The XXXth ECIEC
Harvard University
June 9, 2011
Guðrún Þórhallsdóttir
University of Iceland
[email protected]
Strong verbs and weak preterites
1. Introduction
1.1 Germanic preterites
Strong preterite
Weak preterite
IE perfect
PGmc. innovation
⇒
productive
Expected:
• that new verbs get weak preterites.
• that analogical changes give strong verbs weak preterites, not vice versa.
1.2 Strong verbs becoming weak do not all join the most productive Class II.
Transfer to Class II:
OIce. bjarga — barg → bjarga — bjargaði
OIce. feta — fat
→ feta — fetaði
Transfer to Class I (long syllable):
OIce. rísta — reist → rista — risti
OIce. svelgja — svalg → svelgja — svelgdi
Transfer to Class I (short syllable): OIce. fela — fal
OIce. sverja — sór
→ fela — faldi
→ sverja — svarði
1.3 Strong verbs can get a new kind of strong preterite.
OIce. fela — fal — fálu
→ fela — fól — fólu
OIce. troða — trað — tráðu → troða — tróð — tróðu
1.4 Weak verbs very rarely get strong forms.
OIce. dvína: weak 3sg.pres. dvínar → strong pres. dvín
OIce. kvíða: weak 3sg.pret. kvíddi → strong pret. kveið
2. Proportional analogy — different triggers
2.1 Infinitive — 3sg.pret.ind. barg → bjargaði
(1)
inf. kalla
inf. bjarga
: 3sg.pret. kallaði
: X; X = 3sg.pret. bjargaði
2.2 Present indicative (singular) — 3sg.pret.ind. fal → faldi
(2)
3sg.pres. telur
3sg.pres. felur
: 3sg.pret. taldi
: X; X = 3sg.pret. faldi
2
2.3 Preterite plural — 3sg.pret.ind. reist → risti
(3)
3pl.pret. gistu
3pl.pret. ristu
: 3sg.pret. gisti
: X; X = 3sg.pret. risti
2.4 Preterite subjunctive — 3sg.pret.ind. réð → réði
(4)
3sg.pret.subj. heyrði : 3sg.pret.ind. heyrði
3sg.pret.subj. réði
: X; X = 3sg.pret.ind. réði
2.5 Preterite participle — 3sg.pret.ind. nam → numdi
(5)
pret.ptc. glumið
pret.ptc. numið
: 3sg.pret. glumdi
: X; X = 3sg.pret. numdi
3. Four-part analogy cannot easily explain all changes.
3.1 OIce.
→
þiggja — þá — þágu — þeginn Cl. V ‘receive, accept’
þiggja — 3sg.pret. þáði — pret.ptc. þáður (17th c.)
• The strong verb had an exact parallel, i.e., liggja — lá — lágu — leginn ‘lie’.
• It gets a preterite and pret.ptc. that rhyme with the forms of
heyja Cl. I ‘hold, perform’ — 3sg.pret. háði — pret.ptc. háður
gá
Cl. III ‘heed’
— 3sg.pret. gáði — pret.ptc. gáður
• No verb has a pattern of the type þiggja — þáði — þáður.
3.2 The verb might have gotten a Class I weak preterite, but that did not happen.
(6)
inf. byggja
inf. þiggja
: 3sg.pret. byggði
: X; X = 3sg.pret. **þiggði
It is clear that the present stem cannot have triggered the change.
(7)
3sg.pres. heyr
3sg.pres. þiggur
: 3sg.pret. háði
: X; X = 3.p.et.þt. **???
(8)
3sg.pres. gáir
3sg.pres. þiggur
: 3sg.pret. gáði
: X; X = 3.p.et.þt. **???
4. Strong preterite gets weak suffix
4.1 A famous example: OE gān (E. go) — 3sg.pret. ēode.
Cowgill (1960): PIE perf. 3sg. *h1e-h1oi̯-e > PGmc. *eō > WGmc. *eu.
The weak preterite suffix was added to the strong preterite *eu: *eu+da > OE ēode.
3
4.2 OIce. flýja ‘flee’ — pret. fló — flugu — Pret.ptc. not attested, Cl. II
4.2.1 Noreen (1970:329):
1sg.pret. flóða is fló “mit zugefügter schwacher endung -ða”: fló+ða → OIce. flóða
• Two examples only; scribal error according to Jón Þorkelsson (1913:15).
4.2.2 Noreen (1970:329): 1sg.pret. flǿða < Pr.-N. *flauhiðō.
1. Did Noreen assume that strong pret. *flauh (to flýja) added on the weak suffix *-iðō?
• The same suggestion as in the case of flóða, simply older.
• Noreen (1970:329): Inf. flǿja and pres. flǿr are remade after pret. flǿða.
2. Alternative view: A separate verb, inf. *flauhijan > flǿja — pret. *flauhiðō > flǿða.
3. Jón Axel Harðarson (2001:88):
(9)
inf. hlýja
inf. flýja
: 1sg.pret. hlǿða
: X; X = 1sg.pret. flǿða
4.3 OIce. fela ‘hide’ — fal — fálu — fólginn Cl. IV → fela — faldi — falinn (15th c.)
1. Bandle (1956:402; cf. also Noreen 1970:333): 3sg.pret. fal + -di → faldi
2. Guðrún Þórhallsdóttir (2003):
(10)
3sg.pres. telur
3sg.pres. felur
: 3sg.pret. taldi
: X; X = 3sg.pret. faldi
4.4 How was pret. þáði formed? OIce. þiggja — þá — þágu — þeginn
• 3sg.pret. þá+ði → þáði?
• Ad hoc phonological change: 3pl.pret. þágu [þauːɣʏ] > [þauːðʏ]?
• No proportional analogy in sight.
5. Doubts
1. Frequency in history
• Cowgill (1960:499):
“Suffixes are not often added to already complete inflectional forms in IndoEuropean languages, especially suffixes which add nothing to the meaning but
only serve to fill out or better characterize a form.”
• If it were natural to take a strong preterite and add the weak suffix, simply because
people preferred to make it weak, one would expect to see more examples.
OIce. pret. braut ↛ *brautti, pret. fann ↛ *fanndi, pret. fór ↛ *fórði or the like.
2. Frequency now
As far as Modern Icelandic is concerned, forms of the type strong preterite+weak suffix are
not common in language acquisition or as adult speech errors.
4
6. Icelandic past tense acquisition
6.1 Hrafnhildur Ragnarsdóttir (1998)
Icelandic children (age 4, 6, 8) were asked to produce preterites of strong and weak verbs.
From Hrafnhildur’s Table 3 (1998:263): Correct answers
Age
Wk. Cl. II (kallaði)
Strong pret.
4 years
6 years
8 years
88%
87%
94%
15%
71%
87%
From Hrafnhildur’s Table 8 (1998:269): Errors
Age
I
Wrong pret. in -aði
4 years
6 years
8 years
braut → brjótaði
61%
22%
12%
II
Wrong pret. in
-ði/-di/-ti
brjótti
32%
60%
68%
III
Wrong strong pret.
brjót, hífði → heif
3%
17%
20%
Column I. Weak preterite in -aði generalized (erroneously)
Ex.: brjóta — brjótaði
Column II. Weak preterite in -ði/-di/-ti generalized (erroneously)
Ex.: brjóta — brjótti
Column III. Strong preterite generalized (erroneously)
Weak verb gets a strong preterite: telja — tal, hífa — heif, stúta — staut
Strong verb gets a wrong strong preterite: brjóta — brjót
6.2 Interpretation of Hrafnhildur’s (1998) results
1. In child language, strong verbs often get weak preterites formed by adding -aði or
-ði/-di/-ti to the stem of the infinitive/present.
2. Children eliminate ablaut:
brjóta — braut → brjótaði or brjótti
kaupa — keypti → ?kaupaði or kaupti
3. Children give weak verbs strong preterites with ablaut:
hífa — hífði → heif, stúta — stútaði → staut
• This happens mostly to rare verbs that rhyme with strong ones.
5
4. Children apocopate a weak preterite:
telja — taldi → tal
5. There are no examples of a strong preterite that is given a weak suffix but still has
the vowel of the strong preterite:
brjóta — braut ↛ *brautaði or *brautti
6.3 Hrafnhildur Ragnarsdóttir and Sigríður Sigurjónsdóttir (p.c.)
Forms of the type strong preterite+weak suffix do occur in Icelandic child language, but
extremely rarely.
1. Some such preterites would fit a four-part-analogy explanation: 3sg.pret. gaf → gafði
(11)
3sg.pres. hefur
3sg.pres. gefur
: 3sg.pret. hafði
: X; X = 3sg.pret. gafði
2. Some child language formations would not fit in a proportion, but still have the same
structure as well-known weak preterites.
3sg.pret. reif → reifði, cf. dreifði, hreyfði.
3. Some examples look like attempts at producing a weak preterite, but do not fit any
known type.
3sg.pret. fann → fanni, fannd
7. English past tense acquisition
7.1 Studies of English past tense acquisition are in some ways hard to compare to the
Icelandic results.
a) They discuss the acquisition of an “irregular” past tense, not exclusively what
historical linguists call a strong preterite.
b) It is not always clear whether a past tense form in child language formed with
“vowel change+suffix” refers to a form that has the vowel of the correct past tense.
7.2 Bybee and Slobin (1982:286)
Three age groups: preschoolers, third-graders, and adults
The “vowel change+suffix” type is mentioned in a footnote:
“the small number of ‘over-marking’ errors ... in the adult and third-grade
corpora of errors. The third-graders produced only three: shrunked, shooked, and
stucked; the adults produced clanked (3 times) and clunked (once), both for the past of
clink. Note that both clanked and clunked could be the past-tense of other verbs.”
6
7.3 Marchman (1997:293)
Child language errors made in the past tense of 38 irregular English verbs
Verbs
Suffix
38
345
Vowel+Suffix Vowel
Change
7
7
Zero
marking
121
Total Errors
480
• Out of a total of 480 errors, there are only 7 examples of “vowel+suffix”.
• Those seven examples belong to the verbs drink, find, sing, sit, take, and send.
• Possibly five forms of the type strong preterite+weak suffix:
?dranked, ?founded, ?sanged, ?satted, and ?tooked.
7.4 Marcus et al. (1992:57, 145, 147)
Children (each over a three-year period; age 2–5)
Abe
Adam
Correct
Stem+ed
Past+ed
Total
Overreg.rate
1,786
1,276
465
43
99
4
2,350
1,323
.240
.036
Abe: 99 examples of past+ed
?broked (12), ?branged (1), ?caughted (1), ?camed (4), ?ated (2), ?felled (3),
?founded (2), ?gotted (50), ?wented (4), ?maded (3), ?sawed (3), ?shotted (1),
?spatted (1), ?tooked (3), ?thoughted (9) = 99
Adam: 4 examples of past+ed
?ranned (1), ?stoled (2), ?tooked (1) = 4
7.5 Google (June 3, 2011)
(12)
a. Yesterday my son for the 1st time tooked the school bus (past tense)
b. All of the shots where (sic) tooked with tripod (ptc.)
• Also, e.g., ated, camed, dranked, gotted, sanged, ...
8. Three types: OE ēode, Ice. faldi, Ice. þáði
8.1 OE ēode
• WGmc. pret. *eu and the present stem of OE gān belonged to different roots.
• 3sg. pret. *eu was an abnormally “small” preterite form.
• To make it look like a preterite, the weak pret. marker was added: *eu+da > OE ēode.
• Endings are occasionally added to whole forms to give them a clear marker,
OE 3pl.pres. sind+on → sindon ‘are’.
7
8.2 Ice. faldi
• OIce. pret. fal — fálu was a normal Cl. IV strong preterite, cf. pret. stal — stálu.
• There was no need to add the preterite suffix to save it from being unrecognizable.
• A four-part analogy is most plausible, viz., pressure from weak verbs of Class I,
which had a parallel present singular.
(13)
3sg.pres. telur : 3sg.pret. taldi
3sg.pret. felur : X; X = 3sg.pret. faldi
8.3 Ice. þáði
• OIce. pret. þá — þágu was a normal Cl. V strong preterite, cf. pret. lá — lágu.
• There was no need to add the preterite suffix to save it from being unrecognizable.
• Four-part analogy impossible.
• Nevertheless, þá → þáði, which rhymes with pret. gáði and háði, but these types of
verbs had nothing in common that might have explained analogical influence.
8.4 Conclusion
Evidence from history
• In the history of Icelandic, the preterite þáði is in a class by itself.
• Would they have taken the strong preterite and added the preterite suffix, simply to
make it weak?
Evidence from acquisition
• An Icelandic two-year-old has been known to produce reifði;
reif → reifði, a preterite formation that would match þá → þáði.
• The American Abe has shown that some children are very productive in adding the
preterite suffix to various stems.
• If children learning Germanic languages now do this, it is hardly unthinkable that
their ancestors did it as well.
Ergo:
It would be unwise to maintain that it is inconceivable that Ice. pret. þáði was created as an
exceptional language-acquisition error that came to be generalized — by some historical
coincidence and against all odds.
8
References
Bandle, Oskar. 1956. Die Sprache der Guðbrandsbiblía. (Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana 17.)
Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard.
Bybee, Joan L. and Dan I. Slobin. 1982. Rules and Schemas in the Development and Use of
the English past Tense. Language 58:265–89.
Cowgill, Warren. 1960. Gothic iddja and Old English ēode. Language 36 (1960):483–501.
Guðrún Þórhallsdóttir. 2003. The paradox of Sturtevant’s Paradox: The story of OIcel. fela.
The 22nd East Coast Indo-European Conference, Harvard University, June 9–12, 2003.
[Forthc. 2012.]
Hrafnhildur Ragnarsdóttir. 1998. Að læra þátíð sagna. In Baldur Sigurðsson, Sigurður
Konráðsson and Örnólfur Thorsson (eds.): Greinar af sama meiði helgaðar Indriða
Gíslasyni sjötugum. Reykjavík: Rannsóknarstofnun Kennaraháskóla Íslands. Pp. 255–276.
Jón Axel Harðarson. 2001. Das Präteritum der schwachen Verba auf -ýia im Altisländischen
und verwandte Probleme der altnordischen und germanischen Sprachwissenschaft.
(Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 101.) Innsbruck: Institut für
Sprachwissenschaft.
Jón Þorkelsson [Thorkelsson]. 1913. Anmærkninger til Joh. Fritzners Ordbog over Det gamle
norske Sprog. Reykjavík: Sigfús Eymundssons Boghandel.
Marchman, Virginia A. 1997. Children’s Productivity in the English Past Tense: The Role of
Frequency, Phonology, and Neighborhood Structure. Cognitive Science 21(3):283–304.
Marcus, Gary F., Steven Pinker, Michael Ullman, Michelle Hollander, T. John Rosen and Fei
Xu. 1992. Overregularization in Language Acquisition. Monographs of the Society for
Research in Child Development, Serial No. 228, Vol. 57, No. 4. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Noreen, Adolf. 1970. Altnordische Grammatik I: Altisländische und altnorwegische
Grammatik (Laut- und Flexionslehre) unter Berücksichtigung des Urnordischen. 5. Aufl.
Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
Guðrún Þórhallsdóttir
Faculty of Icelandic and Comparative Cultural Studies
School of Humanities
University of Iceland
[email protected]