Early English Alliterative Poems 6

Early English Alliterative Poems 6

GRAMMATICAL DETAILS.

 

I. +Nouns.+

 

(1) _Number._--The plurals generally end in _-es_ (_eȝ_), _-s_. _Yȝen_

(eyes), _trumpen_ (trumpets), are the only plurals in _-en_ that occur

in the poems. In Robson’s Metrical Romances we find _fellun_ (fells,

hills,), _dellun_ (dells), and _eyren_ (eggs), in Liber Cure Cocorum.

The plurals of _brother_, _child_, _cow_, _doȝter_ (daughter), are

_brether_, _childer_, _kuy_, and _deȝter_.

 

(2) _Gender._--The names of inanimate things are in the neuter gender,

as in modern English. The exceptions are _deep_ (fem.), _gladnes_

(fem.), and _wind_ (masc.).

 

(3) _Case._--The genitive singular (masc. and fem.) ends in _-es_

(_-eȝ_), _-s_, but occasionally the inflexion is dropped; as, “Baltaȝar

thewes,” the virtues of Balshazzar.[52] If “_honde_ myȝt,” “_honde_

werk,” “_hellen_ wombe,” are not compounds, we have instances of the

final _-e_ (_en_) which formed the genitive case of _feminine_ nouns in

the Southern English of the fourteenth century.

 

In the phrases “_besten_ blod” (blood of beasts), “_blonkken_ bak” (back

of horses), “_chyldryn_ fader” (father of children), “_nakeryn_ noyse”

(noise of nakers), we have a trace of the genitive plural _-ene_ (A.S.

_-ena_).

 

[Footnote 52: In the romance of “Syr Gawayn and the Grene Knyȝt”

we find “_blonk_ (horse) sadele,” “_fox_ felle” (skin). In _blonk_

an _e_ has probably been dropped.]

 

 

II. +Adjectives.+

 

(1) _Number._--The final _e_, as a sign of the plural, is very

frequently dropped. _Pover_ (poor), _sturn_ (strong), make the plurals

_poveren_ and _sturnen_. In the phrase, “þo syȝteȝ so _quykeȝ_”[53]

(those sights so living), the _-eȝ_ (= _-es_) is a mark of the plural,

very common in Southern writers of the fourteenth century, and employed

as a plural inflexion of the adjective until a very late period in our

literature.

 

The Article exhibits the following forms:

 

SINGULAR. PLURAL.

Masc. Fem.

The. tho.[54] tho.

 

_This_ forms the plural _thise_ and _thes_ (_these_). _That_ is always

used as a demonstrative, and never as the neuter of the article; its

plural is _thos_ (those).[55] The older form, _theos_ = _these_, shows

that the _e_ is not a sign of the plural, as many English grammarians

have asserted.

 

(2) _Degrees of Comparison._--The comparative degree ends in _-er_, and

the superlative in _-est_.

 

Adjectives and adverbs terminating in the syllable _-lyche_ form the

comparative in _-loker_ and the superlative in _-lokest_; as, positive

_uglyche_ (= ugly), comp. _ugloker_, superl. _uglokest_. The long vowel

of the positive is often shortened in the comp. and superl., as in the

modern English _late_, _latter_, _last_.

 

Positive. Comparative. Superlative.

Brade (broad), bradder, braddest.

Dere (dear), derrer, derrest.

Lyke (like), lykker, lykkest.

Swete (sweet), swetter, swettest.

Wayke (weak), wakker, wakkest.

Wode (mad), wodder, woddest.

 

The following irregular forms are occasionally met with:

 

Positive. Comparative. Superlative.

Fer (far), ferre (fyrre), ferrest.

Heȝe (high), herre, heȝest (hest).

Neȝe (nigh, near) nerre, nerrest (nest).

Sare (sore), sarre, sarrest.

Forme (first), formast.

Mikelle (great), mo most.

Yvel, ill (bad), wers (worre), werst.

 

_Numerals._--_Twinne_ and _thrinne_ occur for two and three. The ordinal

numbers are--

 

first (fyrste), the forme,

secunde, that other, tother,

thryd, }

thrydde, }

furþe,

fyfþe,

sexte,

sevenþe,

aȝtþe,

nente,

tenþe, }

tyþe. }

 

The Northumbrian numerals corresponding to _sevenþe_, _aȝtþe_, _nente_,

_tenþe_, are _sevend_, _aghtend_, _neghend_, _tend_. The Southern forms

end in _-the_, as _sevenþe_, _eiȝteoþe_, _nyþe_, _teoþe_ (_tyþe_).

 

[Footnote 53: The feminine form is seldom employed.]

 

[Footnote 54: The Northumbrian plural article is _tha_.]

 

[Footnote 55: The Northumbrian corresponding form is _thas_.]

 

 

III. +Pronouns.+

 

In the following poems we find the pronoun _ho_, she, still keeping its

ground against the Northumbrian _scho_.[56] _Ho_ is identical with the

modern Lancashire _hoo_ (or _huh_ as it is sometimes written), which in

some parts of England has nearly the same pronunciation as the

accusative _her_.

 

The Northumbrian _thay_ (they) has displaced the older Midland _he_,

corresponding to the Southern pronoun _hii_, _hi_ (A.S. _hí_). _Hores_

and _thayreȝ_ (theirs) occasionally occur for _here_.[57] The genitives

in _-es_, due no doubt to Scandinavian influence, are very common in

Northumbrian writers of the fourteenth century, but are never found in

any Southern work of the same period.

 

_Hit_ is frequently employed as an indefinite pronoun of all genders,

and is plural as well as singular. It is, as has been previously shown,

uninflected in the genitive or possessive case.

 

_Me_ in Southern writers is used as an indefinite pronoun of the _third_

person, and represents our _one_, but in the present poems it is of all

persons, and seems to be placed in apposition with the subject of the

sentence corresponding to our use of myself, thyself, himself, etc.; as,

 

“_He_ swenges _me_ þys,” etc. = He himself sends this, etc.[58]

“Now sweȝe _me_ þider swyftly” = Now go (thou) thyself thither

swiftly.[59]

“_He_ meteȝ _me_ þis good man” = He himself meets this good man.[60]

 

Sturzen-Becker (“Some Notes on the leading Grammatical Characteristics

of the Principal Early English Dialects, Copenhagen, 1868”) thinks that

I have been led astray with regard to this use of _me_, which he says is

nothing more than the _dativus ethicus_.

 

The _me_ in these examples may be merely an expletive, having arisen out

of the general use of the dative ethicus, but the context does not

satisfy me that it has the force of a dative. Dr. Guest (Proceedings of

Philolog. Soc., vol. i. p. 151-153, 1842-1844) has discussed this

construction at some length, and he carefully distinguishes the dative

of the 1st person from the indeterminate (or indefinite) pronoun _me_ =

Fr. one. He says that in Old Frisian the indefinite pronoun has two

forms, _min_ and _me_, “the latter of which seems to be always used as a

suffix to the verb, as _momme_, one may; _somme_, one should,” etc. The

same construction was occasionally used in our own language, and it no

doubt gave rise to those curious idioms which are noticed by Pegge in

his “Anecdotes of the Eng. Lang.,” p. 217. This writer, whose evidence

to a _fact_ we may avail ourselves of, whatever we think of his

criticism or his scholarship, quotes the following as forms of speech

then prevalent among the Londoners: “and so says _me_ I;” “well what

does _me_ I;” “so says _me_ she;” “then away goes _me_ he;” “what does

_me_ they?” Here it is obvious that _me_ is the indeterminate pronoun,

and represents the _subject_, while the personal pronoun is put in

apposition to it, so that “says _me_ I” is equivalent to “_one says,

that is I_,”[61]. These idioms are not unknown to our literature.

 

(1) ‘But as he was by diverse principall young gentlemen, to his no

small glorie, lifted up on horseback, _comes me a page_ of Amphialus, etc.’ Pembr. Arcad. B. iii.