Instead of _sœur_, sister, Joinville still uses _sereur_, which was the right form of the oblique case, but was afterwards replaced by the nominative _suer_ or _sœur_. Thus, p. 424 E, we read, _quant nous menames la serour le roy_, _i.e._ _quand nous menâmes la sœur du roi_; but p. 466 A, _l’abbaïe que sa suer fonda_, _i.e._ _l’abbaïe que sa sœur fonda_. Instead of _ange_, angel, he has both _angle_ and _angre_, where the _r_ stands for the final _l_ of _angele_, the more ancient French form of _angelus_. The same transition of final _l_ into _r_ may be observed in _apôtre_ for _apostolus_, _chapitre_ for _capitulum_, _chartre_ for _cartula_, _esclandre_ for _scandalum_. Instead of _vieux_, old, Joinville uses _veil_ or _veel_ (p. 132 C, _le veil le fil au veil_, _i.e._ _le vieux fils du vieux_); but in the nom. sing., _viex_, which is the Latin _vetulus_ (p. 302 A, _li Viex de __ la Montaingne_, _i.e._ _le Vieux de la Montagne_; but p. 304 A, _li messaige le Vieil_, _i.e._ _les messagers du Vieux_.) Instead of _coude_, m., elbow, we find _coute_, which is nearer to the Latin _cubitus_, cubit. The Latin _t_ in words like _cubitus_ was generally softened in old French, and was afterwards dropped altogether. As in _coude_, the _d_ is preserved in _aider_ for _adjutare_, in _fade_ for _fatuus_. In other words, such as _chaîne_ for _catena_, _roue_ for _rota_, _épée_ for _spatha_, _aimêe_ for _amata_, it has disappeared altogether. _True_ is _voir_, the regular modification of _verum_, like _soir_ of _serum_, instead of the modern French _vrai_; _e.g._, p. 524 B, _et sachiez que voirs estait_, _i.e._ _et sachez que c’était vrai_. We still find _ester_, to stand (“_Et ne pooit ester sur ses pieds_,” “He could not stand on his legs”). At present the French have no single word for “standing,” which has often been pointed out as a real defect of the language. “To stand” is _ester_, in Joinville; “to be” is _estre_. In the grammatical system of the language of Joinville we find the connecting link between the case terminations of the classical Latin and the prepositions and articles of modern French. It is generally supposed that the terminations of the Latin declension were lost in French, and that the relations of the cases were expressed by prepositions, while the _s_ as the sign of the plural was explained by the _s_ in the nom. plur. of nouns of the third declension. But languages do not thus advance _per saltum_. They change slowly and gradually, and we can generally discover in what is, some traces of what has been.