OE. _ȳ̆_, umlaut of _ū̆_ offers many difficulties. It is represented in writing by _y_, _i_, _u_, _e_. The rimes show the prevailing sound to have been _e_; e.g., _Suddenne_ : _kenne_ 155-6, 923-4, _pelle_ : _fulle_ 421-2, _leste_ : _beste_ 505-6, also 617-18, 671-2, 647-8, 703-4, 917-18, 919-20 L, 805-6, 795-6, 1479-80, 1637-8, 1341-2, 1367-8, etc. But cf. _y_ : _i_ in _kesse_ : _ywisse_ 461-2 C H, _liȝte_ : _driȝte_ 1405-6 C. That _y_ : _i_ rimes should occur, might be expected in view of the vague distinction between _e_ and _i_ as shown by the _e_ : _i_ rimes, but the number of _y_ : _e_ rimes attests to a pronunciation _e_. This is the strongest available evidence that K. H. was composed in the south-eastern district.
That the dialect of King Horn is a mixed dialect is supported by the treatment of _æ_ above, by the double pronunciation of WS. _-eald_, and by further double pronunciations. OE. (WS.) _slēan_, _flēan_ seem to have had double pronunciations. The _ō_ pronunciation is attested to by the rime, _slon_ : _vpon_ C, _slon_ : _on_ L H, 47-8. The OE. _e͞a_ is rendered probable by the written forms, _sle_ : _fle_ 1467-8 C, etc. Other double pronunciations are _ȝonge_ : _ispronge_ 579-80, and more frequently the _i_ rime _ȝonge_ : _bringe_ 295-6, _ringe_ : _ȝonge_ 599-600.
Prof. Hempl’s _-wǭ-_, _-wō-_ test does not yield very definite results in this text, but seems to indicate a southern dialect. Cf. _two_ : _þo_ 53-4 C, 37-8 L H, _go_ : _also_ 103-4, 107-8 L H, _wo_ : _þo_ 121-2, 279-80. But cf. _wo_ : _do_ 291-2. This might perhaps be cited as another evidence of mixed dialect.
For consonants we have no definite rime tests, and consequently can learn concerning them little more than the scribal preferences. In all three texts, however, the southern forms are the favoured ones; e.g. _ȝeue_, _ȝate_. Here again, however, we have double forms; e.g. _wurche_ : _chirche_ 1481-2, but _werke_ : _derke_ 1547-8 C H; _yliche_ : _riche_ 19, 20, 357-8; _ilike_ : _biswike_ 305-6, though, perhaps, we are to seek the explanation of these double forms in difference of vowel-ending rather than in difference of dialect.
From the inflections as from the consonants we can gain no very exact information, and for the same reason. The evidence, however, such as it is, points in the same direction, toward the south. The regular endings of the present indicative seem to be _-e_, _-est_, _-eþ_ for the singular and _-eþ_ for the plural. The forms are not numerous on account of the infrequent use of the present tense. There are some departures from these normal endings. _ben_ occurs occasionally in the plural of the verb ‘be’; _e.g._ 882 L, 1643 C L, 177 H. Other traces of the Midland ending _-en_ are to be seen, _wilen_ 2 L, 7 H, etc. Such forms as _þou seydes_ 588 L, _þou biginnes_ 608 L, _wepes þou_ 696 L, are probably to be explained as mistakes of the scribe of this MS., who frequently leaves off a final consonant.