A glance at these conjugations is sufficient to show several general tendencies, some of them going back, in their essence, to the earliest days of the English language. The most obvious is that leading to the transfer of verbs from the so-called strong conjugation to the weak--a change already in operation before the Norman Conquest, and very marked during the Middle English period. Chaucer used /growed/ for /grew/ in the prologue to "The Wife of Bath's Tale," and /rised/ for /rose/ and /smited/ for /smote/ are in John Purvey's edition of the Bible, /circa/ 1385.[40] Many of these transformations were afterward abandoned, but a large number survived, for example, /climbed/ for /clomb/ as the preterite of /to climb/, and /melted/ for /molt/ as the preterite of /to melt/. Others showed themselves during the early part of the Modern English period. /Comed/ as the perfect participle of /to come/ and /digged/ as the preterite of /to dig/ are both in Shakespeare, and the latter is also in Milton and in the Authorized Version of the Bible. This tendency went furthest, of course, in the vulgar speech, and it has been embalmed in the English dialects. /I seen/ and /I knowed/, for example, are common to many of them. But during the seventeenth century it seems to have been arrested, and even to have given way to a contrary tendency--that is, toward strong conjugations. The English of Ireland, which preserves many seventeenth century forms, shows this plainly. /Ped/ for /paid/, /gother/ for /gathered/, and /ruz/ for /raised/ are still in use there, and Joyce says flatly that the Irish, "retaining the old English custom [/i. e./, the custom of the period of Cromwell's invasion, /circa/ 1650], have a leaning toward the strong inflection."[41] Certain verb forms of the American colonial period, now reduced to the estate of localisms, are also probably survivors of the seventeenth century.
"The three great causes of change in language," says Sayce, "may be briefly described as (1) imitation or analogy, (2) a wish to be clear and emphatic, and (3) laziness. Indeed, if we choose to go deep enough we might reduce all three causes to the general one of laziness, since it is easier to imitate than to say [Pg199] something new."[42] This tendency to take well-worn paths, paradoxically enough, is responsible both for the transfer of verbs from the strong to the weak declension, and for the transfer of certain others from the weak to the strong. A verb in everyday use tends almost inevitably to pull less familiar verbs with it, whether it be strong or weak. Thus /fed/ as the preterite of /to feed/ and /led/ as the preterite of /to lead/ paved the way for /pled/ as the preterite of /to plead/, and /rode/ as plainly performed the same office for /glode/, and /rung/ for /brung/, and /drove/ for /dove/ and /hove/, and /stole/ for /dole/, and /won/ for /skun/. Moreover, a familiar verb, itself acquiring a faulty inflection, may fasten a similar inflection upon another verb of like sound. Thus /het/, as the preterite of /to heat/, no doubt owes its existence to the example of /et/, the vulgar preterite of /to eat/. So far the irregular verbs. The same combination of laziness and imitativeness works toward the regularization of certain verbs that are historically irregular. In addition, of course, there is the fact that regularization is itself intrinsically simplification--that it makes the language easier. One sees the antagonistic pull of the two influences in the case of verbs ending in /-ow/. The analogy of /knew/ suggests /snew/ as the preterite of /to snow/, and it is sometimes encountered in the American vulgate. But the analogy of /snowed/ also suggests /knowed/, and the superior regularity of the form is enough to overcome the greater influence of /knew/ as a more familiar word than /snowed/. Thus /snew/ grows rare and is in decay, but /knowed/ shows vigor, and so do /growed/ and /throwed/. The substitution of /heerd/ for /heard/ also presents a case of logic and convenience supporting analogy. The form is suggested by /steered/, /feared/ and /cheered/, but its main advantage lies in the fact that it gets rid of a vowel change, always an impediment to easy speech. Here, as in the contrary direction, one barbarism breeds another. Thus /taken/, as the preterite of /to take/, has undoubtedly helped to make preterites of two other perfects, /shaken/ and /forsaken/.