for it the ordinary l, though lh (= hl) was in use in 1340 in Southern.  The prefix y-, representing the extremely common A.S. (Anglo-Saxon) prefix ge-, was kept up in Southern much longer than in the other dialects, but has now disappeared; the form y-clept being archaic.  The plural suffix _-en_, as in haly-en, holy ones, saints, is due to the fact that Southern admitted the use of that suffix very freely, as in cherch-en, churches, sterr-en, stars, etc.; whilst Northern only admitted five such plurals, viz. egh-en, ey-en, eyes (Shakespeare’s eyne), hos-en, stockings, ox-en, shoo-n, shoes, and f{-a}-n, foes; ox-en being the sole survivor, since shoon (as in Hamlet, IV iv 26) is archaic.  The modern child-r-en, breth-r-en, are really double plurals; Northern employed the more original forms childer and brether, both of which, and especially the former, are still in dialectal use. Evrelest-inde exhibits the Southern _-inde_ for present participles.

But the word zennes, sins, exhibits a peculiarity that is almost solely Kentish, and seldom found elsewhere, viz. the use of e for i.  The explanation of this rests on an elementary lesson in Old English phonology, which it will do the reader no harm to acquire.  The modern symbol i (when denoting the short sound, as in pit) really does double duty.  It sometimes represents the A.S. short i, as in it (A.S. hit), sit (A.S. sittan), bitten (A.S. b{)i}ten), etc.; and sometimes the A.S. short y, as in pyt, a pit.  The sound of the A.S. short i was much the same as in modern English; but that of the short y was different, as it denoted the “mutated” form of short u for which German has a special symbol, viz. _{ue}_, the sound intended being that of the German ue in schuetzen, to protect.  In the latter case, Kentish usually has the vowel e, as in the modern Kentish pet, a pit, and in the surname Petman (at Margate), which means pitman; and as the A.S. for “sin” was synn (dat. synne), the Kentish form was zenne, since Middle English substantives often represent the A.S. dative case.  The Kentish plural had the double form, zennes and zennen, both of which occur in the Ayenbite, as might have been expected.

The poet Gower, who completed what may be called the first edition of his poem named the Confessio Amantis (or Confession of a Lover) in 1390, was a Kentish man, and well acquainted with the Kentish dialect.  He took advantage of this to introduce, occasionally, Kentish forms into his verse; apparently for the sake of securing a rime more easily.  See this discussed at p. ci of vol.  II of Macaulay’s edition of Gower.  I may illustrate this by noting that in Conf.  Amant. i 1908, we find pitt riming with witt, whereas in the same, v 4945, pet rimes with let.