairest specimens of our irregulars. Yet even could is only an irregularity in the written language. The printer makes it, and the printer can take it away. Hence the class, instead of filling pages, is exceedingly limited.
THE IMPERSONAL VERBS.
§ 334. In me-seems, and me-thinks, the me is dative rather than accusative, and = mihi and μοι rather than me and με.
§ 335. In me-listeth, the me is accusative rather than dative, and = me and με rather than mihi and μοι.
For the explanation of this difference see Syntax, Chapter XXI.
THE VERB SUBSTANTIVE.
§ 336. The verb substantive is generally dealt with as an irregular verb. This is inaccurate. The true notion is that the idea of being or existing is expressed by four different verbs, each of which is defective in some of its parts. The parts, however, that are wanting in one verb, are made up by the inflections of one of the others. There is, for example, no præterite of the verb am, and no present of the verb was. The absence, however, of the present form of was is made up by the word am, and the absence of the præterite form of am is made up by the word was.
§ 337. Was is defective, except in the præterite tense, where it is found both in the indicative and conjunctive.
| Indicative. | Conjunctive. | ||
| Sing. | Plur. | Sing. | Plur. |
| 1. Was | Were. | 1. Were | Were. |
| 2. Wast | Were. | 2. Wert | Were. |
| 3. Was | Were. | 3. Were | Were. |
In the older stages of the Gothic languages the word had both a full conjugation and a regular one. In Anglo-Saxon it had an infinitive, a participle present, and a participle past. In Mœso-Gothic it was inflected throughout with -s; as visa, vas, vêsum, visans. In that language it has the power of the Latin maneo = to remain. The r first appears in the Old High German, wisu, was, wârumés, wësaner. In Norse the s entirely disappears, and the word is inflected with r throughout; vera, var, vorum, &c.
§ 338. Be is inflected in Anglo-Saxon throughout the present tense, both indicative and subjunctive. It is found also as an infinitive, beón; as a gerund, to beonne; and as a participle, beonde; in the present English its inflection is as follows:
| Present. | |||
| Conjunctive. | Imperative. | ||
| Sing. | Plur. | Sing. | Plur. |
| Be | Be. | — | — |
| — | — | Be | Be |
| Be | Be | — | — |
| Infin. To be. Pres. P. Being. Past. Part. Been. | |||
§ 339. The line in Milton beginning If thou beest he—(P. L. b. ii.), leads to the notion that the antiquated form beest is not indicative, but conjunctive. Such, however, is not the case: byst in Anglo-Saxon is indicative, the conjunctive form being beó. And every thing that pretty bin (Cymbeline).—Here the word bin is the conjunctive plural, in Anglo-Saxon beón; so that the words every thing are to be considered equivalent to the plural form all things. The phrase in Latin would stand thus, quotquot pulchra sint; in Greek, thus, ἁ ἂν κάλα ᾖ. The indicative plural is, in Anglo-Saxon, not beón, but beóð and beó.
§ 340. In the "Deutsche Grammatik" it is stated that the Anglo-Saxon forms beô, bist, bið, beoð, or beó, have not a present but a future sense; that whilst am means I am, beó means I shall be; and that in the older languages it is only where the form am is not found that be has the power of a present form. The same root occurs in the Slavonic and Lithuanic tongues with the same power; as, esmi = I am; búsu = I shall be, Lithuanic. Esmu = I am; buhshu = I shall be, Livonic.—Jesm = I am; budu = I shall be, Slavonic.—Gsem = I am; budu = I shall be, Bohemian. This, however, proves, not that there is in Anglo-Saxon a future tense, but that the word beó has a future sense. There is no fresh tense where there is no fresh form.
The following is a specimen of the future power of beón in Anglo-Saxon:—"Hi ne beóð na cílde, soðlice, on domesdæge, ac beóð swa micele menn swa swa hi migton beón gif hi full weoxon on gewunlicre ylde."—Ælfric's Homilies. "They will not be children, forsooth, on Domesday, but will be as much (so muckle) men as they might be if they were full grown (waxen) in customary age."
§ 341. Now, if we consider the word beón like the word weorðan (see § 343) to mean not so much to be as to become, we get an element of the idea of futurity. Things which are becoming anything have yet something further to either do or suffer. Again, from the idea of futurity we get the idea of contingency, and this explains the subjunctive power of be. In English we often say may for shall, and the same was done in Anglo-Saxon.
§ 342. Am.—Of this form it should be stated that the letter -m is no part of the original word. It is the sign of the first person, just as it is in Greek, and several other languages.
It should also be stated, that although the fact be obscured, and although the changes be insufficiently accounted for, the forms am, art, are, and is, are not, like am and was, parts of different words, but forms of one and the same word; in other terms, that, although between am and be there is no etymological connexion, there is one between am and is. This we collect from the comparison of the Indo-European languages.
| 1. | 2. | 3. | |
| Sanskrit | Asmi | Asi | Asti. |
| Zend | Ahmi | Asi | Ashti. |
| Greek | Εἰμί | Εἴς | Ἐστί. |
| Latin | Sum | Es | Est. |
| Lithuanic | Esmi | Essi | Esti. |
| Old Slavonic | Yesmy | Yesi | Yesty. |
| Mœso-Gothic | Im | Is | Ist. |
| Old Saxon | — | Is[63] | Ist. |
| Anglo-Saxon | Eom | Eart | Is. |
| Icelandic | Em | Ert | Er. |
| English | Am | Art | Is. |
§ 343. Worth.—In the following lines of Scott, the word worth = is, and is a fragment of the regular Anglo-Saxon verb weorðan = to be, or to become; German werden.
Woe worth the chase, woe worth the day,
That cost thy life, my gallant grey.—Lady of the Lake.
THE PRESENT PARTICIPLE.
§ 344. The present participle, called also the active participle and the participle in -ing, is formed from the original word by adding -ing; as, move, moving. In the older languages the termination was more marked, being -nd. Like the Latin participle in -ns, it was originally declined. The Mœso-Gothic and Old High German forms are habands and hapêntér = having, respectively. The -s in the one language, and the -êr in the other, are the signs of the case and gender. In the Old Saxon and Anglo-Saxon the forms are -and and -ande; as bindand, bindande = binding. In all the Norse languages, ancient and modern, the -d is preserved. So it is in the Old Lowland Scotch, and in many of the modern provincial dialects of England, where strikand, goand, is said for striking, going. In Staffordshire, where the -ing is pronounced -ingg, there is a fuller sound than that of the current English. In Old English the form in -nd is predominant, in Middle English the use fluctuates, and in New English the termination -ing is universal. In the Scotch of the modern writers we find the form -in.
The rising sun o'er Galston muirs
Wi' glorious light was glintin';
The hares were hirplin' down the furs,
The lav'rocks they were chantin'.—Burns' Holy Fair.
§ 345. It has often been remarked that the participle is used in many languages as a substantive. This is true in Greek,
Ὁ πράσσων = the actor, when a male.
Ἡ πρασσοῦσα = the actor, when a female.
Τὸ πράττου = the active principle of a thing.
But it is also stated, that, in the English language, the participle is used as a substantive in a greater degree than elsewhere, and that it is used in several cases and in both numbers, e.g.,
Rising early is healthy,
There is health in rising early.
This is the advantage of rising early.
The risings in the North, &c.
Some acute remarks of Mr. R. Taylor, in the Introduction to his edition of Tooke's "Diversions of Purley," modify this view. According to these, the -ing in words like rising is not the -ing of the present participle; neither has it originated in the Anglo-Saxon -end. It is rather the -ing in words like morning; which is anything but a participle of the non-existent verb morn, and which has originated in the Anglo-Saxon substantival termination -ung. Upon this Rask writes as follows:—"Gitsung, gewilnung = desire; swutelung = manifestation; clænsung = a cleansing; sceawung = view, contemplation; eorð-beofung = an earthquake; gesomnung = an assembly. This termination is chiefly used in forming substantives from verbs of the first class in -ian; as hálgung = consecration, from hálgian = to consecrate. These verbs are all feminine."—"Anglo-Saxon Grammar," p. 107.
Now, whatever may be the theory of the origin of the termination -ing in old phrases like rising early is healthy, it cannot apply to expressions of recent introduction. Here the direct origin in -ung is out of the question.
The view, then, that remains to be taken of the forms in question is this:
1. That the older forms in -ing are substantival in origin, and = the Anglo-Saxon -ung.
2. That the latter ones are irregularly participial, and have been formed on a false analogy.
THE PAST PARTICIPLE.
§ 346. A. The participle in -EN.—In the Anglo-Saxon this participle was declined like the adjectives. Like the adjectives, it is, in the present English, undeclined.
In Anglo-Saxon it always ended in -en, as sungen, funden, bunden. In English this -en is often wanting, as found, bound; the word bounden being antiquated.
Words where the -en is wanting may be viewed in two lights; 1, they may be looked upon as participles that have lost their termination; 2, they may be considered as præterites with a participial sense.
§ 347. Drank, drunk, drunken.—With all words wherein the vowel of the plural differs from that of the singular, the participle takes the plural form. To say I have drunk, is to use an ambiguous expression; since drunk may be either a participle minus its termination, or a præterite with a participial sense. To say I have drank, is to use a præterite for a participle. To say I have drunken, is to use an unexceptional form.
In all words with a double form, as spake and spoke, brake and broke, clave and clove, the participle follows the form in o, as spoken, broken, cloven. Spaken, braken, claven are impossible forms. There are degrees in laxity of language, and to say the spear is broke is better than to say the spear is brake.
§ 348. As a general rule, we find the participle in -en wherever the præterite is strong; indeed, the participle in -en may be called the strong participle, or the participle of the strong conjugation. Still the two forms do not always coincide. In mow, mowed, mown, sow, sowed, sown; and several other words, we find the participle strong, and the præterite weak. I remember no instances of the converse. This is only another way of saying that the præterite has a greater tendency to pass from strong to weak than the participle.
§ 349. In the Latin language the change from s to r, and vice versâ, is very common. We have the double forms arbor and arbos, honor and honos, &c. Of this change we have a few specimens in English. The words rear and raise, as compared with each other, are examples. In Anglo-Saxon a few words undergo a similar change in the plural number of the strong præterites.