PRETERITE-PRESENT AND ANOMALOUS
THE PRETERITE-PRESENT VERBS had the following characteristics:
1)Their Present-Tense forms resembled Past-Tense forms (Germ. “Präteritum” = past tense, that’s why they were called so); 2)Some of these verbs did not have a full paradigm and were called “defective”; These verbs expressed attitude and were followed by the Infinitive without “to” (NB! Most of these verbs are present-day modal verbs); Out of 12 preterite-present verbs only 6 survived in ModE: āζ (ought), cunnan (can), dear (dare), sculan (shall), maζan (may), mōt (must).
ME The following changes happened to the preterite-present verbs: They lost their Verbals (non-finite forms) (e.g. OE cunnen – Part 2 of cunnan); They lost the Number and Mood distinctions (e.g. OE cann (Indicative) – cunne (Subjunctive); OE cann (Sg) – cunnon (Pl)).
NE The paradigm of the preterite-present verbs (that had already become modal verbs) was reduced to one or two forms (e.g. must (just one form), can, could (just two forms), etc.).
ANOMALOUS VERBS
They were irregular verbs that combined the features of the weak and strong verbs. There were 4 of them – willan (will), bēon (to be), ζān (to go), dōn (to do).
Willan: had the meaning of volition; resembled the preterite-present verbs in meaning (attitude) and in function (was followed by the Infinitive without “to”); eventually became a modal verb and also together with sculan developed into an auxiliary for the formation of the Future-Tense forms.
Dōn This verb combined the features of the weak and strong verbs:
ζan This verb was suppletive and also combined the features of the weak and strong verbs:
Bēon This verb was highly suppletive and in OE employed two separate words/roots
