Part 59 (2/2)

In Moeso-Gothic, as in Latin, the perfect forms have, besides their own, an aorist sense, and _vice versa_

In Moeso-Gothic, as in Latin, few (if any) words are found in both forms

In Moeso-Gothic, as in Latin, the two for called the praeterite of _laia_, and _svor_ the praeterite of _svara_ The true vieever, is that in Moeso-Gothic, as in Latin, there are two past tenses, each having a certain latitude ofthe other

The reduplicate form, in other words, the perfect tense, is current in none of the Gothic languages except the Moeso-Gothic A trace of it is found in the Anglo-Saxon of the seventh century in the word _heht_, which is considered to be _he-ht_, the Moeso-Gothic _haihait_, _vocavi_ This stateical Museum, ii 378 _Did_ from _do_ is also considered to be a reduplicate fore the tense corresponding with the Greek aorist and the Latin forms like _vixi_, is for_, and _took_, fro the vowel of the present: 2, as in _moved_ and _wept_, from _move_ and _weep_, by the addition of _d_ or _t_; the _d_ or _t_ not being found in the original word, but being a fresh ele_ and _fell_, no addition being made, no new ele is added Verbs, then, of the first sort, may be said to form their praeterites out of the fro_ and _fell_ are corae of vowel the strong tenses, the strong verbs, the strong conjugation, or the strong order; and those formed by the addition of _d_ or _t_, the weak tenses, the weak verbs, the weak conjugation, or the weak order _Bound_, _spoke_, _gave_, _lay_, &c, are strong; _moved_, _favoured_, _instructed_, &c, are weak For the proof that the division of verbs into weak and strong is a natural division, see the Chapter on Conjugation

{307}

CHAPTER XXIII

THE STRONG TENSES

-- 363 The strong praeterites are for_, _speak_, _spoke_

The first point in the history of these tenses that the reader is required to be aware of, is stated in the Chapter upon the Nue, in their plural, the vowel of their singular; as

Ic sang, _I sang_ We sungon, _we sung_

u sunge, _thou sungest_ Ge sungon, _ye sung_

He sang, _he sang_ Hi sungon, _they sung_

As a general rule, the second singular has the same voith the plural persons, as _burne_, _thou burntest_, plural _burnon_, _we burnt_

The bearing of this fact upon the praeterites has been indicated in p 300

In a great nu_ and _sung_, _drank_ and _drunk_, &c One of these forular, and the other from the plural I cannot say at what period the difference of form ceased to denote a difference of sense

In cases where but one forular one For instance, Ic f_a_nd, _I found_, we f_u_ndon, _we found_, are the Anglo-Saxon forular _fand_, but froh in the Lowland Scotch dialect and in the old writers, the singular fors, Where Allan Gregor _fand_ the tings--Scott

Even in the present English it will be found convenient to {308} call the for_ and _bound_ the plural forh this fact accounts for most of our double forlo-Saxon, Ic spr['ae]c, _I spake_, we spr['ae]con, _we spake_ There is no change of number to account for the two forms _spake_ and _spoke_

_First Class_

-- 364 Contains the tords _fall_ and _fell_, _hold_ and _held_, where the sound of _o_ is changed into that of _[)e]_ Here must be noticed the natural tendency of _a_ to becolo-Saxon are, _Ic fealle_, I fall; _Ic feoll_, I fell; _Ic healde_, I hold; _Ic heold_, I held

_Second Class_

-- 365 Here the praeterite ends in _-ew_ Words of this class are distinguished from those of the third Class by the different form of the present tense

_Present_ _Praeterite_ Dra

Slay Slew

Fly Flew

In these words the _w_ has grown out of a _g_, as lo-Saxon fors to this class: since, in Anglo-Saxon, we find the foren_, and in the Swedish the praeterite for_