Let the word _smiðum_ illustrate this. _Smið-um_, the dative plural of _smið_, is equivalent in meaning to the English _to smiths_; or to the Latin _fabr-is_. _Smiðum_, however, is a single Anglo-Saxon word (a substantive, and nothing more); whilst its English equivalent is two words (i.e., a substantive with the addition of a preposition). The letter s, in _smiths_, shows that the word is plural. The -um, in _smiðum_, does this and something more. It is the sign of the _dative case_ plural. The -um in _smiðum_, is the part of a word. The preposition _to_ is a separate word with an independent existence. _Smiðum_ is the radical syllable _smið_ + the subordinate inflectional syllable -um, the sign of the dative case. The combination _to smiths_ is the substantive _smiths_ + the preposition _to_, equivalent in power to the sign of a dative case, but different from it in form. As far, then, as the words just quoted is concerned, the Anglo-Saxon differs from the English by expressing an idea by a certain _modification of the form of the root_, whereas the modern English denotes the same idea by _the addition of a preposition_; in other words, the Saxon _inflection_ is superseded by a _combination_ of words. The sentences in italics are mere variations of the same general statement. 1. _The earlier the stage of a given language the greater the amount of its inflectional forms, and the later the stage of a given language, the smaller the amount of them._ 2. _As languages become modern they substitute prepositions and auxiliary verbs for cases and tenses._ 3. _The amount of inflection is in the inverse proportion to the amount of prepositions and auxiliary verbs._ 4. _In the course of time languages drop their inflections, and substitute in its stead circumlocutions by means of prepositions, &c. The reverse never takes place._ 5. _Given two modes of expression, the one inflectional_ (smiðum), _the other circumlocutional_[40] (to smiths), _we can state that the first belongs to an early, the second to a late, state of language._ The present chapter, then showing the relation of the English to the Anglo-Saxon, shows something more. It exhibits the _general_ relation of a modern to an ancient language. As the English is to the Anglo-Saxon, so are the Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian, to the old Norse; and so are the French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanese and Wallachian to the Latin, and the Romaic to the ancient Greek. § 97. Contrasted with the English, the Anglo-Saxon has (among others) the following differences. NOUNS. 1. _Gender._--In Anglo-Saxon there were three genders, the masculine, the feminine, and the neuter. With _adjectives_ each gender had its peculiar declension. With _substantives_ also there were appropriate terminations, though only to a certain degree. 2. The definite article varied with the gender of its substantive; _þæt eage_, the eye; _se steorra_, the star; _seo tunge_, the tongue.