A Handbook of the English Language Part 38

Keep Kept.

Sleep Slept.

Sweep Swept.

Weep Wept.

Lose Lost.

Mean [57]Meant.

Here the final consonant is -t.

_Present_ _Praeterite_

Flee Fled.

Hear [58]Heard.

Shoe Shod.

Say [59]Said.

Here the final consonant is -d.

-- 308. III. 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:--

Bycan, bohte.

Secan, sohte.

Bringan, brohte.

encan, ohte.

Wyrcan, worhte.

-- 309. 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; the vowel being e,--_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 _eardian_ 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.

-- 310. 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.

-- 311. In several words the final -d is changed into -t, as _bend_, _bent_; _rend_, _rent_; _send_, _sent_; _gild_, _gilt_; _build_, _built_; _spend_, _spent_, &c.

-- 312. In several words the vowel of the root is changed; as _feed_, _fed_; _bleed_, _bled_; _breed_, _bred_; _meet_, _met_; _speed_, _sped_; _read_, _read_, &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.

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 _beat_, after the a.n.a.logy of _feed_ and _read_. 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 distinguishing the praeterite form from the present, when the root ends with the same sound with which the affix begins.

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.

-- 313. The following verbs form their praeterite in -t:--

_Present._ _Praeterite._

Leave [60]Lef_t_ not [61]Leav_ed_.

Cleave Clef_t_ -- Cleav_ed_.

Bereave Beref_t_ -- Bereav_ed_.

Deal [62]Deal_t_ -- Deal_ed_.

Feel Fel_t_ -- Feel_ed_.

Dream [60]Drem_t_ -- Dream_ed_.

Learn [60]Lern_t_ -- Learn_ed_.

-- 314. Certain _so-called_ irregularities may now be noticed.--_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 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 -- 331.

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

-- 316. _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.

This 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 _maatt_.

This form has still to be satisfactorily accounted for.

_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 Mso-Gothic, 1 sing. pres. ind. _vait_; 2. do., _vaist_; 1 pl. _vitum_; praeterite 1 s. _vissa_; 2 _vissess_; 1 pl. _vissedum_. From the form _vaist_ we see that the second singular is formed after the manner of _must_; that is, _vaist_ stands instead of _vait-t_. From the form _vissedum_ we see that the praeterite is not strong, but weak; therefore that _vissa_ is euphonic for _vista_.

In Anglo-Saxon.--_Wat_, _wast_, _witon_, _wiste_, and _wisse_, _wiston_.--Hence the double forms, _wiste_, and _wisse_, verify the statement concerning the Mso-Gothic _vissa_.

In Icelandic.--_Veit_, _veizt_, _vitum_, _vissi_. Danish _ved_, _vide_, _vidste_. Observe the form _vidste_; since, in it, the d of the root (in spelling, at least) is preserved. The t of the Anglo-Saxon _wiste_ is the t, not of the root, but of the inflection.

In respect to the four forms in question, viz., _wit_, _wot_, _wiss_, _wisst_, the first seems to be the root; the second a strong praeterite regularly formed, but used (like ??da in Greek) with a present sense; the third a weak praeterite, of which the -t has been ejected by a euphonic process, used also with a present sense; the fourth is a second singular from _wiss_ after the manner of _wert_ from _were_, a second singular from _wit_ after the manner of _must_, a secondary praeterite from _wiss_, or finally, the form _wisse_, anterior to the operation of the euphonic process that ejected the -t.

-- 317. In the phrase _this will do_ = _this will answer the purpose_, the word _do_ is wholly different from the word _do_, meaning _to act_. In the first case it is equivalent to the Latin _valere_; in the second to the Latin _facere_. Of the first the Anglo-Saxon inflection is _deah_, _dugon_, _dohte_, _dohtest_, &c. Of the second it is _do_, _do_, _dyde_, &c. I doubt whether the praeterite _did_, as equivalent to _valebat_ = _was good for_, is correct. In the phrase _it did for him_ = _it finished him_, either meaning may be allowed.

In the present Danish they write _duger_, but say _duer_: as _duger et noget?_ = _Is it worth anything?_ p.r.o.nounced _dooer deh note?_ This accounts for the ejection of the g. The Anglo-Saxon form _deah_ does the same.