But two conjugations for one and the same tense, is a philological tautology also.

What, then, are such forms as swoll and swelled, hung and hanged, if, being regular, they are neither instances of two tenses to one conjugation, nor of one tense to two conjugations?

Can we make it matter of transitive and intransitive, and allow ourselves to suppose either an actually existent, or an once-existing difference of meaning between such forms as those of the pairs in question? Can hung = pependit, whilst hanged suspendit? Can swoll tumuit, whilst swelled= tumefecit? Should we cultivate such distinctions as the following?

1. I hanged him up, and there he hung.

2. I swelled the number of his followers, which swoll, at last, to a thousand.

This view is suggested in a paper on certain tenses attributed to the Greek verb in the "Philological Museum;" and, it may be added, that there is something in favour of it. The two instances just given look likely. The forms like

Drink and Drank as opposed to Drench and Drenched,

are, more or less, confirmatory. Yet they are anything but conclusive. All that they tell us is, that when we have two forms, one primitive and intransitive, and the other derivative and transitive, it is the former which is strong rather than weak, and the latter which is weak rather than strong.

The real explanation is to be found in the chapters on Tenses in general, and upon the Strong and Weak Præterites.

a. Cut off from such a word as te-tig-i, the reduplicational te.

b. Replace the English forms in d (mov-ed) by the Latin forms in -si (vic-si = vixi).

When this is done, the history of such a pair of words as drank and moved, is the history of such a pair of words as tetigi and vixi.

Now the place of these is that of τέτυ-φα and ἔτυψα,

i.e. they both belong to one and the same conjugation—of which, however, they are different tenses, one a perfect, the other aorist.

If so, what are our Strong Præterites ? Perfects modified in form by the loss of the reduplication, and changed in power by having adopted that of the aorist.

And what are our Weak Præterites? Aorists.
The Conjugation is really one.

The Tense is one in appearance only.

CHAPTER XL.

ADVERBS.

§ 435. Adverbs.-The adverbs are capable of being classified on a variety of principles.

1. Firstly, they may be divided according to their meaning. In this case we speak of the adverbs of time, place, number, manner. This division is logical rather than ety

mological.

A division, however, which although logical bears upon etymology, is the following:

Well, better, ill, worse.-Here we have a class of adverbs expressive of degree, or intensity. Adverbs of this kind are. capable of taking an inflection, viz. that of the comparative and superlative degrees.

Now, then, here, there.—In the idea expressed by these words there are no degrees of intensity. Adverbs of this kind are incapable of taking any inflection.

Words like better and worse are adjectives or adverbs as they are joined to nouns or verbs.

Adverbs differ from nouns and verbs in being susceptible of one sort of inflection only, viz. that of degree.

2. Secondly, adverbs may be divided according to their form and origin. This is truly an etymological classification.

a. Better, worse. Here the combination of sounds gives equally an adjective and an adverb. This book is better than that-here better agrees with book, and is therefore adjectival. This looks better than that-here better qualifies looks, and is therefore adverbial. Again; to do a thing with violence is equivalent to do a thing violently. This shows how adverbs. may arise out of cases. In words like the English better, the

Latin vi (= violenter), the Greek káλov (= káλws), we have adjectives in their degrees, and substantives in their cases, with adverbial powers. In other words, nouns are deflected from their natural sense to an adverbial one. Adverbs of this kind are adverbs of deflection.

b. Brightly, bravely.-Here an adjective is rendered adverbial by the addition of the derivative syllable -ly. Adverbs like brightly, &c., may (laxly speaking) be called adverbs of derivation.

c. Now.—This word has not satisfactorily been shown to have originated as any other part of speech than as an adverb. Words of this sort are adverbs absolute.

When, now, well, worse, better—here the adverbial expression consists in a single word, and is simple. To-day, yesterday, not at all, somewhat-here the adverbial expression consists of a compound word, or a phrase. This indicates the division of adverbs into simple and complex.

436. The adverbs of deflection (of the chief importance in etymology) may be arranged after a variety of principles. I. According to the part of speech from whence they originate. This is often an adjective, often a substantive, at times a pronoun, occasionally a preposition, rarely a verb. II. According to the part of the inflection from whence they originate. This is often an ablative case, often a neuter accusative, often a dative, occasionally a genitive.

The following notices are miscellaneous rather than systematic.

Else, unawares, eftsoons.-These are the genitive forms of adjectives. By rights is a word of the same sort.

Once, twice, thrice.-These are the genitive forms of numerals.

Needs (as in needs must go) is the genitive case of a substantive.

Seldom.-The old dative (singular or plural) of the adjective

seld.

Whilom.-The dative (singular or plural) of the substantive

while.

Little, less, well.-Neuter accusatives of adjectives. Bright, in the sun shines bright, is a word of the same class. The

neuter accusative is a common source of adverbs in all tongues.

Athwart.—A neuter accusative, and a word exhibiting the Norse neuter in -t.

§ 437. Darkling.-This is no participle of a verb darkle, but an adverb of derivation, like unwaringún unawares, Old High-German; stillenge = secretly, Middle High-German; blindlings = blindly, New High-German; darnungo = secretly, Old Saxon; nichtinge = by night, Middle Dutch; blindeling = blindly, New Dutch; bæclinga = backwards, handlunga = hand to hand, Anglo-Saxon; and, finally, blindlins, backlins, darklins, middlins, scantlins, stridelins, stowlins, in Lowland Scotch.Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 236.

§ 438. "Adverbs like brightly may (laxly speaking) be called adverbs of derivation." Such is the assertion made a few paragraphs above. The first circumstance that strikes the reader is, that the termination -ly is common both to adjectives and to adverbs. This termination was once an independent word, viz. leik. Now, as -ly sprung out of the Anglo-Saxon -lice, and as words like early, dearly, &c., were originally arlice, deorlice, &c., and as arlice, deorlice, &c., were adjectives, the adverbs in -ly are (strictly speaking) adverbs, not of derivation, but of deflection.

It is highly probable that not only the adverbs of derivation, but that also the absolute adverbs, may eventually be reduced to adverbs of deflection. For now, see Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 249.