after their nouns),
we may explain the constructions in question, in case they occur. But, as
already stated, no instances of them have been quoted.

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_.

s. 407. Hence, the evidence required in order to make a single instance of
_min_ or _thin_, the _necessary_ equivalents to _mei_ and _tui_, rather
than to _meus_ and _tuus_, must consist in the quotation from the
Anglo-Saxon of some text, wherein _min_ or _thin_ occurs with a feminine
substantive, in an _oblique_ case, the pronoun _preceding_ the noun. When
this has been done, it will be time enough to treat _mine_ and _thine_ as
the equivalents to _mei_ and _tui_, rather than as those to _meus_ and
_tuus_.

* * * * *

CHAPTER XXXVIII.

ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE WEAK PRAETERITE.

s. 408. The remote origin of the weak praeterite in -d or -t, has been
considered by Grimm. 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_, however, we have something more, viz.,
the termination _-d[^e]dum_; as _nas-id[^e]dum_, _nas-id[^e]duth_,
_nas-idedun_, from _nas-ja_; _s[^o]k-id[^e]dum_, _s[^o]k-id[^e]duth_,
_s[^o]k-id[^e]dun_, from _s[^o]k-ja_; _salb-[^o]dedum_,
_salb-[^o]d[^e]duth_, _salb-[^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]dedi_, _salb-[^o]d[^e]deits_, _salb-[^o]d[^e]deima_,
_salb-[^o]dedeith_, _salb-[^o]dedina_. The English phrase, _we did salve_,
as compared with _salb-[^o]dedum_, is confirmatory of this.

s. 409. Some remarks of Dr. Trithen's on the Slavonic praeterite, in the
"Transactions of the Philological Society," induce me to prefer a different
doctrine, and to identify the -d in words like _moved_, &c., with the -t of
the passive participles of the Latin language; as found in mon-it-us,
voc-at-us,