The Moeso-Gothic forms are _dar_, _dart?_ _dar_, _da['u]rum_, _da['u]ruth_, _da['u]run_, for the persons of the present tense; and _da['u]rsta_, _da['u]rst[^e]s_, _da['u]rsta_, &c., for those of the praeterite. The same is the case throughout the Germanic languages. No _-s_, however, appears in the Scandinavian; the praeterites being _thordhi_ and _toerde_, Icelandic and Danish. The Anglo-Saxon is _dear_=_I dare_, _dearst_=_thou darest_, _durron_=_we_, {323} _ye_, or _they dare_; subjunctive, _durre_, _dorste_, _dorston_. Old Saxon, present, _dar_; praeterite _dursta_. The Moeso-Gothic tense, _da['u]rsta_, instead of _da['u]rda_, shows the antiquity of this form in _-s_. The readiest mode of accounting for the form in question is to suppose that the second singular has been extended over all the other persons. This view, however, is traversed by the absence of the _-s_ in the Moeso-Gothic present. The form there (real or presumed) is not _darst_, but _dart_. Of this latter form, however, it must be remarked that its existence is hypothetical. In Matthew xxvi. 67, of the Moeso-Gothic Gospel of Ulphilas, is found the form _ka['u]past[^e]dun_, instead of _ka['u]patid['e]dun_, the praeterite plural of _ka['u]patjan_=_to beat_. Here there is a similar insertion of the _-s_.--Deutsche Grammatik, i. 848, 852, 853. The _-s_ in _durst_ has still to be satisfactorily accounted for. _Must._--A form common to all persons, numbers, and tenses. That neither the _-s_ nor the _-t_ are part of the original root, is indicated by the Scandinavian form _maae_ (Danish), pronounced _moh_; praeterite _maatte_. The readiest mode of accounting for the _-s_ in _must_, is to presume that it belongs to the second singular, extended to the other persons, _mo-est_=_must_. Irrespective, however, of other objections, this view is traversed by the forms _m[^o]tan_, Moeso-Gothic (an infinitive), and _m['o]t_, Moeso-Gothic, Old Saxon, and Anglo-Saxon (a first person present). These neutralise the evidence given by the Danish form _maae_, and indicate that the _-t_ is truly a part of the original root. Now, the _-t_ being considered as part of the root, the _-s_ cannot be derived from the second singular; inasmuch as it precedes, instead of following the _-t_. At one time, for want of a better theory, I conceived, that in the word in point (and also in _durst_ and a few others), we had traces of the Scandinavian passive. This notion I have, for evident reasons, abandoned.