FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTIONS AND METHODS 13 



that came in, and a full half, if not the majority, of the old ones 

 formed their preterite by a syllable usually represented in modern 

 English by -ed or -d. Why should not this rule be extended to all? 

 This was a feeling that operated constantly upon men before they 

 came into the possession of a. literature. So general was the move- 

 ment, so large were the losses of the strong conjugation, that this early 

 transition has imposed upon the men of later times. There were not 

 wanting in the nineteenth century linguistic scholars of considerable 

 eminence who gravely announced that the strong conjugation was 

 destined to disappear from English speech. As a matter of fact, the 

 moment that literature had been widely enough diffused to exert its 

 full influence, the transition of verbs of the strong conjugation to 

 the weak ceased entirely. Not an instance can be pointed out where 

 a single one of these verbs has gone over since the reign of Queen 

 Elizabeth. Not the least sign of any movement of this nature mani- 

 fests itself now. On the contrary, the tendency is, if anything, in the 

 reverse direction. 



But literature does not content itself with merely arresting change 

 which is going on in grammatical forms. It presents a hostile attitude 

 to anything which takes the shape of grammatical innovation. That 

 which already exists has been found sufficient by the great writers of 

 the past to do all that is required for expression. What then can be 

 the need of new forms, of new constructions, of which they, far greater 

 than we, did not feel the lack? To add anything whatever seems 

 therefore of the nature of an attempt to paint the lily. This is the 

 reason why every effort of the nature of innovation meets, in the case 

 of the grammatical structure, with hostility so general and with 

 denunciation so violent. It is the exhortation of literature to stand 

 fast by the ancient ways. 



But the users of speech are always striving for greater clearness and 

 force of expression. If the existing forms and constructions do not 

 exactly meet their requirements, they will cast about for ways to 

 secure what they are aiming at. Let me illustrate this principle by 

 a further example from our speech. For a long period modern English 

 suffered from the lack of a distinct form for the passive which would 

 apply to all verbs. The inflection in common use was made up of the 

 substantive verb with the past participle of another verb. This 

 worked very well in many cases, especially so in the case of words 

 which denoted a continuous action or state of mind. The phrase, 

 "the man is loved or is hated," conveys adequately the sense of the 

 speaker when he is referring to the present time. But when the word 

 employed itself denoted. a single act, the form just mentioned meant 

 an action fully completed and not one in process of going on. It was 

 really something past which was indicated and not anything present. 

 The phrase " the man is killed " could not possibly suggest the idea 



