powers. It is a present and a præterite as well. We can say

just as we say

He says that I ought to go; and
He said that I ought to go—

He says that I wish to go; and

He said that I wished to go.

Ought comes from owe-from ow- without any sound of n. Own concedentis comes from o-n, where there is not only a sound of n, but where that sound of n is part and parcel of the root.

What does own possidentis come from?

Not from the own concedentis, though it agrees with that word in having the sound of n.

Let us take the points of contrast.

1. The -n of the own concedentis is radical. The -n of the own possidentis is not so.

2. The ow of the own concedentis has grown out of u. The w of the own possidentis has grown out of an h, which has grown out of a g, gh, k, or kh.

Such are the points of contrast between the own possidentis and the own concedentis.

Let us now look to the relation between own and owe (whence ought).

1. Owe (whence vught) has no n. Neither had own (possidentis) until after the time of Elizabeth. Shakspere, for instance, always (or nearly always) writes owe rather than

own.

See where he comes; nor poppy nor mandragora,
Nor all the drowsy syrups of the world,

Can ever med'cine thee to that sweet sleep
Which thou owe'dst yesterday.

Othello.

2. The w in the owe (whence ought) represents an h (A. S. ah), representing a g, or gh, k, or kh.

Hence, the connections of own possidentis are with owe (whence ought).

Let us call the latter owe debentis, the former owe possidentis.

Doing this we give the latter word two forms, and look at it under a double aspect-one for comparison (or rather contrast) with own concedentis, and one for comparison with owe debentis.

Essentially, however, the word is owe without the -n. Briefly,

§ 430. Must.-I can only say of this form that it is common to all persons, numbers, and tenses; the powers of the -s- and -t- being, at present, unsusceptible of any satisfactory explanation.

The same (as I might have stated in § 428) is the case in the archaic forms wiss and wist (= know and knew).

§ 431. The class of words under notice is a natural one, one of their characteristics being their long standing in languages. This is shown by the large portion of the so-called IndoEuropean language over which they are spread; inasmuch as the greater part of their roots is classical as well as Englishin some cases Sarmatian as well. Hence, their origin goes back to the time of that ancient mother language, which was, at one time, common to the ancestors of the Italians, Greeks, Slavonians, Lithuanians, Germans, and Scandinavians. Thus1. C-n (the root of can) = the yv, the root of yv-ów, yv-woкw, gn-ovi = know.

2. D-rs (the root of durs-t) = the 0-po, the root of Oapo-εïv = dare.

3. M-g (the root of may) = (?) the mac in macte. Macte (proceed, go on) tua virtute puer, &c.

4. -N- (the root of own concedentis) = (?) the -n- in nuo, annuo (= nod assent).

5. Ow- (the root of own possidentis the older form eig-an) the ex- in ex-ev = to have.

6. W-t (the root of wit and wot) the -- in old-a (I know = I have seen) and vid-i.

7. M-n (the root of mun and mind) = the m-n in me-min-i = remember.

§ 432. The forms that have been dealt with are perfects, or præterites-perfects or præterites rather than presents. They presuppose, however, a previous present, out of which they originated. The reconstruction of this involves two considerations; viz. that of the original form, and that of the original meaning.

The reconstruction of the original form may safely be attempted with three words of the list, own, can, and dare, of which the primitive presents were probably en, ken, and ders, or (perhaps) in, kin, and dirs; this being the inference from the inflection of a large class of words like the A. S. helpe, and the M. G. hilpa.

As contributions towards the reconstruction of the original meaning, the following powers are suggested.

1. Can. Meaning I have learned, I have got information; the present sense is I am able.

2. Dare.-If this means I have taken courage, the present sense, I am in a state to undertake, = dare.

3. May. If this mean I have gotten the power, it also means

I am free to act.

4. Owe

5. Own

I have come under an obligation = I am bound to.
I have gotten possession = I possess.

6. Wit, wot I have perceived = I understand.

CHAPTER XXXIX.

ON CONJUGATION.

§ 433. It is hoped that it is now equally superfluous to urge further arguments against the indiscriminate use of the word irregular, and to add to the evidence in favour of the strong class of verbs being a natural, rather than an artificial one. Let us, however, put the chief general statements that may be made concerning them together; remarking upon each, to say how far it is universal, or how far it is liable to exceptions.

I. No new word is ever strong. One of our earliest Norman-French words, a word introduced as early as A.D. 1085, is the word adouber dubb. Its præterite is dubbade. (Phil. Mus. ii. p. 387.)

Hence the strong processes are obsolete―obsolete and not vital.

II. All the English strong verbs are of Angle, none of foreign origin. This is a deduction from the preceding state

ment.

In the allied languages the root scr-b= write. It is certainly the Latin scrib- in scrib-o. Nevertheless, its inflection is strong, being, in German, schrieb, in Norse, skrev. Does this prove the word to be equally indigenous to the two classes of languages-the German and the Latin? I think not; though many good authorities think differently.

III. Strong words become weak. Weak words do not become strong.

Exceptions. The words did, became, and overflown, catachrestic; and the words like them, if any. It is not difficult

to see that these have become strong under very peculiar and exceptional circumstances.

IV. The verbs which are strong in any one of the German languages are generally so in all the rest.

Take this along with No. III., and you come to the conclusion that the later the stage of a given language, the fewer are the strong forms. Then, as the provincial dialects retain many archaisms, it is only natural to expect that they will partially agree with the A. S. of the list of chapter xxxv., rather than the modern English. Hence, if we find (as we actually do), instead of (say) leapt, slept, mowed, snowed, &c., such forms as lep, slep, mew, snew, it is no more than what we expect.

V. Derived words are weak rather than strong. The intransitive forms drink and lie, are strong; the transitive forms drench and lay, are weak.-(See chapter xxii.)

It is safe, then, to say that the Strong Conjugation (socalled) is a natural one.

§ 434. Nevertheless, I have taken every opportunity to suggest the possibility of its being something other than natural, or (if not this) exceptionable in some respect or other. I have taken no ordinary pains to attach to the words Strong and Conjugation the qualifying participle so-called-writing of the so-called Strong Conjugation, or the Strong Conjugation socalled. Whether the reader has observed this or not, there is something implied by the qualification; an exception of

some sort.

What does it lie against? Not against the natural character of the group.

Nor yet against the words strong and weak-though it may be doubtful whether they are the best words that could have been chosen.

It lies against the word Conjugation.

Two (or more) tenses, absolutely identical in power, and absolutely different in form, in one and the same conjugation, as original elements of a language, are a philological tautology, which a more advanced criticism will eliminate from the phenomena of speech, and relegate to the limbo of irregularities and similar concealments of our want of knowledge.