It is very evident that it is in the power of the grammarian to raise the number of etymological irregularities to any amount, by narrowing the definition of the word irregular; in other words, by framing an exclusive rule. The current rule of the common grammarians is that the praeterite is formed by the addition of _-t_, or _-d_, or _-ed_. Now this position is sufficiently exclusive; since it proscribes not only the whole class of strong verbs, but also words like _bent_ and _sent_, where _-t_ exists, but where it does not exist as _an addition_. The regular forms, it may be said, should be _bended_ and _sended_. Exclusive, however, as the rule in question is, it is plain that it might be made more so. The regular forms might, by the _fiat_ of a rule, be restricted to those in _-d_. In this case words like _wept_ and _burnt_ would be added to the already numerous list of irregulars. Finally, a further limitation might be made, by laying down as a rule that no word was regular, unless it ended in _-ed_. Thus much concerning the modes of making rules exclusive, and, consequently, of raising the amount of irregularities. This is the last art that the philosophic grammarian is ambitious of acquiring. True etymology reduces irregularity by making the rules of grammar, not exclusive, but general. The _quantum_ of irregularity is in the inverse proportion to the generality of our rules. In language itself there is no irregularity. The word itself is only another name for our ignorance of the processes that change words; and, as irregularity is in the direct proportion to the exclusiveness of our rules, the exclusiveness of our rules is in the direct proportion to our ignorance of etymological processes. The explanation of some fresh terms will lead us towards (but not to) the definition of the word irregular. I. _Vital and obsolete processes._--The word _moved_ is formed from _move_, by the addition of _-d_. The addition of _-d_ is the process by which the present form is rendered praeterite. The word _fell_ is formed from _fall_, by changing _a_ into e. The change of vowel is the process by which the present form is {337} rendered praeterite. Of the two processes the result is the same. In what respect do they differ? For the sake of illustration, let a new word be introduced into the language. Let a praeterite tense of it be formed. This praeterite would be formed, not by changing the vowel, but by adding _-d_. No new verb ever takes a strong praeterite. The like takes place with nouns. No new substantive would form its plural, like _oxen_ or _geese_, by adding _-en_, or by changing the vowel. It would rather, like _fathers_ and _horses_, add the lene sibilant.