Normalisation 5: issues
issues arising in the normalisation of word forms in the East Midland dialect c 1150
This is not a page for beginners. Nor is it of relevance to those whose immediate goal is to learn Early Middle English. If you are unfamiliar with Old English, or are simply looking for concise information on the grammar of Early Middle English, I strongly recommend that you skip this page and go to the eME language section instead.
The following are some issues I encountered while attempting to normalise the East Midland dialect of PC2 and Orm, according to the criteria set out in eME normalisation 1: principles.
Please note that hereinafter, the abbreviation eME refers specifically to the normalised East Midland dialect of Early Middle English which is used in englesaxe.
- unstressed penultimate syllables: there is tendency in the 13th century to reinstate the unstressed penultimate syllable; in OE, unstressed penultimate syllables were generally dropped in oblique cases before n, r and l; see the dropping of unstressed penultimate syllable in genitive and plural; further on that topic, the MED provides numerous examples of the retention of unstressed penultimate syllable - PM (1175) deueles, VH (1125) & LH (1225) drihtenes, LH (1225) fuy`eles, MI (1225) & GA (1250) fug[h]eles; it's interesting that Orm drops the unstressed syllable in heoffness, when this was not the case in OE - hiofones, heofonas, heofona, heofonum (BT); there are plenty of examples of retention of this unstressed syllable in eME, e.g.: PC1, Lmn & AW heouene, Lmn & Owl heuene, PD (HA) heofenes, VV & TH (1200) heuene and GE (1250) heuene-ward; there was also a tendency in all dialects from at least the late 12th century, to insert schwa before r where it didn't previously exist - OE ae_fre > Owl euer, Lmn aeuere, AW eauer, Ch ever(e); the tendency to reinstate or insert a penultimate syllable was already evident in PC2: OE strengra, ae_fre, t`e_ahhwaed`re > PC2 strengere, aeuer(t), t`ohuuet`ere, and appears well established by the time of Owl (1200?); thus both options - with or without the unstressed penultimate syllable, seem acceptable in eME.
- unstressed pronoun forms: e.g. man > me and ic > Í; the unstressed form me appears in PC2, Owl, Lmn and Ch, while I appears in both PC2 and ModE; however I've only used these in the normalised versions of PC2 texts; elsewhere in englesaxe, me is not used because it is likely to be confused with me__, while Í is not used because ic(h) is far more common in both primary and secondary eME sources; I is only used once in PC2, where it is the only form of the 1st person pronoun recorded, while Orm has icc, and Lmn, AW and Owl have ich.
- assimilation of pt.pl. form to pt.3sg. form in class 4 and class 5 strong verbs: this process is already evident in PC2: OE g`ae_fon, bae_ron, drae_pon, stae_lon > PC2 iafen/iauen, baren, drapen, stalen, but isn't attested in Orm; however, there are counter-examples in PC2 - eten, undergaeton, braecon (note - the last is most likely subjunctive), in Orm - saey%h`enn (saw), and in Lmn - y`efven; since support for this assimilation pattern is mixed in Ch - beden/bade, beren/baren, ete(n), gatt, sete(n)/sate, speeke(n)/spake(n), yeve/yave(n), broke, I haven't applied the assimilation in the eME texts of englesaxe which generally follow the optional eME grammar of this site; however I have applied the assimilation to the core grammar which is used in part 1 of Englisc buten taeres - Audrey and the attercop.
- final <-e> or <-u> in nom sg of eME reflexes of wa- and wo-stems?: this concerns the optional grammar; these are eleven nouns such as melu (mele) melwes, smeru (smere) smerwes in which the final <w> of the stem in gen sg and pl becomes <u> (or <e>) in nom sg; initially I leant towards mele melwes, smere smerwes etc; however the MED has nom sg forms with final <-u>: balu (Lmn), melu, smeru, all of which predate 1250; melu also appears in 1382 and sinu, medu in 1325; I think the notion of <-u> as a variant of <w> when it appears finally, is easier to grasp than an <e/w> alternation; it also aligns with the findings for wa-, wo_-stem adjectives and brings the optional forms closer to OE; upshot: melu melwes, smeru smerwes, sinu sinwes, scadu scadwes etc in the optional grammar;
- final <-ew> or <-we> in nom sg of eME reflexes of wa- and wo_-stems?: this concerns the core grammar; these are seven nouns such as sinew ~es (sinwe ~s), maedew ~es (maedwe ~s) which either a) have survived to ModE with final <-ew> or <-ow>, or b) have no ModE reflex; initially I leant towards sinwe sinwes, maedwe maedwes etc; however a closer look at pre-1250 nom sg forms shifted my thinking: barewe/berwe, schadwe/schadewe/shadewe; similarly, pre-1250 forms of any case or number: senwe/senuwen/seonewen, maedwe/medewe/medewen/mede, laeswe; two things emerge from these examples - 1) there are no nom sg forms that end in <-ew> (or <-ow>) without a following <e>, and 2) forms with <-ewe> outnumber those with <-we> i.e without the svarabhakti (extra) vowel before <w>; on the other hand there are a few examples of wa-, wo_-stem adjectives with final <-ew> (or <-ow>) in strong sg; sources include PC2, Lmn and Aw; it is only by considering wa- and wo_-stem nouns together with wa-, wo_-stem adjectives that a common approach emerges for the core grammar: final <-ew> for both strong sg wa-, wo_-stem adjectives and nom sg wa- and wo_-stem nouns which have a ModE reflex ending in <-ew/-ow> (or have no ModE reflex);
- vowel lengthening before consonant clusters ld, nd, ng, mb, rd: this is an unusual case in eME, in that this pattern of sound development is widely supported in Orm, Ch and ModE, but has numerous exceptions. In fact the exceptions to vowel lengthening are almost as numerous as the examples of vowel lengthening, in ME texts. (See the section on sounds for a concise description of the development.) In this regard, it seems there are four options for eME:
- retain the short vowel of OE in all cases involving ld, nd, ng, mb, rd;
- lengthen the vowel in all cases involving ld, nd, ng, mb, rd, with the sole exceptions being the counter-examples drawn from Orm: shollde, wollde, wullderr, annd, stanndenn, sennd p ptc, wenndenn pt pl, winndeclut, wunnderr, unnderr, enngell, herrde, wurrdenn pt pl;
- lengthen the vowel only in those individual cases involving ld, nd, ng, mb, rd, which are found in an eME source (PC2, Orm, Lmn, AW, Owl, SO, Ch) with clearly indicated long vowel, or which have a ModE reflex with long vowel; a provisional list of cases in which the OE word has a short vowel, but the ME reflex has a long vowel, and the ModE reflex either doesn't exist or has a short vowel, are as follows: OE beldan, held, land, hand, sand, strand, wendan, rendan, rang, sang, t`rang, wrang, king, t`ing, sungon, hierde, word > Orm beldenn, held, land /be:ld@`n/, /he:ld/, /lA`:nd/, PH3 loand, Ch hond/hand, so(o)nd, strond, Orm wendenn inf /we:nd@`n/, Ch weendeth pr sg3, reenden pr pl, rong, soong, throng, wroong, Orm king, t`ing, sungenn, hirde, word /kI`:N`/, /T``I`:N`/, /su:N`@`n/, /hI`:rd@`/, /wo:rd/, Ch woordes
- lengthen the vowel only in those cases involving ld, nd, ng, mb, rd, in which a long vowel has persisted into ModE; with the addition of the pt sg3 forms of class 3 strong verbs in ~inden (eg ba__nd, fa__nd, wa__nd).
- vowel lengthening in open syllables in disyllabic words: note - this type of vowel change - a lengthening of e and a, doesn't affect eME spelling since it arose in the latter half of the 13th century; however, it is employed in the late ME alternate spelling option, if supported by ModE; note - we have break & speak from OE brecan & specan, but not ModE *forgeat, *neaphew nor ME *y%aeven, *fory%aeten, *naeve from earlier y%efen, fory%eten, nefe.
- vowel shortening before <tt> and <dd>: OE gre_tte pt sg3 > Orm grette. Orm's form is mirrored not only by Lmn and Ch, but by the bulk of preterite entries under gre__ten in the MED up to 1450 and beyond. Was it a short vowel? Probably. The question is - should we ignore the apparently short vowel because it is a departure from the long vowel in both the OE form gre_tte and the ModE form greeted? A basic tenet of the normalisation of eME in this site is to walk the straight path between the beginning and current stages of the language. That line of thinking leads to a long vowel, i.e. - gre__tte, based on the standard OE form.
What about the p ptc form? OE had g`egre_ted p ptc. ModE has greeted. Both have a long vowel. What was the prevailing p ptc form in eME? Examples are sparse. There are five in all, from 1250, 1384, 1390 (twice) and 1450, each with the form gret. That's almost certainly a short vowel. However, since none of these sources count in determining additional eME forms (without the support of either Orm, PC2 or ModE), gret doesn't get a guernsey.
A tale of two weak preterites
Was gre_tan gre_tte gre_ted alone in this pattern of development from OE to ME - shortening the vowel in the preterite and past participle and dropping final <ed> in the participle? As it turns out - no, it was not alone. gre_tan gre_tte gre_ted had a companion - me_tan me_tte me_ted for which the corresponding ME forms are me__ten mette mete/meit. However,the fates of these two verbs parted ways in late ME, leaving us in ModE with greet greeted on the one hand and meet met on the other.
This raises a number of questions about the appropriate representation of similar verbs in eME, i.e. verbs with an infinitive stem which ends in a dental - <t/d>:
- does <-ted> become <-tt> at the end of the preterite stem?
- is <ed> dropped at the end of the past participle?
- is the stem vowel shortened in the preterite and past participle (if long)?
OE weak verbs investigated:
bae_tan, be_otian, blae_tan, hae_tan, me_tan, settan, swae_tan, wae_tan
ble_dan, bre_dan, brae_dan, grae_dan, he_dan, lae_dan, rae_dan, sae_dian, weddian, we_odian
ME reflexes (from MED):
- bae_tan bae_tte bae_ted (bait, hunt, worry, incite; bridle, restrain), ON beita > Orm bey%y%tenn, Ch bayte, Hav 1300 beyte, 1380/1390/1400 bayted; note - ModE bet < OF abeter (rel bae_tan);
- be_otian be_otode be_oted (to boast) > Lmn beoteden pt pl; note - only 1 entry in MED, under beotien;
- blae_tan blae_tte blae_ted > MED bletan - no pt sg3 or p ptc recorded;
- gre_tan gre_tte gre_ted > Orm/Lmn/Ch/1300/1338/1425/1450 i.a. grette, 1100/1155/Lmn/AW gret, 1475 greted pt sg3, 1300/1384/1400 gretten pt pl; 1250/1384/1390/1450 gret p ptc;
- hae_tan hae_tte hae_ted > 1200 haette, 1280/1380/1425/1475 hette pt sg3, 1373/1400 yhette, 1410 iheted p ptc;
- me_tan me_tte me_ted > Lmn 1225/1325/1376/1391 etc (70+) mette pt sg3, 1225/1250/Lmn 1300 metten pt pl, 1300-?/1425 mete/meit p ptc; note 1 - *meted is not found in MED; note 2 - MED records no pre-1250 p ptc forms;
- settan sette g`eset(t) (seted) > PC2 sette pt sg3, Orm setten sett p ptc, Lmn setten set/sette/saette pt sg3 iset p ptc, AW setten pt sg3;
- swae_tan swae_tte swae_ted > AW sweatte /E`:/, 1390 sweted, 1280/1349/1400 swattest, 1300/1325/1338/1380/1425/1470 swatte (latter two indicate a shortening of vowel /ae:/ to /ae/ before /tt/ prior to lowering of /ae/ to /a/), 1400/1425/1450/1460 swette pr sg3; AW 1200/1382/1395 swat, 1325 suett, 1425 swet/swette/swetede, 1450 swette p ptc;
- wae_tan wae_tte wae_ted > 1280/1325/1350/1380/1387/1400/1425 wette/weted, 1300/1450 watte pt sg3; 1400/1410 iweted/iwet, 1398/1425/1450 ywette p ptc;
- ble_dan ble_dde ble_ded > Lmn/AW/1300/1380 bledde pr sg3; 1300/1380/1410 ibled p ptc;
- bre_dan *bre_dde *bre_ded > Owl/1335/1378/Ch1385/1398/ bredde pr sg3; Owl ibred, Lmn 1200/1300 ibredde, Ch/1300/1325/1330/1350/1390/1400/1425 bred p ptc;
- brae_dan brae_dde brae_ded (broaden; roast) > MED breden inf, Lmn bradden, 1300 bredden, 1400 brad pt; HA 1200 y%ebraed/braed, 1250 bred, 1300 ibred, 1325 bredd, 1350 ibrad, 1390 brad p ptc; note - ModE dial. breaded pt/p ptc
- fe_dan fe_dde fe_ded (fe_dd) > Orm fedde pt sg3, Lmn feden inf iuedde p ptc, AW feddest pt sg2 ifed p ptc, Ch fedde pt sg3 fed p ptc, MED fe_den inf fedde 1175-1450 pt sg3 fedde 1125 ifedd 1200 fed 1250 p ptc;
- grae_dan *grae_dde *grae_ded (A gre_dan) (shout) > AW/1250/1325 gredde, Lmn 1200 graedde, Owl gred, 1280 gradde, 1300/1330 grad, 1300/1340 grat, 1300 gredden, 1300/1333 gradden ... 1450 gred/greadde, 1525 grad pt; 1300 grad p ptc;
- he_dan he_dde he_ded > Lmn hedde hedden, Owl bihedde, 1300 hedd, 1400 hedit pt; Lmn 1300 ihedde p ptc;
- lae_dan lae_dde lae_ded > PC1 ledde laeddon pt, PC2 laed ledden pt, Orm ledde pt sg3 ledd p ptc, Lmn laedde (a/ea) ladden pt, AW leadde leadden (e) pt, Owl ledde iladde pt sg3;
- rae_dan rae_dde rae_ded (rae_dd) > Orm redenn raedet`t` radde pt sg3 redd p ptc, Lmn raeden (a) inf radde (ae) raedden (e) pt, AW readen (e) inf readde readdest pt, Owl raddest pt sg2;
- sae_dian > MED se__den - no pre-1250 instances (pr or pt);
- sprae_dan *sprae_dde *sprae_ded > Orm spredd p ptc, Lmn spraede (e) inf spradden pt pl, AW spreat (spret sprad spradit) pt sg3, Ch spredde (a) pt sg3 (y)spred (a) p ptc, MED spreden inf spredde 1250-1475 spret 1225/1250 spreat 1230 sprat 1200 spradde spredede 1382 pr sg3 sprad spratt 1200 spred 1250 p ptc;
- weddian > MED wedden weddede/wedde, Orm weddenn weddedd p ptc, Lmn weddede pt iwedded p ptc, AW iweddet iweddede p ptc (w adj), 1225 ywedde, 1250 wedded p ptc;
- we_odian > MED we_den - no pre-1250 instances (pr or pt);
- In answer to the first question above, are there any examples of weak eME verbs with stem ending in a dental (<t/d>) whose preterite form doesn't have the syncope, i.e. have <-tede> rather than <-tte> or <-dede> rather than <-dde>? Yes, in fact. Almost immediately we find one: be__ten (to boast) doesn't appear to follow the gre__ten pattern. Lmn has beoteden pt pl. Note however that the OE source was be_otian, the corresponding preterite of which, was be_otode. Note the <-ode> preterite ending in class 2 weak verbs. This class of weak verb didn't undergo syncopation in the preterite. Another example presents itself in hatede from OE hatian. This is a fly in the ointment. A distinction between the reflexes of class 1 and 2 weak verbs in eME complicates matters. Does it cruel hopes of a single class of weak verbs in eME? The short answer is no. Read on for the reasoning.
With the exception of the two class 2 weak verbs just mentioned, each of the OE verbs above has syncope in the preterite forms, e.g. gre_tte, me_tte, brae_dde pt sg1/3. The syncope is evident in all the ME reflexes as well, apart from beotede, hatede. The <-ed(e)> ending doesn't appear in the preterite for most of the verbs above until the 15th century. Upshot - syncope is in, for the preterite. The two exceptions can simply be noted as such.
- This brings us to the second question above: is the <-ed> ending dropped at the end of the past participle? Not in OE. Almost all the OE verbs listed above have a p ptc form ending in <-ed>, e.g. gre_ted, me_ted brae_ded p ptc. The picture changes somewhat in ME. Quite often the <ed> is dropped. We also find syncope with <e> added to the end. Examples from 1250 or earlier are: gret, iset, swat (swaeten), ibred (bre__den), bred (braeden), ifed, ledd, redd, spredd, ywedde. Of these we can discount gret, swat (swaeten), bred (braeden) as additional eME forms (via Principle 2) because they are not supported in either Orm, PC2 or ModE. Note that ModE has both wed, wedded p ptc. What about Principle 4? Could the widespread dropping of <ed> in the past participle be applied to all similar verbs with final dental in the infinitive stem, in eME? In short, no. The main objection is that dropping the <ed> conflicts with some of the corresponding paradigms in ModE. For example greeted, sweated, breaded dial. and wedded retain the <ed>. According to Principle 4, dropping the <ed> would be inappropriate in those cases. The other way to aproach this issue is via Principle 5. This path avoids framing the dropping of <ed> as levelling which removes a complication or anomaly in a paradigm, which arguably, is not the case here. Instead it focuses on the dropping of <ed> as sequence of two sound changes in a particular phonetic environment: syncope of the /e/ in /ded/ followed by the degemination of the resulting /dd/. Applying those two sound changes to the preterites of gre__ten, swaeten, braeden (and perhaps wedden) would run counter to Principle 5, because the ModE reflex retains <ed>.
- Vowel length? On this third question there is evidence that the long vowel persists in preterite forms into the eME period - 1200 haette, AW sweatt, 1200 braed, Lmn graedde, AW leadde, Lmn raedden. Accordingly, the vowel remains long in eME preterites unless a short vowel occurs in an additional eME form (i.e. is supported by Principle 2). See a list of eME verbs with shortened vowel in the preterite.
- hatte or ha__tte?: this is related to the issue above concerning vowel shortening in the preterites of verbs with dental-final stems. What does the MED indicate about vowel shortening in this last surviving example of a passive verb form? Under MED hoten we find hatte pr pss in PC2, Lmn & AW. This is probably short, given that hatte pr pss also occurs in 1250, 1340, 1450 et al, by which time a long /a:/ would have become /O`:/. If the vowel is in fact short in PC2 and either Lmn or AW, hatte qualifies as an additional eME form, beside ha__tte, by virtue of Principle 2. But we can't be absolutely certain. Taking a different tack, if we consider /tt/ as a phonetic combination that regularly shortens a preceding long vowel, then hatte would be justified via Principle 5. But is that the case? Vowel shortening before /tt/ is certainly common in ME both before and after 1250, as we saw with weak preterites (above), e.g Orm grette. And yet we find counter examples as well - 1200 haette, AW sweatt. Long vowels persisted into eME before /tt/. That leaves us without a clear winner, with a choice between hatte and ha__tte. It's a coin toss. I might use both. Or I might prefer the more likely of the two to reflect the 12th century East Midland pronunciation - hatte. Or I might decide, when there is doubt about vowel length, to follow ModE when a ModE reflex exists, and otherwise to follow OE, giving ha__tte in this case. I'll leave it up to you.
- vowel shortening in cumen: OE co_m pt sg3 > Orm comm. So is com an additional eME form? It's difficult to determine support for this change in other ME texts such as PC2, Lmn, AW and Owl, all of which have com, since vowel length was rarely indicated. There appears to be partial support in Ch for the shorter vowel, in that the pt sg3 appears as either com or cam but never as coom, whereas the pt pl appears as both coom and com. (Note that Chaucer didn't always double the letter representing a long vowel.) It is possible that the use of com might confuse the student of OE in which the pt sg3 form is co_m. Perhaps com is not an intuitive staging post between OE co_m and ModE came. Nevertheless, cumen is an irregular class 4 strong verb and as such needs to be learned separately, and since Orm comm is apparently supported by Ch, and bearing in mind that the pt sg3 of class 4 strong verbs was regularly short, com should be accepted alongside co_m in eME.
- preterite of nimen and cumen: the principle applied here is the same fundamental principle applied throughout englesaxe: the conjugation of these verbs should resemble as closely as possible those of their OE forebears except where additional eME forms are available. A little discussion is warranted however. Nominally, these 2 verbs belong to class 4; in WGmc the forms followed the regular class 4 pattern: *neman nam na_men numen, *cweman *cwam *cwa_men *cwumen; however before a nasal the WGmc <a_> became <ae_> in OE in all contexts except one - before a nasal it became <o_>. Similarly, Gmc <a> became OE <o> before a nasal; also Gmc <e> became <i> in OE; hence the standard OE (West Saxon) forms - niman nom no_men numen; However, nam and na_men are also found in OE texts, and the most common forms in eME appear to be nimen nam na__men numen/nomen; PC2 has numerous examples of nam and namen but neither nom or nomen for the singular and plural preterite respectively; both numen and nomen can be found in North-west Midlands c.1400 for the past participle, while Ch has nam and nomen (/O:/) for the preterite. Note that /a:/ (<a__>) had passed to /O:/ (<oa/oo/o>) by the mid 13th century. And for the past participle, Ch has ynome, the <o> of which probably represents an /u/ sound as it does in Ch come(n). Taking all this into account, the most appropriate forms for eME appear to be nimen nam na__men numen. The conjugation of cumen in eME is easier to determine. Neither OE nor Orm nor PC2 had instances of cam or ca_men to compete with co_m co_men and com co__men. There are several instances of cam from 1200 and 1250, but the first recorded appearance of camen is in 1382. Can we consider nimen and cumen to be a group for the purposes of principle 4, and accordingly apply the pattern from the former to the latter? In this case I haven't. In the eME of this site, cumen remains an irregular class 4 strong verb with preterite forms com co__men which are supported by Orm, PC2, Lmn and AW.
- <h> in 2nd and 3rd person forms of strong contracted verbs in optional grammar?: remove in all classes? - see Joseph Wright, Old English Grammar § 138: "In Anglian i_o became i_ before c and h... li_hta(n), ti_t` from *ti_hit` = WS li_ehtan, ti_eht`"- note the absence of <h> in A ti_t`; <h> is noticeable by its absence in the East Midland 2nd and 3rd person present forms of contracted verbs; slae_ht` is a Mercian form cited at the top of the MED article on sle_n; fo_ht` is a variant form cited at the top of the MED article on fo_n, which includes Trinity Homilies 1200 fohd`;
- consonant doubling: there was an audible distinction in length between a single consonant and double consonant in OE. That sound distinction, was still evident in Ch (see above). In fact, OE's double consonants tend to be retained in Ch. For that reason, where OE, ME and ModE differ on the question of double consonants, I have generally preferred the OE spelling. Occasionally, where a single consonant spelling is supported by both ModE usage and either PC2, Orm or an lME example cited in Clark Hall 1, I have deviated from the OE norm and preferred a single consonant: e.g. OE sibb > eME sib > ModE sibling. But the variant is also acceptable - sibb. On the whole, it's the Chaucer principle that wins out. Thus - OE fyllde > eME fillede > ModE filled, in spite of PC2 fylde; on the other hand OE eall > eME al > ModE all, due to al in PC2, Lmn, AW and Ch. Double 'n' spellings are fairly common, e.g.: OE g`ewinn > eME iwinn, in spite of both lME i-win and ModE win. Note that it isn't always the case that a double consonant in OE becomes a single consonant in ME or ModE (or both): OE wel > ModE well. I've used wel in englesaxe. Note also that OE c`c` remains eME cc, since the related spelling cch is found in both Orm and Ch.
- shortening of prefix a_-: an unnaccented long 'a' in an OE word of two or more syllables often became shortened in ME and ModE; the most notable example of this is the prefix a_- e.g. in a_ri_sen, which became a short a- in ModE arise; another example is OE la_tte_ow > ME lattew; I have generally applied this in englesaxe;
- reduction of certain consonant clusters: at least one consonant cluster that occurred in OE leaves no trace in ME - ndg. In ME this becomes ng. This surfaced in my investigation of the reflexes of OE myndgian. I suspect this reduction was already underway in the OE period since two variants without the middle consonant - d, are recorded in the OE corpus - myngian and mynegian. As that particular consonant cluster is absent in the MED, even though Orm and PC2 have no reflexes of mydngian or its variants, I have registered the sound change indg to ing as a standard eME sound and spelling change in table X. There may be similar reductions of consonant clusters. If so, I will update these notes and table X as I come across them.
- OE fricative <g>: OE g /G``/, remained a fricative in eME. It is represented in eME by <g> (and in the alternate eME spelling by <y%>1); However there were 2 allophones of this sound, and these developed differently in later ME. If the fricative <g> had followed a back vowel or <r> or <l> in OE, it passed to /w/: boga > boge (alt boy%e2) > lME bowe (ModE bow). If on the other hand, it had followed a front vowel in OE, it was assimilated to, and lengthened, the preceding front vowel: nigon > nigen (alt niy%en2) > lME ni_n (ModE nine). For more detail, see Fricatives & Semivowels
- OE semivowel <g>: OE g` /j/, has remained a semivowel ever since, when in the initial position (e.g. OE g`e_ar > eME y%aer > year). However a diphthong resulted in eME from OE /j/ preceeded by a front vowel. Thus <aeg`> became <ay%> (alt <ai>), while <ae_g`>, <eg`> and <e_g`> became <ey%> (alt <ei>). For more detail, see Fricatives & Semivowels
- OE prefix g`e-: its eME reflex i- can precede any past participle (in the absence of another prefix); this appears to be entirely optional - it is only used once in PC2; i- is only used with other parts of speech if the word (or its root) is indicated in Clark Hall 1 as being rarely found without the prefix;
- ae or e__: OE WS ae_ appeared as e_ in OE A where the ancestral vowel was WGmc or Lat a_. See Wright 2. These forms in e_ passed to the East Midland dialect of ME and ultimately to ModE, as ee. How do we know whether ae or e__ is appropriate in eME? ModE is the most practical guide here. For example: OE WS dae_d, ae_fen, ae_l, grae_dig`, nae_dl, sae_d, slae_pan, strae_t = OE A de_d, e_fen, e_l, gre_dig`, ne_dl, se_d, sle_pan, stre_t > ModE deed, eve, eel, greedy, needle, seed, sleep, street. On that basis we can be confident that the eME equivalents are de__d, e__fen, e__l, gre__diy%, ne__del, se__d, sle__pen, stre__t. However that isn't necessarily what we find in the East and West Midland3 source texts: Orm straete dat, Lmn straet, AW strete acc/dat, PC2 daedes pl, Orm/Lmn dede, PC2 slepen, Orm slaepenn, Lmn slaepen, AW slepen, Orm efenn, grediy%, nedle, sed, AW gredi. The evidence is mixed. It suggests that for some of these words, either both forms co-existed in OE Anglian, or the southern form made inroads into the Midland dialects in the Early Middle English period, or perhaps that the writers (and/or) scribes of Orm and Lmn were influenced at times by the OE WS standard. Whatever the truth of the matter is, under the principles set down in Normalisation, the standard OE WS forms with ae_ pass to eME. And the alternate (OE A) forms in e_ qualify as additional eME forms by virtue of their support in ModE, and the application of the ModE test. Without the ModE test, stre__t for one, would not qualify as additional eME, since straete is found in Orm without any counter example in PC2. Of course, it makes more sense to treat the group as a whole and apply a single rule which is easy to follow : e__ where ModE has ee (or e /i:/). That means we have doublets in most cases. As far as the doublets are concerned, in englesaxe, I've leant toward the forms supported by ModE - de__d, e__fen, e__l, gre__diy%, ne__del, se__d, sle__pen, stre__t. Note that there are a couple of cases where eME e__ corresponds to OE e_a, e.g. OE WS c`e_ace > eME ce__ke (AW cheken) > ModE cheek, and OE WS sc`e_ap > eME sce__p (Orm shep, Lmn scep, AW schep) > ModE sheep. The explanation is that an initial palatalised consonant caused breaking: ae_ > e_a. See Wright 3. Bear in mind that both sounds e_a and ae_ were merged to ae_ in late OE. Note also that the OE > ME sound change - ae_ > e__, is listed in table X.
- c or ch: OE c before i/e/ae was generally pronounced /tS`/. The spelling remained as c in PC2, but appeared elsewhere in ME as ch. Generally speaking in OE verb paradigms, the context determined the pronunciation. As a result, palatalisation might be present in some parts of a given verb, but not in others. Two examples are c`e_osan c`e_as curon g`ecoren and c`i_nan ca_n c`inon g`ec`inen. In late ME, the palatalisation tended to spread throughout the paradigm, regardless of context, so that the examples above became cheese(n) cheas chuse(n) ychose(n) and chyne(n) choan chine(n) ychine(n) The question is - which path should a normalised eME take? Orm has chosenn but on the other hand ycore persists until SO (and perhaps later). The MED records the preterite forms chan and chon, the first of which is found in Lmn, but also coon (from a text circa 1425). Evidently ca__n survived beyond 1200. If we were to allow the emerging ME pattern to be applied universally (a sort of extended ModE test perhaps?) in such cases, then patalisation could be spread throughout the paradigm, thus giving: ce__sen caes chusen ichosen and ci__nen cha__n cinen icinen. Otherwise, if we were to confine our focus to forms found in either Orm or PC2 and at least one other eME source, then cha_n would not be an additional eME form. And there would be a question mark over chusen since it is cusen that is found in PC2. I think the sensible solution is to allow palatalisation throughout any given verb paradigm. The non-palatalised forms - curen icoren ca__n are also permitted of course, as eME reflexes of the standard OE forms. Note - ce__sen and ci__nen are the only examples of such paradigms that I have found so far.
- in an earlier draft of the definition of additional eME forms, I placed conditions on the eligibility of forms which enter via the MED and ModE:
- OE (an alternate form), MED headword and ModE, but only if either:
- no examples are found in either PC2 or Orm; or
- the ModE test applies (see below)
- probable OE origin (but not recorded), MED headword and ModE, and at least one of the following - PC2, Orm, Owl, Lmn, AW, SO, Ch
- OE (an alternate form), MED headword and ModE, but only if either:
- similarly, in an earlier draft of Normalisation 3: grammar I summarised the Chaucer test thus: "If traces of an OE grammatical feature are common (even if not predominant) in Ch, then that feature is retained in eME." That is no longer the case necessarily. The definition of eME grammar at Normalisation 1: principles is "the collection of grammatical features applied consistently in both PC2 and Orm". Certain grammatical features that are not applied consistently in PC2 or Orm, nevertheless appear occasionally in Ch. The result is that a few elements of OE grammar are not retained in the core eME grammar, even though traces of them persist in Ch. Such features are optional however, and do appear in the normalised versions of eME source texts. The three features that come to mind are the dative marker '-e' for nouns, the separate long 'ae' vowel for the plural preterite in class 4 & 5 strong verbs, and the absence of a genitive marker '-es' in a small group of nouns, especially family members. For more detail, see Normalisation 3: grammar.
- ModE vs Chaucer: It's interesting to note that the Chaucer test achieves similar results to the ModE test in respect of the simplification (or rather - removal) of stem alternation in eME. However, there's one case in which the former overrides the latter. OE stre_a strawes > Ch stree stres and straw. Yet straw strawes is preferred to strae straes in eME, because ModE has straw straw's.
form preference: A variation on the Chaucer Test can be a useful means of choosing between rival eME forms (see section above). Put simply: if an OE form is still around in Ch, it should be used in eME. Stated with a little more finesse: if Ch uses (even if not predominantly) a form which more closely reflects the corresponding standard OE form than an additional eME form, then the eME form sourced from standard OE is preferred. Hence hit would be preferred to it, ic over I, t`encen over t`enken, man over me and swa__ over se (e.g. in hwaer/hwa__ swa__).
That said however, I haven't always applied the Chaucer Test to variant forms. My feeling is that while it's a good idea to be clear-cut and prescriptive about grammar in any normalised language, vocabulary choice - that is the selection of one word (or form of a word) over another, should be a matter of taste. Does it matter that the usage of variant forms in eME might differ from person to person? It doesn't seem to matter in ModE. "You say either, and I say either"... Audrey and the attercop is somewhat eclectic in its choice of variant forms, using predominantly but not exclusively - it, ic, t`enken, man and swa_, from the list above. I've been more consistent in my application of the "Chaucer Test" in grammar (morphology), but perhaps that's not so important either. For more, see optional grammatical variations (in eME).
- *aht?: OE a_wiht had the less common variants a_wuht, a_ht and o_ht, the last of which which probably gave rise to Orm ohht, Owl and Gaw oy%t, Ch o(u)ght and finally archaic ModE ought. OE also had a short-vowel variant aht which could explain Ch and ModE (archaic) aught and Piers auht; note - only a short /a/ in lOE would give Ch a(u)ght since long initial /a:/ in lOE would give o(u)ght). So does aht qualify as a second additional eME form alongside oht? It is a borderline case, but in the end I decided against it for the following reasons:
- since the OE prefix a_wiht tends to become short in eME, the eME form derived from the standard OE form is awiht, which would also give rise to Ch aught, if the unaccented <i> were dropped;
- the ModE aught is archaic.
- *fra or fra__: Was the <a> long or short in Orm fra? The marking of the ON vowel in frá and ModE's /ou/ in fro suggests /a:/ was the sound in Orm and PC2. This would have become /O:/ in Ch. As far as I can make out, Ch only used <fra> to indicate Northern speech, in contrast to the usual Ch form fro (representing Southern speech). That makes fra the appropriate additional eME form.
- *y%uw or y%ow: My first inclination was to allow Orm, with the apparent support of SO and Ch, to set the spelling of y%ow as *y%uw. However the pronunciation of ModE you as /ju:/ rather than /*jau/ suggests that the pronunciation of SO y%ou and Ch you/yow, was /jou/ rather than /ju:/. By extension, this would have been the prevailing pronunciation of the 2nd person plural pronoun in the southern East Midlands c 1150 AD. This makes the y%ow spelling more appropriate for eME. It also reflects the spelling and pronunciation of the standard OE form e_ow more closely. A similar argument applies to the spelling y%owre in preference to y%u_re; note also the variant OE forms i_ower/i_owre (of standard OE e_ower).
- It was difficult at first to settle on the eME additional form in cases like pot`eren and y%ugelen, especially with the former, where the putative OE form isn't given and the stressed vowel differs from MED headword to ModE. Should the eME additional form be based on the MED headword, or the ModE reflex? (Or perhaps the related MDu word?) Allowing ModE to decide the final form is a convenient solution,
- a modE test for spelling?: generally speaking, the spelling of an additional eME form is easily settled on, since the forms found in the eME sources (on which the additional eME form is based), have the same underlying pronunciation; however, should there be any doubt about the pronunciation, or a difference in vowel quality between forms found in the eME sources, then the ModE spelling should be used as a guide (if a ModE reflex exists); the only such case I have encountered so far, is y%uw/y%ow; see above; if more examples crop up, I may need to expand the ModE test outlined at normalisation 3: grammar.
- OE wa- and wo_-stems which don't lose the final w in nom. (and acc.) sg.: masculine wa-stems - t`e_o(w) (servant), t`e_aw (custom), de_aw (dew), la_re_ow (teacher); neuter wa-stems - cne_o(w), hle_o(w) (refuge), stre_a(w), tre_o(w); in Clark Hall 4, all of the latter have w in nom. and acc. sg. except hle_o; According to Wright 5 many of these had a long vowel in the nom. and acc. sg. when w was absent, and a short vowel in the gen. and dat. when w was present, e.g. cne_o cnewes; this explains the dichotomy of the stree/straw forms used interchangeably by i.a. Ch: when ea became a and e_a merged with ae_ in late OE, the vowel harmony diverged - stre_a streawes > strae strawes; to complicate matters "the w was mostly reintroduced into the nom. sg. from the inflected forms... And conversely from the new nom. was sometimes formed a new gen., as cne_owes, tre_owes beside older cneowes, treowes." 6; hence stre_aw as the headword in Clark Hall 7; however, that lengthening of the vowel in inflected forms with w isn't reflected in Orm - cnewwe cnes, tre tres/trewwess; if a new gen. form stre_awes joined streawes, clearly it didn't displace the latter, given ModE straw; all of which poses a conundrum: does straw (nom) qualify as an additional eME form? The MED strau presents a trio of forms with w in nom/acc pre-1250: streaw (1150), streuw (1200), streow (1225); the OE-derived eME form is straew, which is in line with the three MED forms just cited; the MED doesn't have any pre-1250 nom/acc forms with aw; there is a pre-1250 dative form strawe (1200), and beyond that, the names Straumongere (1280) and Strawlove (1284), then - strawes gen (1300), stra (Havelok 1300) and straue (1300); critically, Clark Hall 8 records stra_wberig`e (long or short?), a variant of the main entry stre_awberig`e; since there were no Orm or PC2 reflexes, and both ModE and at least one pre-1250 form have aw, straw becomes an additional eME form; note that this is a short vowel; *stra__w would have become ModE *strow, just as eME sna__w gave us ModE snow;
- it is tempting to allow OE feorh to pass to eME ferh with gen sg & pl ferges, since there is no ModE reflex, in order to avoid a possible class with fe__re (companion); nevertheless the ModE test is moot once principle 2 applies;
- in the optional grammar, OE fearh fe_ares (piglet ~s) > *farh *faeres, which conflicts with faer (sudden danger); while if we go with a short vowel in the oblique cases, *fares would clash with fare (trip);
- marh or marg (marrow)? The main entry in Clark Hall 9 is mearg though mearh appears as a variant form in lighter type beside it. Bosworth-Toller 10 on the other hand, presents mearh as the main nom sg form, while Wright 11 doesn't seem to favour either, noting the existence of both. We see something similar with burh for which Clark Hall 9 has burg as the main entry. There are many such cases of words which appear in OE texts with either <h> or <g> as the final letter. There is a key difference between mearh and burh however. The ModE reflex of the former is marrow while the ModE reflex of the latter is borough. Note: <w> vs <gh>. That is significant. That indicates two different sounds - /G``/ vs /x/ in these words in OE and eME. Typically eME /G``/ became /w/, spelt <w>, in later ME, while /x/ remained but was spelt <gh>. What were the conditions that produced /G``/ rather than /x/? Generally, /G``/ was intervocalic, and followed a back vowel, with optional liquid (/l/ or /r/) preceding. So for example, eME folgen, morgen, sorge sorges, felage, lage > ModE follow, morrow, sorrow ~s, fellow, law. On the other hand, /x/ was word-final, or preceded a consonant: eME niht, cniht, t`oh, slo__h > ModE night, knight, though, slough. So where does that leave the eME predecessor of ModE marrow? The ModE <w> suggests a /G``/ sound in eME. And that in turn indicates a marg (or mary`h) spelling in eME. But therein lies the rub. The /G``/ sound requires a following vowel. And the <g> in marg is word-final. Final <g> in OE variant spellings burg, bealg, da_g, plo_g, sta_g, g`eno_g etc, represented /x/, the unvoiced spirant, according to Wright 12. It was simply a variant spelling of <h>. We would need a form like marge, to explain the <w> in ModE marrow. I should note at this point that OE sorh sorge survives in ModE as sorrow. That's because it was a strong feminine in OE and most reflexes of OE a-stems turn up in ME with final <e> in nom sg, e.g. eME sorge. OE mearh on the other hand, was neuter. Even so, it is not inconceivable that the gen sg form of a noun like marh might be extended to the nom sg, with marge or mary`(h)e as the result. Is there MED support for a marge or mary`(h)e spelling? There is. The main entry for the ME reflex is in fact marwe. Do any of the nom sg forms with final <e> pre-date 1250? In short, no. The earliest is 1350 - mergt`e (where the <t`> should probably be considered an <h>). Other forms with final <e> are merghe 1382, marwe 1387, maroghe 1398, merowe 1425, marowe 1392 1425 1440, merghe 1440, marghe 1475 i.a.. Without pre-1250 support for a marge or mary`(h)e spelling, I have settled on marh as the eME nom sg form, with gen sg and pl forms marges.
- there's a superficial similarity between fearh and mearh, both a-stems which appear in ModE as farrow and marrow respectively; however while fearh fe_ares is from PG *farhaz *farhas, mearh mearges is from PG *mazgą *mazgas; that <g> in the PG source is critical to the sound changes that occurred in early OE - medial /x/ disappeared while medial /g/ did not; it's also unclear whether farrow is a reflex of fearh or an unattested *feargian;
- horh (phlegm, mucus) and hore (defilement, impurity) - two separate entries? Clark Hall 13 lists both horh and horu but redirects the latter to the former. The definition provided for horh is "phlegm, mucus; dirt, defilement, uncleanness". The MED lists ho_r(e) with two definitions which roughly correspond (though not exactly) to those given in Clark Hall 13: "(a) Physical filth; dirt, mud, slime, etc.; (b) moral foulness, corruption, sin". On the other hand, Bosworth-Toller 14 lists horh and horu separately with the definitions "A clammy humour, phlegm, rheum" and "Dirt, filth, foulness" respectively. Wiktionary also lists these OE words separately, with a similar distinction in meanings, and indicates that horu is a masculine wa-stem while horh is a masculine a-stem. However, Wiktionary gives Proto-Germanic (PG) *hurhwą as the source for both horh and horu. And the Wiktionary entry for PG *hurhwą indicates a definition broad enough to cover both - "dirt, mucus, dirty substance". What's more, the oblique forms listed for horh and horu in Wiktionary, are identical, i.a horwes gen sg and horwas nom pl. Wright 15 includes horh with the group of nouns declined like mearh, but notes that horwes gen sg and horwe dat sg exist alongside ho_res and ho_re. My conclusion is that this is a single root, with a variety of forms and a pair of related meanings. In the core eME grammar it appears as horh horges and in the optional grammar as horh hores. Side note - ModE horry dial (impure; unclean; disgustingly dirty; foul) is related.
Class 7 strong verbs with short vowel in the infinitive - should their preterite forms also have a short vowel in eME?
- OE feallan fe_oll fe_ollon feallen > fallen *fell *fellen fallen? (Orm felle pt sbj Ch fil pt sg3)
- OE healdan he_old he_oldon healden > ha__lden *held *helden ha__lden? (Orm held pt sbj Ch heeld/held pt sg3)
- OE fo_n fe_ng fe_ngon fangen > fo__n/fangen *feng *fengen fangen? (Gaw fange, PH3 foangen inf)
- OE ho_n he_ng he_ngon hangen > ho__n/hangen *heng *hengen hangen? (Ch honge/hangen hongeth/hangeth henge/heeng hanged)
It might be easier for a newcomer to pre-modern English to remember that all class 7 verbs with a short vowel in the infinitive also have a short vowel in the preterite forms. But normalising class 7 verbs accordingly in eME has its issues. Although OE healdan has a short vowel, its eME reflex ha__lden has a long vowel. So a preterite form held wouldn't match the vowel length of the infinitive (and present tense forms). Certainly fell and held would be more familiar to modern English speakers than fe__ll and he__ld, but a rule along the lines "short vowel in ModE class 7 preterite equals short vowel in corresponding eME form" seems hard to justify without compelling evidence that such a rule would reflect usage in the East Midland dialect around 1150. For that reason I'm loath to implement that across class 7 preterites. In any case, perhaps it's just as easy to remember that all class 7 preterites have a long vowel, regardless of the length of the vowel in the infinitive. Thus, eME uses the preterite forms: fe__ll, he__ld, he__ng and fe__ng.
However fell pt sg3 qualifies as an additional eME form on the basis of Orm felle (a pre-1250 form) and ModE fell, both of which display a short vowel. This should be seen as the exception, rather than the rule.
More on normalisation
Looking for more background on the normalisation of the East Midland dialect c 1150, in englesaxe? For an outline of the basic principles applied to the normalisation of eME word forms, together with a list of the abbreviations and definitions used, see normalisation 1: principles. For examples of the principles in action - eME forms (eME changes applied to standard OE forms) and additional eME forms, see normalisation 2: additional eME forms. For a discussion of levelling within eME paradigms, see normalisation 3: grammar. For a discussion of the principles governing the eME spelling scheme used in englesaxe, see normalisation 4: spelling.
- <y%h> in previous versions of the site;
- boy%he and niy%hen in previous versions of the site;
- AW and Lmn were written in the West Midland dialect, a descendant of Mercian (one of the two OE Anglian dialects);
- Clark Hall J.R., A Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary, Cambridge University Press, 1960
- Wright, Joseph & Wright, Elizabeth Mary, Old English Grammar, London : H. Milford, Oxford University Press, 1914, p. 60
- Op. cit., p. 34
- Clark Hall, op. cit.
- Wright, op. cit., p. 265
- Ibid., pp. 265 & 176-7
- Clark Hall, op. cit.
- Bosworth, Joseph. "mearh [neuter]" In An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary Online, edited by Thomas Northcote Toller, Christ Sean, and Ondřej Tichy. Prague: Faculty of Arts, Charles University, 2014. Online at https://bosworthtoller.com/22507.
- Wright, op. cit., p. 160
- Clark Hall, op. cit.
- Bosworth, op. cit.
- Wright, op. cit., p. 168