The English Language Part 63

Feel, fel_t_.

Dream, dre[)a]m_t_.

Lean, le[)a]n_t_.

Learn, learn_t_.

Creep, crept.

Sleep, slept.

Leap, lept.

Keep, kept.

Weep, wept.

Sweep, swept.

Lose, lost.

Flee, fled.

In this cla.s.s we sometimes find _-t_ where the _-d_ is expected; the forms being _left_ and _dealt_, instead of _leaved_ and _dealed_. {319}

-- 380. Third cla.s.s.--In the second cla.s.s the vowel of the present tense was _shortened_ in the praeterite. In the third cla.s.s it is _changed_.

Tell, told.

Will, would.

Sell, sold.

Shall, should.

To this cla.s.s belong the remarkable praeterites of the verbs _seek_, _beseech_, _catch_, _teach_, _bring_, _think_, and _buy_, _viz._, _sought_, _besought_, _caught_, _taught_, _brought_, _thought_, and _bought_. In all these, the final consonant is either _g_ or _k_, or else a sound allied to those mutes. When the tendency of these sounds to become _h_ and _y_, as well as to undergo farther changes, is remembered, the forms in point cease to seem anomalous. In _wrought_, from _work_, there is a transposition. In _laid_ and _said_ the present forms make a show of regularity which they have not. The true original forms should be _legde_ and _saegde_, the infinitives being _lecgan_, _secgan_. In these words the _i_ represents the semivowel _y_, into which the original _g_ was changed. The Anglo-Saxon forms of the other words are as follows:--

Byegan, bohte.

Secan, sohte.

Wyrcan, worhte.

Bringan, brohte.

encan, ohte.

-- 381. Out of the three cla.s.ses into which the weak verbs in Anglo-Saxon are divided, only one takes a vowel before the _d_ or _t_. The other two add the syllables _-te_, or _-de_, to the last letter of the original word.

The vowel that, in one out of the three Anglo-Saxon cla.s.ses, precedes _d_ is _o_. Thus we have _lufian_, _lufode_; _clypian_, _clypode_. In the other two cla.s.ses the forms are respectively _baernan_, _baernde_; and _tellan_, _tealde_, no vowel being found. The participle, however, as stated above, ended, not in _-de_ or _-te_, but in _-d_ or _-t_; and in two out of the three cla.s.ses it was preceded by a vowel, _gelufod_, _baerned_, _geteald_.

Now in those conjugations where no vowel preceded the _d_ of the praeterite, and where the original word ended in _-d_ or _-t_, a difficulty, which has already been indicated, arose. To add the sign of the praeterite to a word like _eard-ian_ (_to dwell_) was an easy matter, inasmuch as {320} _eard__ian_ was a word belonging to the first cla.s.s, and in the first cla.s.s the praeterite was formed in _-ode_. Here the vowel _o_ kept the two d's from coming in contact. With words, however, like _metan_ and _sendan_, this was not the case. Here no vowel intervened; so that the natural praeterite forms were _met-te_, _send-de_, combinations wherein one of the letters ran every chance of being dropped in the p.r.o.nunciation. Hence, with the exception of the verbs in the first cla.s.s, words ending in _-d_ or _-t_ in the root admitted no additional _d_ or _t_ in the praeterite. This difficulty, existing in the present English as it existed in the Anglo-Saxon, modifies the praeterites of most words ending in _-t_ or _-d_.

In several words there is the actual addition of the syllable _-ed_; in other words _d_ is separated from the last letter of the original word by the addition of a vowel; as _ended_, _instructed_, &c. Of this _e_ two views may be taken.

1. It may be derived from the original _o_ in _-ode_, the termination of the first cla.s.s in Anglo-Saxon. This is the opinion which we form when the word in question is known to have belonged to the Anglo-Saxon language, and, in it, to the first cla.s.s. _Ended_, _planted_, _warded_, _hated_, _heeded_, are (amongst others) words of this sort; their Anglo-Saxon forms being _endode_, _plantode_, _weardode_, _hatode_, and _eahtode_, from _endian_, _plantian_, _weardian_, _hatian_, and _eahtian_.

2. The form may be looked upon, not as that of the praeterite, but as that of the participle in a transferred sense. This is the view when we have two forms, one with the vowel, and the other without it, as _bended_ and _bent_, _wended_ and _went_, _plighted_ and _plight_.

A. In several words the final _-d_ is changed into _-t_, as _bend_, _bent_; _rend_, _rent_; _send_, _sent_; _gild_, _gilt_; _build_, _built_; _spend_, _spent_, &c.

B. In several words the vowel of the root is changed; as _feed_, _fed_; _bleed_, _bled_; _breed_, _bred_; _meet_, _met_; _speed_, _sped_; _r[=e]ad_, _r[)e]ad_, &c. Words of this last-named cla.s.s cause occasional difficulty to the grammarian. No addition is made to the root, and, in this circ.u.mstance, they agree with the strong verbs. Moreover, there is a change of the vowel. {321} In this circ.u.mstance also they agree with the strong verbs. Hence with forms like _fed_ and _led_ we are in doubt as to the conjugation. This doubt we have three means of settling, as may be shown by the word _beat_.

_a._ _By the form of the participle._--The _-en_ in _beaten_ shows that the word _beat_ is strong.

_b._ _By the nature of the vowel._--The weak form of _to beat_ would be _bet_, or _be[)a]t_, after the a.n.a.logy of _feed_ and _r[=e]ad_. By some persons the word is p.r.o.nounced _bet_, and with those who do so the word is weak.

_c._ _By a knowledge of the older forms._--The Anglo-Saxon form is _beate_, _beot_. There is no such a weak form as _beate_, _baette_. The praeterite of _sendan_ is _sende_, weak. There is in Anglo-Saxon no such form as _sand_, strong.

In all this we see a series of expedients for separating the praeterite form from the present, when the root ends with the same sound with which the affix begins.

The addition of the vowel takes place only in verbs of the first cla.s.s.

The change from a long vowel to a short one, as in _feed_, _fed_, &c., can only take place where there is a long vowel to be changed.

Where the vowels are short, and, at the same time, the word ends in _-d_, the _-d_ of the present may become _-t_ in the praeterite. Such is the case with _bend_, _bent_.

When there is no long vowel to shorten, and no _-d_ to change into _-t_, the two tenses, of necessity, remain alike; such is the case with _cut_, _cost_, &c.

Words like _planted_, _heeded_, &c., belong to the first cla.s.s. Words like _feed_, _lead_, to the second cla.s.s. _Bend_ and _cut_ belong also to the second cla.s.s; they belong to it, however, by what may be termed an etymological fiction. The vowel would be changed if it could.

-- 382. _Made, had._--In these words there is nothing remarkable but the ejection of a consonant. The Anglo-Saxon forms are _macode_ and _haefde_, respectively. The words, however, in regard to the amount of change, are not upon a par. The _f_ in _haefde_ was probably sounded as _v_. Now _v_ {322} is a letter excessively liable to be ejected, which _k_ is not. _K_, before it is ejected, is generally changed into either _g_ or _y_.

_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 the Chapter upon Irregularity.

_Aught._--In Anglo-Saxon _ahte_, the praeterite of the present form _ah_, plural _agan_.--As late as the time of Elizabeth we find _owe_ used for _own_. The present form _own_ seems to have arisen from the plural _agen_.

_Aught_ is the praeterite of the Anglo-Saxon _ah_; _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_.

_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.

The Moeso-Gothic forms are _dar_, _dart?_ _dar_, _daurum_, _dauru_, _daurun_, for the persons of the present tense; and _daursta_, _daurstes_, _daursta_, &c., for those of the praeterite. The same is the case throughout the Germanic languages. No _-s_, however, appears in the Scandinavian; the praeterites being _ori_ and _torde_, Icelandic and Danish. The Anglo-Saxon is _dear_=_I dare_, _dearst_=_thou darest_, _durron_=_we_, {323} _ye_, or _they dare_; subjunctive, _durre_, _dorste_, _dorston_. Old Saxon, present, _dar_; praeterite _dursta_. The Moeso-Gothic tense, _daursta_, instead of _daurda_, shows the antiquity of this form in _-s_.

The readiest mode of accounting for the form in question is to suppose that the second singular has been extended over all the other persons. This view, however, is traversed by the absence of the _-s_ in the Moeso-Gothic present. The form there (real or presumed) is not _darst_, but _dart_. Of this latter form, however, it must be remarked that its existence is hypothetical.

In Matthew xxvi. 67, of the Moeso-Gothic Gospel of Ulphilas, is found the form _kaupastedun_, instead of _kaupatidedun_, the praeterite plural of _kaupatjan_=_to beat_. Here there is a similar insertion of the _-s_.--Deutsche Grammatik, i. 848, 852, 853.

The _-s_ in _durst_ 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), p.r.o.nounced _moh_; praeterite _maatte_.

The readiest mode of accounting for the _-s_ in _must_, is to presume that it belongs to the second singular, extended to the other persons, _mo-est_=_must_. Irrespective, however, of other objections, this view is traversed by the forms _motan_, Moeso-Gothic (an infinitive), and _mot_, Moeso-Gothic, Old Saxon, and Anglo-Saxon (a first person present). These neutralise the evidence given by the Danish form _maae_, and indicate that the _-t_ is truly a part of the original root.

Now, the _-t_ being considered as part of the root, the _-s_ cannot be derived from the second singular; inasmuch as it precedes, instead of following the _-t_.

At one time, for want of a better theory, I conceived, that in the word in point (and also in _durst_ and a few others), we had traces of the Scandinavian pa.s.sive. This notion I have, for evident reasons, abandoned.

In p. 298 it was stated that the Moeso-Gothic termination of the second singular of the strong praeterites was _-t_. It is {324} here mentioned that _must_ is a praeterite form. Now the final letter of the root _mot_, and the sign of the second singular of the strong praeterite, are the same, _-t_.

Now, as _-t_ cannot be immediately added to _t_, the natural form of the second singular _mot-t_ is impracticable. Hence, before the _-t_ of the second person, the _-t_ of the root is changed, so that, instead of _maimait-t_, _bigat-t_, _faifal-t_, _lailot-t_, &c., we have _maimais-t_, _bigas-t_, _faifals-t_, _lailos-t_, &c., Moeso-Gothic.--See Deutsche Grammatik, 844.

The euphonic reason for the _-s_, in _must_, is sufficient to show that it is in a different predicament from _durst_.

The provincial form _mun_, there or thereabouts equivalent in meaning to _must_, has no etymological connexion with this last named word. It is a distinct word, in Scandinavian _monne_.

_Wist._--In its present form a regular praeterite 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 Moeso-Gothic, 1 sing. pres. ind. _vait_; 2. do., _vaist_; 1. pl.