_Old High German._--Here the nominatives, both masculine and feminine, lose the inflection, whilst the neuter retains it--_thin dohter_, _s[^i]n quen[^a]_, _min dohter_, _sinaz l[^i]b_. In a few cases, when the pronoun comes after, even the _oblique_ cases drop the inflection.--Deutsche Grammatik, 474-478. _Middle High German._--_Preceding_ the noun, the nominative of all genders is destitute of inflection; _s[^i]n l[^i]b_, _m[^i]n ere_, _d[^i]n l[^i]b_, &c. _Following_ the nouns, the oblique cases do the same; _ine herse s[^i]n_.--Deutsche Grammatik, 480. The influence of position should here be noticed. Undoubtedly a place _after_ the substantive influences the omission of the inflection. This appears in its _maximum_ in the Middle High German. In Moeso-Gothic we have _mein leik_ and _leik meinata_.--Deutsche Grammatik, 470. s. 463. Now by assuming (which is only a fair assumption) the extension of the Middle High German omission of the inflection to the Anglo-Saxon; and by supposing it to affect the words in question in _all_ positions (_i.e._, both before and {389} after their nouns), we explain these constructions by a process which, in the mind of the present writer, is involved in fewer difficulties than the opposite doctrine of a genitive case, in words where it is not wanted, and with a termination which is foreign to it elsewhere. To suppose _two_ adjectival forms, one inflected (_min_, _minre_, &c.), and one uninflected, or common to all genders and both numbers (_min_), is to suppose no more than is the case with the uninflected _the_, as compared with the inflected _thaet_.--See pp. 251-253. * * * * * {390} CHAPTER XXXVIII. ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE WEAK PRAETERITE. s. 464. The remote origin of the weak praeterite in _-d_ or _-t_, has been considered by Grimm, in the Deutsche Grammatik. He maintains that it is the _d_ in _d-d_, the reduplicate praeterite of _do_. In all the Gothic languages the termination of the past tense is either _-da_, _-ta_, _-de_, _-dhi_, _-d_, _-t_, or _-ed_, for the singular, and _-don_, _-ton_, _-t[^u]m[^e]s_, or _-dhum_, for the plural; in other words, _d_, or an allied sound, appears once, if not oftener. In the plural praeterite of the Moeso-Gothic we have something more, _viz._ the termination _-d[^e]dum_; as _nas-id[^e]dum_, _nas-id[^e]duth_, _nas-id[^e]dum_, from _nas-ja_; _s[^o]k-id[^e]dum_, _s[^o]k-id[^e]duth_, _s[^o]k-id[^e]dum_ from _s[^o]k-ja_; _salb-[^o]d[^e]dum_, _salb-[^o]d[^e]duth_, _s[^a]lb-[^o]d[^e]dun_, from _salb[^o]_. Here there is a second d. The same takes place with the dual form _salb-[^o]d[^e]duts_; and with the subjunctive forms, _salb-[^o]d[^e]djan_, _salb-[^o]d[^e]duts_, _salb-[^o]d[^e]di_, _salb-[^o]d[^e]deits_, _salb-[^o]d[^e]deima_, _salb-[^o]d[^e]deith_, _salb-[^o]d[^e]deina_. The English phrase, _we did salve_, as compared with _salb-[^o]d[^e]dum_, is confirmatory of this.--Deutsche Grammatik, i. 1042.