Words like _planted_, _heeded_, &c., belong to the first class. Words like
_feed_, _lead_, to the second class. _Bend_ and _cut_ belong also to the
second class; they belong to it, however, by what may be termed an
etymological fiction. The vowel would be changed if it could.
s. 382. _Made, had._--In these words there is nothing remarkable but the
ejection of a consonant. The Anglo-Saxon forms are _macode_ and _haefde_,
respectively. The words, however, in regard to the amount of change, are
not upon a par. The _f_ in _haefde_ was probably sounded as _v_. Now _v_
{322} is a letter excessively liable to be ejected, which _k_ is not. _K_,
before it is ejected, is generally changed into either _g_ or _y_.
_Would, should, could._--It must not be imagined that _could_ is in the
same predicament with these words. In _will_ and _shall_ the _-l_ is part
of the original word. This is not the case with _can_. For the form
_could_, see the Chapter upon Irregularity.
_Aught._--In Anglo-Saxon _['a]hte_, the praeterite of the present form
_['a]h_, plural _['a]gan_.--As late as the time of Elizabeth we find _owe_
used for _own_. The present form _own_ seems to have arisen from the plural
_['a]gen_. _Aught_ is the praeterite of the Anglo-Saxon _['a]h_; _owed_ of
the English _owe_=_debeo_; _owned_ of the English _own_=_possideo_. The
word _own_, in the expression _to own to a thing_, has a totally different
origin. It comes from the Anglo-Saxon _an_ (plural, _unnon_)=_I give_, or
_grant_=_concedo_.
_Durst._--The verb _dare_ is both transitive and intransitive. We can say
either _I dare do such a thing_, or _I dare_ (_challenge_) _such a man to
do it_. This, in the present tense, is unequivocally correct. In the past
the double power of the word _dare_ is ambiguous; still it is, to my mind
at least, allowable. We can certainly say _I dared him to accept my
challenge_; and we can, perhaps, say _I dared venture on the expedition_.
In this last sentence, however, _durst_ is the preferable expression.
Now, although _dare_ is both transitive and intransitive, _durst_ is only
intransitive. It never agrees with the Latin word _provoco_; only with the
Latin word _audeo_. Moreover, the word _durst_ has both a present and a
past sense. The difficulty which it presents consists in the presence of
the _-st_, letters characteristic of the second person singular, but here
found in all the persons alike; as _I durst_, _they durst_, &c.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account