he fact that
Southern admitted the use of that suffix very freely, as in
_cherch-en_, churches, _sterr-en_, stars, etc.; whilst Northern
only admitted five such plurals, viz. _egh-en_, _ey-en_, eyes
(Shakespeare's _eyne_), _hos-en_, stockings, _ox-en_, _shoo-n_, shoes,
and _f{-a}-n_, foes; _ox-en_ being the sole survivor, since _shoon_
(as in _Hamlet_, IV iv 26) is archaic. The modern _child-r-en_,
_breth-r-en_, are really double plurals; Northern employed the more
original forms _childer_ and _brether_, both of which, and especially
the former, are still in dialectal use. _Evrelest-inde_ exhibits the
Southern _-inde_ for present participles.

But the word _zennes_, sins, exhibits a peculiarity that is almost
solely Kentish, and seldom found elsewhere, viz. the use of _e_ for
_i_. The explanation of this rests on an elementary lesson in Old
English phonology, which it will do the reader no harm to acquire.
The modern symbol _i_ (when denoting the _short_ sound, as in _pit_)
really does double duty. It sometimes represents the A.S. short _i_,
as in _it_ (A.S. _hit_), _sit_ (A.S. _sittan_), _bitten_ (A.S.
_b{)i}ten_), etc.; and sometimes the A.S. short _y_, as in _pyt_,
a pit. The sound of the A.S. short _i_ was much the same as in modern
English; but that of the short _y_ was different, as it denoted the
"mutated" form of short _u_ for which German has a special symbol,
viz. _{ue}_, the sound intended being that of the German _ue_ in
_schuetzen_, to protect. In the latter case, Kentish usually has the
vowel _e_, as in the modern Kentish _pet_, a pit, and in the surname
_Petman_ (at Margate), which means _pitman_; and as the A.S. for "sin"
was _synn_ (dat. _synne_), the Kentish form was _zenne_, since Middle
English substantives often represent the A.S. dative case. The Kentish
plural had the double form, _zennes_ and _zennen_, both of which occur
in the _Ayenbite_, as might have been expected.

The poet Gower, who completed what may be called the first edition of
his poem named the _Confessio Amantis_ (or Confession of a Lover) in
1390, was a Kentish man, and well acquainted with the Kentish dialect.
He took advantage of this to introduce, occasionally, Kentish forms
into his verse; apparently for the sake of securing a rime more
easily. See this discussed at p. ci of vol. II of Macaulay's edition
of Gower. I may illustrate this by noting that in _Conf. Amant._ i
1908, we find _pitt_ riming with _witt_, whereas in the