THE WEAK TENSES.
s. 377. The praeterite tense of the weak verbs is formed by the addition of
_-d_ or _-t_. If necessary, the syllable _-ed_ is substituted for _-d_.
The current statement that the syllable _-ed_, rather than the letter _-d_,
is the sign of the praeterite tense, is true only in regard to the written
language. In _stabbed_, _moved_, _bragged_, _whizzed_, _judged_, _filled_,
_slurred_, _slammed_, _shunned_, _barred_, _strewed_, the _e_ is a point of
spelling only. In _language_, except in declamation, there is no second
vowel sound. The _-d_ comes in immediate contact with the final letter of
the original word, and the number of syllables remains the same as it was
before.
When, however, the original word ends in _-d_ or _-t_, as _slight_ or
_brand_, then, and then only (and that not always), is there the addition
of the syllable _-ed_; as in _slighted_, _branded_. This is necessary,
since the combinations _slightt_ and _brandd_ are unpronounceable.
Whether the addition be _-d_ or _-t_ depends upon the flatness or sharpness
of the preceding letter.
After _b_, _v_, _th_ (as in _clothe_), _g_, or _z_, the addition is _-d_.
This is a matter of necessity. We say _stabd_, _m[^o]vd_, _cl[^o]thd_,
_braggd_, _whizzd_, because _stabt_, _m[^o]vt_, _clotht_, _braggt_,
_whizzt_, are unpronounceable.
After _l_, _m_, _n_, _r_, _w_, _y_, or a vowel, the addition is also _-d_.
This is the habit of the English language. _Filt_, _slurt_, _strayt_, &c.,
are as pronounceable as _filld_, _slurrd_, _strayd_, &c. It is the habit,
however, of the English language to prefer the latter forms. All this, as
the reader has probably observed, is merely the reasoning concerning the
_s_, in words like {318} _father's_, &c., applied to another letter and to
another part of speech.
For some historical notices respecting the use of _-d_, _-t_, and _-ed_, in
the spelling of the English praeterites and participles, the reader is
referred to the Cambridge Philological Museum, vol. i. p. 655.
s. 378. The verbs of the weak conjugation fall into three classes. In the
first there is the simple addition of _-d_, _-t_, or _-ed_.
Serve, served.
Cry, cried.
Betray, betrayed.
Expel, expelled.
Accuse, accused.
Instruct, instructed.
Invite, invited.
Waste, wasted.
Dip, dipped (_dipt_).
Slip, slipped (_slipt_).
Step, stepped (_stept_).
Look, looked (_lookt_).
Pluck, plucked (_pluckt_).
Toss, tossed (_tost_).
Push, pushed (_pusht_).
Confess, confessed (_confest_)
To this class belong the greater part of the weak verbs and all verbs of
foreign origin.
s. 379. In the second class, besides the addition of _-t_ or _-d_, the
vowel is _shortened_. It also contains those words which end in _-d_ or
_-t_, and at the same time have a short vowel in the praeterite. Such,
amongst others, are _cut_, _cost_, &c., where the two tenses are alike, and
_bend_, _rend_, &c., where the praeterite is formed from the present by
changing _-d_ into _-t_, as _bent_, _rent_, &c.
In the following list, the words ending in _-p_ are remarkable; since, in
Anglo-Saxon, each of them had, instead of a weak, a strong praeterite.
Leave, left.
Cleave, cleft.
Bereave, bereft.
Deal, de[)a]l_t_.
Feel, fel_t_.
Dream, dre[)a]m_t_.
Lean, le[)a]n_t_.
Learn, learn_t_.
Creep, crept.
Sleep, slept.
Leap, lept.
Keep, kept.
Weep, wept.
Sweep, swept.
Lose, lost.
Flee, fled.
In this class we sometimes find _-t_ where the _-d_ is expected; the forms
being _left_ and _dealt_, instead of _leaved_ and _dealed_. {319}
s. 380. Third class.--In the second class the vowel of the present tense
was _shortened_ in the praeterite. In the third class it is _changed_.
Tell, told.
Will, would.
Sell, sold.
Shall, should.
To this class 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:--
Byegan, b['o]hte.
S[`e]can, s['o]hte.
Wyrcan, w['o]rhte.
Bringan, br['o]hte.
Thencan, th['o]hte.
s. 381. Out of the three classes 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 classes, precedes _d_
is _o_. Thus we have _lufian_, _lufode_; _clypian_, _clypode_. In the other
two classes 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 classes it was preceded by a vowel, _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 {320} _eard__ian_ was a word belonging to the first class, and
in the first class the praeterite was formed in _-ode_. Here the vowel _o_
kept the two d's from coming in contact. With words, however, like
_m['e]tan_ 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
pronunciation. Hence, with the exception of the verbs in the first class,
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_.
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. Of this _e_ two
views may be taken.
1. It may be derived from the original _o_ in _-ode_, the termination of
the first class in Anglo-Saxon. This is the opinion which we form when the
word in question is known to have belonged to the Anglo-Saxon language,
and, in it, to the first class. _Ended_, _planted_, _warded_, _hated_,
_heeded_, are (amongst others) words of this sort; their Anglo-Saxon forms
being _endode_, _plantode_, _weardode_, _hatode_, and _eahtode_, from
_endian_, _plantian_, _weardian_, _hatian_, and _eahtian_.
2. The form may be looked upon, not as that of the praeterite, but as that
of the participle in a transferred sense. This is the view when we have two
forms, one with the vowel, and the other without it, as _bended_ and
_bent_, _wended_ and _went_, _plighted_ and _plight_.
A. In several words the final _-d_ is changed into _-t_, as _bend_, _bent_;
_rend_, _rent_; _send_, _sent_; _gild_, _gilt_; _build_, _built_; _spend_,
_spent_, &c.
B. In several words the vowel of the root is changed; as _feed_, _fed_;
_bleed_, _bled_; _breed_, _bred_; _meet_, _met_; _speed_, _sped_;
_r[=e]ad_, _r[)e]ad_, &c. Words of this last-named class cause occasional
difficulty to the grammarian. No addition is made to the root, and, in this
circumstance, they agree with the strong verbs. Moreover, there is a change
of the vowel. {321} In this circumstance 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 _be[)a]t_, after the analogy of _feed_ and _r[=e]ad_. By some
persons the word is pronounced _bet_, and with those who do so the word is
weak.
_c._ _By a knowledge of the older forms._--The Anglo-Saxon form is
_be['a]te_, _beot_. There is no such a weak form as _be['a]te_, _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 separating the praeterite
form from the present, when the root ends with the same sound with which
the affix begins.
The addition of the vowel takes place only in verbs of the first class.
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.
Words like _planted_, _heeded_, &c., belong to the first class. Words like
_feed_, _lead_, to the second class. _Bend_ and _cut_ belong also to the
second class; they belong to it, however, by what may be termed an
etymological fiction. The vowel would be changed if it could.
s. 382. _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_
{322} 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 the Chapter upon Irregularity.
_Aught._--In Anglo-Saxon _['a]hte_, the praeterite of the present form
_['a]h_, plural _['a]gan_.--As late as the time of Elizabeth we find _owe_
used for _own_. The present form _own_ seems to have arisen from the plural
_['a]gen_. _Aught_ is the praeterite of the Anglo-Saxon _['a]h_; _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_.
_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.
The Moeso-Gothic forms are _dar_, _dart?_ _dar_, _da['u]rum_, _da['u]ruth_,
_da['u]run_, for the persons of the present tense; and _da['u]rsta_,
_da['u]rst[^e]s_, _da['u]rsta_, &c., for those of the praeterite. The same
is the case throughout the Germanic languages. No _-s_, however, appears in
the Scandinavian; the praeterites being _thordhi_ and _toerde_, Icelandic
and Danish. The Anglo-Saxon is _dear_=_I dare_, _dearst_=_thou darest_,
_durron_=_we_, {323} _ye_, or _they dare_; subjunctive, _durre_, _dorste_,
_dorston_. Old Saxon, present, _dar_; praeterite _dursta_. The Moeso-Gothic
tense, _da['u]rsta_, instead of _da['u]rda_, shows the antiquity of this
form in _-s_.
The readiest mode of accounting for the form in question is to suppose that
the second singular has been extended over all the other persons. This
view, however, is traversed by the absence of the _-s_ in the Moeso-Gothic
present. The form there (real or presumed) is not _darst_, but _dart_. Of
this latter form, however, it must be remarked that its existence is
hypothetical.
In Matthew xxvi. 67, of the Moeso-Gothic Gospel of Ulphilas, is found the
form _ka['u]past[^e]dun_, instead of _ka['u]patid['e]dun_, the praeterite
plural of _ka['u]patjan_=_to beat_. Here there is a similar insertion of
the _-s_.--Deutsche Grammatik, i. 848, 852, 853.
The _-s_ in _durst_ 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), pronounced _moh_; praeterite _maatte_.
The readiest mode of accounting for the _-s_ in _must_, is to presume that
it belongs to the second singular, extended to the other persons,
_mo-est_=_must_. Irrespective, however, of other objections, this view is
traversed by the forms _m[^o]tan_, Moeso-Gothic (an infinitive), and
_m['o]t_, Moeso-Gothic, Old Saxon, and Anglo-Saxon (a first person
present). These neutralise the evidence given by the Danish form _maae_,
and indicate that the _-t_ is truly a part of the original root.
Now, the _-t_ being considered as part of the root, the _-s_ cannot be
derived from the second singular; inasmuch as it precedes, instead of
following the _-t_.
At one time, for want of a better theory, I conceived, that in the word in
point (and also in _durst_ and a few others), we had traces of the
Scandinavian passive. This notion I have, for evident reasons, abandoned.
In p. 298 it was stated that the Moeso-Gothic termination of the second
singular of the strong praeterites was _-t_. It is {324} here mentioned
that _must_ is a praeterite form. Now the final letter of the root _mot_,
and the sign of the second singular of the strong praeterite, are the same,
_-t_. Now, as _-t_ cannot be immediately added to _t_, the natural form of
the second singular _m['o]t-t_ is impracticable. Hence, before the _-t_ of
the second person, the _-t_ of the root is changed, so that, instead of
_m['a]im['a]it-t_, _bigat-t_, _f['a]ifalth-t_, _l['a]ilot-t_, &c., we have
_m['a]im['a]is-t_, _bigas-t_, _f['a]ifals-t_, _l['a]ilos-t_, &c.,
Moeso-Gothic.--See Deutsche Grammatik, 844.
The euphonic reason for the _-s_, in _must_, is sufficient to show that it
is in a different predicament from _durst_.
The provincial form _mun_, there or thereabouts equivalent in meaning to
_must_, has no etymological connexion with this last named word. It is a
distinct word, in Scandinavian _monne_.
_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 Moeso-Gothic, 1 sing. pres. ind. _v['a]it_; 2. do., _v['a]ist_; 1. pl.
_vitum_; praeterite 1. s. _vissa_; 2 _viss[^e]ss_; 1. pl. _viss[^e]dum_.
From the form _v['a]ist_ we see that the second singular is formed after
the manner of _must_; that is, _v['a]ist_ stands instead of _v['a]it-t_.
From the form _viss[^e]dum_ we see that the praeterite is not strong, but
weak; therefore that _vissa_ is euphonic for _vista_.
In Anglo-Saxon.--_W[^a]t_, _w[^a]st_, _witon_, _wiste_ and _wisse_,
_wiston_.--Here the double forms, _wiste_ and _wisse_, verify the statement
concerning the Moeso-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_,
_wist_; the first seems to be the root; the second a strong praeterite
regularly formed, but used (like [Greek: oida] 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 {325} 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_.
_Do._--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 _de['a]h_,
_dugon_, _dohte_, _dohtest_, &c. Of the second it is _d['o]_, _d['o]dh_,
_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?_ pronounced _dooer deh note?_ This accounts
for the ejection of the _g_. The Anglo-Saxon form _deah_ does the same.
In respect to the praeterite of _do_=_facio_, difficulties present
themselves.
Is the word weak?--This is the view that arises from the form _did_. The
participle _done_ traverses this view.
Is the word strong?--In favour of this notion we have the English
participle _done_, and the praeterite second singular in Old High German
_t[^a]ti_. Against it are the Old Saxon _d['e]dos_, and the Anglo-Saxon
_dydest_, as second singulars.
Is there a reduplication?--If this were the case, we might assume such a
form as _d[^o]an_, _d['a]id[^o]_, for the Moeso-Gothic. This view, however,
is traversed by the substantival forms _d[^e]ds_, Moeso-Gothic; _t[^a]t_,
Old High German; _daed_, Anglo-Saxon; which show that the second _-d_ is
part of the original word.
The true nature of the form _did_ has yet to be exhibited.--See Deutsche
Grammatik, i. 1041.
_Mind--mind and do so and so._--In this sentence the word _mind_ is wholly
different from the noun _mind_. The Anglo-Saxon forms are _geman_,
_gemanst_, _gemunon_, without the _-d_; this letter occurring only in the
praeterite tense (_gemunde_, {326} _gemundon_), of which it is the sign.
_Mind_ is, then, a praeterite form with a present sense; whilst _minded_
(as in _he minded his business_) is an instance of excess of inflection; in
other words, it is a praeterite formed from a praeterite.
A praeterite formed upon a praeterite may also be called a secondary
praeterite; just as the word _theirs_, derived from _their_ (a case formed
from a case), is called a secondary genitive.
In like manner the present form _mind_ is not a genuine present, but a
praeterite with a present sense; _its form being taken as the test_.
Presents of this sort may be called transformed praeterites.
It is very evident that the praeterites most likely to become present are
those of the strong class. In the first place, the fact of their being
praeterite is less marked. The word _tell_ carries with it fewer marks of
its tense than the word _moved_. In the second place they can more
conveniently give rise to secondary praeterites. A weak praeterite already
ends in _-d_ or _-t_. If this be used as a present, a second _-d_ or _-t_
must be appended.
Hence it is that all the transposed praeterites in the Gothic tongues were,
before they took the present sense, not weak, but strong. The word in
question, _mind_ (from whence _minded_), is only an apparent exception to
this statement.
Now the words _shall_, _can_, _owe_ (whence _aught_), _dare_, _may_, _man_
(of the Anglo-Saxon _geman_, the origin of _mind_), are, (irrespective of
their other peculiarities), for certain etymological reasons, looked upon
as praeterite forms with a present sense.
And the words _should_, _could_, _aught_, _dared_ (or _durst_), _must_,
_wist_, _might_, _mind_, are, for certain etymological reasons, looked upon
as secondary praeterites.
This fact alters our view of the form _minded_. Instead of being a
secondary praeterite, it is a tertiary one. _Geman_ (the apparent present)
being dealt with as a strong praeterite with a present sense, _mind_ (from
the Anglo-Saxon _gemunde_) is the secondary praeterite, and _minded_ (from
the English _mind_) is a tertiary praeterite. To analyse the word, the
{327} praeterite is first formed by the vowel _a_, then by the addition of
_-d_, and, thirdly, by the termination _-ed_; _man_, _mind_, _minded_.
The proof of this we collect from the second persons singular,
Moeso-Gothic. The second singular praeterite of the strong class is _-t_;
of the weak class, _-es_; of the present, both weak and strong, _-s_. Now
the second singular of the words in point is _skal-t_, _kan-t_, _['a]ih-t_,
_dar-t?_ _mag-t_, _man-t_, respectively.--Deutsche Grammatik, i. 852.
Besides this, in Anglo-Saxon, the plural forms are those of the strong
praeterites. See Rask, p. 79.
_Yode._--The obsolete praeterite of _go_, now replaced by _went_, the
praeterite of _wend_. Regular, except that the initial _g_ has become _y_.
* * * * *
{328}