Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ukma!psuvm.bitnet!psuvax1!burdvax!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: net.nlang
Subject: Re: English verbal miscellany
Message-ID: <1028@psivax.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 26-Feb-86 12:18:45 EST
Article-I.D.: psivax.1028
Posted: Wed Feb 26 12:18:45 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 28-Feb-86 22:45:28 EST
References: <10132@tardis.UUCP> <771@spar.UUCP> <130@calma.UUCP> <879@h-sc1.UUCP> <117@uvacs.UUCP> <131@spar.UUCP>
Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Lines: 21

In article <131@spar.UUCP> ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) writes:
>
>    I believe that, historically, these verbs were `preterite prsents',
>    which means they were originally the past tenses of verbs whose present
>    tense fell into disuse. Note that english never has had such a thing as
>    past infinitives, participles, etc., and that past tenses do not suffix
>    -s in the 3rd singular. The `new' past tenses {could, would, might, should}
>    were subsequently formed analogy with other classes of verbs (the `l'
>    in `could' does not really belong there).

        An added note. The 'new' past tenses are apparently derived
from the old subjunctive(or past subjunctive) forms. They are often
still used in a subjenctive sense in English, and they correspond in
form to the past subjunctive forms in German.

--

                                Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen
ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa