CHAPTER XXXI.

CONSTITUTION OF THE PRÆTERITE FORMS.-THE SO-CALLED

STRONG PRÆTERITE.

§ 403. WHEN we ask how the method employed by the Angles and the other early Germans, of forming a certain number of præterites by changing the vowel of the present, came into use, we ask a question that has a twofold bearing. It bears, in the first instance, upon the special history of the German class of languages. But it does something besides. It suggests a point of Comparative Philology. How far is the method in question unique, or (if not unique) rare? How far is it a process distinctive of the German class of languages rather than one common to them and the allied tongues of the (so-called) Indo-European class?

If our answer to this latter question be to the effect that the process is peculiarly and exclusively German, and (as such) characteristic of the German tongues as opposed to the Classical and Sarmatian, all references to the Latin, the Greek, the Lithuanian, the Slavonic, or the Sanskrit become unnecessary.

Again, another effect of such an answer is to engender the idea that language in general is, pro tanto, so much the more irregular, and so much the less reducible to some general law of growth or development.

What, however, is our answer? It is to the effect that, though the particular form under notice be peculiar to the German tongues, the processes by which it is developed are those of certain of the allied languages other than German.

The most probable hypothesis as to the origin of the socalled Strong Præterites, is that they are the ordinary redupli

cate forms of the Latin, Greek, Sanskrit, and Moso-Gothic, minus the reduplication, and plus the accommodation of the vowel.

Such is the explanation of its form.

In respect to its power the remarks of chapter xxvi. find their application. It is, at the present time, more aorist than perfect ; originally, it was more perfect than aorist.

Mutatis mutandis, the history of the power of words like tetigi and cucurri, is the history of the power of words like fell and spoke.

CHAPTER XXXII.

CONSTITUTION OF THE PRÆTERITE FORMS.

WEAK PRÆTERITE.

THE SO-CALLED

§ 404. THE remote origin of the weak præterite in -d or -t, has been considered by Grimm. He maintains that it is the d in d-d, the reduplicate præterite of do. In all the Gothic languages the termination of the past tense is either -da, -ta, -de, di, -d, -t, or -ed, for the singular, and -don, -ton, -túmés, or -dum, for the plural; in other words, d, or an allied sound, appears once, if not oftener. In the plural præterite of the MasoGothic, however, we have something more, viz. the termination -dédum; as nas-idédum, nas-idédup, nas-idedun, from nas-ja; sók-idédum, sók-idédup, sók-idédun, from sók-ja; salb-ódedum, salb-ódédup, salb-6dédun, from salbó. Here there is a second d. The same takes place with the dual form salb-ódéduts, and with the subjunctive forms, salb-ódédjan, salb-ódéduts, salbódedi, salb-ódédeits, salb-ódédeima, salb-ódedeiþ, salb-ódedina. The English phrase, we did salve, as compared with salbódedum, is confirmatory of this. (D. G. i. 1042.)

§ 405. Some remarks of Dr. Trithen's on the Slavonic præterite, in the "Transactions of the Philological Society," induce me to prefer a different doctrine, and to identify the -d in words like moved, &c., with the -t of the passive participles of the Latin language; as found in mon-it-us, voc-at-us, rapt-us, and probably in Greek forms like rup-0-ɛíç.

1. The Slavonic præterite is commonly said to possess genders in other words, there is one form for speaking of a past action when done by a male, and another for speaking of a past action when done by a female.

2. These forms are identical with those of the participles, masculine and feminine, as the case may be. Indeed the præterite is a participle. If, instead of saying ille amavit, the Latins said ille amatus, whilst, instead of saying illa amavit, they said illa amata, they would exactly use the grammar of the Slavonians.

3. Hence, as one class of languages, at least, gives us the undoubted fact of an active præterite being identical with a passive participle, and as the participle and præterite in question are nearly identical, we have a fair reason for believing that the d, in the English active præterite, is the d of the participle, which, in its turn, is the t of the Latin passive participle.

The following extract gives Dr. Trithen's remarks on the Slavonic verb in his own words :

"A peculiarity which distinguishes the grammar of all the Slavish languages, consists in the use of the past participle, taken in an active sense, for the purpose of expressing the præterite. This participle generally ends in -7; and much uncertainty prevails both as to its origin and its relations, though the termination has been compared by various philologists with similar affixes in the Sanscrit, and the classical languages.

"In the Old Slavish, or the language of the church, there are three methods of expressing the past tense: one of them consists in the union of the verb substantive with the participle; as

"In the corresponding tense of the Slavonic dialect we have the verb substantive placed before the participle: