[§ 348]. Compared with the Latin, the Greek, the Mœso-Gothic, and almost all the ancient languages, there is, in English, in respect to the persons of the verbs, but a very slight amount of inflection. This may be seen by comparing the English word call with the Latin voco.
| Sing. | Plur. | Sing. | Plur. |
| 1. Voc-o. | Voc-amus. | Call. | Call. |
| 2. Voc-as. | Voc-atis. | Call-est. | Call. |
| 3. Voc-at. | Voc-ant. | [[44]]Call-eth. | Call. |
Here the Latins have different forms for each different person, whilst the English have forms for two only; and even of these one (callest) is becoming obsolete. With the forms of voco marked in italics there is, in the current English, nothing correspondent.
In the word am, as compared with are and art, we find a sign of the first person singular.
In the old forms tellen, weren, &c., we have a sign of the plural number.
In the Modern English, the Old English, and the Anglo-Saxon, the peculiarities of our personal inflections are very great. This may be seen from the following tables of comparison:—
Herein remark; 1. the Anglo-Saxon addition of t in the second person singular; 2. the identity in form of the three persons of the plural number; 3. the change of -að into -en in the Old English plural; 4. the total absence of plural forms in the Modern English; 5. the change of the th into s, in loveth and loves. These are points bearing especially upon the history of the English persons. The following points indicate a more general question.
1. The full form prennames in the newer Old High German, as compared with sókjam in the old Mœso-Gothic.
2. The appearance of the r in Icelandic.