Let the word _smidhum_ illustrate this. _Smidhum_, the dative plural of _smidh_, is equivalent in meaning to the English _to smiths_, or to the Latin _fabris_. _Smidhum_ 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 _smidhum_, does this and something more. It is the sign of the _dative case_ plural. The _-um_ in _smidhum_, is the part of a word. The preposition to is a separate word with an independent existence. _Smidhum_ is the radical syllable _smidh_, _plus_ the subordinate inflectional syllable _-um_, the sign of the dative case. _To smiths_ is the substantive _smiths_, _plus_ the preposition _to_, equivalent in power to the sign of a dative case, but different from it in form. As far, then, as the word just quoted is concerned, the Anglo-Saxon differs from the English thus. It expresses a given idea by a modification of the form of the root, whereas the modern English denotes the same idea by the addition of a preposition. The Saxon inflection is superseded by a combination of words. The part that is played by the preposition with nouns, is played by the auxiliaries (_have_, _be_, &c.) with verbs. The sentences in italics are mere variations of the same general statement. (1.) _The earlier the stage of a given {113} 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 inflection 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 _(smidhum)_, the other circumlocutional _(to smiths)_, we can state that the first belongs to an early, the second to a late, stage 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; so also the Modern High German to the Moeso-Gothic; so the Modern Dutch of Holland to the Old Frisian; so, moreover, amongst the languages of a different stock, are the French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanese and Wallachian to the Latin, and the Romaic to the Ancient Greek. s. 175. Contrasted with the English, but contrasted with it only in those points where the ancient tongue is compared with the modern one, the Anglo-Saxon has the following differences. NOUNS.