difference of meaning, it has become superfluous. This is the case with the two forms in question. One of them may be dispensed with; and the consequence is, that, although in the Latin language both the perfect and the aorist forms are found, they are, with few exceptions, never found in the same word. When there is the perfect, the aorist is wanting, and vice versa. The two ideas I have struck and I struck are merged into the notion of past time in general, and are expressed by one of two forms, sometimes by that of the Greek perfect, and sometimes by that of the Greek aorist. On account of this the grammarians have cut down the number of Latin tenses; forms like cucurri and vixi being dealt with as one and the same tense. The true view, however, is, that in curro the aorist form is replaced by the perfect, and in vixi the perfect form is replaced by the aorist. Hence, the history of such a pair of words as drank and moved, is the history of such a pair of words as tetigi and vixi. Now the place of these is that of tέtv-pa and -Tua, i. e. they both belong to one and the same conjugation—of which, however, they are different tenses, one a perfect, the other an aorist. If so, what are our vowel-changing Præterites? Perfects modified in form. by the loss of the reduplication, and changed in power by having adopted that of the aorist. And what are our Præterites in -d? Aorists. The Conjugation is really The Tense is one in appearance only.

one.

CHAPTER XXIX.

ON THE NUMBER OF VERBS.

§ 447. Number and Person.-As compared with we love, ye love, they love, both the Anglo-Saxon we lufiað,

ge lufia, hi lufiad, and the Old English, we loven, ye loven, they loven, have a peculiar termination for the plural number which the present language wants. In other words, the Anglo-Saxon and the Old English have a plural personal characteristic, whilst the Modern English has nothing to correspond with it. The word personal is printed in italics. It does not follow, that, because there is no plural personal characteristic, there is, also, no plural characteristic. There is no reason against the inflection of the word love running thus:-I love, thou lovest, he loves; we lave, ye lave, they lave; in other words, there is no reason against the vowel of the root being changed with the number. In such a case there would be no personal, though there would be a plural, or a numeral, inflection. Now, in Anglo-Saxon, with a great number of verbs such a plural inflection not only actually takes place, but takes place most regularly. It takes place, however, in the past tense only. And this is the case in all the German languages as well as in Anglo-Saxon.

§ 448. The details of the persons in the different German languages are as follows::

§ 449. I call. The word call is not one person more than another. It is the simple verb wholly uninflected. Thou callest. The final -t appears throughout the West-Saxon, although wanting in the Northumbrian and Old Saxon. In Old High-German it is commoner in some authors than in others. In Middle High-German and New High-German it is universal.

=

He calls. The -s in calls is the -th in calleth, changed. § 450. Thou spakest, thou brakest, thou sungest.—In these forms there is a slight though natural anomaly. The second singular præterite in A. S. was formed not in -st, but in -e; as þú funde=thou foundest, pú sunge thou sungest. Hence the existing termination is derived from the present. Observe that this applies only to the præterites formed by changing the vowel. Thou loved'st is Anglo-Saxon as well as English, viz. þú lufodest. Again, in A. S., the vowel of the plural of certain (so-called) strong præterites was different from that of the singular. More than this-the vowel of the second person singular was different from that of the first and third, but the same as that of the plural.

Singular.

1. Ic sang.

2. þu sunge.

3. He sang.

Hence
Plural.
1. We sungon.

2. Ge sungon.

3. Hi sungon.

This is, apparently, the conjugation of the A. S. Subjunctive, transferred to the Indicative.

And the men that heelden him, scorniden him and smyten him, and they blindfelden him and smyten him, and seiden, Areed thou Christ to us, who is he that smoot thee ?-WYCLIFFE, Luke xxii.

Sche ran and cam to Symound Petir and to a nother disciple-and thee tweyne runnen togidre and thilk other disciple ran before Petir. WYCLIFFE, John xx.

Anoon thei knewen him and thei runnen thorou al that countree and begunnen to bringe sik men.-WYCLIFFE, Mark vi.

We preieder Tite that as he began so also he perfourme in yhou this grace. WYCLIFFE, 2 Cor. viii.

And the prince of prestis roos and seide to him.-WYCLIFFE, Matt. xxvi. And summe of the farisees risen up and foughten, seyinge, &c.— WYCLIFFE, Deedis 23.

Alas, Custance, thou hast no champioun,
But he that starfe for our redemption.

CHAUCER, Man of Law's Tale.
For which they storven bothe two.

621.

CHAUCER, Pardoner's Tale. 530.

CHAPTER XXX.

ON THE WORDS DID AND BECAME, CATACHRESTIC.

§ 451. Did, catachrestic.—In the phrase this will do this will answer the purpose, the word do is wholly

=

* It is scarcely necessary to state that these, as well as the vast majority of the most apposite examples of the present work, are taken from Dr. Guest's valuable contributions to the Transactions of the Philological Society.

different from the word do 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, doo, dyde, &c.

=

In the present Danish they write duger, but say duer as duger det 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. In Robert of Bourne the præterite is deih.

Philip of Flaundres fleih, and turned sonne the bak :

And Thebald nouht he deih.-R. B. 133.

Philip of Flanders fled, and turned soon the back,
And Thebald did no good.-

The king Isaak fleih, his men had no foyson (provisions),

All that time he ne deih.-R. B. 159.

I'll laugh an' sing, an' shake my leg

As lang 's I dow (am able).—BURns.

For cunning men I knaw will sone conclude

I dow nothing.

Sir D. Lyndsay, Complaint of the Papingo.

Thre yer in carebed lay,

Tristrem the truve he hight;

Never ne dought him day,

For sorrow he had o' night.-Sir Tristram. 21.

Three year in carebed lay;

Tristrem the true he hight;

The day never did him good,

For the sorrow he had at night.

We cannot, however (although we ought), say that doed well enough, though a Dane says det dugede nok.

=

=

§ 452. Became, catachrestic. The catachresis, abuse, or confusion between do valeo, and do facio, repeats itself with the verb become. When become fio, its præterite is became. When become = convenio suit (as in that dress becomes you), its præterite ought to be becomed. Become convenio, is from the same root as the German bequem = convenient.