extraordinary process, by a process peculiar to itself, or by a process to which we know nothing similar.

A definition of the word irregular might be so framed as to include all words affected by extraordinary processes; the rest being considered regular.

4. Positive processes as opposed to ambiguous processes.—The words wept and slept are similarly affected. Each is changed from weep and sleep respectively; and we know that the process which affects the one is the process that affects the other also. Here there is a positive process.

Reference is now made to words of a different sort. The nature of the word worse is explained in § 362, and the reader is referred to the section. There the form is accounted for in two ways, of which only one can be the true one. Of the two processes, each might equally have brought about the present form. Which of the two it was, we are unable to say. Here the process is ambiguous.

A definition of the word irregular might be so framed as to include all words affected by ambiguous processes.

5. Normal processes as opposed to processes of confusion.Let a certain word come under Class A. Let all words under Class A be similarly affected. Let a given word come under Class A. This word will be affected even as the rest of Class A is affected. The process affecting, and the change resulting, will be normal, regular, or analogical.

Let, however, a word, instead of really coming under Class A, appear to do so. Let it be dealt with accordingly. The analogy then is a false one. The principle of imitation is a wrong one. The process affecting is a process of confusion.

Examples of this (a few amongst many) are words like songstress, theirs, minded, where the words songstr―, their—, and mind, are dealt with as roots, which they are not.

Ambiguous processes, extraordinary processes, processes of confusion-each, or all of these, are legitimate reasons for calling words irregular. The practice of etymologists will determine what definition is most convenient.

With extraordinary processes we know nothing about the word. With ambiguous processes we are unable to make a

choice.

With processes of confusion we see the analogy, but,

at the same time, see that it is a false one.

§ 409. Approximate example of irregularity. The nearest approach to a real irregularity is the case of the word could.

With all persons who pronounce the l it is truly irregular. The A. S. form is cube. The -7 is inserted by a process of confusion.

Can, cunne, canst, cunnon, cunnan, cude, cuðon, cuð-such are the remaining forms in A. S. None of them account for the l. The presence of the makes the word could irregular. No reference to the allied languages accounts for it.

Notwithstanding this, the presence of the l is accounted for. In would and should the l has a proper place. It is part of the original words, will and shall. A false analogy looked upon could in the same light. Hence a true irregularity; provided that the L be pronounced.

The L, however, is pronounced by few, and that only in pursuance to the spelling. This reduces the word could to an irregularity, not of language, but only of orthography.

That the mere ejection of the n in can, and that the mere lengthening of the vowel, are not irregularities, we learn from a knowledge of the processes that convert the Greek ἔδοντος (odontos) into ὀδες (odows).

§ 410. Example of defect.-The verb quoth is truly defective. It is found in only one tense, one number, and one person. It is the third person singular of the præterite tense. It has the further peculiarity of preceding its pronoun. Instead of saying he quoth, we say quoth he. In A. S., however, it was not defective. It was found in the other tenses, in the other number, and in other moods. Ic cwede, þú cwyst, he cwyd. Ic cwæð, þú cwæde, he cwæð, we cwædon, ge cwædon, hi cwædon. Imperative, cwed. Participle, gecweden. In the Scandinavian it is current in all its forms. There, however, it means, not to speak, but, to sing. As far as its conjugation goes, it is strong. As far as its class goes, it follows the form of speak, spoke. Like speak, its A. S. form is in æ, as cwæð. Like one of the forms of speak, its English form is in o, as quoth, spoke.

The principle that I recognise for myself is to consider no

words irregular unless affected by ambiguous processes, or by processes of confusion. The words affected by extraordinary processes form a provisional class, which a future increase of our etymological knowledge may show to be regular. Worse and could (its spelling alone being considered) are the fairest specimens of our irregulars. The class, instead of filling pages, is exceedingly limited.

We get a partial commentary on this text in the following chapters.

CHAPTER XXXIV.

THE VERB SUBSTANTIVE.

§ 411. THE verb substantive is generally dealt with as an irregular verb. This is inaccurate. The true notion is, that the idea of being or existing is expressed, in the present language, by three different verbs, each of which is defective in some of its parts. The parts, however, that are wanting in one verb, are made up by the inflections of one of the others. There is, for example, no præterite of the verbs be and am, and no present of the verb was. The forms, however, that one

word wants another supplies.

Was.-Defective, except in the præterite tense, where it is found both in the indicative and conjunctive.

Be. In the present English its inflection is as follows:

Note. In the "Deutsche Grammatik," i. 1051, it is stated

that the Anglo-Saxon forms beô, bist, bið, beoð, or beó, have not a present, but a future sense; that whilst am means I am, beó means I shall be; and that in the older languages it is only where the form am is not found that be has the power of a present form. The same root occurs in the Slavonic and Lithuanic tongues with the same power; as, esmi = I am ; búsu = I shall be, Lithuanic.—Esmu — I am; buhshu= I shall be, Livonian.-Jesm- I am; budu I shall be, Slavonic. -Gsem I am; budu I shall be, Bohemian. This, however, proves, not that there is in Anglo-Saxon a future tense (or form), but that the word beó has a future sense. There is no fresh tense where there is no fresh form.

The following is a specimen of the future power of beón in Anglo-Saxon :—“ Hi ne beóð na cílde, soðlice, on domesdæge, ac beóð swa micele menn swa swa hi, migton beón gif hi full weoxon on gewunlicre ylde."-ELFRIC's Homilies. "They will not be children, forsooth, on Domesday, but will be as much (so muckle) men as they might be if they were full grown (waxen) in customary age."

This is explained if we consider the word beón to mean not so much to be as to become, a view which gives us an element of the idea of futurity. Things which are becoming anything have yet something further to do. Again, from the idea of futurity we get the idea of contingency, and this explains the subjunctive power of be.

Am. Of this form it should be stated, that the letter -m is no part of the original word. It is the sign of the first person, just as it is in all the Indo-European languages.

It should also be stated, that, although the fact be obscured, and although the changes be insufficiently accounted for, the forms am, art, are, and is, are not, like am and was, parts of different words, but forms of one and the same word; in other terms, that, although between am and be there is no etymological connection, there is one between am and is. This we collect from the comparison of the Indo-European languages.