In p. 298 it was stated that the Moeso-Gothic termination of the second singular of the strong praeterites was _-t_. It is {324} here mentioned that _must_ is a praeterite form. Now the final letter of the root _mot_, and the sign of the second singular of the strong praeterite, are the same, _-t_. Now, as _-t_ cannot be immediately added to _t_, the natural form of the second singular _m['o]t-t_ is impracticable. Hence, before the _-t_ of the second person, the _-t_ of the root is changed, so that, instead of _m['a]im['a]it-t_, _bigat-t_, _f['a]ifalth-t_, _l['a]ilot-t_, &c., we have _m['a]im['a]is-t_, _bigas-t_, _f['a]ifals-t_, _l['a]ilos-t_, &c., Moeso-Gothic.--See Deutsche Grammatik, 844. The euphonic reason for the _-s_, in _must_, is sufficient to show that it is in a different predicament from _durst_. The provincial form _mun_, there or thereabouts equivalent in meaning to _must_, has no etymological connexion with this last named word. It is a distinct word, in Scandinavian _monne_. _Wist._--In its present form a regular praeterite from _wiss_=_know_. The difficulties of this word arise from the parallel forms _wit_ (as in _to wit_), and _wot_=_knew_. The following are the forms of this peculiar word:-- In Moeso-Gothic, 1 sing. pres. ind. _v['a]it_; 2. do., _v['a]ist_; 1. pl. _vitum_; praeterite 1. s. _vissa_; 2 _viss[^e]ss_; 1. pl. _viss[^e]dum_. From the form _v['a]ist_ we see that the second singular is formed after the manner of _must_; that is, _v['a]ist_ stands instead of _v['a]it-t_. From the form _viss[^e]dum_ we see that the praeterite is not strong, but weak; therefore that _vissa_ is euphonic for _vista_. In Anglo-Saxon.--_W[^a]t_, _w[^a]st_, _witon_, _wiste_ and _wisse_, _wiston_.--Here the double forms, _wiste_ and _wisse_, verify the statement concerning the Moeso-Gothic _vissa_. In Icelandic.--_Veit_, _veizt_, _vitum_, _vissi_. Danish _ved_, _vide_, _vidste_. Observe the form _vidste_; since, in it, the _-d_ of the root (in spelling, at least), is preserved. The _-t_ of the Anglo-Saxon _wiste_ is the _-t_, not of the root, but of the inflection. In respect to the four forms in question, _viz._, _wit_, _wot_, _wiss_, _wist_; the first seems to be the root; the second a strong praeterite regularly formed, but used (like [Greek: oida] in Greek) with a present sense; the third a weak praeterite, of which the _-t_ has been ejected by a euphonic process, used also with a {325} present sense; the fourth is a second singular from _wiss_ after the manner of _wert_ from _were_, a second singular from _wit_ after the manner of _must_, a secondary praeterite from _wiss_, or finally, the form _wisse_, anterior to the operation of the euphonic process that ejected the _-t_.