These words, however, belong more especially to the next chapter. To descend from generals to particulars, let us notice some of the verbal characteristics by which a West-Saxon population may be distinguished. As a rule it may be laid down that the West-Saxons give a soft, and the Anglians and Northmen a hard sound to all their words. Thus in the New Forest we find the West-Saxons saying burrow for barrow; haish for harsh; pleu for plough; heth for heath, instead of the “hawth” of the Eastern rapes of Sussex; mash for marsh; Gerge for George; slue for sloe, and again, for slough, the “slow” of the north; bin for been, and also being; justle for jostle, as in Nahum, ch. ii. v. 4; athert for athwart; wool for hole; ballat for ballad, or, as it is pronounced in the more northern counties, ballard; ell for eel; clot and clit for clod; stiffle for stifle; ruff for roof, and so on. Thus, too, we meet here not with Deepdene, but Dibden, spelt in Boazio’s map of 1591, Debden. No Chawton, but only Chewton occurs, no Farnham, but only Fernham and Fernhill. The West-Saxons, too, have a peculiar drawl. So in the New Forest we may hear them saying pearts for parts; stwoane for stone; twereable for terrible; measter (_mæster_), instead of the Anglian “muster;” and yees instead of the Sussex “yus.” As others have also remarked, the West-Saxon substitutes _a_ for _o_. So here we get lard for lord; nat for not; amang for among; knap for knop; shart for short; starm for storm; and Narmanton for Normanton. Not only this, but the West-Saxon in the New Forest substitutes _a_ for _e_, as in agg for egg, and lag for leg. He not only retains the hard _g_, but gives a _k_ when he can, as in kiver for cover, and aker for acorn, the “aitchorn” of the Anglian districts. Let us notice, too, that he always changes the _f_ into a _v_, as vern for fern, vire for fire, evvets for effets, voam for foam, as written by Chaucer, vall for fall, and fitches for vetches, as we find it in Ezekiel, ch. iv. v. 9. To go further into these distinctions is here impossible. As are the people so is the language. By an analysis of the published glossaries of Dorsetshire, Wiltshire, and Sussex, I find that the New Forest possesses above two-thirds of the two former, differing here and there only in pronunciation, whilst of the latter it scarcely possesses one-tenth, proving plainly that the people are West-Saxons rather than South, descendants of Cerdic more than of Ella.[208]