in -e; the n-less form, therefore, conformed to the pattern of five other inflectional types, 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8. This conformity may be expressed in the following proportion: hunte (dat., acc. s.): hunte (nom. s.) :: ende (dat., acc. s.): ende (nom. s.) The support given to the n-less forms by these other inflectional patterns was so strong that it seems reasonable to conclude that the effect of analogical processes would be to accelerate the loss of n in the singular of weak nouns. 31 The analogical processes that were actually effective in favoring the survival of either the n-form or the n-less form in the plural of nouns were not of a kind that can be so easily expressed in the form of a proportion. When we examine the earliest Middle English inflectional types as they are given above in our tabulation, we observe that plurality is expressed with much less consistency than by the Old English inflectional patterns. In no less than five types of inflection (4, 5, 6, 7, 8) the nominative and accusative singular and plural were identical. From this fact we might infer that the analogy hunte (nom., acc. pl.): hunte (nom., acc.s.):: rice (nom.,acc.pl.): rice (nom.,acc.s.) lufe hwile sune :lufe would favor the survival of the n-less form rather than the n-form and that the loss of n would therefore be accelerated in the plural of weak nouns. The evidence of the eleventh and twelfth century texts, however, shows unmistakably that in spite of the effects of sound-change in shifting and blurring the traditional patterns of inflection, plurality in nouns was still a living grammatical concept that tended to receive formal expression in speech. We have already noted the fact that in 1 The analogical support given to the n-less forms of the dative and accusative singular was stronger than that given to the n-less form of the genitive singular. Moreover, in five of the early ME inflectional types (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) the genitive singular (ending in -es) was different from all the other cases of the singular. On a priori grounds we might therefore expect the -en forms to be somewhat more stable in the genitive singular than in the dative and accusative singular. eleventh century MSS analogical plurals in -u tended to replace the uninflected plural forms of nouns like word (type 4). Still more significant is the fact that analogical n-plurals begin to occur in the eleventh century MSS and occur with increasing frequency in those of the twelfth century. These analogical n-plurals are most frequent in types 3, 7, and 8, but occur also in types 4, 5, and 6. In other words, the speechfeeling for the expression of plurality was so strong that the n-forms of the nominative and accusative plural of weak nouns not only survived the tendency to loss of n, but themselves furnished the basis for analogical developments that may be expressed in the proportion synnen (n., acc.pl.): synne (n., acc. s.):: hunten (n., acc. pl.): hunte (n., acc. s.) If we accept the conclusion that a feeling for the formal expression of plurality retarded the loss of n in the nominative and accusative plural of weak nouns, it necessarily follows that the same explanation accounts for the retention of the n-form of the dative plural of weak nouns. The same analogical tendency operated to retard the loss of n in the dative plural of strong nouns. For in all the strong inflectional types of earliest Middle English the dative singular ended in -e and the dative plural in -en or -e; loss of n in the dative plural, therefore, would have destroyed all distinction between singular and plural in that case. The adjective inflection in earliest Middle English furnished little or no basis for analogical processes that could either accelerate or retard loss of final n in the weak adjective and the dative singular and plural of the strong adjective. The inflectional pattern of nouns furnished a basis for analogical processes that favored loss or retention of final n partly because of diversity of inflectional types and partly because final n in the plural of nouns had a functional value that favored its survival. The two types of adjectives, those ending in -e and those ending in a consonant, were nearly identical, however, in their inflection and the slight differences between the two types were not such as furnished a basis for analogical developments. Moreover, final n had very little functional value in the adjective inflection either in Old English or in the earliest Middle English. In extremely few forms of the weak adjective in Old English was the final n distinctive of case or gender and only in the nominative plural and neuter accusative plural was it distinctive of number. In fact the form of the weak adjective was seldom distinctive of anything except the fact that the adjective was not strong. All forms of the weak adjective except the nominative and accusative singular neuter of adjectives ending in -e and the dative plural were different from the corresponding form of the strong adjective. In earliest Middle English (with loss of final n) the strong and weak form of the adjective became identical also in the nominative singular masculine and femine of adjectives ending in -e and in the dative singular masculine and neuter, accusative singular feminine, and nominative and accusative plural of all adjectives. The distinction between the strong and weak form of the adjective was still made in earliest Middle English in most forms of adjectives ending in a consonant and in some forms of adjectives ending in-e. I am unable to find in the inflectional pattern of earliest Middle English the basis for any analogical processes that could have preserved the distinction more completely. We may therefore infer that loss of final n was neither retarded nor accelerated by analogical processes in the weak adjective and that loss of n in this grammatical category was the result of sound change alone. 32 The dative singular masculine and neuter and the dative plural of the strong adjective had much more distinctiveness of function in Old English than the weak adjective forms. Both were distinctive of case and the dative singular masculine and neuter form was at least negatively distinctive of gender, tho neither form was distinctive of number. As the result of change of final m to n, the levelling of unstressed vowels, and the loss of final n the Old English ending -um was reduced to -e in earliest Middle English. The n-less form of the dative plural thus became identical with the nominative and accusative plural form. The n-less form of the dative singular, however, was still distinctive of gender and case to a considerable (tho somewhat reduced) extent, especially in adjectives ending in a consonant. Distinctiveness of function would have been completely preserved if loss of n had been arrested by analogical processes, but the inflectional pattern of the strong adjective in earliest Middle English seems to have furnished no basis for such analogical developments. I infer therefore that loss of final n in the dative singular masculine and neuter and dative plural of the strong adjective was the result of sound-change alone. The problem of loss of final n in verbs lies outside the scope of the present paper, but cannot be entirely ignored, for the fact that final n was so much more stable in verb forms than in noun and adjective forms thruout the eleventh and twelfth centuries is obviously relevant to the conclusions apparently indicated by the data presented here in regard to loss of n in adjectives and nouns. These conclusions are: (1) that loss of final n in late Old English and earliest Middle English was initially a combinative sound-change that resulted in double forms, with and without n, distributed according to the phonetic environment of the n; (2) that this primary distribution was then modified by analogical processes that accelerated loss of n in the singular of weak nouns and retarded loss of n in the plural of nouns; (3) that loss of n in the adjective was neither retarded nor accelerated but was the result of sound-change alone. If these conclusions are correct it would seem to follow that loss of final n in verb forms was either retarded by analogical processes or else that the phonetic conditions under which loss of n occurred were conditions to which verb forms were less frequently subject than noun and adjective forms. The analogical potentialities of the verbal pattern seem less than those of the inflectional pattern of nouns but they are not wholly lacking. 33 As to whether verb forms were less frequently subject than noun and adjective forms to the phonetic conditions under which loss of n occurred we can form no opinion until those phonetic conditions have been ascertained. I would suggest as a mere possibility that if final n should have been lost before consonants (or before certain consonants) and preserved in hiatus and before a pause the verb forms might be found to occur with such frequency before a pause as to materially retard the loss of n. But if we could account for the stability of final n in verb forms thruout the eleventh and twelfth centuries we should then have to answer the further question why the n-forms did not remain equally stable thruout the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. It is clear that the highly important problem of loss of n in verbs must be solved by other methods and other materials than those used in the present paper. 32 An examination of the tabulation given above will show that loss of n was relatively more frequent in the singular of weak nouns than in the weak adjective. This fact would seem to confirm the hypothesis that loss of n was accelerated in the singular of weak nouns, but was left to the determination of phonetic tendencies in the weak adjective. The fact, however, needs the confirmation of more statistical data before we are justified in regarding it as significant. 33 The chief analogical potentialities of the verbal pattern tending to retard loss of n seem to be the inflected forms of the infinitive and past participle. The monosyllabic verbs (e.g. OE dōn, bèon, sēon, gān), which tho few in number were very frequent in use, were also a conservative factor. So also was the fact that in all types of weak inflection the plural form was different from the corresponding singular form, and that in all finite verb forms final n had the same function, the indication of plurality. APPENDIX The data upon which Table II is based are as follows:34 1. Elfred, Soliloquies, ed. Hargrove, pp. 1-40; Cotton Vitellius A 15; XI or early XII. peawa 11.8; hwilce 17.19; eaga 17.21; sunne 20.19; þince 10.15; forlete 13.5; lufia 19.10; begyte 23.7; ofercumme 34.18; næbbe 36.9; habbe 36.9 2. Elfric, Homily on Judith, ed. Assmann, Bibliothek der angelsächsischen prosa, III, 102-116;Corpus Christi College Cambridge 303; XII. sopa 15; lyfigenda 346; nolde 81 3. Elfric, Lives of Saints, ed. Skeat, E.E.T.S., I, 10ff., lines 1-428, II, 168ff., lines 1-473; Cotton Julius E 7; XI. hlæfdige I, 28.47; fyrmeste II, 208.304; penode II, 206.263 4. Elfric, On the Old and New Testament; Judges, ed. Crawford, E.E.T.S., pp. 15-51, 64-75, 401-417; Laud 509; XI. sida 172; heretoga 394; witega 666; deriendlica 813; ungewæpnode 1127; lichama 1132; fægera 1144; sceamlica 1248; wiðerwinna Judges, VIII: 28 5. Chronicle, MS D, ed. Thorpe, pp. 248-350; Cotton Tiberius B 4; XI and XII (several hands). gewuna p. 256; wilda p. 264; gerefa p. 266; wæstrena p. 270; Hamptunisca p. 292; utlaga p. 314; maga p. 328; papa p. 328; onfange p. 274 6. Chronicle, MS F, ed. Thorpe, pp. 249-329; Cotton Domitian A 8; XI or XII. mæsse p. 267; gehadode p. 267; yldesta p. 275; feawa p. 301; Sudsexa p. 303; husbunda p. 313; utlaga p. 319 7. Bede, Ecclesiastical History, ed. Schipper, Bibliothek der angelsächsischen prosa, IV, 1-11, 18-50; Cambridge University Library Kk 3, 18; XI. utagangende 414; arlease 469; agife 127; afyrhte 1082; bregde 1085; gefremede 1087 8. Boethius, ed. Sedgefield; continuous parts of text from MS B, pp. 7-11, 14, 21, 26f., 33f., 46f., 48ff., 51f., 57f., 64, 67f., 69, 71, 73f., 79ff., 89, 94ff., 101, 105, 115f., 124, 125f., 135f., 141, 146f.; Bodley 180; XII (early). willa 11.19; sunne 141.19; micle 146.9 9. Byrhtferth's Handboc, ed. Kluge, Anglia VIII, 298-301, 312-314; 322-324, 335-337; Ashmole 328; XI. æðela 301.3; lengtentima 312.22; getyddusta 313.3; gewuna 313.34; wynsume 313.37; fulfremede 322.24; getydde 335.3; iudeisce 335.47 10. Defensor's Liber Scintillarum, ed. Rhodes, E.E.T.S., pp. 1-43, 213-222; Royal 7 C. iv; XI. tima p. 9; leofesta p. 13. "The approximate date of the MS or the century to which it is assigned is given after the MS notation. The date given is usually that assigned by the editor or editors, but I owe to the courtesy of Mr. George Watson of Oxford my information as to the date of MSS 9 and 11 and to the kindness of J. P. Gilson, Esq., of the British Museum my information as to the date of MS 18. In the exhibit of forms showing loss of n the verbs are placed at the end of each group. The references are usually to page and line or to line alone. Accents and marks of quantity are not reproduced. |