There is, perhaps, no better test for distinguishing these dialects from one another than the verbal inflexions of the plural number in the present tense, indicative mood.

To state this test in the briefest manner, we may say that the Southern dialect employs -eth, the Midland -en, and the Northumbrian -es as the inflexion for all persons of the plural present indicative:[27]

Southern.Midland.Northern.
1st pers.Hop-eth.Hop-en.Hop-es. (we) hope.
2nd „Hop-eth.Hop-en.Hop-es. (ye) hope.
3rd „Hop-eth.Hop-en.Hop-es. (they) hope.

It is the constant and systematic employment of these inflexions, and not their occasional use that must be taken as the criterion of dialectical varieties.

In a pure specimen of the Southern dialect, we never find the Northumbrian -es. We do occasionally meet with the Midland -en, but only in those works written in localities where, from their geographical position, Southern and Midland forms would be intelligible.[28] We might look in vain for the Southern plural -eth in a pure Northumbrian production, but might be more successful in finding the Midland -en in the third person plural; as, “thay arn” for “they ar”, or “thay er.”

In a work composed in Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire, or Lancashire, we should be sure to find the occasional use of the Northumbrian plural -es.[29]

The inflexions of the verb in the singular are of value in enabling us to discriminate between the several varieties of the Midland dialect.[30] The Southern and Midland idioms (with the exception of the West-Midland of Lancashire, Cheshire, etc.) conjugated the verb in the singular present indicative, as follows:—

1st pers.hope(I) hope.
2nd „hop-est(thou) hopest.
3rd „hop-eth(he) hopes.

The West-Midland, corresponding to Garnett’s Mercian, instead of -est and -eth employs the inflexions that are so common in the so-called Northumbrian documents of the ninth and tenth centuries:—

1st pers.hope(I) hope.
2nd „hop-es(thou) hopest.
3rd „hop-es(he) hopes.