Thus, (1) substantive compounds: góld-smìð, mǫ́nn-cỳnn, swī́ð-mṑd (adj.), éarfoð-lī̀ce (adv.), ǫ́nd-gìet, ǫ́nd-swàru, bī́-gǫ̀ng, bī́-spèll, fór-wèard (adj.), ín-gǫ̀ng, mís-dǣ̀d, ón-gìnn, ór-èald, (adj.), tṓ-wèard (adj.), ýmb-hwỳrft.
(2) Verbal compounds: ā-rī́san, be-hā́tan, for-lǣ́tan, ge-bíddan, for-wéorðan, mis-fáran, ofer-swī́ðian, tō-wéorpan, wið-stǫ́ndan, ymb-síttan.
Note 1.—An important exception to Rule II is to be observed in the accentuation of substantive compounds with the prefixes ge-, be-, and for-; these prefixes are unaccented; e.g. ge-bód, ge-brṓðor, ge-féoht, ge-wéald; be-bód, be-gǫ́ng, be-hā́t; for-gýtol (adj.), for-wýrd. That, however, these prefixes were formerly accented in substantive compounds, according to the rule, is, shown by gáfol, gǫ́mel, etc., in which the first element is ga-, the accented form of ge-; the accented form of be- is also left in words like bī́-gǫ̀ng, bī́-spèll, bī́-wìst, etc., and notice bēot < *bī́-hāt, by the side of the later be-hā́t; and frǽ-bèorht (adj.), frǽ-mìcel, frá-coð, show a survival of the accented form of for-.
Note 2.—This difference in accentuation between substantive and verbal compounds (cf. English ábstract: abstráct; présent: presént; súbject: subjéct) has (as, in part, seen above) resulted in a corresponding difference of form in certain prefixes:
|ǫ́nd-gìet, intelligence||: on-gíetan, to understand.|
|ǫ́nd-sæ̀c, resistance||: on-sácan, to resist.|
|ǽf-þùnca, grudge||: of-þýncan, to displease.|
|bī́-gę̀ng, practice||: be-gǫ́ngan, to practice.|
|ór-cnā̀we (adj.), recognizable||: ā-cnā́wan, to know.|
|ór-þǫ̀nc, device||: ā-þę́ncan, to devise.|
|ū́ð-gę̀ng, escape||: oð-gǫ́ngan, to escape.|
|wíðer-sæ̀c, hostility||: wið-sácan, to resist.|
6. By the operation of phonetic processes, the Anglo-Saxon system of vowels is made somewhat diversified and complicated. The most important of these processes affecting the radical vowels will now be briefly described.