the 12th and 13th centuries we find in the subj. case pl., and especially in this predicative use, pagaig, cerlijiaih, acossailhaih, representing pagati, certificate, adconsiliati. A similar peculiarity is noticeable also in masculine substantives, but appears only in a very limited number of texts; so auzil, aazelh Lat. a v i c el l i] (see A. Thomas, in Romania, xxxiv. 353). It is in the verbs that the individuality of the different Romanic idioms manifests itself most distinctly. At a very early date the etymological data were crossed, in various directions and divers manners according to the country, by analogical tendencies. The local varieties became little by little so numerous in the Romanic conjugation that it is not easy to discover any very characteristic features observed over a territory so vast as that of which the limits have been indicated at the commencement of this article. The following are, however, a few.
The infinitives are in -ar, -ér, -re, -ir, corresponding to the Lat. - 5 r e, - 6 r e, - é r e, -ir e, respectively; as in the whole Romanic domain, the conjugation in -ar is the most numerous. The table of verbs, which forms part of the Pr. grammar called the Donatz Proensals (13th century), Contains 473 verbs in -ar, IOI in -ér and -fe, 115, in -ir. In the -ar conjugation we remark one verb from another conjugation: far (cf. Ital. fare) from fa c e re. The conjugations in -ér and -re encroach each upon the territory of the other. The three Lat. verbs c a d é r e, c a p é r e, s a p é r e have become -ér verbs (caze-r, cabe-r, sabe-r) as in Fr. cheoir, -cevoir (fecevoir), savoir; and several other verbs waver between the two: crede-r, creer, and crei-re (c r e - d é r e), quere-r and que-fre (q u a er é r e). This fluctuation is most frequent in the case of verbs which belonged originally to the -ére conjugation: arde-r and a-nlre, plazew and plai-re, taze-r and tai»re (a r d e r e, p la c é r e, tacére). Next to the -ar conjugation, that in -'ir is the one which has preserved most formative power. As in the other Romanic languages, it has welcomed a large number of German verbs, and has attracted several verbs which etymologically ought to have belonged to the conjugations in -ér and -re: emplir im-plére), jauzir (gaudére), cosir (consuére), erebir (eri-pére), fugir (fugére), seguir (*sequére=sequ i) also segre.
Except in the -ar conjugation, the ending of the infinitive does not determine in a regular manner the mode of forming the different tenses. The present participles are divided into two series: those in -an (obj. sing.) for the first conj., those in -en for the others. In this the Pr. distinguishes itself very clearly from the French, in which all present participles have -ant. There is also 'in Pr. a participial form or verbal adjective which is not met with in any other Romanic language, except Rumanian, where, moreover, it is employed in a different sense; this is a form in -do-r, -dai-ra, which supposes a Latin type - t 6 r i u s, or - t fi r i u s; the sense is that of a future participle, active for the intransitive verbs, passive for the transitive: endevenido-r, -dai-ra, “ that is to happen"; fazedo-r, -dai-ra, “ that is to be done "; funido-r, -doi-ra, “ to be punished." In conjugation properly so cal ed we may remark the almost complete disappearance of the Lat. preterit in -avi, of which traces are ound only in texts written in the neighbourhood of the Frenchspeaking region, and in Béarn. In return, a preterit which seems to have been suggested by the Latin d é d i, s t é t i, has increased and become the type of the tense almost everywhere in the -ar conjugation, and in many verbs in -ér and -re: amei-, ame-st, ame-t, ame-m, ame-tz, ame-ron. In French there is a form like this, or at least having the same origin, only in a small number of verbs, none of which belong to the first conjugation, and in these only in the 3rd rs. sing. and pl. (perdiét, per die rent; entendiét, entendierent, &c.). l)f:is well known that reduplicated preterit es had reatly multiplied in vulgar Latin: there have been recovered such forms as a s c e ndiderat, ostendedit, pandiderunt, adtendedit
n c e n d i d e r a t, &c. (see Schuchardt, Vakalismus des Vulgarlateins, i. 35, iii. 10; cf. Romania, ii. 477). But, in order to explain the Pr. form -ei, -est, -et (with open é), we must suppose a termination not in - i' d i or - é d i, but in - é~d i. In the western region the 3rd pers. sing. is generally in -ec, probably by analogy with preterit es ike bee, crec, dec, sec, formed a ter the Latin type in - u 1. Another notable peculiarity, of which Old French shows only rare traces, in texts of a ve remote period, is the preservation of a preterit in -ara or -era, 'derived from the Latin pluperfect, ama-fa or amewa, “I loved.” The former, which is rare, comes directly from Lat. a m a .r a m, the latter has been influenced by the ordinary preterit in -ei. This preterit is used with the sense of a simple East, not of a pluperfect, and consequently is an exact doublet of the ordinary preterit, which explains how it was at length eliminated almost everywhere by the latter, of which it was a mere synonym. But it remained in general use with the sense of a past conditional: ama-ra or ame-ra, “ I should have loved, ” fora, “ I should have been.” 3. M odern Provengal.-In consequence of political circumstances the Provengal ceased to be used for administrative as well as literary purposes about the 1 5th century, in some places a little sooner, in others later (notably in Béarn, where it continued to be written as the language of ordinary use till the 17th, and even in some places till the 18th century). The poems in local dialect composed and printed in the 16th century, and on to our own day, have no link with the literature of the preceding period. Reduced to the condition of a patois, or popular dialect simply, the idiom experienced somewhat rapid modifications. Any one who should compare the poems of Goudelin of Toulouse (1579-1649) with those of a Toulousain troubadour of the 13th century would be astonished at the changes which the language has undergone. Yet this impression would probably be exaggerated. In order to make a rigorously accurate comparison of the language at the two epochs, it would have to be written in the two cases with the same orthographic system, which it is not. The first writers of Provencal, about the 10th and nth century, applied to the language the Latin orthography, preserving to each letter, as far as possible, the value given to it in the contemporary pronunciation of Latin. To express certain sounds which did not exist in Latin, or which were not there clearly enough noted, there were introduced little by little, and without regular system, various conventional symbolization such as lh and nh to symbolize the sound of Z and n mouillées. From this method of proceeding there resulted an orthographic system somewhat wanting in fixity, but which from its very instability lent itself fairly well to the variations which the pronunciation underwent in time and locality. But, the tradition having been interrupted about the 15th century, those who afterwards by way of pastime attempted composition in the patois formed, each for himself apart, an orthography of which many elements were borrowed from French usage. It is evident that differences already considerable' must be exaggerated by the use of two very distinct orthographical systems. Nevertheless, even if we get quit of the illusion which makes us at first sight suppose differences of sound where there are merely different ways of spelling the same sound, we find that between the 14th and 16th centuries the language underwent everywhere, Béarn excepted, great modifications both in vocabulary and grammar. The Provencal literature having gradually died out during the 14th century, the vocabulary lost rapidly the greater part of the terms expressing general ideas or abstract conceptions. To supply the place of these, the authors who have written in the patois of the south during the last few centuries have been obliged to borrow from French, modifying at the same time their form, a multitude of vocables which naturally have remained for the most part unintelligible to people who know only the patois. In this case the adoption of foreign words was excusable; but it did not stop here. Little by little, as primary instruction (now compulsory) was diffused, and introduced, first in the towns and afterwards in the villages, certain knowledge of French, words purely French, have been introduced into use in place of the corresponding dialect words. Thus, one hears constantly in Provence pé-ro, mé-ro, fré-ro, forms adapted from French, instead of paire, maire, fraire, cacha (catsha-=Fr. cacher) instead of escoundfe, &c. In the phonology, the modifications are of the natural order, and so have nothing revolutionary. The language has developed locally tendencies which certainly already existed during the flourishing period, although the ancient orthography did not recognize them. Of the vowels, a tonic is generally preserved; an in an open syllable becomes 6 (open) in part of the departments of Aveyron, Lot, Dordogne, Correze, Cantal and south of Haute Loire: gm (g ran u m), mo (m a n u m), po (p a n e m). This nasalized a must have had a particular sound already in O. Pr., for it is qualified in the Donatz Praensals (ed. Stengel, p. 49) as a estreit (= close or narrow a). A feature almost eneral is the passage of post-tonic a into oz terra, amavo, amado é e r r a, a m a ba t, a m a t a). In many places, particularly in the east, examples of this change occur as early as the end of the 15th century. But even yet there are a few cantons, notably Montpellier and its neighbourhood, and also Nice, where the ancient post-tonic a is preserved. It is remarkable that the Latin diphthong au, which had become simple o in almost all Romanic lands at the date of the most ancient texts, is to this day preserved with a very distinct diphthongal sound everywhere in the south of France.
In the morpholo y, the leading feature of modern Provengal is the ever greater simpligcation of grammatical forms. Not only have the two forms (normative and objective) in each number, in nouns and adjectives, been reduced to one-this reduction manifested itself in ordinary use already in the 14th century-but in many places there no longer remains any distinction between the singular and