the present English termination is derived from the present. Observe that this applies only to the præterites formed by changing the vowel -the strong præterites so-called. Thou loved'st is Anglo-Saxon as well as Euglish, 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. Hence

Singular.

1. Ic sang.
2. þu sunge.

3. He sang.

Plural.

1. We sungon.

2. Ge sungon.

3. Hi sungon.

Is this difference still existing or is it obsolete? It is obsolete. The only persons who use the second person singular at all are the Quakers, and I have specially inquired of many of them whether they draw any distinction in respect to correctness or incorrectness between the form in u and the form in a. No one, however, has recognised it.

Thou sangest, then, is a form to the evolution of which two irregularities have contributed.

1. The vowel of the first and third persons displaced that of the third.

2. The -est of the present displaced the simple -e of the original præterite.

Probably, this adoption of the plural vowel in the singular second person, is only another result of the principle by which we say you for thou.

§ 384. In the northern dialects of the Anglo-Saxon the of plurals like lufiad we love becomes -s. In the Scottish

this change was still more prevalent:

The Scottes come that to this day

Havys, and Scotland haldyn ay.

WINTOUN, 11, 9, 73.

James I. of England ends nearly all his plurals in -s.

CHAPTER XXIV.

ON THE NUMBERS OF VERBS.

§ 385. THE inflection of the present tense, not only in Anglo-Saxon, but in several other languages as well, has been given in the preceding chapter. As compared with the present plural forms, we love, ye love, they love, both the Anglo-Saxon we lufiað, ge lufiað, hi lufiað, 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 inflection, 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 Gothic languages as well as in Anglo-Saxon. Amongst the rest, in

Maso-Gothic.

Skáin, I shone; skinum, we shone.
Smáit, I smote; smitum, we smote.
Káus, I chose; kusum, we chose.
Láug, I lied; lugum, we lied.

Gab, I gave; gêbum, we gave.
At, I ate; étum, we ate.
Stal, I stole; stêlum, we stole.
Qvam, I came; qvêmum, we came.

In all the Anglo-Saxon words, it may be remarked that the change is from a to u, and that both the vowels are short, or dependent. Also, that the vowel of the present tense is i short; as swim, sing, &c. The Anglo-Saxon form of run is yrnan.

In the following words the change is from the Anglo-Saxon á to the Anglo-Saxon 7. In English, the regularity of the change is obscured by a change of pronunciation.

Bát, I bit; biton, we bit. | Smát, I smote; smiton, we smit.

For the fact of the second person singular taking the vowel of the plural, see § 383.

R

VOL. II.

CHAPTER XXV.

ON MOODS.

§ 386. THE Anglo-Saxon infinitive has already been considered.

Between the second plural imperative, and the second plural indicative, speak ye and ye speak, there is no difference of form. Between the second singular imperative speak, and the second singular indicative speakest, there is a difference in form. Still, as the imperative form speak is distinguished from the indicative form speakest, by the negation of a character rather than by the possession of one, it cannot be said that there is in English any imperative mood.

If he speak, as opposed to if he speaks, is characterised by a negative sign only, and consequently is no true example of a subjunctive. Be, as opposed to am, in the sentence if it be so, is an uninflected word used in a limited sense, and consequently no true example of a subjunctive.

The only true subjunctive inflection in the English language is that of were and wert, as opposed to the indicative forms was and wast.

CHAPTER XXVI.

ON TENSES IN GENERAL.

§ 387. THE nature of tenses in general is best exhibited by reference to the Greek; since in that language they are more numerous, and more strongly marked than elsewhere.

In Greek TUTTO (typtó) = I am beating, TUTTоv (etypton) I was beating; rúfw (typsố) = I shall beat; rvfa (etypsa) = I beat; rέrvpa (tetyfa) I have beaten; krɛrúpɛv (etetyfein) = I had beaten. In these words we have, of the same mood, the same voice, and the same conjugation, six different tenses; whereas, in English, there are but two. The forms Térupa and τέτυφα rufa are so strongly marked, that we recognise them wheresoever they occur. The first is formed by a reduplication of the initial 7, and, consequently, may be called the reduplicate form. As a tense, it is called the perfect.

In the form rupa an ɛ is prefixed, and a σ is added. In the allied language of Italy the ɛ disappears, whilst the σ (s) remains. "Erva is said to be an aorist tense. Scripsi: scribo : : ἔτυπσα : τύπτω.

Now in the Latin language a confusion takes place between these two tenses. Both forms exist. They are used, however, indiscriminately. The aorist form has, besides its own, the sense of the perfect. The perfect has, besides its own, the sense of the aorist. In the following pair of quotations, vixi, the aorist form, is translated I have lived, while tetigit, the perfect form, is translated he touched.

Vixi, et quem dederat cursum Fortuna peregi ;

Et nunc magna mei sub terras ibit imago.—Æn. iv.

Ut primum alatis tetigit magalia plantis.-En. iv. When a difference of form has ceased to express a difference