Reference is now made to words of a different sort. The nature of the word _worse_ has been explained in the Chapter on the Comparative Degree. There the form is accounted for in two ways, of which only one can be the true one. Of the two processes, each might equally have brought about the present form. Which of the two it was, we are unable to say. Here the process is _ambiguous_. A definition of the word _irregular_ might be so framed as to include all words affected by ambiguous processes. § 330. _Normal processes as opposed to processes of confusion._--Let a certain word come under class A. Let all words under class A be similarly affected. Let a given word come under class A. This word will be affected even as the rest of class A is affected. The process affecting, and the change resulting, will be normal, regular, or analogical. Let, however, a word, instead of really coming under class A, only _appear_ to do so. Let it be dealt with accordingly. The analogy then is a false one. The principle of imitation is a wrong one. The process affecting is a process of confusion. Examples of this (a few amongst many) are words like _songstress_, _theirs_, _minded_, where the words _songstr-_, _their-_, _mind-_, are dealt with as roots, which they are not. Ambiguous processes, extraordinary processes, processes of confusion--each, or all of these, are legitimate reasons for calling words irregular. The practice of etymologists will determine what definition is most convenient. With extraordinary processes we know nothing about the word. With ambiguous processes we are unable to make a choice. With processes of confusion we see the analogy, but, at the same time, see that it is a false one. § 331. _Could_.--With all persons who pronounce the l this word is truly irregular. The Anglo-Saxon form is _cuðe_. The l is inserted by a process of confusion. _Can_, _cunne_, _canst_, _cunnon_, _cunnan_, _cuðe_, _cuðon_, _cuð_--such are the remaining forms in Anglo-Saxon. None of them account for the l. The presence of the l makes the word _could_ irregular. No reference to the allied languages accounts for it. Notwithstanding this, the presence of the l is accounted for. In _would_ and _should_ the l has a proper place. It is part of the original words, _will_ and _shall_. A false analogy looked upon _could_ in the same light. Hence a true irregularity; _provided that the _L_ be pronounced_. The L, however, is pronounced by few, and that only in pursuance with the spelling. This reduces the word _could_ to an irregularity, not of language, but only of orthography. That the mere ejection of the -n in _can_, and that the mere lengthening of the vowel, are not irregularities, we learn from a knowledge of the processes that convert the Greek ὀδόντος (_odontos_) into ὀδούς (_odows_).