§ 438. With forms like fed and led we are in doubt as to the class. This doubt we have three means of settling.

1. By the form of the Participle.-The -en in beaten shows that the word beat is in the same class as spoke.

2. By the nature of the Vowel.-If beat were conjugated like read, its Præterite would be bet.

3. By a knowledge of the older forms.-The A. S. is beáte, beot. There is no such a form as beáte, bætte. The præterite of sendan is sende. There is in A. S. no such form as sand.

§ 439. Certain so-called irregularities may now be

noticed.

Made, had.-In these words there is nothing remarkable but the ejection of a consonant. The Anglo-Saxon forms are macode and hafde, respectively.

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.

Yode. Instead of goed, a regular præterite from go, now obsolete, and replaced by went, the præterite of wend, he wends his way-he went his way. Except that the initial g has become y, and the e follows instead of preceding the d (a mere point of spelling), there is nothing peculiar in this word.

For aught, minded, and did, see the following chap

ters.

$440. The origin of the form in -d is considered, by Grimm and others, to lie in the word do; of which the Præterite is d-d. The Moso-Gothic, in the Dual and Plural of the Indicative, and in all the persons of the Conjunctive Mood, gives us the form in full, i. e. the two d's. Having noted this, note also, the existence of expressions like we did speak, we did write, and the like; and the plausibility of the suggestion will become apparent.

Note, too, the greater antiquity of the reduplicate forms; inasmuch as before did could be attached to such a root as nas-, it would, itself, have been deduced from do.

§ 441. Some remarks, however, of Dr. Trithen on the Slavonic præterite, induce me to entertain a different doctrine, and to identify the -d under notice with the -t of the passive participles of the Latin language, as found in mon-it-us, voc-at-us, rap-t-us, and probably in the Greek forms like τυφ-θ-είς.

1. The Slavonic præterite is commonly said to possess genders in other words, there is one form for speaking of a past action when done by a male, and another for speaking of a past action when done by a female.

2. These forms are identical with those of the participles, masculine and feminine, as the case may be. Indeed the præterite is a participle. If, instead of saying ille amavit, the Latins said ille amatus, whilst, instead of saying illa amavit, they said illa amata, they would exactly use the grammar of the Slavonic.

3. Hence, as one class of languages, at least, gives us the undoubted fact of an active præterite being identical with a passive participle, and as the participle and præterite in question are nearly identical, we have a fair reason for believing that the d, in the English active præterite, is the d of the participle, which, in its turn, is the t of the Latin passive participle. The following ex

tract, however, gives Dr. Trithen's remarks on the Slavonic verb in his own words :

A peculiarity which distinguishes the grammar of all the Slavish languages consists in the use of the past participle, taken in an active sense, for the purpose of expressing the præterite. This participle generally ends in -1; and much uncertainty prevails both as to its origin and its relations, though the termination has been compared by various philologists with similar affixes in the Sanscrit, and the classical languages.

In the Old-Slavish, or the language of the church, there are three methods of expressing the past tense: one of them consists in the union of the verb substantive with the participle; as

In the corresponding tense of the Slavonic dialect we have the verb substantive placed before the participle:

The ending -ao, of igrao and imao, stands for the Russian al, as in some English dialects a' is used for all.

=

The præterite in -d may be compared with the Greek aorists and with the Latin form in -si; as rexi, vixi: rek-si, vic-si, in power, and in respect to its relation to the perfect; though not in origin.

CHAPTER XXVIII.

ON IRREGULARITY AND DEFECT.

§ 442. WHATEVER the verbs which form the Past Tense by changing the vowel may be, they are anything but Irregular-though they are often treated as if they were. Irregular, however, is a word which we should use as seldom as possible. The better the grammarian the fewer the irregularities of his grammar. If it were not so, the phenomena of language would scarcely be worth studying. It is evident, however, 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. Now this position is sufficiently exclusive; since it proscribes not only the whole class of verbs, like spoke, 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.

§ 443. Thus much concerning the modes of making rules exclusive, and, consequently, of raising the amount of irregularities-the last art that the philosophic grammarian is ambitious of acquiring. True etymology reduces irregularity 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. The nearest approach to a true Irregularity in the English language is to be found in the word could, from can; where the l is wholly inorganic, being foreign to the root; and only introduced to match the l in should and would. But even here it is not sounded: so that the Irregularity, such as it is, is an Irregularity of spelling rather than speaking.

§ 444. Quoth is Defective,-only, however, in the present stage of our language. The A. S. present was cwede, existing, at the present moment, in the compound word bequeathe. In go and went we have Defect and Complement.

§ 445. In claiming for the forms like spoke their due amount of regularity, we improve upon the grammarians of the last century. The exact import, however, of the two classes has yet to be determined. The German philologues make out of the two classes two different Conjugations; one of which is called Strong, the other Weak. The words like spoke are strong, because they are formed from their present tenses by a merely internal change, i. e. a change of the vowel-no new element being added. Meanwhile, called, and its fellows, require the addition of a totally new sound-that of -d, -t, or -ed, as the case may be; this being, somewhat fancifully, treated as a sign of debility. That these classes, however, (call them what we will) are natural is beyond a doubt.

(a) The so-called Strong Verbs are of English, and few, or none, of foreign, origin.