Page:Philological Museum v2.djvu/254

244 244 Miscellaneous Observations. of the inflexion of the second class of his first conjugation says^ that ^^in this class it is necessary to observe whether the characteristic is a hard or a soft consonant ; in the latter case it forms de in the imperfect^ and ed in the part, pass., in the former, te in the imp. and t in the part. pass. The soft consonants are d, S, /, w^ g, also /, m^ n^ r, s ; the hard are t^ p^ c, A, w^ and 5 after another consonant.'' He gives as instances alysan^ alysde^ alysed^ to redeem, amyrran^ amyrde^ amyrred to waste, metan^ mette^ (ge)met^ to meet, dyppan^ dypte^ dypt^ to dip. He further adds that "-' if the consonant be double, one is always rejected, when another consonant follows,'** ^. 206. Grimm in his Grammar gives similar rules with regard to the modern English verb, of which they are not true according to the actually prevail- ing orthography, " In case" he says, '' the e is omitted in the preterite, the d becomes ^, after Z, m, n^ p^ A;, / (from i?), gli (from k and cA), and 5," citing as examples the words dealt, felt, dwelt, spelt, spilt, smelt, dreamt, leant, meant, learnt, burnt, crept, kept, slept, swept, wept, leapt, reapt, dipt, slipt, tipt, whipt, crackt, knockt^ left, reft, sought, lost, kist, mist, blest. Vol. i. p. 996. These various in- stances exactly correspond with the suggestions in the article referred to. With regard to the English genitive case, on which some observations are made in the same place pp. 669 — 678, there can be no doubt that, when the flexions of our Saxon language were disturbed by the admixture of the heterogeneous Norman element, the s was transferred from those substantives in which it properly marked the genitive case, to all others, both Saxon and Norman, whatever might be their form ; in the same manner as the same letter became a universal mark of the plural number, without reference to the original and proper mode of inflexion : see Grimm^ Vol. i. p. 694. 709. Vol. II. p. 944. Nothing therefore can betray a greater ignorance of the history and character of our language, than to suppose that such expressions as the king'^s house, the mail's garden, are contracted from the king his house, the man his garden. Besides the impossibility of accounting for such forms as the Queen'^s Majesty, a mother'^s milk, unless the 5 is taken to be the mark of the genitive* there are also