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. Wherever 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 is, that in curro the aorist form is replaced by the perfect, and in vixi the perfect form is replaced by the aorist.

§ 388. In the present English there is no undoubted perfect or reduplicate form. The form moved corresponds in meaning not with rérupa and momordi, but with rufa and vixi. Its sense is that of ἔτυψα, and not that of τέτυφα. The notion given by Térupa we express by the circumlocution I have beaten. We have no such form as bebeat or memove. In the Moso-Gothic, however, there was a true reduplicate form; in other words, a perfect tense as well as an aorist. It is by the possession of this form that the verbs of the first six conjugations are characterized.

In Mœso-Gothic, as in Latin, the perfect forms have, besides their own, an aorist sense, and vice versa.

In Mœso-Gothic, as in Latin, few (if any) words are found in both forms.

In Moso-Gothic, as in Latin, the two forms are dealt with as a single tense; láiló being called the præterite of láia, and svór the præterite of svara. The true view, however, is that, in Moso-Gothic, as in Latin, there are two past tenses, each having a certain latitude of meaning, and each, in certain words, replacing the other.

The reduplicate form, in other words, the perfect tense, is current in none of the Gothic languages except the MœsoGothic. A trace of it is said to be found in the Anglo-Saxon, in the word heht, which is considered to be hé-ht, the MosoGothic haiháit, vocavi.-(Cambridge Philological Museum, ii. 378.) Did from do is also considered to be a reduplicate form. (See below.)

§ 389. In the English language the tense corresponding in power with the Greek aorist and the Latin forms like vixi, is formed after two modes; 1, as in fell, sang, and took, from fall, sing, and take, by changing the vowel of the present; 2, as in moved and wept, from move and weep, by the addition of d or t; the d or t not being found in the original word, but being a fresh element added to it. In forms, on the contrary, like sang and fell, no addition being made, no new element appears. The vowel, indeed, is changed, but nothing is added. Verbs, then, of the first sort, may be said to form their præterites out of themselves; whilst verbs of the second sort require something from without. To speak in a metaphor, words like sang and fell are comparatively independent. Be this as it may, the German grammarians call the tenses formed by a change of vowel the Strong tenses, the Strong verbs, the Strong conjugation, or the Strong order; and those formed by the addition of d or t, the Weak tenses, the Weak verbs, the Weak conjugation, or the Weak order. Bound, spoke, gave, lay, &c., are Strong; moved, favoured, instructed, &c., are Weak.

CHAPTER XXVII.

THE SO-CALLED STRONG PRÆTERITES.

§ 390. THE Strong præterites are formed from the present by

changing the vowel.

How far can these varied forms be reduced to rule? What are the divisions and sub-divisions of the so-called Strong class?

Before we consider this let us be sure that we have got the full amount of irregularity—real or apparent. Now we do not get this until we have noted a fact connected with those verbs of the above-given list which are marked with an asterisk.

To each and all of these there are (or have been at some earlier stage of the language) two præterites, one of which is formed in a (as swam), and the other in u (as swum), as—

Such is the fact. Its explanation lies in the facts of chapter xxiv.

There we learn that in A. S. several præterites changed, in the plural, the vowel of their singular.

What inference is clearer than that the præterite in a comes

from the singular, and the præterite in u from the plural of the A. S.?

Note.-In cases where but one form is preserved, that form is not necessarily the singular; indeed, it is often the plural; -e. g. Ic fand, I found, we fundon, we found, are the AngloSaxon forms. Now the present word found comes, not from the singular fand, but from the plural fundon; although, in the Lowland Scotch dialect and in the old writers, the singular form occurs:

Donald Caird finds orra things,

Where Allan Gregor fand the tings.-SCOTT.

The verbs wherein the double form of the present præterite is thus explained, fall into two classes.

1. In the first class, the Anglo-Saxon forms were á in the singular, and i in the plural; as

2. In the second class, the Anglo-Saxon forms were a in the singular, and u in the plural; as

* The forms marked thus * are either obsolete or provincial.