_Do._--In the phrase _this will do_=_this will answer the purpose_, the word _do_ is wholly different from the word _do_, meaning _to act_. In the first case it is equivalent to the Latin _valere_; in the second to the Latin _facere_. Of the first the Anglo-Saxon inflection is _de['a]h_, _dugon_, _dohte_, _dohtest_, &c. Of the second it is _d['o]_, _d['o]dh_, _dyde_, &c. I doubt whether the praeterite did_,_ as equivalent to _valebat_=_was good for_, is correct. In the phrase _it did for him_=_it finished him_, either meaning may be allowed. In the present Danish they write _duger_, but say _duer_: as _duger et noget?_=_Is it worth anything?_ pronounced _dooer deh note?_ This accounts for the ejection of the _g_. The Anglo-Saxon form _deah_ does the same. In respect to the praeterite of _do_=_facio_, difficulties present themselves. Is the word weak?--This is the view that arises from the form _did_. The participle _done_ traverses this view. Is the word strong?--In favour of this notion we have the English participle _done_, and the praeterite second singular in Old High German _t[^a]ti_. Against it are the Old Saxon _d['e]dos_, and the Anglo-Saxon _dydest_, as second singulars. Is there a reduplication?--If this were the case, we might assume such a form as _d[^o]an_, _d['a]id[^o]_, for the Moeso-Gothic. This view, however, is traversed by the substantival forms _d[^e]ds_, Moeso-Gothic; _t[^a]t_, Old High German; _daed_, Anglo-Saxon; which show that the second _-d_ is part of the original word. The true nature of the form _did_ has yet to be exhibited.--See Deutsche Grammatik, i. 1041. _Mind--mind and do so and so._--In this sentence the word _mind_ is wholly different from the noun _mind_. The Anglo-Saxon forms are _geman_, _gemanst_, _gemunon_, without the _-d_; this letter occurring only in the praeterite tense (_gemunde_, {326} _gemundon_), of which it is the sign. _Mind_ is, then, a praeterite form with a present sense; whilst _minded_ (as in _he minded his business_) is an instance of excess of inflection; in other words, it is a praeterite formed from a praeterite. A praeterite formed upon a praeterite may also be called a secondary praeterite; just as the word _theirs_, derived from _their_ (a case formed from a case), is called a secondary genitive. In like manner the present form _mind_ is not a genuine present, but a praeterite with a present sense; _its form being taken as the test_. Presents of this sort may be called transformed praeterites. It is very evident that the praeterites most likely to become present are those of the strong class. In the first place, the fact of their being praeterite is less marked. The word _tell_ carries with it fewer marks of its tense than the word _moved_. In the second place they can more conveniently give rise to secondary praeterites. A weak praeterite already ends in _-d_ or _-t_. If this be used as a present, a second _-d_ or _-t_ must be appended.