The changes which the English language, as a whole, has undergone in
passing from its earlier to its later form, may best be considered under
the two heads of form and matter.

As regards form or structure, the language has been simplified in three
separate ways. First, the nouns and adjectives have for the most part
lost their inflexions, at least so far as the cases are concerned.
Secondly, the nouns have also lost their gender. And thirdly, the verbs
have been simplified in conjugation, weak preterites being often
substituted for strong ones, and differential terminations largely lost.
On the other hand, the plural of nouns is still distinguished from the
singular by its termination in _s_, which is derived from the first
declension of Anglo-Saxon nouns, not as is often asserted, from the
Norman-French usage. In other words, all plurals have been assimilated
to this the commonest model; just as in French they have been
assimilated to the final _s_ of the third declension in Latin. A few
plurals of the other types still survive, such as _men_, _geese_,
_mice_, _sheep_, _deer_, _oxen_, _children_ and (dialectically)
_peasen_. To make up for this loss of inflexions, the language now
employs a larger number of particles, and to some extent, of
auxiliaries. Instead of _wines_, we now say _of a friend_; instead of
_wine_, we now say _to a friend_; and instead of _winum_, we now say _to
friends_. English, in short, has almost ceased to be inflexional and has
become analytic.

As regards matter or vocabulary, the language has lost in certain
directions, and gained in others. It has lost many old Teutonic roots,
such as _wig_, war; _rice_, kingdom; _tungol_, light; with their
derivatives, _wigend_, warrior; _rixian_, to rule; _tungol-witega_,
astrologer; and so forth. The relative number of such losses to the