The English Language Part 58

In those languages the form of the person changes with the tense, and the second singular of the praeterite tense of one conjugation is, not _-s_, but _-t_; as Moeso-Gothic, _svor_=_I swore_, _svort_=_thou swarest_, _graip_=_I griped_, _graipt_=_thou gripedst_; Icelandic, _brannt_=_thou burnest_, _gaft_=_thou_ {299} _gavest_. In the same languages ten verbs are conjugated like praeterites. Of these, in each language, _skal_ is one.

_Moeso-Gothic._

_Singular._ _Dual._ _Plural._ 1. Skal. Skulu. Skulum.

2. Skalt. Skuluts. Skulu.

3. Skall. Skuluts. Skulun.

_Icelandic._

_Singular._ _Plural._ 1. Skall. Skulum.

2. Skalt. Skulu.

3. Skal. Skulu.

-- 353. _Thou spakest, thou brakest, thou sungest._[45]--In these forms there is a slight though natural anomaly. They belong to the cla.s.s of verbs which form their praeterite by changing the vowel of the present; as _sing_, _sang_, &c. Now, all words of this sort in Anglo-Saxon formed their second singular praeterite, not in _-st_, but in _-e_; as _u funde_=_thou foundest_, _u sunge_=_thou sungest_. The English termination is derived from the present. Observe that this applies only to the praeterites formed by changing the vowel. _Thou loved'st_ is Anglo-Saxon as well as English, _viz._, _u lufodest_.

-- 354. In the northern dialects of the Anglo-Saxon the - of plurals like _lufia_=_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_.

{300}

CHAPTER XX.

ON THE NUMBERS OF VERBS.

-- 355. 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 lufia_, _ge lufia_, _hi lufia_, 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--

_Moeso-Gothic._

Skain, _I shone_; skinum, _we shone_.

Smait, _I smote_; smitum, _we smote_.

Kaus, _I chose_; kusum, _we chose_.

Laug, _I lied_; lugum, _we lied_.

Gab, _I gave_; geb.u.m, _we gave_.

At, _I ate_; etum, _we ate_.

Stal, _I stole_; stelum, _we stole_.

Qvam, _I came_; qvemum, _we came_.

{301}

_Anglo-Saxon._

Arn, _I ran_; urnon, _we run_.

Ongan, _I began_; ongunnon, _we begun_.

Span, _I span_; spunnon, _we spun_.

Sang, _I sang_; sungon, _we sung_.

Sw.a.n.g, _I sw.a.n.g_; swungon, _we swung_.

Dranc, _I drank_; druncon, _we drunk_.

Sanc, _I sank_; suncon, _we sunk_.

Sprang, _I sprang_; sprungon, _we sprung_.

Swam, _I swam_; swummon, _we swum_.

Rang, _I rang_; rungon, _we rung_.

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 _a_ to the Anglo-Saxon _[=i]_. In English, the regularity of the change is obscured by a change of p.r.o.nunciation.

Bat, _I bit_; biton, _we bit_.

Smat, _I smote_; smiton, _we smit_.

From these examples the reader has himself drawn his inference; _viz._ that words like

_Began, begun._ _Ran, run._ _Span, spun._ _Sang, sung._ [46]_Sw.a.n.g, swung._ _Sprang, sprung._ _Sank, sunk._ _Swam, swum._ _Rang, rung._ [46]_Bat, bit._ _Smote, smit._ _Drank, drunk, &c.,_

generally called double forms of the past tense, were originally different numbers of the same tense, the forms in _u_, as _swum_, and the forms in _i_, _bit_, being plural.

{302}

CHAPTER XXI.

ON MOODS.

-- 356. The Anglo-Saxon infinitive has already been considered.

-- 357. 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.

-- 358. _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_.