III. _Ordinary processes as opposed to extraordinary processes._--The whole scheme of language is analogical. A new word introduced into a language takes the forms of its cases or tenses, &c., from the forms of the cases or tenses, &c., of the old words. The analogy is extended. Now few forms (if any) are so unique as not to have some others corresponding with them; and few processes of change are so unique as not to affect more words than one. The forms _wept_ and _slept_ correspond with each other. They are brought about by the same process; _viz._ by the shortening of the vowel in _weep_ and _sleep_. The analogy of _weep_ is extended to _sleep_, and _vice vers[^a]_. Changing our expression, a common influence affects both words. The alteration itself is an ultimate fact. The extent of its influence is an instrument of classification. When processes affect a considerable number of words, they may be called ordinary processes; as opposed to extraordinary processes, which affect one or few words. When a word stands by itself, with no other corresponding to it, we confess our ignorance, and say that it is affected by an extraordinary process, by a process peculiar to itself, or by a process to which we know nothing similar. A definition of the word irregular might be so framed as to include all words affected by extraordinary processes; the rest being considered regular. IV. _Positive processes as opposed to ambiguous processes._--The words _wept_ and _slept_ are similarly affected. Each is changed from _weep_ and _sleep_ respectively; and we know that {339} the process which affects the one is the process that affects the other also. Here there is a positive process. Reference is now made to words of a different sort. The nature of the word _worse_ is explained in p. 267, and the reader is referred to the section. There the form is accounted for in two ways, of which only one can be the true one. Of the two processes, each might equally have brought about the present form. Which of the two it was, we are unable to say. Here the process is ambiguous. A definition of the word irregular might be so framed as to include all words affected by ambiguous processes. V. _Normal processes as opposed to processes of confusion._--Let a certain word come under class A. Let all words under class A be similarly affected. Let a given word come under class A. This word will be affected even as the rest of class A is affected. The process affecting, and the change resulting, will be normal, regular, or analogical. Let, however, a word, instead of really coming under class A, _appear_ to do so. Let it be dealt with accordingly. The analogy then is a false one. The principle of imitation is a wrong one. The process affecting is a process of confusion. Examples of this (a few amongst many) are words like _songstress_, _theirs_, _minded_, where the words _songstr-_, _their-_, and _mind-_, are dealt with as roots, which they are not.