2008:141
BACHELOR THESIS
The Decay of the Case System
in the English Language
Åsa Tålig
Luleå University of Technology
Bachelor thesis
English
Department of Language and Culture
2008:141 - ISSN: 1402-1773 - ISRN: LTU-CUPP--08/141--SE
Abstract
The aim of this essay is to investigate when and why the English language changed from being an
inflectional language to being an analytic one. The language spoken by the first Germanic people
that settled on the British Isles had four cases, and quite a free word order, whereas Modern English
has a very strict word order, and only traces of the Old English case system are left.
The method used has been to compare texts from five centuries (the 8 th, 10th, 11th, 12th, and 14th
centuries), and look at the case endings in nouns and in demonstrative and personal pronouns. Word
order and the use of prepositions have also been studied.
The conclusions drawn in this essay are that the written language was very conservative until the
Norman invasion in 1066. Traces of the decay of the case system may have been found in written
sources before this, although not in the texts analysed in this essay. Here the change in the use of
cases is only clearly evident when the Normans arrive and start writing the English language as they
hear it.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction......................................................................................................................................1
1.1 Aim............................................................................................................................................2
1.2 Method and material..................................................................................................................2
2. Background and previous research...................................................................................................3
2.1 Old English................................................................................................................................3
2.1.1 Nouns.................................................................................................................................3
2.1.2 Pronouns.............................................................................................................................4
2.1.3 Syntax.................................................................................................................................6
2.2 Middle English...........................................................................................................................7
2.2.1. Nouns................................................................................................................................8
2.2.2. Pronouns............................................................................................................................9
2.2.3. Syntax................................................................................................................................9
3. Presentation, analysis and discussion of the texts..........................................................................11
3.1 The eighth century: Cynewulf and Cyneheard........................................................................11
3.1.1. Nouns..............................................................................................................................11
3.1.2. Pronouns..........................................................................................................................11
3.1.3. Prepositions.....................................................................................................................12
3.1.4. Word order .....................................................................................................................12
3.1.5. Summary.........................................................................................................................13
3.2. The tenth century: From Ælfric’s Colloquy...........................................................................13
3.2.1. Nouns..............................................................................................................................13
3.2.2. Pronouns..........................................................................................................................14
3.2.3. Prepositions.....................................................................................................................14
3.2.4. Word order......................................................................................................................15
3.2.5. Summary.........................................................................................................................15
3.3 The eleventh century: From The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 1011.............................................16
3.3.1 Nouns...............................................................................................................................16
3.3.2 Pronouns...........................................................................................................................16
3.3.3 Prepositions......................................................................................................................16
3.3.4 Word order.......................................................................................................................17
3.3.5 Summary..........................................................................................................................17
3.4 The twelfth century: From Ancrene Wisse: Temptations........................................................18
3.4.1 Nouns...............................................................................................................................18
3.4.2 Pronouns...........................................................................................................................18
3.4.3 Prepositions......................................................................................................................19
3.4.4 Word order.......................................................................................................................19
3.4.5 Summary..........................................................................................................................19
3.5 The fourteenth century: From The English Language in 1385 by John of Trevisa.................20
3.5.1 Nouns...............................................................................................................................20
3.5.2 Pronouns...........................................................................................................................21
3.5.3 Prepositions......................................................................................................................21
3.5.4 Word order.......................................................................................................................21
3.5.5 Summary..........................................................................................................................21
3.6 Discussion................................................................................................................................22
4. Summary and conclusion...............................................................................................................25
Appendices.........................................................................................................................................28
Appendix 1: Cynewulf and Cyneheard.....................................................................................28
Appendix 2: From Ælfric’s Colloquy.......................................................................................30
Appendix 3: From The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 1011.............................................................32
Appendix 4: From Ancrene Wisse: Temptations......................................................................33
Appendix 5: The English Language in 1385 by John of Trevisa..............................................34
Bibliography.......................................................................................................................................36
1. Introduction
Modern English is a highly analytic language, which means that there are few inflections and a
strict word order. In the past, however, the structure of the English language was quite different. It
was developed from the Proto-Indo-European language, which distinguished between eight cases.
In the days of Old English, that is, the English spoken approximately from the 5 th until the 12th
century, a difference was made between four cases: the nominative, the accusative, the genitive and
the dative. The words were inflected differently according to what syntactic function they had in a
sentence. With these inflections it was possible to tell which word was the subject and which was
the object regardless of their position in the sentence. Thus, se cyning ofslog þa cyningan and þa
cyningan ofslog se cyning both meant ‘the king killed the queen’ in Old English, whereas in Modern
English the word order would give different meanings to the phrases.
In Modern English, adjectives have no case endings at all, but nouns still have a marker for the
genitive, even though some researchers (e.g. Denison 1993:20) claim that it is no longer a question
of case, since it is no longer governed by verbs or prepositions. According to Janda (1980, 1981),
the English language has lost all of the genitive inflections, and the possessive -’s and -’ have
developed from a construction with the possessive adjective his (the king-his crown – the king’s
crown). This way of expressing possession became popular in the late Middle English period (Janda
1980:247). Pronouns have preserved most of the Old English case distinctions. There is still a
difference between for example I (nominative), me (dative/accusative) and my/mine (genitive).
The history of the English language is usually divided into three periods: the Old English period
from approximately 450 to 1150, the Middle English period from 1150 to 1500, and the Modern
English period from about 1500. According to Malone ((1930), as quoted in Baugh (1959:190)),
traces of the decay of the inflections have been found in manuscripts written as early as the 10 th
century, and in the Middle English period, the inflections were greatly reduced. In the 1500s, the
inflections had almost disappeared completely.
Throughout the text the following abbreviations are used:
S – Subject
V– Verb
O – Object
C – Complement
1
1.1 Aim
The aim of this essay is to find out more precisely when the decay of the case inflections began,
what caused it, and how it happened. The specific questions to be addressed are: Which case
endings were the first ones to disappear? Did the word order become fixed before the inflections
actually vanished from the language, or was the strict word order a result of the disappearance of
the case inflections?
1.2 Method and material
The method used has been to compare texts from different periods and see how the language has
changed regarding case inflections and word order. Since previous research has shown that most
changes happened during the late Old English period and the early Middle English period, one text
has been studied from the 10th, the 11th, and the 12th centuries respectively. For comparison, one 8thcentury text and one 14th-century text have been studied as well. Nouns and personal and
demonstrative pronouns have been studied and compared, as well as word order. The function of
prepositions has also been studied, since they became more frequent as the cases died out (Smith,
2005:97). Adjectives, however, have been excluded due to the limited space of this essay, even
though they were also inflected according to the case system in the Old English period.
The texts that have been studied in this essay are prose texts. Poetry has been excluded, since poets
tend to use language more freely, and did so already in Old English (Mitchell & Robinson
2001:63). Translations from Latin have not been excluded, however, even though the Latin syntax
may have affected the texts. Although the texts chosen for this essay are all prose, they are not very
similar neither in content nor in style. The analysis in this essay is not an exact comparison of the
texts; that would only be possible with different versions of the same text. The purpose is merely to
look at tendencies from the various centuries, and follow the progress of the English language
regarding case inflections. It is also important to remember that changes in a language do not
happen suddenly. Some authors welcome new trends and write in a style modern for their time,
whereas others are old-fashioned and wish to conserve the old way of using their language. The
authors of the texts used in this essay are not chosen for their style, or for being especially
conservative or modern for their time. They are randomly chosen to represent the century in which
they happened to live and write. To make sure that the observations in this essay are accurate, it
would be necessary to analyse several texts from each century, but because of the limited space in
this essay, that has not been possible.
2
2. Background and previous research
Apparently, not much research of this kind has been done before. Texts from different periods have,
of course, been studied, for example by Denison (1993) and Görlach (1997), but these books
provide a larger context, and do not focus only on case inflections and word order. Also, authors of
books on the history of English often draw a distinct line between Old and Middle English, or
dedicate their books to one or the other, like Mitchell and Robinson (2001) and Mossé (1953). One
book focuses especially on the loss of the case inflections, Case Marking and Reanalysis (Allen
1995), but from a more specific point of view than this essay.
2.1 Old English
Angles, Saxons and Jutes, who spoke Germanic languages, settled in England in the fifth century.
They drove the Celts away, an easy task since the Celts had been governed and protected by the
Romans and, as a consequence, were not used to defend themselves (Baugh 1959:54). They fled
into Wales and Cornwall, and the Anglo-Saxons destroyed the Roman cities. In the ninth century,
Wessex became the ruling part of England, and the kings of Wessex started to call themselves kings
of all the English (Baugh 1959:57). Due to this, most of the Old English texts preserved are in the
West Saxon dialect. The English of today is, however, a mix of the different Germanic dialects with
Norman-French and Latin influences. It belongs to the Low West Germanic branch of the IndoEuropean languages.
In the late 8th century, the Vikings first began their invasions of England, where many of them
settled during the following centuries. Old English and Old Norse, the language of the Vikings,
were very similar, and the Vikings and the Anglo-Saxons probably did not experience great
difficulties in understanding each other. Several Scandinavian loanwords were borrowed into Old
English, for example, knife, sky, window, odd, ugly, smile and take (Barber [1993] 2000:133).
2.1.1 Nouns
Old English nouns and pronouns were divided into three grammatical genders: masculine, feminine,
and neuter, and there were four cases: the nominative, the accusative, the genitive and the dative.
3
The nominative was the case of the subject and the complement. It was also used as the case of
address. The accusative was the case of the direct object, and it was also used to express duration of
time and extent of space. The genitive was used to express possession, but it could also be used in
various other expressions which today usually consist of of-constructions. The dative was the case
of the indirect object, but it could also be used, for example, to express time, and in comparisons
(Mitchell & Robinson 2001:105-106). The cases were also governed by certain verbs and
prepositions. For example, the prepositions æfter, æt and for were always followed by the dative or
the accusative (Mitchell & Robinson 2001:116). Figure 1 provides an overview of the declensions,
in order that the reader can compare the examples given later in the text with the inflections
showed.
Figure 1: Table of the Old English noun declensions (adapted from the web page of the University
of Virginia)
2.1.2 Pronouns
Old English had two sets of demonstrative pronouns. Figure 2 below gives an overview of these
two sets. The first set of demonstrative pronouns also worked as the definite article, and all the
demonstrative pronouns were inflected for the same case as the noun they defined. Note that there
was a fifth case, the instrumental, in the masculine and neuter singular. The instrumental was used
to express the means or manner by which something is done, but was also used in expressions of
time (Mitchell & Robinson 2001:106).
4
Figure 2: Table of the Old English demonstrative pronouns
(adapted from the web page of the University of Virginia)
The case function is probably most easily understood by a Modern English speaker in personal
pronouns, since this word class has preserved the case distinctions quite well. Modern English still
has a distinction between the nominative, the accusative/dative, and the genitive (i.e. I, me,
my/mine). In Old English, there was a dual number in the first and second person, which is not
preserved in Modern English. In Figure 3, an overview of the Old English personal pronouns is
presented.
5
Figure 3: Table of the Old English personal pronouns
(adapted from the web page of the University of Virginia)
2.1.3 Syntax
Word order was much freer in Old English than in later periods, since the inflections often showed,
for example, which word was the subject and which was the object. However, word order was not
completely random. As can be seen in Figure 1 above, the nominative and accusative forms were
often identical. In some cases, the demonstrative pronoun when used as a definite article will tell
which case is used, but not always. Adjectives can give a clue, since they were also inflected
according to the case system, but there are not always adjectives present. Especially in the plural,
some case inflections can be difficult to distinguish. On such occasions, word order was the only
way to tell what is the subject and what is the object, and then the Anglo-Saxons usually placed the
subject first (Mitchell & Robinson 2001:62). Pyles and Algeo (1993:129) argue that even though
word order was less fixed than in Modern English, it was in general the same in Old English. “Old
English declarative sentences tended to fall into the subject-verb-complement order usual in
Modern English – for example, He wæs swiðe spedig man ‘He was a very successful man’” (Pyles
& Algeo 1993:129-130). In sentences that begin with, for example, þa ‘then, when’, the verb
precedes the subject. In dependent clauses the verb comes last, whereas interrogative sentences
follow a verb-subject-complement pattern (Pyles & Algeo 1993:130).
6
2.2 Middle English
In 1066, the Normans invaded England and William the Conqueror became the new king of the
country. The Normans spoke French, and French became the prestige language in England. English
spelling went through major changes, and French loanwords flooded the English language. These
are the principal reasons why the Norman conquest is considered the beginning of Middle English.
However, the sudden new spelling conventions make the difference between Late Old English and
Early Middle English seem more radical than it really was. The spoken language changed gradually,
even though there were sudden changes in the written language.
Languages do not usually adopt the grammar of another language, but rather add new words to their
vocabulary. At the time of the Norman conquest, the inflections had already begun changing. The
grammatical gender was no longer marked, and the case endings that remained were not much used
to distinguish the grammatical function of the words (Smith 2005:97). According to Baugh
(1959:200) the grammatical changes that took place in the English language after the Norman
conquest were not a direct result of the contact with the French language. Baugh (1959:200) claims
that “the decay of inflections and the confusion of forms that constitute the really significant
development in Middle English grammar are the result of the Norman conquest only in so far as
that the event brought about conditions favorable to such changes”. He argues that since French
became the prestige language, English would be spoken mainly by uneducated people, which made
it easier for grammatical changes to happen, since nobody would correct the errors committed
(Baugh 1959:200).
The Normans were obviously not directly responsible for the decay of the case inflections, but the
Vikings might have had something to do with it. Old English and Old Norse were very similar
languages, and the Vikings and the Old English speakers could easily understand each other.
However, the two languages did not share the same case endings. When, for example, an Old Norse
speaker said a word in Old English, he or she may have used an Old Norse inflection. For example,
the Old English noun inwitgæst ‘guest’ might have been inflected like the Old Norse gestr. The
words shared some inflections, but some of them were different. The genitive plural, for example,
was inwitgæsta in Old English and gesta in Old Norse, but the accusative plural was inwitgæstas in
Old English and gesti in Old Norse (Krause & Slocum 2007). An Old Norse speaker may have used
the Old Norse inflection for the Old English word: *inwitgæsti. There must have been some
confusion in the bilingual situations that arose (Barber [1993] 2000:157).
7
The Vikings, however, cannot be considered fully responsible for the changes in the language
either. The Old English language itself seems to have been predisposed to changing. Most Old
English words were stressed on the first syllable, which meant that the last syllable, where the
inflection would be, was unstressed. Unstressed vowels tend to be less clear than stressed ones, and
“the vowels of final syllables began to be reduced to a uniform sound as early as the tenth century”
(Pyles & Algeo 1993:106). Barber ([1993] 2000:157) explains: “the loss and weakening of
unstressed syllables at the ends of words destroyed many of the distinctive inflections of Old
English”. Words ending on -a, -u and -e all became -e. Words ending on -an, -on, -un and -um
became -en, and later only -e was left. The endings -as and -es both became -es, and -aþ and -eþ
both became -eþ (Barber [1993] 2000:157).
According to many researchers, the inflectional changes in the English language would have
happened with or without the Norman invasion. Wikander (2006:234-235), on the other hand,
claims that the contact with French greatly affected English grammar. He goes so far as claiming
that English is partly a creole language, developed from the pidgin language that must have been
used in the contact between the Anglo-Saxons and the Normans. He states that the English language
of today shows some of the characteristics that creole languages usually do, such as a strong
reduction of the inflectional system, and the possibility of using the same word as a verb and a
noun. Allen is of a completely different opinion: “In the South, at least, the loss of the case marking
was a very orderly affair, which shows none of the abrupt simplification that we would expect of a
pidgin or the creole which developed from it” (1995: 211).
2.2.1. Nouns
According to Barber ([1993] 2000:159), all four cases are still preserved in Early Middle English,
but these are soon reduced to three forms. Some of the inflections merged together, and it was no
longer possible to tell the difference between them. The nominative and accusative singular shared
one inflection, there was one for the genitive singular, and all the plural endings fused together into
one form. One example is the word eye, which also has the forms eyes (genitive singular) and eyen
(plural). In the north, the genitive singular and the plural form were identical: eyes, which means
that there were only two forms. Later this plural form spread to the south as well, and today the
form with no ending and the s-form are the ones that remain. Today, there is, of course, a written
difference between the genitive singular, the plural, and the genitive plural (for example eye’s, eyes
8
and eyes’), and there are a few words that have a different plural form, but almost all the Modern
English nouns are inflected as the word eye.
2.2.2. Pronouns
There were two sets of demonstrative pronouns in Old English (see Figure 2 above). The most
common one, masculine se, developed into þe since the other inflections started with a þ, and later
it became the Modern English definite article the (Pyles & Algeo 1993:114).
The second set of demonstratives had the neutre singular form þis, which developed into modern
this. The plural form þas developed into those, and became confused with the first set of
demonstratives. As a consequence, these developed as a new plural form of this in the Middle
English period (Pyles & Algeo 1993:114).
Personal pronouns preserved the Old English case distinctions better than nouns, but the number of
inflections was still reduced. The dual number had disappeared by the early thirteenth century
(Denison 1993:20). In animate personal pronouns, the dative and accusative merged into one form,
which remained, and still remains, different from the nominative form (Denison 1993:20). This is
the reason why there is a distinction between he and him, while there is no such inflectional
difference in nouns or the inanimate pronoun it. The second person singular beginning with th and
the second person plural ye survived into Modern English (Pyles & Algeo 1993:117).
2.2.3. Syntax
The reduced case endings could no longer show the function of a word in a phrase, but it was, of
course, still necessary to be able to make that distinction. A fixed word order became the solution,
and during the Middle English period the SVO order became the norm (Barber [1993] 2000:161).
This word order was not a new invention, but in Old English it had been a “matter of stylistic
choice” (Smith 2005:97). The custom of placing the subject first when case endings could not
distinguish the subject from the object was, as mentioned in 2.1.3, used already in Old English.
Prepositions are used to a much higher degree in Middle English than in Old English (Smith
2005:97). In the Old English period, prepositions were often omitted since the case endings often
expressed what in Modern English is expressed with a prepositional construction. One example is
9
hungre acwelan ‘to die of hunger’, where the Modern English of hunger is expressed by the Old
English genitive hungre (Barber [1993] 2000:161). Mustanoja (1969:348) claims that of is
frequently used instead of the genitive inflection, and that to and for replace the use of the dative
case inflection (as quoted by Denison 1993:21). “Dative marking was sporadically replaced from
early Middle English onwards by the use of the preposition to, especially in the active” (Denison
1993:105). The increasing use of prepositions may also be a result of the translations from Latin
into English. Translators may have wanted to replace Latin prepositions, like ab, de and ex, with
separate words in their own language (Görlach 1997:96), and the French influence is probably also
of importance.
10
3. Presentation, analysis and discussion of the texts1
3.1 The eighth century: Cynewulf and Cyneheard2
The first text to be studied is called Cynewulf and Cyneheard. These are the entries for the years of
754 and 755 AD in the year-by-year record known as the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Even though the
text is probably not written down as early as 755, it is quite an early text, and the decay of the case
system has not yet begun.
3.1.1. Nouns
As expected, there are examples of all four case declensions in Cynewulf and Cyneheard. For
example, in þa ongeat se cyning þæt ‘then understood the king that’ (line 11), se cyning is in the
nominative. In hie alle on þone Cyning wærun feohtende ‘they all against the king were fighting’
(line 13), þone Cyning is in the accusative. In þe mid þam cyninge ofslægene ‘that with the king
were killed’ (line 28), þam cyninge is in the dative. The genitive is represented, for example, in
þæs cyninges þegnas ‘the king’s warriors’. There are examples of words that are inflected
identically in the nominative and the accusative, but where the case is shown by the definite article,
like he ofslog þone aldormon ‘he slayed the nobleman’ (line 4), where aldormon could be either in
the nominative or in the accusative, but þone is in the accusative and reveals the case of the noun.
3.1.2. Pronouns
One peculiar thing in this text is that proper names seem to have definite articles, like in se
Cyneheard wæs þæs Sygebryhtes broþur ‘that Cyneheard was this Sigebryht’s brother’ (line 8). That
is, however, not true. Demonstrative pronouns are used as definite articles, but in this case they are
simply demonstrative pronouns, and the reason why they are used in front of these proper names is
that they have been mentioned earlier in the text (Mitchell & Robinson 2001:106).
In Cantwara burg forbærn þy geare ‘Canterbury burnt up that year’ (line 2), þy is in the
instrumental. Since the instrumental form exists only in the demonstrative pronouns singular, in the
masculine and the neuter, the dative form is used in its place when there is no instrumental form
1
2
The texts are presented in a chronological order, and can be found in the Appendices of this essay.
Appendix 1
11
(Mitchell & Robinson 2001:106). Geare is inflected in the dative, since there is no instrumental
inflection for nouns.
3.1.3. Prepositions
The prepositions in this text all govern their particular cases: in æfter Hunferþe ‘after Hunferþ’ (line
1), Hunferþe is in the dative because of the preposition æfter, and in oþ he on þone æþling locude
‘until he on the prince looked’ (lines 11-12), þone æþling is in the accusative because of the
preposition on. On required the accusative or the dative.3
What is of more importance to this essay is where the case inflections substitute the prepositions
that would be used in Modern English. An example of that can be found in Miercna kyning ‘king of
the Mercians’ (line 35), which would be an of-construction in Modern English. This is perhaps
logical, since it is not impossible to imagine an expression such as ‘the Mercians’ king’, but there
are other examples where the use of the genitive instead of an of-construction seems more farfetched. In Her Cynewulf benam Sigebryht his rices ‘Here (on this year) Cynewulf deprived
Sigebryht of his kingdom’ (line 3), the genitive rices is found in the place of an of-construction that
does not indicate possession. Another preposition that is often omitted in Old English is to, as in
hine þær berad ‘him there rode up to’ (line 9), where hine in the dative substitutes the Modern
English to him. Another example is & hie cuædon þæt þæt ilce hiera geferum geboden wære ‘And
they said that the same to their companions offered was’ (line 27). Hiera geferum in the dative
substitutes the prepositional construction to their companions.
3.1.4. Word order
There are examples of different word orders in this text. It is necessary to understand the case
inflections and what function they have to be able to interpret the text properly. There are SVO
phrases, such as Cyneheard onfeng biscepdome ‘Cyneheard received bishopric’ (line 1), which is
the word order that later became the norm in the English language. However, biscepdome is still
inflected in the accusative case, since word order did not have that kind of syntactic function yet.
There are also examples of SOV phrases, such as se Cynewulf oft miclum gefeohtum feaht
‘Cynewulf often great fights fought’ (line 6). There are OSV phrases, like hiene þa Cynewulf on
3
Not all the prepositions and the cases they govern will be discussed here; for a fuller presentation, see, for example,
Mitchell & Robinson 2001:116-117.
12
Andred adræfde ‘him then Cynewulf to Andred (=Andredesweald - a forest) drove out’ (lines 4-5),
and VSO phrases, like & þa ongeat se cyning þæt ‘and then understood the king that’ (line 11).
SVO and SOV are, however, the most frequent word orders in this text. According to Pyles &
Algeo (1993:130), and as mentioned in 2.1.3, the verb usually comes last in a dependent clause.
This is true in examples like þæt him nænig mæg leofra nære ‘that him no kinsman dearer was
(not)’ (line 25) and þæt þæt ilce hiera geferum geboden wære ‘that the same (to) their companions
offered was’ (line 27).
3.1.5. Summary
This text contains all the main features of an Old English text. Words are inflected for all four cases,
the word order is not so strict, even though most phrases begin with the subject. Case inflections are
often used where a Modern English speaker or writer would use prepositions, and the prepositions
that are used govern certain cases. No traces of decaying case inflections have been found in this
text. As mentioned in the introduction, the earliest traces of this phenomenon have been found in
10th-century manuscripts.
3.2. The tenth century: From Ælfric’s Colloquy4
This text was originally written in Latin by Ælfric (955 - 1010), a “dedicated scholar and gifted
prose stylist who served as Abbot of Eysenham from 1005 until his death” (Mitchell & Robinson
2001:173). It is a dialogue between a teacher and his students, and it was used by monks and
novices to learn Latin. According to McGillivray, another teacher later translated it into Old
English. It is necessary to take this into consideration, because, naturally, it is possible that the fact
that this text is a translation affects the word order and the use of prepositions.
3.2.1. Nouns
All four cases are still represented in this 10 th-century text, but there are a few words where it is not
possible to tell for what case they are inflected. Hu begæst þu weorc þin? ‘How do you do your
work?’ (‘How do you work your?’) (line 5) is one such example. Weorc is a strong neuter noun,
which means that the nominative and accusative forms are identical. There is no article that can tell
4
Appendix 2
13
the case. In this example, it is the inflection of the verb, and the fact that þu is in the nominative that
show that þu is the subject of the phrase. Hig in Ic sceal fyllan binne oxena mid hig ‘I shall fill the
mangers of the oxen with hay’ (lines 10-11) is another word that could be either in the nominative
or the accusative, but since the preposition mid governs either the accusative or the dative (Mitchell
& Robinson 2001:117), here it is probably in the accusative.
One peculiarity in this text is the inflection of the word loc in ond ic agenlæde hie on hira loca
‘and I lead back them to their folds’ (line 13). According to McGillivray, loc is a strong neutre
noun, and loca is the inflection for the accusative plural. However, the accusative plural of a strong
neutre noun should be locu. Whether this is an exception to the rule, a step towards the confusion of
the case inflections due to the weak pronunciation of unstressed vowels, or simply a misspelling is
impossible to tell from the material at hand.
3.2.2. Pronouns
Pronouns are still inflected according to all four cases. There are many nominatives in this text, but
the reason for this is that it consists of people talking about themselves, and asking each other
questions, thus using many Ic:s and þu:s.
There are remarkably few definite articles. Pupil B says in line 6: þywende oxan to felda, ‘driving
oxen to field’, not ‘driving the oxen to the field’. In line 10 he says: Ic sceal fyllan binne oxena, ‘I
shall fill mangers of oxen’, not ‘the mangers’ and not ‘the oxen’. Whether this is a result of the text
being a translation from Latin, or if it is a stylistic matter, or something completely different is not
known to the present author. To find out the reason for the lack of definite articles, it would be
necessary to study various texts and translations from Latin from the 10th century.
3.2.3. Prepositions
In line 1, the teacher asks: Hwæt hæfst þu weorkes? ‘What kind of work do you do?’. Weorkes is in
the genitive singular, and the sentence literally means ‘what do you have of work?’. This is a good
example of how case inflections are used instead of prepositional constructions. For ege hlafordes
mines ‘for fear of my lord’ (line 6) is also a construction with genitive instead of using the
preposition of. Hlafordes and mines are both in the genitive. Ege is inflected in the dative, because
of the preposition for, which governs this case, but the nominative and the dative of this noun are
actually identical. Prepositions are more frequent in this text than in Cynewulf and Cyneheard, but
14
there are no examples of prepositions replacing a case inflection. There is one of-construction, in Is
þæs of þinum geferum? ‘is this (one) of your companions?’ (line 16), but this is not an example
where a genitive would have been the expected case.
3.2.4. Word order
The word order is not fixed in this text. At least many different word orders are used, even though
there are patterns that indicate that the word order is not completely random. SVO or SVC is the
most common word order, like in Ic hæbbe sumne cnapan ‘I have some boys’ (line 8). The text
contains questions that follow the VSO pattern suggested by Pyles and Algeo (1993:130) (see also
chapter 2.1.3): Hæfst þu ænigne geferan? ‘Have you any companion?’ (line 7). In all of the
questions the verb precedes the subject. There are CVS phrases like Micel gedeorf ys hit! ‘Much
work is it!’ (line 10). This is probably meant to emphasize the object. The phrase is confirmed by
the CSV phrase micel gedeorf hit is ‘much work it is’ (line 11). The word order does not show any
tendencies to replace the use of the case inflections, since the words are still inflected for all the
cases and several different word orders are found.
3.2.5. Summary
This text is quite simple, as it is intended for language students. The sentences are short and not too
complicated, but all of the case inflections are still used, and the word order is not yet fixed. There
are examples of words where it is impossible to tell for which case they are inflected because two or
several cases look identical, but it is impossible to know how much an Old English speaker was
confused by this. As Allen (1995:159-160) states, it is important to make a difference between form
and function, and it is reasonable to believe that at the time when this text was written, the Old
English speakers were so familiar with the pattern of the case marking, that occasional identical
forms would not cause any confusion at all. The only example of a dubious inflection in this text is
the word loc, that is loca in the accusative plural, but nothing suggests that it should be an example
of the weakening of the case inflections. According to Barber ([1993] 2000:157) words ending on
-a, -u and -e all became -e, not -a, as in loca, but Pyles and Algeo (1993:106) only mention
unstressed syllables as being reduced to a “uniform sound” in the 10 th century. Thus, one possibility
is that the final -u had began to sound like -a at the time this text was written, but there is no
evidence of that, at least not in this text.
15
3.3 The eleventh century: From The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 10115
Just like the eighth-century text Cynewulf and Cyneheard (see Appendix 1 and section 3.1) this text
is from The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, but it is the entry for the year of 1011.
3.3.1 Nouns
The nouns are still inflected for all the cases, and there are no inflections that cannot be explained.
There are a few words that have an indeterminable inflection, but they do not show any signs of
being weakened. Timan ‘time’ (line 74) for example, is a weak masculine noun (tima in the
nominative singular), which means that timan could be either the accusative, genitive or dative
singular, or the nominative or accusative plural (see Figure 1 in 2.1.1. above). However, the word
still ends with -an, and not -en, which, according to Barber ([1993] 2000:157), was the ending that
would substitute -an as well as -on and -un as the inflections were weakened. Likewise, unrædas
‘folly, foolish plan; crime, mischief, injury, plot, treachery’ (line 73) has kept its -as ending, and is
not changed into -es.
3.3.2 Pronouns
Determinative pronouns are still inflected in agreement with the nouns they determine. Not much
seems to have changed in the pronouns, but there are, however, a few things that are slightly
different regarding the pronouns in this text. The third person plural personal pronoun in the
genitive hiora has been hira or hiera in the other texts examined, and the e is missing in hi, which
has been hie, or hie in the two older texts (cf. also Figure 3 in 2.1.2. above). These differences do
not actually cause any confusion of cases, and it might simply be a different way of spelling these
words. However, it is not impossible that at least the spelling of the word hi is a result of the
weakening of unstressed syllables.
3.3.3 Prepositions
Prepositions still govern the inflection of the following noun. For example, the preposition on in
5
Appendix 3
16
Her on þissum geare ‘Here in this year’ (line 64) makes þissum geare inflect for the dative. Nothing
implies that more prepositions are used than in the earlier texts studied here. On the contrary,
gyrndon friðes ‘they wished for peace’ (line 65) is an example of a case inflection used instead of a
prepositional construction that would be used in Modern English. Frið ‘peace’ is here inflected for
the genitive. The word for the river Thames has, according to the OEME Dictionary (Old English
Made Easy 2004), two Old English versions of its name: Temes, which is a strong female noun, and
Temese, which is a weak female noun (see Figure 1 in 2.1.1. above for comparison). Temese is used
in this text. If it is a genitive inflection of the strong Temes, and not the weak nominative Temese,
be suþan Temese ‘south of Thames’ (line 70) is also a construction with a genitive case inflection
where Modern English would use a preposition.
3.3.4 Word order
Different word orders are still represented in this text. There are VSO phrases like Here on þissum
geare sende se cyning and his witan to þam here ‘Here in this year sent the king and his council to
the army’ (lines 64-65), SOV phrases like wið þam ðe hi hiora hergunge geswicon ‘on condition
that they from their plunder ceased’ (lines 65-66), and SVO phrases like Hi hæfdon þa ofergan
Eastengle ‘They had now overrun East-Anglia’ (line 66-67).
3.3.5 Summary
In the entry for 1011 in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle there are no obvious changes towards Middle
English. Nouns and pronouns are still inflected for all four cases, even though there are some
differences regarding the spelling of some of the personal pronouns. There is, of course, a
possibility that the omittance of the -e in hie is a result of the weakening of unstressed syllables,
which is pointed out as one of the main reasons for the decay of the case system, but since it does
not cause any confusion of cases, it is not evidence of the actual decay of the case endings.
Case endings are still used in instances where prepositional constructions would be used in Modern
English, and the word order is still not fixed. The case inflections had definitely not lost their
function by 1011, at least not to the author of this entry.
17
3.4 The twelfth century: From Ancrene Wisse: Temptations6
Ancrene Wisse is a guide for nuns that was probably written in the last third of the 12 th century,
even though the oldest manuscripts preserved are from between 1230 and 1250 (Mossé 1952:138).
This is the first text analysed in this essay that is written after the Norman conquest.
3.4.1 Nouns
The inflections of the nouns have begun to change. In fact, there are a couple of new nouns that are
French loanwords, which have no inherited inflections at all. Examples are reisun, puint, medecine,
cunfort and angoise. Some words are English, but they seem to be inflected to a lower degree than
in the earlier texts. The feondes puffes ‘The enemy’s blasts’ (line 4), for example, is interesting
because feondes and puffes both end with -es, even though feondes is clearly in the genitive and
puffes seems to be in the nominative plural. If feond had followed the rules of case inflection, the
nominative plural would have been feondas. Thus, this could be an example of the weakening of the
final vowels that agrees with Barber’s ([1993] 2000:157) statement that final -as became -es.
Halinesse ‘holiness’ (line 14) and secnesse ‘sickness’ (line 8) are words for which it is impossible to
tell, at least from the material used in this essay, whether they are inflected or just spelled in a
French way.
3.4.2 Pronouns
Pronouns have gone through some changes in this text. The has replaced se and seo as the definite
article, and it is not inflected. Thet is found in swithe drede i thet puint ‘may fear in that point’
(lines 5-6), and it looks very similar to the Old English demonstrative neutre pronoun þæt (see
Figure 2 in 2.1.2 above), but it is impossible to tell whether it is in the nominative or in the
accusative, and the following puint gives no answer either. The personal pronoun ha is used for she
instead of heo, but the dative inflection of the feminine third person singular personal pronoun hire
is not different from the older texts. The masculine he is also unchanged, and it is inflected for the
genitive his, which is identical with the Old English form, and for the dative him, which is also
unchanged. There is also an example of the feminine demonstrative pronoun theos. The Old English
þeos is the nominative form. That is interesting, since the word is preceded by the preposition to
(lines 10-11), which means that a dative inflection would have been the expected choice.
6
Appendix 4
18
3.4.3 Prepositions
In the first phrase of the text, Ne wene nan of heh lif ‘Let no one of high life expect’ (line 1), the
preposition of is used instead of the genitive case. The same thing is true in the windes of fondunges
‘
the winds of temptations’ (line 4). As mentioned in 3.4.2., the preposition to does not seem to
govern the dative case anymore, since it is followed by the nominative pronoun theos (lines 10-11).
The preposition into is used in into anlich stude ‘to a lonely place’ (lines 19-20). The nominative
form of stude is studu in Old English, so this word is either inflected for the accusative or an
example of a weakened unstressed syllable.
3.4.4 Word order
SVO/SVC is the most common word order in this text, but there are exceptions, such as To theos
speketh the engel ‘To her speaks the angel’ (lines 10-11). Since theos is a nominative form and the
word order is not SVO, the only indication that the engel is the subject and theos the object is the
preposition to. There are also examples of SOV: thet me him heale ‘that one him heals’ (line 16). In
the negative phrase Ne teleth hit i the Godspel ‘not says it in the Gospel’ (line 19), the verb precedes
the subject. This coincides with Pyles and Algeo’s (1993:130) statement that the verb comes last in
dependent clauses, whereas interrogative sentences follow a verb-subject-complement pattern.
3.4.5 Summary
The spelling has changed since the 11th century, and it certainly looks more French now. The new
spelling conventions and the French loanwords make the language look completely different. There
are a few words that are English but look French, like halinesse and secnesse. It is not possible to
say whether they are inflected according to the case system or simply spelled in a French way
without further studies of these words in particular. It is evident, however, that the decay of the case
inflections has begun. If the nouns are inflected at all, it is usually impossible to tell which case it is
from the form. Pronouns are inflected to a higher degree than nouns, and there are also some
changes in spelling. The personal pronouns are still inflected for the nominative, the dative and the
genitive, but there are no examples of accusative in this text, and no instances where an accusative
would have been the expected case. There are examples of of-constructions instead of the genitive
inflection, but there is also one noun inflected in the genitive: feondes. The genitive form is,
however, no longer distinguishable from the nominative or accusative masculine plural forms, and
19
the function of the words feondes puffes is determined by the word order. SVO/SVC is now the
normal word order, but there are exceptions. The reason for using the OVS word order is probably
stylistic, to emphasize the object, and the SOV word order occurs in subordinate clauses only. VS is
used in a negation.
3.5 The fourteenth century: From The English Language in 1385 by John of
Trevisa7
3.5.1 Nouns
There are no obvious case endings for the nouns in this text; not even a genitive ending is to be
found. In expressions with maner, for example maner people ‘manner of people’ (line 1) and maner
speche ‘manner of languages’ (lines 9-10) , the lack of the genitive ending is slightly confusing,
since no of-construction is used. Speche might be a weakened genitive form, but people is a French
loan word. In manere of al oþer nacions, however, an of-construction is used. Furthermore, there is
neither a genitive ending nor an of-construction in gentilmen children ‘gentlemen’s children’ (lines
20-21). One difficulty with Middle English is that the new French-influenced spelling conventions
sometimes make it impossible to distinguish between an inflective ending -e and a French spelling
-e. One example is maner/manere (c.f. lines 1 & 17). In this case it is likely that it is not a case
inflection, but simply two ways of spelling the same word in the same text. If it had been an
accusative ending, for example, it would have ended with an -e every time the word was in an
objective position, and it does not. If that had been true, hy hadde fram þe begynnyng þre maner
speche ‘they had from the beginning three manner of languages’ (lines 9-10) would require an
inflection, but not þys manere was moche y-used ‘this manner was much used’ (line 26). Another
possibility is that manere is the singular spelling and maner the plural one, but this is not supported
by any of the sources used for this essay. Since Middle English spelling “[took] place in what often
seems a sporadic and haphazard way” (Barber [1993] 2000:152), and since, for example, the word
children is spelled in three different ways in this text (lines 16, 21 & 34), it does not seem too
unlikely that the final -e in manere is simply a variation in spelling.
7
Appendix 5
20
3.5.2 Pronouns
Pronouns conserve more of the case inflections than nouns. Most of them are more or less
unchanged; the differences are to a great extent due to the new spelling conventions such as hyt
instead of hit, hy instead of hie, and hys instead of his (for comparison, see Figure 3 in 2.1.2.
above). Here instead of hira shows evidence of the weakening of final syllables, and could easily be
confused with the Old English third person feminine singular genitive/dative hire, but it is unknown
how hire has developed by this time, since there is no such word in this text. The definite article is
þe, and it is not inflected. However, this change had already happened in text 4, even though the
spelling was the in that text.
3.5.3 Prepositions
Prepositions do not seem to change the inflections of the nouns. There are several examples of
constructions with of instead of the use of a genitive inflection, for example þe west syde of Wales
‘the west side of Wales’ (line 7) or people of Germania (line 12). There is also one example of the
preposition to where in Old English the following word would probably have been in the dative:
lykne hamsylf to gentilmen ‘to resemble a gentleman’ (lines 23-24), but gentilmen is not inflected.
3.5.4 Word order
The word order in this text is SVO/SVC, and there are not even any stylistic exceptions to this rule.
It does not necessarily mean that the word order is completely fixed, since the text is very short and
limited, but it gives an indication that it is quite fixed.
3.5.5 Summary
This text is quite easy to read for a Modern English speaker. There do not seem to be any traces at
all of the case inflections in the nouns, but the constructions with maner might include a genitive
plural form. The Old English genitive plural form was -a, which would have changed into -e when
the unstressed syllables were weakened. The other “missing” genitive inflection, gentilmen
children, is more difficult to explain. One possibility is that this is some kind of compound word
and would mean something like ‘gentlemen-children’, that is, ‘noble children’.
The new spelling conventions make it difficult to distinguish weakened case inflections, which
would be -e, from the French way of spelling, but because of the fixed word order, distinguishing
21
the subject from the object is not a problem. The pronouns are still inflected, but they are spelled in
a more modern way, and there is evidence of weakened unstressed syllables. Prepositions do no
longer seem to govern the cases. At least, it is no longer possible to detect any case inflections
following prepostitions. The of-construction is found where earlier scribes would have used the
genitive inflection.
3.6 Discussion
The 8th-century text, Cynewulf and Cyneheard does not show any signs of the decay of the case
system. In the 10th-century text, there are examples where it is impossible to tell the case from the
inflection only, since some forms are identical. However, these examples do not show any actual
changes, and cannot be considered part of the decay of the case inflections. The only example of a
dubious inflection in this text is the word loc, that is loca in the accusative plural, when it should
have been locu. It is possible that this is a result of the beginning of the weakening of the unstressed
syllables, but it cannot be confirmed by the material at hand. According to Barber ([1993]
2000:157), the weakening meant that the final syllable -u changed to -e.
In the 11th-century text from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, the personal pronoun hie is spelled hi. It
does not cause any confusion regarding cases, but the fact that the -e is omitted could be an
indication of unstressed syllables being weakened, which is pointed out as one of the causes for the
decay of the case inflections. The language in this text is, however, still highly inflectional. Nouns
are inflected for all of the cases and the word order is not fixed.
In Ancrene Wisse, the text from the 12th century, the case inflections have definitely begun to
change. One clear example of a weakened unstressed syllable is the word feondes, which is
inflected for the genitive. In Old English, the inflection would have been feondas. The definite
article is not inflected according to its position in the phrase, and the seemingly nominative personal
pronoun theos is used after the preposition to, where a dative would have been the expected case.
There are examples of different word orders, but SVO is the most common one. In this text, the
language is more analytic than in the earlier ones. The case endings are not so easily distinguished,
and word order or prepositions often tell the function of the words. However, there are still words
22
that are inflected, for example feondes in the genitive. Nouns with the ending -e could be inflected,
even though the inflection is weakened beyond recognition. Allen (1995: 159-160) stresses the
importance of separating form from function when investigating the decay of the case system in the
English language. She claims that the distinctions between the cases did not disappear when the
case inflections were not distinguishable any more.
In the 14th-century text, The English Language in 1385, there are no obvious case endings at all, and
the word order is SVO/SVC. The language used in this text must be described as analytic. The
personal pronouns are still inflected, but so they are in Modern English.
Unquestionable evidence of the decay of the case inflections is not found until in the fourth text,
that is, the one from the 12 th century. This text is the first one studied in this essay that was written
after the Norman invasion. By this time, the English language had gone though major changes in
spelling. The new spelling makes it easier, in a way, to discover the weakened case inflections. The
fresh spelling conventions allowed the scribes to write the words as they heard them, rather than
following the Old English grammar rules, such as case endings. Whith the old way of writing, a
scribe might have used the inflections, even if they were not pronounced in the spoken language.
The Old English scribes probably knew the grammatical rules of their mother tounge very well, and
used the inflections correctly when writing, while the Middle English scribes were educated in the
prestigious French language, and had not studied the grammar of Old English. However, the new
way of spelling also makes it more difficult to discover any remaining inflections at all. The
weakened syllables all turned into -e, eþ or -es, and Middle English was often spelled in a
haphazard way (Barber [1993] 2000:152), which means that it can be difficult to tell the difference
between an old case inflection and a simple French spelling or whim of the author.
Researchers do not agree on whether Modern English has preserved the genitive case or not. Janda
(1980, 1981) suggests that the present day genitive marker is a reduced form of his, and that this is a
late Middle English invention. In the 14th-century text The English Language in 1385, there are no
examples of such a construction, but there are no genitive inflections either, only of-constructions.
In the 12th-century text, there are genitive inflections, while other inflections, if any, are not as
evident. However, it is possible that the functions of the other cases are still present, even though
they are no longer distinguishable because of the weakened syllables. The supposition that the
genitive case was the last one to disappear, if it disappeared at all, cannot be validated by the
material used for this essay. Rather, there seems to have been a general confusion after the
23
weakening of the case endings, and then the use of case distinction disappeared, not one case at a
time.
24
4. Summary and conclusion
The aim of this essay was to find out more precisely when the decay of the case inflections began,
what caused it, and how it happened. The specific questions were: Which case endings were the
first ones to disappear? Did the word order become fixed before the inflections actually vanished
from the language, or was the strict word order a result of the disappearance of the case inflections?
From the texts used in this essay, the written language seems to have been very conservative until
the Norman invasion in 1066. In the earlier texts there are forms that coincide, but they do not cause
any confusion regarding the function of the words. There are only possible traces of weakened
unstressed syllables before the Norman invasion, and the word order is quite free in all of the texts,
except the last one, from the 14th century. The language of the 12th-century text is more analytic than
that of the earlier texts, but there are still different word orders and traces of case inflections left.
The encounter with the French language may not have been the cause of the weakening of the
unstressed syllables, which seems to have been an inherent predisposition of the English language,
but it may have been decisive to the decay of the actual system. English was no longer taught in the
schools, and with no knowledge of the older grammar rules, the scribes cannot have been very
familiar with the function of the cases.
The texts used in this essay provide a very limited view of the development of the English
language. They are short, which makes it less likely that all of the case inflections that were in use
at the time are represented. One text is chosen to represent an entire century, which means that
dialectal variations are not considered, nor is it possible to tell whether the text is modern or old
fashioned for its time.
The first traces of the decay of the case inflections, as mentioned in the introduction, have been
found in texts written as early as the 10th century. However, it must be remembered that Old English
was not created from nothing. It was developed from the Proto-Indo-European language, which had
eight cases. Thus, the decay of the case inflections had already begun when the Angles, Saxons and
Jutes settled in England, and half of the Proto-Indo-European cases had, in fact, already
disappeared.
25
The case endings did not disappear suddenly and one at a time. In noun inflections, the nominative
and accusative singular forms often coincided, and in the plural these two forms were always the
same already in the Old English period (see Figure 1 in 2.1.1. above). Their function had to be
determined by other factors, such as determinative pronouns, adjectives or word order. According to
some researchers, the genitive did not disappear at all, while according to others it did, and was
replaced by a construction with his. In the 14th-century text used in this essay, there is no genitive
inflection, nor any construction with his. In the 12th-century text there is a genitive, while no other
case inflections are possible to recognize. Thus, it is possible that the genitive was the last case to
disappear, but it cannot be confirmed by the material at hand.
Word order was already used in Old English as a syntactic function, and the Anglo-Saxons usually
placed the subject first in a sentence. When the case inflections became less distinguishable, this
custom was extended, but it was no new invention. In the texts studied in this essay, the word order
is quite free until the 14th century, but SVO is a very common word order even in the earliest texts.
If the custom of placing the subject first was caused by the decay of the case inflections, it
happened before the time of Old English, and the cause was the disappearance of the four ProtoIndo-European cases that do not exist in Old English.
Future research:
Adjectives are excluded in this essay because of the limited space, but in a future study it would be
possible to look at the adjectives and compare the decay of their case inflections to that of the nouns
and pronouns.
The Indo-European ancestor of Old English, which made a difference between eight cases, has been
mentioned in this essay. Of course, a similar comparison of Proto-Indo-European texts is impossible
because of the lack of written sources, but a continuous study of the decay of the case inflections
from Proto-Indo-European to Modern English times would definitely serve a purpose of rooting the
Old English language in the past, and answer the question of why four of the cases died out before
the time of Old English, and not all of them at once.
A somewhat more accessible study would be to compare the development of Old English into
Modern or Middle English with the equivalent of Latin into the Romance languages. Latin was also
an inflective language, but the Romance languages of today are highly analytic. Was Latin also
predisposed to change because of unstressed syllables? What historical events made it possible?
26
What similarities and differences are there between the development of Old English and Latin?
The encounter with Old Norse, which was very similar to Old English, but with different case
inflections, is a factor that may have contributed to the decay of the case system. A comparison
between Old English and Old Norse cases might shed some light over the development.
27
Appendices
Appendix 1: Cynewulf and Cyneheard
754. Her Cuþred forþferde, & Cyneheard onfeng biscepdome æfter Hunferþe on Wintanceastre; &
Cantwara burg forbærn þy geare, & Sigebryht feng to Wesseaxna rice, & heold an gear.
755. Her Cynewulf benam Sigebryht his rices & West Seaxna wiotan for unryhtum dædum, buton
Hamtunscire; & he hæfde þa oþ he ofslog þone aldormon þe him lengest wunode; & hiene þa
Cynewulf on Andred adræfde, & he þær wunade oþ þæt hiene an swan ofstang æt Pryfetes flodan;
& he wræc þone aldormon Cumbran; & se Cynewulf oft miclum gefeohtum feaht wiþ Bretwalum;
& ymb xxxi wintra þæs þe he rice hæfde, he wolde adræfan anne æþeling se was Cyneheard haten,
& se Cyneheard wæs þæs Sigebryhtes broþur;
& þa geascode he þone cyning lytle werode on wifcyþþe on Merantune, & hine þær berad, & þone
bur utan beeode ær hine þa men onfunden þe mid þam kyninge wærun;
& þa ongeat se cyning þæt, & he on þa duru eode, & þa unheanlice hine werede, oþ he on þone
æþeling locude, & þa utræsde on hine, & hine miclum gewundode.
& hie alle on þone Cyning wærun feohtende oþ þæt hie hine ofslægenne hæfdon; & þa on þæs
wifes gebærum onfundon þæs cyninges þegnas þa unstilnesse & þa þider urnon swa hwelc swa
þonne gearo wearþ & radost; & hiera se æþeling gehwelcum feoh & feorh gebead, & hiera nænig
hit geþicgean nolde.
Ac hie simle feohtende wæran oþ hie alle lægon butan anum Bryttiscum gisle, & se swiþe
gewundad wæs.
Ða on morgenne gehierdun þæt þæs cyninges þegnas þe him beæftan wærun þæt se cyning
ofslægen wæs, þa ridon hie þider, & his aldormon Osric, & Wiferþ his þegn, & þa men þe he
beæftan him læfde ær, & þone æþeling on þære byrig metton þær se cyning ofslægen læg, & þa
gatu him to belocen hæfdon & þa þær to eodon;
& þa gebead he him hiera agenne dom feos & londes gif hie him þæs rices uþon, & him cyþdon þæt
hiera mægas him mid wæron þa þe him from noldon;
& þa cuædon hie þæt him nænig mæg leofra nære þonne hiera hlaford, & hie næfre his banan
folgian noldon, & þa budon hie hiera mægum þæt hie gesunde from eodon;
& hie cuædon þæt þæt ilce hiera geferum geboden wære, þe ær mid þam cyninge wærun; þa
cuædon hie þæt hie hie þæs ne onmunden “þon ma þe eowre geferan þe mid þam cyninge
ofslægene wærun”.
& hie þa ymb þa gatu feohtende wæron oþþæt hie þær inne fulgon, & þone æþeling ofslogon, & þa
men þe him mid wærun alle butan anum, se wæs þæs aldormonnes godsunu, & he his feorh
generede & þeah he wæs oft gewundad.
& se Cynewulf ricsode xxxi wintra. & his lic liþ æt Wintanceastre, & þæs æþelinges æt
Ascanmynster, & hiera ryhtfæderencyn gæþ to Cerdice;
28
& þy ilcan geare mon ofslog æþelbald Miercna cyning on Seccandune, & his lic liþ on Hreopadune;
& Beornræd feng to rice, & lytle hwile heold & ungefealice; & þy ilcan geare Offa feng to rice, &
heold xxxviiii wintra. & his sunu Egfer heold xli daga & c daga.
Se Offa wæs Þincgferþing, Þincgferþ Eanwulfing, Eanwulf Osmoding, Osmod Eawing, Eawa
Pybing, Pybba Creoding, Creoda Cynewalding, Cynewald Cnebing, Cnebba Iceling, Icel
Eomæring, Eomær Angelþowing, Angelþeow Offing, Offa Wærmunding, Wærmund Wyhtlæging,
Wihtlæg Wodening.
29
Appendix 2: From Ælfric’s Colloquy
1
[The teacher:] Hwæt hæfst þu
weorkes?
2 [Pupil A:] Ic eom geanwyrde monuc, ond sincge ælce dæg seofon tida mid gebroþrum, ac
þeahhwæþere ic wolde betwenan leornian sprecan on leden gereorde.
3
[The teacher:] Hwæt cunnon þas þine
geferan?
4 [Pupil A:] Summe synt yrþlincgas, sume scephyrdas, sume oxanhyrdas, sume eac swylce
huntan, sume fisceras, sume fugleras, sume cypmenn, sume scewyrhtan, sealteras, bæceras.
5
[The teacher:] Hwæt sægest þu,
yrþlingc?
Hu begæst þu weorc þin?
6 [Pupil B:] Eala, leof hlaford, þearle ic deorfe. Ic ga ut on dægræd þywende oxan to felda, ond
iugie hie to syl; nys hit swa stearc winter þæt ic durre lutian æt ham for ege hlafordes mines, ac
geiukodan oxan, ond gefæstnodon sceare ond cultre mid þære syl, ælce dæg ic sceal erian fulne
æcer oþþe mare.
7
[The teacher:] Hæfst þu ænigne
geferan?
8
[Pupil B:] Ic hæbbe sumne cnapan þywende oxan mid
gadisene,
þe eac swilce nu has is for cylde ond hreame
9
[The teacher:] Hwæt mare dest
þu?
10 [Pupil B:] Gewyslice mare ic do. Ic sceal fyllan binne oxena
mid hig, ond wæterian hie, ond scearn hira beran ut. Hig! Hig! [Possibly the teacher’s line:]
Micel gedeorf ys hit!
11 [Pupil B:] Ge leof, micel gedeorf hit is, for þam ic neom
freoh.
12 [The teacher:] Sceaphyrde, hæfst þu ænig
gedeorf?
13 [Pupil C:] Gea, leof, ic hæbbe. On forewerdne morgen ic drife sceap mine to hira læse ond
stande ofer hie on hæte ond on cyle mid hundum, þy læs wulfas forswelgen hie, ond ic
agenlæde hie on hira loca, ond melke hie tweowa on dæg, ond hira loca ic hæbbe, ond þærto ge
cyse ge buteran ic do, ond ic eom getrywe hlaforde minum.
14 [The teacher:] Eala, oxanhyrde, hwæt wyrcst
þu?
15 [Pupil D:] Eala, hlaford min, micel ic gedeorfe. Þænne se yrthlingc unscenþ þa oxan, ic læde
hie to læse, ond ealle niht ic stande ofer hie waciende for þeofum, ond eft on ærnemergen ic
betæce hie þæm yrþlincge wel gefylde ond gewæterode
16 [The teacher:] Is þæs of þinum geferum?
17 [Pupil A:] Gea, he is.
18 [The teacher:] Canst þu ænig þing?
30
19
20
[Pupil E:] Ænne cræft ic cann.
[The teacher:] Hwylcne?
31
Appendix 3: From The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 1011
32
Appendix 4: From Ancrene Wisse: Temptations
Ne wene nan of heh lif thet ha ne beo i-temptet: mare beoth the gode, the
beoth i-clumben hehe, i-temptet then the wake - ant thet is reisun. For se
the hul is herre, se the wind is mare th’ron. Se the hul is herre of hali lif
ant of heh, se the feondes puffes - the windes of fondunges - beoth strengre
th’ron ant mare. Yef ei ancre is the ne veleth nane fondunges, swithe drede i thet
puint thet ha beo over-muchel ant over-swithe i-fondet. For swa Sein Gregoire
seith: Tunc maxime inpugnaris cum te inpugnari non sentis. Sec mon haveth
twa estaz swithe dredfule: thet an is hwen he ne feleth nawt his ahne secnesse, ant
for-thi ne secheth nawt leche ne lechecreft, ne easketh na-mon read, ant asteorveth
ferliche ear me least wene. This is the ancre the nat nawt hwet is fondunge. To
theos speketh the engel i the Apocalipse: Dicis quia dives sum et nullius egeo, et
nescis quia miser es et nudus, et pauper et cecus. “Thu seist the nis neod na
medecine, ah thu art blind i-heortet, ne ne sist nawt hu thu art povre ant naket of
halinesse ant gastelich wrecche.” Thet other dredfule estat thet te seke haveth is al
frommard this. Thet is hwen he feleth se muchel angoise thet he ne mei tholien
33
Appendix 5: The English Language in 1385 by John of Trevisa
34
35
Bibliography
Primary Sources:
Ælfric, Ælfric's Colloquy. Retrieved on June 10, 2008
from http://www.ucalgary.ca/UofC/eduweb/engl401/texts/frame.html
John of Trevisa, The English Language in 1385. In Mossé, F. (1952) A Handbook of Middle
English. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.
Ancrene Wisse: Temptations. Retrieved on June 10, 2008 from
http://www.lib.rochester.edu/camelot/teams/awfrm4.htm
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle from the years of 754, 755. Retrieved on June 10, 2008
from http://www.ucalgary.ca/UofC/eduweb/engl401/texts/cynewulf.htm
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle from the year of 1011. In Mitchell, B. & Robinson, F.C. (2001) A
Guide to Old English, 6th ed. Oxford: Blackwell.
Secondary Sources:
Allen, C. (1995) Case Marking and Reanalysis. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Barber, C. ([1993] 2000) The English Language. A Historical Introduction.
Canto Edition Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Baugh, A. C. (1959) A History of the English Language, 2nd ed. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Denison, D. (1993) English Historical Syntax. New York: Longman Publishing.
Görlach, M. (1997) The Linguistic History of English. Houndmills: MacMillan Press.
Janda, R. (1980) On the decline of the declensional system: the overall loss of OE nominal case
inflections and the ME reanalysis of -es as his. In Traugott, Elizabeth Closs et al. (eds), Papers
from the 4th International Conference on Historial Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Janda, R. (1981) A case of liberation from morphology into syntax: the fate of the English genitive
marker -(e)s. In Johns, Brenda B. & David R. Strong (eds), Syntactic change. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Department of Linguistics.
Krause, T. B. & Slocum, J. (2007) Old Norse Online. Viewed on June 10, 2008.
http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/eieol/norol-TC-X.html
McGillivray, M. Old English at the University of Calgary. Viewed on May 19, 2008.
http://www.ucalgary.ca/UofC/eduweb/engl401/index.htm
Mitchell, B. & Robinson, F. C. (2001) A Guide to Old English, 6th ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers
36
Inc.
Mossé, F. (1952) A Handbook of Middle English. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.
OEME Dictionary. Viewed on May 27, 2008.
http://home.comcast.net/~modean52/oeme_dictionaries.htm
Pyles, T. & Algeo, J. (1993) The Origins and Developments of the English Language, 4th ed. Fort
Worth: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Smith, J. S. (2005) Essentials of Early English, 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.
Wikander, O. (2006) I döda språks sällskap. Stockholm: Wahlström & Widstrand.
37