nfusion._--Let a
certain word come under class A. Let all words under class A be similarly
affected. Let a given word come under class A. This word will be affected
even as the rest of class A is affected. The process affecting, and the
change resulting, will be normal, regular, or analogical.

Let, however, a word, instead of really coming under class A, only _appear_
to do so. Let it be dealt with accordingly. The analogy then is a false
one. The principle of imitation is a wrong one. The process affecting is a
process of confusion.

Examples of this (a few amongst many) are words like _songstress_,
_theirs_, _minded_, where the words _songstr-_, _their-_, _mind-_, are
dealt with as roots, which they are not.

Ambiguous processes, extraordinary processes, processes of confusion--each,
or all of these, are legitimate reasons for calling words irregular. The
practice of etymologists will determine what definition is most convenient.

With extraordinary processes we know nothing about the word. With ambiguous
processes we are unable to make a choice. With processes of confusion we
see the analogy, but, at the same time, see that it is a false one.

s. 331. _Could_.--With all persons who pronounce the l this word is truly
irregular. The Anglo-Saxon form is _cudhe_. The l is inserted by a process
of confusion.

_Can_, _cunne_, _canst_, _cunnon_, _cunnan_, _cudhe_, _cudhon_,
_cudh_--such are the remaining forms in Anglo-Saxon. None of them account
for the l. The presence of the l makes the word _could_ irregular. No
reference to the allied languages accounts for it.

Notwithstanding this, the presence of the l is accounted for. In _would_
and _should_ the l has a proper place. It is part of the original words,
_will_ and _shall_. A false analogy looked upon _could_ in the same light.
Hence a true irregularity; _provided that the _L_ be pronounced_.

The L, however, is pronounced by few, and that only in pursuance with the
spelling. This reduces the word _could_ to an irregularity, not of
language, but only of orthography.

That the mere ejection of the -n in _can_, and that the mere lengthening of
the vowel, are not irregularities, we learn from a knowledge of the
processes that convert the Greek [Greek: odontos] (_odontos_) into [Greek:
odous] (_odows_).

s. 332. The verb _quoth_ is truly defective. It is found in only one tense,
one number, and one person. It is the third person singular of the
praeterite tense