Now, whatever may be the theory of the origin of the termination -ing in old phrases like _rising early is healthy_, it cannot apply to expressions of recent introduction. Here the direct origin in -ung is out of the question. The view, then, that remains to be taken of the forms in question is this: 1. That the older forms in -ing are substantival in origin, and = the Anglo-Saxon -ung. 2. That the latter ones are _irregularly_ participial, and have been formed on a false analogy. * * * * * CHAPTER XXX. THE PAST PARTICIPLE. § 346. A. _The participle in_ -EN.--In the Anglo-Saxon this participle was declined like the adjectives. Like the adjectives, it is, in the present English, undeclined. In Anglo-Saxon it always ended in -en, as _sungen_, _funden_, _bunden_. In English this -en is often wanting, as _found_, _bound_; the word _bounden_ being antiquated. Words where the -en is wanting may be viewed in two lights; 1, they may be looked upon as participles that have lost their termination; 2, they may be considered as præterites with a participial sense. § 347. _Drank_, _drunk_, _drunken_.--With all words wherein the vowel of the plural differs from that of the singular, the participle takes the plural form. To say _I have drunk_, is to use an ambiguous expression; since _drunk_ may be either a participle _minus_ its termination, or a præterite with a participial sense. To say _I have drank_, is to use a præterite for a participle. To say _I have drunken_, is to use an unexceptional form. In all words with a double form, as _spake_ and _spoke_, _brake_ and _broke_, _clave_ and _clove_, the participle follows the form in o, as _spoken_, _broken_, _cloven_. _Spaken_, _braken_, _claven_ are impossible forms. There are degrees in laxity of language, and to say _the spear is broke_ is better than to say _the spear is brake_. § 348. As a general rule, we find the participle in -en wherever the præterite is strong; indeed, the participle in -en may be called the strong participle, or the participle of the strong conjugation. Still the two forms do not always coincide. In _mow_, _mowed_, _mown_, _sow_, _sowed_, _sown_; and several other words, we find the participle strong, and the præterite weak. I remember no instances of the converse. This is only another way of saying that the præterite has a greater tendency to pass from strong to weak than the participle. § 349. In the Latin language the change from s to r, and _vice versâ_, is very common. We have the double forms _arbor_ and _arbos_, _honor_ and _honos_, &c. Of this change we have a few specimens in English. The words _rear_ and _raise_, as compared with each other, are examples. In Anglo-Saxon a few words undergo a similar change in the plural number of the strong præterites.