Chapter 5: Old English – Inner History

Video Lecture

Figure 5.1

Figure 5.1: The Initial Page of the Peterborough Chronicle

Source: Wikipedia

License: Public Domain

Link: here

Understanding Internal Change

Chapter four examined some of the major external historical events that shaped OE: the Indo-European migrations, the Anglo-Saxon invasion, and the Viking incursions into Anglo-Saxon territory. In this chapter, I will discuss the internal structure of OE, that is to say, what OE was like in regard to its phonology, morphology, and syntax. The linguistic terms and concepts from chapter one will be valuable and necessary tools as we examine the structure of OE.

I need to clarify three issues at the outset. First, when we discuss the structure of OE, it is important to understand that the English spoken between 449 AD and 1066 AD was not one monolithic whole. There were regional dialects around Britain, and these dialects changed over these six hundred years that traditionally constitute the period of Old English. There is

a 500-year rule in dialects and languages. Once a language is 500 years older than a previous point in time, it has changed so much that it is typically considered a separate language. Consider Shakespeare.

Figure 5.2

Figure 5.2: Portrait of William Shakespeare

Source: Wikimedia

License: Public Domain

Link: here

After 500 years, contemporary readers may understand a lot of Shakespeare today, but it is becoming increasingly more difficult as the decades go by. And this is reading Shakespeare. If we were to speak to someone from that time period, it would be even more difficult to understand. Similarly, what is current English today will be difficult for English speakers to understand in 500 years.

Nonetheless, it is customary to discuss the West Saxon dialect as the “model” for OE even though it is a snapshot of one dialect during one time period. Figure 5.3 shows the dialects of OE just prior to the Viking incursions, which altered the speech of the East and North Midlands. Most written works in OE are in the West Saxon dialect. However, modern standard English descends largely from the Mercian dialect.

Figure 5.3

Figure 5.3: Dialects of Old English as they were just prior to the Viking incursions

Source: Wikimedia Commons

Attribution: CelticBrain

License: CC BY-SA 4.0

Link: here

Second, as we discuss the phonology, we have to remember that there are no audio recordings of OE. It is guesswork on the part of historical linguists—however, linguists base their claims about the shape of OE on surviving manuscripts. One example is above in Figure 5.1. Using manuscripts from different regions and from different time periods gives some indication of what OE sounded like. Just to give an idea of how different OE sounded, here is the “Our Father” prayer in OE.

Third, I will not describe all aspects of what is, ostensibly, a foreign language to PDE speakers. There are entire books dedicated to OE. In fact, a lot of universities offer OE as a possible fulfillment of foreign language requirements. While not a comprehensive treatment of OE, I will give some of the major linguistic characteristics, particularly those that have a connection to PDE.

I start with a curious letter to the editor from the September 12^th, 2019 issue of The Marietta Daily Journal:

Swear Off the Curse Words:

Dear Editor:

Young women: some advice. Using the F-word does not make you cool or attractive. Expand your vocabulary and learn how to cut people down using English not Anglo- Saxon words. It’s definitely cooler. Watch those Antifa morons on TV, where you can’t understand what they’re saying, because of the bleeps. They (and you, if you curse) look like uneducated morons.

What caught my eye was this line in the letter: “Use English, not Anglo-Saxon words.” But PDE is awash with words that are of Anglo-Saxon origin. A large percentage of the lexicon of PDE is composed of Anglo-Saxon words, about 25%. See Figure 5.4.

Figure 5.4

Figure 5.4: Origin of PDE Words by Percentage

Source: Wikipedia

License: Public Domain

Link: here

In fact, in a typical written text, approximately 70% of the words on a page have Anglo-Saxon roots (Fennell, 1998) due to the most common words (prepositions, articles, pronouns, and common verbs) having Germanic origins. While it is true that English borrowed much of its lexicon from French and Latin during the Middle English period, the most common words are of Anglo-Saxon origin.

Yet the writer of the letter advised young speakers to use English and not Anglo-Saxon words. This reveals an interesting language attitude. In this case, that writer considers “English” words (perhaps words of French or Latin origin) as better than Anglo-Saxon. This attitude has

more to do with perceptions of the “nobility” of the language than with linguistic reality.

Features of Old English

I turn now to some selected aspects of the internal history of OE. The guiding questions will be these:

What is the structure of OE?
How did OE start changing internally through the centuries?

Taking the West Saxon dialect (see Figure 5.3) as our starting point, here are some of the features of OE.

OE Consonants

Let’s start with consonants. Figure 5.5 below shows the consonant inventory of Old English.

Figure 5.5

Figure 5.5 Consonants of OE

The consonant inventory is very similar to the consonant inventory of PDE. There are a few differences, but for the most part they are the same. This is using our linguistic analysis of consonants with place for articulation, manner of articulation, and voicing. One thing to note is that during the history of OE, three constants were added, and they are highlighted above. The three palatal-alveolar sounds / ʃ ʧ ʤ / were added, as in she, chicken, and judge. OE added these three sounds to the Germanic base of consonants. Remember, the slashes indicate the phoneme, not the letter.

Just a quick word about how this happened. This can get a little technical but by way of illustration, let me demonstrate how one of the sounds entered the language. The Germanic languages that reached Britain had the /k/ sound. It did not have the / ʧ / sound as a separate phoneme, but here is how that came about.

If the phoneme /k/ occurred next to a front vowel (recall that front vowels are articulated by the tongue moving toward the front of the mouth; the vowels /i/ and /e/ are examples), then the /k/ phoneme shifted to / ʧ / in OE. For example, originally the letter “c” in the following words was pronounced as a /k/ in the Germanic roots of English: cēap (“cheap’), dīc (“ditch”), cild (“child”). But overtime as OE separated from its Germanic roots, the /k/ sound shifted to the /ʧ / before front vowels.

Now this may sound a bit technical, but it really isn’t. It simply illustrates a basic point in sound change. And that point is that once a sound change starts, it spreads throughout the language, not just a few words. In other words, it is systematic. When you have enough of these sound changes, the two dialects (over time) slowly become two separate languages. The speakers of OE, however, were not conscious of this change. It just happened throughout the system– organically, naturally, and quite unconsciously.

Think about this. We have the word kid in kindergarten. That initial sound did not undergo this change because kid was a later addition into English from German, and it did not undergo this change.

Another example of an internal change in OE that is reflected in PDE is the /sk/ consonant cluster. All /sk/ clusters (spelled “sc” in OE) changed to / ʃ /. Examples include fisc (“fish”), wascan (“wash”), and scearp (“sharp”).

Again, this happened organically throughout the system. There was no decision. Most people were illiterate, so reading skills played no part in this. It just started shifting. As we've seen, languages will shift their sounds. Now, you may say, well, we have a lot of /sk/ words in PDE: sky, skin, sketch, skit, and the list could go on and on. However, all of these words came into English after this sound change, after the /sk/ sounds, and all the other words became / ʃ /. These words entered later.

Vowels

Let’s switch to vowels. To start, let’s talk about vowels versus consonants. What is the difference between a vowel and a consonant? There are two parts to this answer. First, a consonant has a clear place of articulation. There’s a clear obstruction of air flow. Vowels are wide open in the vocal tract. Second, vowels are required for every syllable. Every syllable has a nucleus and that is the vowel. Every syllable must have a vowel-like element (a sonority peak), but not every syllable has to have a consonant.

Figure 5.6 gives a rough approximation of the vowels in OE. These could be the nucleus of a syllable. The dots mean the vowel is long. PDE does not make use of long vowels in the same way OE did.

Figure 5.5

Figure 5.6: Vowels in Old English

Source: Wikipedia

Link: here

Because the language has been dead for 900 years, we cannot be completely sure how Old English was pronounced. However, we can make good, educated guesses at how Old English was pronounced because the Anglo-Saxons almost certainly wrote phonetically (that is, they wrote words how they sounded)—we can compare it with Middle English, various Modern English dialects, and other closely related Germanic languages; we can look at phonetic poetic strategies used in Old English poems; and we can look at spelling variations and clues within Old English texts themselves.

Second, vowels are also very unstable. They often shift precisely because they don’t have a clear place of articulation. So, there's a lot of shifting. During the OE period, there was a lot of vowel shifting. To illustrate a very famous example of vowel shifting, let’s examine this issue of irregular plural nouns in PDE.

We all know that for most English words, you add an /s/ for plurality. In fact, when a new word is added into English, that’s always the system—you add an /s/. However, we have certain holdovers from OE. We have irregular plurals such feet, teeth, geese, and lice. Where did these come from? Well, they came again from the history of English, specifically the front mutation of vowels (also known as umlaut or i/j mutation).

Simply put, this means that there used to be inflectional endings in the original Germanic words that meant plural. For example, before the mutation, the plural for fōt (“foot”) was fōtiz (“feet”). The -iz meant plural. Overtime, the ending -iz influenced the preceding (or front) vowel (ō), and it became fētiz. Eventually, the ending (-iz) disappeared, but the influence on the front vowel had already happened. Thus, fēt (“feet”) became the form for plural for fōt in OE. Figure 5.7 shows an illustration of the change. Note that over time, the -iz ending disappeared, but only after it caused the ō to shift higher in the mouth to match the /ɪ/ in the second syllable.

Figure 5.6

Figure 5.7 Consonants of OE

Other words that underwent the same sort of vowel shifting (front shifting) are teeth, geese, lice, and men. Even the adjective form elder (as opposed to the competing form older) has its origin in this front mutation.

Most PDE words were regularized into taking the -s for plural. But for some reason, there were a few words that got stuck. They fossilized. PDE kept the original plural: feet, teeth, geese. The word book is an example of a word that was originally pluralized like teeth. The plural form was bec. But PDE regularized this to become books instead of bec. This was done by analogy. Remember analogy means to make it regularize and make it look like everything else. Along the history of this word, someone, probably toddlers, started saying books instead of bec for the plural. Through the years, the vowel shifted back to /u/ and an -s was added.

Syntax

Syntax is word order. Old English had a more flexible word order because there were so many inflections that indicated what the role of the noun did. Figure 5.8 shows the declension (the different endings for nouns) for the word man and book in OE.

Text

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

Figure 5.8 Declension of ‘man’ and ‘book’ in OE

The N indicates nominative (subject), G indicates possessive, D indicates dative (indirect object), and A was used for accusative (direct object). Since PDE lost almost all of these endings on nouns, word order became much more important.

Double negatives were very common in OE. Look at this translation of a sentence from Old English:

thaet heo nanne aefter hyre ne forlete “that she should not leave none behind her.”

Today, to use a double negative is a big grammatical sin. But this did not happen until the 18^th century. In the 18^th century, there was a group of people who decided English should not use double negatives and that had a profound influence on the history of English.

Now, when we talk about language change, we often talk about language change from below–it just happens. But we can also talk about change from above. When there is a group, such as academics or grammarians, and they “impose” their ideas on what should be good or proper English, then this prescription (such as eliminating double negatives) can have an influence on English. So, this change from above, from grammarians, can affect how English works, but most of the language changes come from below. People change language naturally without even realizing change is happening.

One final note on syntax. Prepositions are words that talk about placement. They are used to indicate position: on the table, under the chair, over the roof. Two issues with Old English: OE used fewer prepositions since inflections indicated much of what prepositions do; and second, prepositions often came after their object in OE. Here we can see one bit of evidence on this—I danced the night away, instead of, I danced away the night. This is a holdover from Old English when prepositions could occur after the object. In that case, they were called

postpositions and not prepositions.

Lexicon

OE lexicon consisted of mostly Indo-European and Germanic words. Of course, the Germanic languages had their origins in Indo-European. Few Celtic words entered into Old English. There was little prestige for the Celtic words, and therefore little prestige for the Celtic language. They were a conquered people, and shoved off to the western part of the island. Scandinavian influence did occur with Old English, but became more apparent in Middle English. The Scandinavian conquest and invasion started during the eighth or ninth century, so it had a much slower effect on OE. Eventually, OE did incorporate many words from the Scandinavian languages, such as Old Norse. Latin also had an influence on Old English. There was an intermingling of the Germanic and Latin languages on the continent before the Germanic tribes invaded England. After this period, the Germanic languages had incorporated words such as belt, cheese, copper, butter, cheap, mile, stop, and wine. So, before the Germanic languages ever came to England, there was a smattering of Latin-based words in the Germanic languages, but not too many. During Middle English, a substantial increase of Latin came into English due to the Norman invasion which will be discussed in the next chapter.

It is estimated that about 85% of the 30,000 or so Anglo-Saxon words gradually died out under the cultural onslaught of the Vikings and Normans who would come after the Vikings leaving a total of only around 4,500 Anglo-Saxon words in PDE. This represents less than 1% of the modern English vocabulary, but it includes some of the most fundamental and important words (e.g. man, wife, child, son, daughter, brother, friend, live, fight, make, use, love, like, look, drink, food, eat, sleep, sing, sun, moon, earth, ground, wood, field, house, home, people, family, horse, fish, farm, water, time, eyes, ears, mouth, nose, strong, work, come, go, be, find, see, look, laughter, night, day, sun, first, many, one, two, other, some, what, when, which, where, word, etc.), as well as the most important “function” words (e.g. to, for, but, and, at, in, on, from, etc.). Because of this, up to half of everyday modern English will typically be made up of OE words, and, by some estimates, all of the one hundred most commonly-used words in PDE are of Anglo-Saxon origin (although pronunciations and spellings may have changed significantly over time).

Strong vs. Weak Verbs

We will conclude our look at OE by examining the traditional distinction between so-called strong verbs and weak verbs. We will also examine why that distinction has become so muddled in modern English. This is a common question about English—why do some verbs add -ed to form a past tense, while many other change the vowel to indicate past tense: ran (not *runed), began (*begined), sang (not *singed), taught (not *teached)? Now, this may seem very technical, but it’s really not. It’s ultimately the reason why some English speakers say dived and others say dove, and why some people say dreamed, and other people say dreamt, and it’s why we say hanged in certain situations but hung in other situations. So, we're going to try to figure out why those past tense forms are so variable in PDE. And as is often the case, the answer lies in the history of the language.

This section is about the history of the past tense forms of those verbs and why the past tense forms can vary so much within English. When it comes to verbs, there are many different ways to classify them depending on their function and how they work within sentences. But the most basic and fundamental way to distinguish verbs is to look at how they change from present tense to past tense. English doesn't have a specific future tense form. We actually use the present tense forms and add a word to it. So, I jump becomes, I will jump and I am jumping becomes I will be jumping.

But when it comes to past tense, we do have distinct verb forms. I jump becomes I jumped. I sleep becomes I slept. PDE indicates past tense by adding a /d/ sound or a /t/ sound to the end of the verb. That’s an inflection and it has survived over the centuries. Note, however, that some verbs don’t follow that general rule.

Sing, sang, sung
freeze, froze, frozen
steel, stole, stolen

In these cases, the verb changes are based upon a vowel change in the middle and sometimes

an -en ending for the past participle. This is the basic distinction between so-called strong verbs and weak verbs. Those verbs like sing, sang, sung, which have their own internal structure

for changing tense, are called strong verbs. They stand on their own and have their own inherent rules. They don’t have to rely on that -ed ending. All of the other generic verbs which take a standard -ed or -t ending are called weak verbs.

Today, most of our verbs fall into that category (the weak verbs), and all new verbs come in as weak verbs with an -ed ending. So, the word fax came into English as a shortened version of the word facsimile, and that produced the verb to fax. When fax came into English as a verb, its past tense form was made with an -ed and became faxed. The same thing happened with a word like Google. It was originally a noun, a website, but it also became a verb over time. So, you might google something if you want to find out more about it. But if you did it yesterday, you googled it, with an -ed ending. So, when new verbs come in, we just stick an -ed on the end to make them past tense. In other words, when a new verb comes into the language, it’s always regularized. You'll never find a new verb that has a strong form. It’s always the weak form, the -ed, hence the example of googled.

If we were to go back in time to the original Indo-European period, we would find that things were completely different. At that point, all verbs were strong verbs. In other words, all verbs had an internal vowel change to distinguish present and past tenses, like sing, sang, sung and shake, shook, shaken. As we know, the original Indo-European language spread throughout Europe with the migration of people who spoke that language. Northern Europe, the original proto-Germanic language emerged out of that original Indo-European language. Within the original Germanic language, the older traditional verb system began to break down, and linguists are not 100% sure why. For some reason, the Germanic speakers began to express past tense by sticking a /d/ or a /t/ sound on the end of verbs. This type of ending is called a dental suffix. As we've seen before, the /d/ sound and the /t/ sound are basically the same. The primary difference is that the /d/ sound is voiced with the vocal cords and the /t/ sound is voiceless. But other than that, the two sounds are produced the same way.

The Germanic speakers started to put those sounds on the end of verbs to indicate that something happened in the past. Of course, those sounds were the precursors to our modern -ed ending. In fact, the /t/ ending appears to be gradually disappearing. We still use it in a word like slept, but burnt is increasingly being rendered as burned. Smelt is increasingly smelled. Learnt is learned. Dwelt is dwelled, spilt is spilled, spoilt is spoiled and so on. So, those -t endings are gradually giving way to the more popular -ed ending.

However, those older -t endings are still prominently found as adjectives. We still refer to spilt milk or burnt toast. But even in some of those cases, there may be some erosion occurring.

The original Germanic speakers developed this particular verb ending to indicate past tense, and it proved to be very popular. It was simpler than the old strong system. With the older Indo-European strong system, you had to keep track of all the internal vowel changes like we still do with sing, sang, sung. With the generic -ed ending, you could just stick it on the end of a verb and you are good to go. It also made it easier to incorporate new verbs into the language. You can just add that generic ending to the new verb, like we do today. So that weak -ed ending became increasingly popular. And, over time, that -ed ending began to replace the older strong forms.

By the time of the OE period, English had a mix, both types of verbs, but there were more strong verbs that lingered back then. In fact, OE had about 300 strong verbs, which were mainly holdovers from the Indo-European language. In OE, there were seven classes or categories of strong verbs, and the verbs within those respective categories behaved in a very predictable manner. So, for example, one class of verbs included the early version of words like sing, sting, spring, and swing. All of those verbs behave the exact same way in OE, but notice what happens today. We have sing and sang, spring and sprang, but we have sting and stung, swing and swung, as well. So, what happened there? Well, the answer has to do with the fact that things were far more complicated in OE.

Today, we have a simple present tense form, sing, and a simple past tense form, sang. It’s always sang, no matter what the subject is.

I sang
you sang
she sang
we sang
they sang

It’s always the same. But of course, in OE, there were different forms for each person. So, the past tense forms varied depending on whether they were being used in first person, second person, third person, and whether they were referring to the action of a single subject or plural subject. In first-person singular, the form was just like today. I sang was Ic sang, which later became I sang. The same form was used for third person singular. So, he sang was hē song, which later became he sang. The form changed in second person singular. You sang was þū sunga, and the plural forms were sungan. So, we sang was ƿē sungan. As we go through these various forms of the verb sing in OE, we have the past tense form sang or sang, and we have the past tense form sunga. We also have the plural past tense form, sungan.

Within these various forms, we can find the original versions of our modern sing, sang, sung. After the Norman conquest, however, English began to lose all of those specific inflections, which were all reduced to just one past tense form. Every verb, therefore, needed a specific past tense form. So, English speakers had to choose between those various past tense forms and pick one, and this process wasn’t completed by a committee. It just happened naturally over time as people tended to favor one particular verb form over the others. In the case of sing, they selected the first-person and third-person singular forms, sang. The same thing happened with spring, which acquired the past tense form sprang. In the case of sting and swing, however, the plural form was selected as the past tense form. So, the past tense of sting became stung, and the past tense of swing became swung. Now, all of this starts to get complicated, but that’s the point. The old, somewhat orderly verb system of OE was breaking down in Middle English. The newer forms which emerged did so in a somewhat random manner. Strong verbs, which had once resembled each other in Old English were now starting to have completely different forms in Middle English. That change was partly because English was simplifying all of those endings during OE.

This process helps to explain why the strong verb forms sometimes seem illogical in PDE. Another verb in this same class of Old English strong verbs was the original version of to shrink. In Old English, it was conjugated and behaved exactly like those other verbs: sing, spring, and swing. And just as sing became sang and spring became sprang, the simple past tense of shrink became shrank.

But tell that to Hollywood, which had a big hit with Honey, I Shrunk the Kids.

Figure 5.8

Figure 5.9: Honey, I Shrunk the Kids

Source: Wikipedia

Public Domain

Link: here

Shrunk is traditionally reserved for the past participle. As in, Honey, I have shrunk the kids. But today it can sometimes be found beside shrank as a simple past tense form. So, these past tense forms continued to evolve within modern English. The key, however, is that this evolution is not a new aspect of English. It’s been going on for about 1,000 years.

So, forget trying to make any sense out of these various forms today. There really isn’t much sense to be had. The forms evolved in a somewhat random manner over the centuries, and they continue to evolve, while dictionary makers and grammarians have decided what people are using (i.e., shrunk as past tense) is technically wrong. In spite of this process, people continue to use such forms today.

The fact is that history has not been kind to those 300 or so strong verbs from the OE period. As we know, a very large percentage of the words in OE have simply disappeared from the language. That high rate of attrition took care of a lot of old English strong verbs. Of the roughly 300 strong verbs in Old English, about half of them completely disappeared from the language, gone forever. About 150 are left, which still survive in some form in PDE.

The popularity of that weak -ed verb form was so great that about half of those 150 strong verbs have been converted into weak -ed verbs over the centuries by analogy. In other words, they lost their older internal vowel changes. Today, they just use the standard -ed ending, indicating how they were broken down over the centuries. This process is consistent with the general desire of English speakers to use fixed word forms. We don’t really like having to change the word form. Over the centuries, words like climb, glide, shove, chew, and burn all evolved from strong verbs into weak -ed verbs. At one time they had their own internal vowel changes to indicate past tense, but today we say climbed, glided, shoved, chewed, and burned. They’ve all become weak because they use the -ed ending today.

The verb melt also followed this path. It was once a strong verb, melta, melt, molten, but again, it lost those forms over time. Today, it takes the standard -ed ending and past tense, which makes the forms melt and melted. Notice, however, that its original past participle was molten, and that word still survives as an adjective, as in molten lava.

Figure 5.10

Figure 5.10: Molten lava

Source: Wikimedia

Public Domain

Link: here

Another strong verb which became weak was help. It was another one of those strong verbs which gradually lost its internal vowel change. So, what was once help and holp became help and helped. Holp is still used in some dialects. But as this example shows, some of those older forms still linger in a few regional dialects.

Another strong verb which had a very similar history was the verb to snow. Believe it or not, at one time, the past tense of snow was snew in many parts of the British Isles. You might say it snew yesterday. Eventually, snew was replaced with snowed, but snew lingered on in some dialects of Northern England until the last few centuries.

So those OE strong verbs were having a hard time in Middle English and early modern English. The consistent, orderly past tense forms of Old English were breaking down and becoming more random. Many of those OE verbs were disappearing altogether, along with other OE words. Many of the words which survived lost their old strong forms and adopted a standard -ed ending. So, let’s try to put some numbers on all of that. There were about 300 strong verbs in OE, and about half of them died out altogether, so that left about 150. Of those 150 or so strong verbs, about 80 evolved into weak verbs using the process I just described, that leaves about 70 strong verbs which have survived into modern English. They include a host of our modern strong verbs, sing, sang, sung, spring, sprang, sprung freeze, froze, frozen, and so on. They include verbs like write, ride, bite, shine, drive, drink, fly, shoot, lose, shake, begin, and a few dozen others.

If we were to leave the story there, PDE would actually make sense. Whenever we would come across a strong verb, like sing, sang, sung, we could just assume that it was one of those handful of verbs from OE, which has survived with its original strong form. But, alas, English is not so easy or simple.

The fact is that English speakers were not done working their magic on those old verbs. Over the centuries, those old weak and strong distinctions started to break down even further, and this process has created a lot of confusion in modern English. This is what gives us dived and dove, strived and strove, and hanged and hung. It also gives us the problems we have with lie and lay and set and sit.

So, let’s examine what happened. As is so often the case, what happened was linguistic confusion. People didn’t know the history of verbs. They didn’t know if a verb was historically strong or weak, so sometimes speakers would mix up the various forms. This type of confusion has happened in several different ways over the centuries. So, let’s try to break it down a little bit.

One thing that happened in the Middle English period is several weak -ed verbs actually became strong verbs. We wouldn’t expect a perfectly normal verb with a simple -ed ending to suddenly start having complex vowel changes in the middle. We expect verbs to become simpler

over time, not more complex. Yet in some cases, verbs did go from weak to strong. Take a word like dig, for example. At one time, the past tense was actually digged. We only acquired the word dug in the last 1,500 hundreds. Around the same time, words like spit and stick also acquired their modern past tense forms: spat and stuck. Prior to that point, the past tense of spit was spited, and the past tense of stick was sticked.

Another example of this change is the verb to ring. Ring was once a weak form with the past tense ringed. But today, it’s ring, rang, rung. Notice that it takes the same form as sing, sang, sung, which is the important point here. Sometimes when words sound alike, we get confused as to the proper form. So once again, we’re dealing with linguistic confusion. It appears that some of those weak -ed verbs resemble strong verbs, like sing and ring, and in the confusion of the Middle English period, people started to mix up verbs which sounded alike. Remember, modern English grammar books didn’t really exist yet, so sometimes it wasn’t clear if a verb was a strong or weak verb. Therefore, these forms started to get mixed together. Let’s consider verbs like tear, swear, and bear, as in bearing a child. All of these verbs are strong verbs, and they were strong verbs in Old English as well. We have tear, tore, torn and swear, swore, sworn, and bear, bore, born, but then we have a verb like wear. In Old English, it was a weak verb and took an -ed ending. The past tense was weared. But it appears that English speakers assumed that since the past tense of tear was tore, and swear was swore and bear was bore, then the past tense of wear must be wore. Again, this is done by analogy to regularize the system.

In the process, the past-tense weared became wore. As a result, the verb wear went from being a weak verb to a strong verb. Another example of this can be found in the word dive, which was once a weak verb. The past tense was dived. English dialects in the British Isles have generally retained the older form, dived. In the United States, however, early English speakers apparently thought that dive was analogous with words like weave. Therefore, the past tense of dive became dove, and that’s still the primary past tense form in American English.

Figure 5.11 and Figure 5.12 use Google Ngrams to compare dived vs. dove in American and British English through the years in published books. Note that in American English, dove is more frequent.

Figure 5.10

Figure 5.11: Dove vs. Dived in American English

Source: Google Ngrams

Link: here

Figure 5.11

Figure 5.12: Dove vs. Dived in British English

Source: Wikimedia

Public Domain

Link: here

The Wanderer - Background

Figure 5.13: First Page of the Wanderer

Source: Wikimedia

Public Domain

Link: here

The Wanderer is found only in the manuscript known as the Exeter Book, which was copied in the late tenth century. The 115-line poem follows the usual Anglo-Saxon pattern of short alliterative half-lines separated by a caesura (pause). The wanderer (or “earthstepper”) has buried his lord (his “gold-friend”) and finds himself alone in the world. Members of a lord’s comitatus, or war band, were expected to die alongside their leader in battle; the wanderer is looking for a new lord as he suffers through the uncertainty, loneliness, and physical hardships of exile. The poem begins and ends with references to Christianity, with a kenning near the end of the poem with God as “Shaper of Men;” the only certainty that the speaker has is that there is a “safe home” waiting for him in heaven. The rest of the poem focuses on what he has lost. Like The Ruin and The Seafarer, also found in the Exeter Book, The Wanderer is what is known as an “ubi sunt” poem (Latin for “where has”). In J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Two Towers, Aragorn recites a poem about Eorl the Young that begins “Where now the horse and the rider? Where is the horn that was blowing?” (142; the movie transfers the speech to King Theoden), which was drawn directly from The Wanderer’s “Where has the horse gone? Where is the man?” Because of its theme, The Wanderer is usually classified as a type of elegy, or lament for what has been lost.

The Wanderer

Often the solitary man prays for favour, for the mercy of the Lord, though, sad at heart, he must needs stir with his bands for a weary while the icy sea across the watery ways, must journey the paths of exile; settled in truth is fate! So spoke the wanderer, mindful of hardships, of cruel slaughters, of the fall of kinsmen:

’Often I must bewail my sorrows in my loneliness at the dawn of each day; there is none of living men now to whom I dare speak my heart openly. I know for a truth that it is a noble custom for a man to bind fast the thoughts of his heart, to treasure his broodings, let him think as he will. Nor can the weary in mood resist fate, nor does the fierce thought avail anything. Wherefore those eager for glory often bind fast in their secret hearts a sad thought. So I, sundered from my native land, far from noble kinsmen, often sad at heart, had to fetter my mind, when in years gone by the darkness of the earth covered my gold-friend, and I went thence in wretchedness with wintry care upon me over the frozen waves, gloomily sought the hall of a treasure-giver wherever I could find him far or near, who might know me in the mead hall or comfort me, left without friends, treat me with kindness. He knows who puts it to the test how cruel a comrade is sorrow for him who has few dear protectors; his is the path of exile, in no wise the twisted gold; a chill body, in no wise the riches of the earth; he thinks of retainers in hall and the receiving of treasure, of how in his youth his gold-friend was kind to him at the feast. The joy has all perished. Wherefore he knows this who must long forgo the counsels of his dear lord and friend, when sorrow and sleep together often bind the poor solitary man; it seems to him in his mind that he clasps and kisses his lord and lays hands and head on his knee, as when erstwhile in past days he was near the gift-throne; then the friendless man wakes again, sees before him the dark waves, the sea-birds bathing, spreading their feathers; frost and snow falling mingled with hail. Then heavier are the wounds in his heart, sore for his beloved; sorrow is renewed. Then the memory of kinsmen crosses his mind; he greets them with songs; he gazes on them eagerly. The companions of warriors swim away again; the souls of sailors bring there not many known songs. Care is renewed in him who must needs send very often his weary mind over the frozen waves. And thus I cannot think why in this world my mind becomes not overcast when I consider all the life of earls, how of a sudden they have given up hall, courageous retainers. So this world each day passes and falls; for a man cannot become wise till he has his share of years in the world. A wise man must be patient, not over-passionate, nor over-hasty of speech, nor over-weak or rash in war, nor over-fearful, nor over-glad, nor over-covetous, never over-eager to boast ere he has full knowledge.) A man must bide his time, when he boasts in his speech, until he knows well in his pride whither the thoughts of the mind will turn. A wise man must see how dreary it will be when all the riches of this world stand waste, as in different places throughout this world walls stand, blown upon by winds, hung with frost, the dwellings in ruins. The wine halls crumble; the rulers lie low, bereft of joy; the mighty warriors have all fallen in their pride by the wall; war carried off some, bore them on far paths; one the raven bore away over the high sea; one the grey wolf gave over to death; one an earl with sad face hid in the earth-cave. Thus did the Creator of men lay waste this earth till the old work of giants stood empty, free from the revel of castle-dwellers. Then he who has thought wisely of the foundation of things and who deeply ponders this dark life, wise in his heart, often turns his thoughts to the many slaughters of the past, and speaks these words:

‘“Whither has gone the horse? Whither has gone the man? Whither has gone the giver of treasure? Whither has gone the place of feasting? Where are the joys of hall? Alas, the bright cup! Alas, the warrior in his corslet! Alas, the glory of the prince! How that time has passed away, has grown dark under the shadow of night, as if it had never been! Now in the place of the dear warriors stands a wall, wondrous high, covered with serpent shapes; the might of the ash-wood spears has carried off the earls, the weapon greedy for slaughter—a glorious fate; and storms beat upon these rocky slopes; the falling storm binds the earth, the terror of winter. Then comes darkness, the night shadow casts gloom, sends from the north fierce hailstorms to the terror of men. Everything is full of hardship in the kingdom of earth; the decree of fate changes the world under the heavens. Here possessions are transient, here friends are transient, here man is transient, here woman is transient; all this firm-set earth becomes empty.”’

So spoke the wise man in his heart, and sat apart in thought. Good is he who holds his faith; nor shall a man ever show forth too quickly the sorrow of his breast, except he, the earl, first know how to work its cure bravely. Well is it for him who seeks mercy, comfort from the Father in heaven, where for us all security stands.

Durham Proverbs - Background

The Durham Proverbs is a collection of 46 mediaeval proverbs from various sources. They were written down as a collection, in the eleventh century. The manuscript is currently in the collection of Durham Cathedral, to which it was donated in the eighteenth century. The Proverbs form the first part of the manuscript. Each proverb is written in both Latin and Old English, with the former preceding the latter

(1) Geþyld byþ middes eades.

Patience is half of happiness.

(2) Freond deah feor ge neah; byð near nyttra.

A friend is useful, far or near; the nearer the better.

(3) Æt þearfe mann sceal freonda to cunnian.

In time of need, a man finds out his friends.

(4) Nafað ænig mann freonda to fela.

No one can have too many friends.

(5) Beforan his freonde biddeþ, se þe his wædle mæneþ.

He who bemoans his poverty should seek help from his friends.

(6) God ger byþ þonne se hund þam hrefne gyfeð.

It's a good year when the dog gives to the raven.

(8) Hwilum æfter medo menn mæst geþyrsteð.

Sometimes men are thirstiest after drinking mead.

(9) Æfter leofan menn langað swiðost.

People long most for a loved one.

(10) Nu hit ys on swines dome, cwæð se ceorl sæt on eoferes hricge.

It’s up to the pig now, said the man sat on the boar’s back.

(12) Eall on muðe þæt on mode.

All in the mouth that's in the mind.

(13) Gemæne sceal maga feoh.

Wealth should be shared by kinsmen.

(14) Man deþ swa he byþ þonne he mot swa he wile.

A man acts what he is when he may do what he will.

(16) Eaðe wis man mæg witan spell and eac secgan.

Easily may a wise man understand a story, and tell it too.

(17) Blind byþ bam eagum se þe breostum ne starat.

He is blind in both eyes who does not look with the heart.

(18) Ða ne sacað þe ætsamne ne beoð.

They do not quarrel who are not together.

(19) Ne deah eall soþ asæd ne eall sar ætwiten.

It does no good to tell all truths or blame all wrongs.

(20) Gyf þu well sprece, wyrc æfter swa.

If you speak well, act accordingly.

(21) Soþ hit sylf acyþeð.

Truth will make itself known.

(22) Earh mæg þæt an þæt he him ondræde.

A coward can only do one thing: what he fears.

(23) Ne sceal man to ær forht ne to ær fægen.

One should not be too soon fearful nor too soon joyful.

(26) Ne byð þæt fele freond, se þe oþrum facn heleð.

He who harbours treachery against another is not a faithful friend.

(27) Swa cystigran hiwan, swa cynnigran gystas.

The more generous the household, the more noble the guests.

(28) Gyfena gehwilc underbæc besihþ.

Every gift looks backwards.

(29) Ne wat swetes ðanc, se þe biteres ne onbyrgeð.

He never knows the pleasure of sweetness, who never tastes bitterness.

(30) To nawihte ne hopað, se to hame ne higeð.

He hopes for nothing, who does not think about home.

(31) Eall here byþ hwæt þonne se lateow byþ hwæt.

The whole army is brave when the general is brave.

(35) Leana forleosaþ, se þe hit lyþran deð.

He who gives to an unworthy person wastes his gifts.

(36) Seo nydþearf feala læreð.

Necessity teaches many things.

(37) Betere byþ oft feðre þonne oferfeðre.

Better to be often loaded than overloaded.

(38) Cræfta gehwilc byþ cealde forgolden.

Every deceit will be coldly repaid.

(39) Ciggendra gehwilc wile þæt hine man gehere.

Everyone who shouts out wants to be heard.

(40) Weard seteð, se þe wæccendum wereð.

He who guards against the watchmen sets a guard.

(41) Ne sceall se for horse murnan, se þe wile heort ofærnan.

He who wants to catch a hart must not worry about his horse.

(42) Swa fulre fæt, swa hit mann sceal fægror beran.

The fuller the cup, the more carefully it must be carried.

(43) Ne mæg man muþ fulne melewes habban and eac fyr blawan.

No one can have a mouth full of flour and also blow on a fire.

(44) Wide ne biþ wel, cwæþ se þe gehyrde on helle hriman.

Things are bad everywhere, said the man who heard wailing in hell.

(46) Hwon gelpeð, se þe wide siþað.

Little boasts the one who travels widely.

Key Concepts from Chapter 5:

OE was not a uniform dialect and varied by region and time.
OE added / š č ǰ / to the Germanic consonant base.
OE vowels were substantially different than those found in PDE, but no one is exactly sure what the previous vowels sounded like.
Front mutation resulted in some irregular plural nouns in PDE.

Key Terms from Chapter 5:

Change from above
Change from below
Declension
Systematic sound change
Front mutation (umlaut or i/j mutation)
Strong vs. weak verbs

Materials for Chapter 5 adapted from the following:

Mastin, Luke. The History of English. (Material was used and adapted with permission.)

Old English Phonology (Wikipedia contributors, 2022)

Robinson, B.J., & Getty, L. (Eds.). British Literature: Middle Ages to the Eighteenth Century

and Neoclassicism. University of North Georgia Press.

Works Cited for Chapter 5:

Fennell, B. (1998). A History of English. A Sociolinguistic Approach. Oxford: Blackwell.

Milllward, C. & Hayes, M. (2012). A Biography of the English Language. Wadsworth: Boston.

Jean-Baptiste Michel*, Yuan Kui Shen, Aviva Presser Aiden, Adrian Veres, Matthew K. Gray, William Brockman, The Google Books Team, Joseph P. Pickett, Dale Hoiberg, Dan Clancy, Peter Norvig, Jon Orwant, Steven Pinker, Martin A. Nowak, and Erez Lieberman Aiden*. Quantitative Analysis of Culture Using Millions of Digitized Books. Science (Published online ahead of print: 12/16/2010)