The bearings of these double forms (which, however, are points of general rather than of English grammar) are as follows. Their number in a given language may be very great, and the grammarian of a given language may call them, not double forms of the same tense, but different tenses. Let the number of words like _swoll_ and _swelled_ be multiplied by 1000. The chances are, that, in the present state of etymology, they would be called first praeterites and second praeterites. The bearing of this remark upon the so-called aorists and futures of the Greek language is evident. I think that a writer in the Cambridge Philological Museum[57] indicates the true nature of those tenses. They are the same tense in a different conjugation, and differ from _swoll_ and _swelled_ only in the frequency of their occurrence. Difference of form, and difference of conjugation, may each simulate a difference of tense. * * * * * {335} CHAPTER XXVI. DEFECTIVENESS AND IRREGULARITY. s. 389. In s. 361 the distinction between irregularity and defectiveness was slightly foreshadowed. In pp. 243, 267, it was exhibited in its principles. In the present chapter the difference is more urgently insisted on. The words that have hitherto served as illustrations are the personal pronouns _I_ and _me_, and the adjectives _good_, _better_, and _best_. See the sections referred to above. The view of these words was as follows: _viz._, that none of them were irregular, but that they were all defective. _Me_ wanted the nominative, _I_ the oblique cases. _Good_ was without a comparative, _better_ and _best_ had no positive degree. Now _me_ and _better_ may be said to make good the defectiveness of _I_ and _good_; and _I_ and _good_ may be said to replace the forms wanting in _me_ and _better_. This gives us the principle of compensation. To introduce a new term, _I_ and _me_, _good_ and _better_, may be said to be complementary to each other. What applies to nouns applies to verbs also. _Go_ and _went_ are not irregularities. _Go_ is (at least in the present stage of our language) defective in the past tense. _Went_ (at least in its current sense) is without a present. The two words, however, compensate their mutual deficiencies, and are to each other complementary. The distinction between defectiveness and irregularity, is the first instrument of criticism for coming to true views concerning the proportion of the regular and irregular verbs. The second instrument of criticism in determining the irregular verbs, is the meaning that we attach to terms. {336}