Is it not possible that _mo_ or _more_ and the French _mais_ may be radically the same word?
The following passage will confirm the foregoing explanation of _beutan_. It is taken from the Saxon version of the Gospels.---- Luke, chap. 1. v. 74. of the original.
"Hæt we _butan_ ege of ure feonda handa alysede, him theowrian."
This version of the Gospels was doubtless as early as the tenth or eleventh century. In Wickliff's version, made about three centuries later, the passage stands thus: "That we _without_ drede, delyvered fro the hand of oure enemyes, serve to him." Where we find _butan_ and _without_ are synonimous.
The word _bot_ or _bote_ is still retained in the law language, as _fire-bote_, _house-bote_; where it is equivalent to _enough_ or _sufficiency_.
[92] So in Mandeville's works. "And right as the schip men taken here avys here, and govern hem _be_ the lode sterre, right so don schip men bezonde the parties, _be_ the sterre of the Southe, the which apperethe not to us."
[93] The French _oui_ is said to be a derivative or participle of the verb _ouir_ to hear. The mode of assent therefore is by the word _heard_; as what you say is _heard_; a mode equally expressive with the English.
[94] It is most probable that many of the English words beginning with _wh_ are from the same original as the Latin qui, quæ, quod; and both coeval with the Greek. Qui and who; quod and what; are from the same root, and a blending of the Greek ~kai ho~ and ~kai hoti~. This supposition is strongly supported by the ancient Scotch orthography of _what_, _where_, &c. which was _quhat_, _quhar_.
[95] The termination _ly_, from _liche_, added to _adjectives_, forms the part of speech called _adverbs_; as _great_, _greatly_; _gracious_, _graciously_. But when this termination is added to a noun, it forms an adjective, as God, _Godly_; heaven, _heavenly_; and these words are also used adverbially; for they will not admit the addition of another _ly_. _Godlily_, which has been sometimes used, that is, _Godlikelike_, and other similar words, are not admissible, on any principle whatever.
[96] _Do_ and _to_ are undoubtedly from the same root; _d_ and _t_ being convertible letters.
[97] This word is not used in modern French; but its derivatives, _avitailler_, _avitaillment_, &c. are still retained.