| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Donmillion
In: Acton, Middlesex
|
|
 |
|
A re-posting, dumbed-down and augmented:
Let's take some examples. The West Midlands dialect, and still more the Southern and Kentish dialects, into the fourteenth century, formed the possessive of feminine nouns in -e (as did AS), while using -es for masculine and neuter nouns (as did AS). Therefore the examples below, while transliterated into Modern English spelling, will include non-Modern English -e suffixes. To do otherwise would falsify the record.
No need to give examples for masculine and neuter nouns, since they follow the pattern seen in Modern English, but here are several examples of feminine possessives from the Harley Lyrics (British Library MS Harley 2253), copied in the West Midlands c. 1340:
Sweet Jesu, king of bliss
My hearte love, my hearte liss In AS, heorte, "heart", is a feminine noun with possessive heorte, the same as the nominative. hearte in the lyric is "heart's"--"My heart's love, my heart's joy". Other lyrics in the same volume have the same construction:
Sweet Jesu my hearte light ...
For love thou seje thy hearte blood (I was unable to find a translation or English c. 1150-1450 dictionary entry for "seje".)
The above three examples are the only occurrences of 'hearte' in the Harley Lyrics (lyrics numbers 14, 20, and 31 respectively). There are also three occurrences of 'heart' without the final -e (lyrics 6, 13, and 23):
that is in heavene heart
My heart [be]ginneth to yield
My heart of deeds was greatly frightened Note that none of these "heart" occurrences are possessives, thereby underlining the possessive force of -e in the first three examples. And note in the first 'non-possessive' example that heaven, an AS feminine noun, is in possessive case: in heavene heart = 'in heaven's heart'.
I recall in the Ancrene Riwle (West Midlands, c. 1230), ure sawle nede, "our soul's need", reproduces exactly the AS sawle, possessive of the feminine noun sawol.
But let's end with a Kentish example.
Kentish manuscripts, including the Againbite of Inwit (1340, I've transliterated the title into modern spelling, though it makes no sense because the words don't exist in Modern English), use that as "the" for English nouns that were neuter in Anglo-Saxon, replicating the AS th�t, "the", the definite article for neuter nouns . The following passage illustrates this, and several other phenomena besides. I've tried to modernise the spelling, but have retained final -e:
| He yarn [='ran'] to the granarye, and all that his mother had y-gathered for to last that year he it gave to the poore. And tho [= 'when'] his mother came and wist [= "learned of"] the ilk [= 'same'] deed, he [= "she"] was all out of her wits. That child bade oure Lorde, and that granary was in haste all full. |
In the above, we see the following:
- that year, "the year" (AS neuter noun ɡear)
- he it gave, "he gave it" (word-order inversion in a subordinate clause, usual in AS but not in Modern English)
- the ... deed, "the deed" (AS feminine noun d�d)
- he ... her, "she ... her" (AS pronoun �heo�, rather than Modern English 'she')
- that child, "the child" (AS neuter noun cild)
- oure Lorde, "[to] our Lord" (dative suffix -e makes "to" unnecessary)
- that granary, "the granary" (a neuter noun)
With regard to the last point, to the granarye occurs earlier in the passage; the granarye is dative, like oure Lorde, and also to the poore. Although "to" isn't necessary in those phrases, we're in a transitional stage (according to orthodoxy), at a time when other English dialects have lost the dative inflexion entirely.
|
|
  |
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
See, that wasn't so difficult, was it? My overall problem in accepting your case, which is now powerfully argued, is that when inspecting a language that has a) gender and b) case endings, every sentence betrays the fact. As someone who learned (sorry, was taught) Latin, French and German I couldn't help noticing that from practically Day One it was necessary to learn declension because you simply couldn't write a word in either Latin or German without it.
There was no such problem of course in French but now came the problem that you had to learn the gender of every noun if you ever wanted to use it in any context other than Scrabble.
Now when I look at your examples I just don't get that impression. What I do get, very strongly, is a sense that you are having to dig and delve. Surely if you are correct, any random sentence would support your case. Now doubtless you will say that in an era when the convention is on the wain, usage will be sporadic but in response to that I would argue, and I think pretty cogently, that the examples you are quoting are not representative of ordinary speech. They are poetry and divinity when we know, from our own times, that all kinds of conventions get used. It should also be borne in mind that the writers are almost certainly trained in a) French and b) the Anglo-Saxon alphabet.
Nevertheless I will accept your overall case that there is some evidence that in the period 12-14th centuries English had rather more case and gender inflexions than it does today (and as you know it certainly has quite a few now). Since many Indo-European languages have large amounts of case and gender endings, we can be certain that English must have originally had them also. As English has shed the vast majority of them, and your evidence is correct, we now have a snapshot of some of the last of them going.
It is good to hear that Anglo-Saxon was undergoing the same process (though I don't accept your post-1100 evidence and could not follow your pre-1100 material, but please don't return to this!) Perhaps the Anglo-Saxons were impressed that their villeins' language got along perfectly well without case and gender endings.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Don, I couldn't help noticing that all your examples are -e. If you look elsewhere in this thread we have a long discussion about -e endings and their significance in Chaucerian poetry. In today's English an -e ending is normally used to change the vowel into the long form eg hat into hate but (we discovered, I seem to remember) it was used by Chaucer somewhat arbitrarily. Perhaps it did not occur to anyone that it may be the accusative form. [Dan, is that correct?]
But the chief debate was whether the e-ending was voiced or not (something that becomes important when it is used as a rhyme). Now of course today the final e is never voiced so it may be that it was never voiced at all then either. So why did Chaucer (and others we have learned) employ it? Was it to show emphasis as the accusative form. Did English replace case endings with spoken emphases?
But of course this won't be true if Don was merely using e as an example and that he has all sorts of other gender and case endings from Modern English (ie thirteenth century and onwards only!) up his sleeve.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Grant
|
|
|
|
Donmillion said
| They might learn something that would undermine the hypothesis of a complete disconnect between AS and English |
But surely Mick doesn't believe in a total disconnect between AS and English. The languages originate in North West Europe and were living alongside each other. Why would we expect a complete disconnect?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Donmillion
In: Acton, Middlesex
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | But of course this won't be true if Don was merely using e as an example and that he has all sorts of other gender and case endings from Modern English (ie thirteenth century and onwards only!) up his sleeve. |
Gotta quash (sp?) this before I do anything else. Why restrict it to 13th century? "Middle English" begins in the mid-12th century.
I'll pursue this when I can, reminding you (Mick) that triple gender in nouns was only one of half-a-dozen indicators of continuity from AS to ME (interpret "M" as "Middle" or "Modern" as you wish).
But I'm very surprised (or at least, I'll feign it) that, having pronounced so resolutely and stentorianly on the lack fo relation between AS and ME, you hadn't already investigated ME triple-gender, ME dative retention, and the other topics I brought up. You don't seem to have been previously aware of them. Is ignorance a defensible position from which to attempt to overthrow old paradigms with new ones?
But it's back to work for now ...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Donmillion
In: Acton, Middlesex
|
|
|
|
| Grant wrote: | Donmillion said
| They might learn something that would undermine the hypothesis of a complete disconnect between AS and English |
But surely Mick doesn't believe in a total disconnect between AS and English. The languages originate in North West Europe and were living alongside each other. Why would we expect a complete disconnect? |
Poorly expressed on my part, Grant, so thankyou. You'll be aware of what I meant: that Mick proposes that, rather than MnE being directly descended from AS, MnE preceded AS, was temporarily eclipsed during the AS and Norman ascendencies, then re-emerged when those waned.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Donmillion wrote: | | Is ignorance a defensible position from which to attempt to overthrow old paradigms with new ones? |
It is the only position from which such an overthrow is possible.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A few days ago I raised here the issue of just how one actually would calibrate the rapidity or otherwise of language change. And Mick kindly offered me the poisoned chalice of making some choices.
It appears that although there are many linguists who are interested in language change and its processes nobody seems to have focussed on Speed of Change as a topic in its own right. So we are entering unexplored territory here.
I will return to this after Christmas (well, after the Boxing Day Test Match, actually) when I will transfer this discussion to the "How fast do languages change" thread.
Happy Christmas everybody from down under. Let us all hope for the triumph of righteousness and that that slob Pietersen is just as successful as he was in Perth.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Poorly expressed on my part, Grant, so thankyou. You'll be aware of what I meant: that Mick proposes that, rather than MnE being directly descended from AS, MnE preceded AS, was temporarily eclipsed during the AS and Norman ascendencies, then re-emerged when those waned. |
Lest it pass into folklore, English was never eclipsed, never waxed and never waned. It just plodded on as the aboriginal language of the mass of the inhabitants of these islands since (probably) the Ice Age. Various other languages were spoken by various occupying forces at various times.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Gotta quash (sp?) this before I do anything else. Why restrict it to 13th century? "Middle English" begins in the mid-12th century. |
Let us keep to the fourteenth century for now, since we seem to be making progress there. If your argument is sound these very drastic changes you claim will be perfectly evident in the later period. Why not list everything you've got from the fourteenth century since
| triple gender in nouns was only one of half-a-dozen indicators of continuity. |
Once we've dealt with all those we can go back further.
| But I'm very surprised (or at least, I'll feign it) that, having pronounced so resolutely and stentorianly on the lack fo relation between AS and ME, you hadn't already investigated ME triple-gender, ME dative retention, and the other topics I brought up. You don't seem to have been previously aware of them. Is ignorance a defensible position from which to attempt to overthrow old paradigms with new ones? |
You clearly haven't read any AE theory. Once the human brain has invested a certain amount into a given paradigm, it will prefer to be burnt at the stake rather than admit error. So ignorance is the only position from which to attempt an overthrow of an old paradigm. You must not fret that you are unable to change, every time you post it is quite obvious to us all that your brain will not allow you to jettison all that hard-won 'knowledge'.
However it is another principle of Applied Epistemology that, given our ineffable ignorance, we rely on specialists to do the donkey work. So please continue with your good work and we'll keep trying to pin the tail on.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Donmillion
In: Acton, Middlesex
|
|
|
|
| Ishmael wrote: | | Donmillion wrote: | | Is ignorance a defensible position from which to attempt to overthrow old paradigms with new ones? |
It is the only position from which such an overthrow is possible. |
Ah! Further enlightenment regarding the AE position! "I know nothing about what I'm overthrowing, and don't want to know, but I'll overthrow it anyway and replace it with something else I don't understand, and have no real evidence for anyway."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
|
Couldn't have said it better myself.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Donmillion
In: Acton, Middlesex
|
|
|
|
| Ishmael wrote: | | Couldn't have said it better myself. |
I thought not. Merry Christmas, Ishmael (or Bah! Humbug, as you prefer.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| "I know nothing about what I'm overthrowing, and don't want to know, but I'll overthrow it anyway and replace it with something else I don't understand, and have no real evidence for anyway." |
As Ishmael says, a beautiful definition of AE but since AE also says "Never start from definitions, finish with them", we had better sprinkle some stardust.
1. "I know nothing about..." This is just not possible in the modern world. We have all had at least ten years of formal education and we are bombarded with telly etc programmes explaining this and that. So basically everybody knows enough about any given subject to begin...
2. "....overthrowing..." Remember that paradigms get overthrown about once every several hundred years so it's not (except for us) a very easy thing to do.
3. "...and don't want to know"....this is curiously true. You'll find, once you start overthrowing things, that your knowledge never stacks up against that which you are overthrowing so you get terribly downhearted if you really hurl yourself into 'knowing'. But you learn gradually to dip in and out without getting swallowed up. Have a look at how we do it as we try to overthrow a whole raft of zoology and pre-history in the Were They Domesticated? debate over on Crying Wolf.
4. "...and replace it with something else I don't understand..." Here you are quite wrong. You very quickly become The World Authority of the new paradigm (faute de mieux). There is nothing easier to understand than a virgin field.
5. "...and have no real evidence for...." This is true of course in the virgin field sense but the brain hates a vacuum and I can assure you the real joy begins now as all the new stuff just comes pouring in. In fact if it doesn't you can be pretty sure you've made a pretty profound error somewhere along the line.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
"...and replace it with something else I don't understand..."
I take this as reference to the sense of amazement one feels when suddenly there are all manner of new questions and a whole raft of new unknowns!
It's a humbling experience to confront the depth of one's lack of understanding, even as one becomes the new world authority in the new field. And yeah. I do know what I'm talking about.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
