Exclusive, however, as the rule in question is, it is plain that it might be made more so. The regular forms might, by the _fiat_ of a rule, be restricted to those in -d. In this case words like _wept_ and _burnt_ would be added to the already numerous list of irregulars. Finally, a further limitation might be made, by laying down as a rule that no word was regular, unless it ended in -ed. § 325. Thus much concerning the modes of making rules exclusive, and, consequently, of raising the amount of irregularities. This is the last art that the philosophic grammarian is ambitious of acquiring. True etymology _reduces_ irregularity; and that by making the rules of grammar, not exclusive, but general. _The quantum of irregularity is in the inverse proportion to the generality of our rules._ In language itself there is no irregularity. The word itself is only another name for our ignorance of the processes that change words; and, as irregularity is in the direct proportion to the exclusiveness of our rules, the exclusiveness of our rules is in the direct proportion to our ignorance of etymological processes. § 326. The explanation of some fresh terms will lead us towards the definition of the word _irregular_. _Vital and obsolete processes._--The word _moved_ is formed from _move_, by the addition of -d. The addition of -d is the process by which the present form is rendered præterite. The word _fell_ is formed from _fall_, by changing a into e. The change of vowel is the process by which the present form is rendered præterite. Of the two processes the result is the same. In what respect do they differ? For the sake of illustration, let a new word be introduced into the language. Let a præterite tense of it be formed. This præterite would be formed, not by changing the vowel, but by adding -d. No _new_ verb ever takes a strong præterite. The like takes place with nouns. No _new_ substantive would form its plural, like _oxen_ or _geese_, by adding -en, or by changing the vowel. It would rather, like _fathers_ and _horses_, add the lene sibilant. Now, the processes that change _fall_, _ox_ and _goose_ into _fell_, _oxen_, and _geese_, inasmuch as they cease to operate on the language in its present stage, are _obsolete_ processes; whilst those that change _move_ into _moved_, and _horse_ into _horses_, operating on the language in its present stage, are _vital_ processes. A definition of the word _irregular_ might be so framed as to include all words whose forms could not be accounted for by the vital processes. Such a definition would make all the strong verbs irregular. The very fact of so natural a class as that of the strong verbs being reduced to the condition of irregulars, invalidates such a definition as this.