On 11/28/06, Dirk Elzinga <dirk.elzinga@...> wrote:
> Your guesses are right on.
<excellent summary snipped>
Thanks much!
> -eth was (is) always syllabic, so authors in the 16th and 17th
> centuries had the choice to use it when rhythm was an issue.
I considered that possibility, as well; it might apply to "sings" vs
"singeth", but clearly not to "does" vs "doth"...
> (The foregoing was a summary of discussion found in Charles Barber's
> book _Early Modern English_, which is quite readable and worth looking
> at.)
Nifty. I'll add that to my to-get list.
--
Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>