Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-jbqgn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-02T00:42:42.964Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The “To Comyng(e)” Construction in Wyclif

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2020

Annie S. Irvine
Annie S. Irvine*
Affiliation:
The University of Texas
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

One of the most noticeable characteristics of style in Wyclif's translation of the New Testament is his occasional use of a verbal form in -yng(e) preceded by to, as a rendering of a Latin future participle, as in Luke 9.44: for it is to comynge, that mannis sone be bitrayed in to the hondis of men = Filius enim hominis futurum est ut tradatur in manus hominum; Luke 13.9: And if it schal make fruyt, ellis in tyme to comynge thou schalt kitte it doun = et si quidem fecerit fructum: sin autem, in futurum succides eam. This construction is not found in Wyclif's original English works. It does occur, however, in other writings in Middle English; and since scholars have, thus far, been unable to agree as to its origin and classification, I have undertaken a detailed study of Wyclif's use of the idiom, with the hope that some further light may be thrown on its nature and origin. Before discussing Wyclif's use of the construction, however, it seems advisable to consider somewhat in detail the history of opinion on the problem.

Type
Research Article
Information
PMLA , Volume 45 , Issue 2 , June 1930 , pp. 468 - 500
Copyright
Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 1930

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The final a is due to the lemma requirenda (see Professor Logeman's “Introduction” to the Rule of S. Benet, E.E.T.S. No. 90, 1888, §89).

2 For a discussion of the development of these forms in the German language, see Dr. V. Eckert, Beiträge zur Geschichte des Gerundivs im Deutschen, Heidelberg diss., 1909.

3 Shearin (op. cit., pp. 20-21) calls attention to earlier occurrences of the form in the early Vespasian Psalter (about 850 a.d.) and in a charter of about 867 a.d.

4 According to Poutsma (op. cit., p. 167) this ending of the inflected infinitive is characteristic of the South and Southeast Midlands.

5 For a complete list of the texts in which Dr. van Langenhove has found the to . . . . -ende form, see the Appendix to this essay.

6 To those examples not cited by Dr. van Langenhove, I have appended the name of the author by whom they are quoted or cited.

7 See note 1, p. 468 above.

8 This example is classified by Dr. Pessels (l. c.) as a present participle, but Professor J. E. Wülfing, in his review of Dr. Pessels (Engl. Stud., XXV, 264) says that to gefyllende here is not a participle but an infinitive.

9 I find from a rapid reading that Tatian regularly uses the present participle or the adjective zuowart as a rendering of the Latin future participle. Zuowart is used indifferently for futurus and uenturus, occurring about 6 times for the former and about 12 times for the latter. The use of the present participle in Old, Middle, and New High German is discussed by Miss Ellen C. Hinsdale, Ueber die Wiedergabdes Lateinischen Futurums bei den Althochdeutschen Uebersetzern des 8.-10. Jahrhunderts, Göttingen diss., 1897; Dr. J. B. Crenshaw, The Present Participle in Old High German and Middle High German, Johns Hopkins diss., Baltimore, dated 1893, but not issued until 1901; Dr. W. Göcking, Das Partizipium bei Notker, Strassburg diss., 1905; Dr. K. Rick, Das Prädikative Participium Praesentis im Althochdeutschen, Bonn diss., 1905; Dr. K. Meyer, Zur Syntax des Participium Praesentis im Althochdeutschen, Marburg diss., 1906; Dr. V. Eckert, Beiträge zur Geschichte des Gerundivs im Deutschen, Heidelberg diss., 1909; Dr. Johanna Winkler, Die Periphrastische Verbindung der Verba “Sin” und “Werden” mit dem Participium Präsentis im Mittelhochdeutschen des 12. und 13. Jahrhunderts, Heidelberg diss., Leipzig, 1913; Dr. A. W. Aron, Die Progressiven Formen im Mittelhochdeutschen und Frühneuhochdeutschen, University of Wisconsin diss., Frankfurt a. M., 1914; and Dr. Irma von Guericke, Die Entwicklung des Althochdeutschen Participiums unter dem Einflusse des Lateinischen, Königsberg diss., 1915.

10 Since writing the above statement, I have been glad to find that Dr. W. Klöpzig (op. cit., p. 382) had spoken of tocuman as having an intensive future sense. Says he: “Im Altenglischen gibt es neben dem Simplex cuman noch ein Kompositum tocuman: Mat. VI. 10: tocyme Ðin ric; Mat. VIII. 19: and tocuom; Luc. XI. 2 tocume Ðin rice. Ein solches Kompositum mit intensiv-futurischer Bedeutung konnte sich bei dem Verbum cuman sehr leicht bilden, da ja cuman an sich futurische Bedeutung hat (vgl. nhd. Zukunft, zukünftig).” In these three examples, however, the O. E. verb tocuman translates the Latin verb advenire.

11 For a complete list of the texts cited by various authorities as containing examples of the to . . . . -yng(e) phrase, see the Appendix to this essay.

12 Mätzner (l. c.), after quoting a number of examples of the to . . . . -yng(e) construction from the Wyclifie Bible and from Trevisa's Polychronicon, which he calls “das Partic.-Präs. mit to,” then quotes two examples from Lydgate's Minor Poems, of which he says, “Andere Ausdrücke erinnern vielmehr an eine Nachahmung des lat. Gerundium mit ad.” So, also, in his Englische Grammatik, III, p. 84, he quotes Wyc., John 7.35: Wher he is to go . . . . and is to techynge hethen men, as an example of the gerund used after the preposition to. This example, however, Mätzner had classified as a participle in his Sprachproben (l. c.). Inasmuch as to techynge in this example translates the Latin future participle docturus, Mätzner's former classification seems more reasonable.

13 Dr. Zickner says: “Wycliffe hatte versucht, zum Ausdruck eines futurischen Gedankens, der ein Substantiv attributiv bestimmen sollte, das Partc. prs. mit vorgesetztem ”to“ zu benutzen und einzuführen. Pecock entspricht nicht diesem Gebrauche, wie dieser überhaupt wohl wenig Nachahmer gefunden hat.”

14 Even more to his point, perhaps, is this example of the gerund quoted by Einenkel (Streifzüge durch die Mittelenglische Syntax, Münster, 1887, p. 269):—Chaucer II. 251: I wol entent to winning if I may.

15 See p. 479, note 12.

16 In the beginning of his essay, Professor Curme clearly shows that he is using the term gerund in the sense of verbal substantive in -ing, by citing as an example “the plundering of the city.”

17 A Fourteenth-Century Biblical Version, ed. by Miss A. C. Paues, Cambridge, 1904.

18 This is the only example I have found in Wyclif where the to is separated from the form in . . . . -yng(e).

19 Concerning the number of future participles in the Vulgate New Testament, cf. Dr. W. M. Milroy's The Participle in the Vulgate New Testament, Baltimore, 1892.

20 Statements concerning the development of the ending -ing of the present participle may be found in the following grammatical treatises: Mätzner's Englische Grammatik (3rd ed.), I, 366-367; Sweet's A New English Grammar (Oxford, 1892), I, §§1218, 1239, and A Short Historical English Grammar (Oxford, 1892), §§514, 535; Kaluza's Historische Grammatik der Englischen Sprache (2nd ed., Berlin, 1907), II, §§476, 487; Otto Jespersen's A Modern English Grammar, I, 355 ff.; Joseph and Elizabeth Mary Wright's An Elementary Middle English Grammar (Oxford, 1923), §391, and An Elementary Historical New English Grammar (Oxford 1924), p. 159; and Max Deutschbein's System der Neuenglischen Syntax (2nd ed., Leipzig, 1926), §60.1 Callaway's article, “Concerning the Origin of the Gerund in English,” Studies in English Philology, a Miscellany in Honor of Frederick Klaeber 1929, had not appeared when this essay was written.

21 From Dr. K. W. Engeroff's Untersuchung des Verwandtschaftsverhältnisses der Anglo-Fränzösischen und Mittelenglischen Ueberlieferungen der “Usages of Winchester” mit Paralleldruck der drei Texte (= Bonner Stud. zur engl. Philol., XII), Bonn, 1914.

22 See p. 479, note 12.

23 In regard to the use of the to . . . . -yng(e) phrase in Chaucer, Professor Einenkel (Streifzüge durch die Mittelenglische Syntax, p. 271) says: “Fälle wie Blume p. 18 ff. derer eine Reihe erwänt z.B.: He was to deynge Luc. 7.2 aus erat moriturus finden sich bei Chaucer nicht.”

24 Cf. R. Handke, Ueber das Verhältnis der Westsächsischen Evangelien-Uebersetzung zum Lateinischen Original, Halle diss., 1896.

26 Dr. Pessels (op. cit., pp. 17-25) records at least 20 examples in Bede where Alfred renders the Latin future participle by a present participle: cf. also Koch (op. cit., p. 66), A. Schmidt, Untersuchungen über König Alfreds Bedaübersetzung, Berlin diss., 1889, and A. Püttmann, “Die Syntax der Sogenannten Progressiven Form im Alt- und Frühmittelenglischen,” Anglia, XXXI, pp. 405-452.

26 Examples of the Old English to . . . . ende locution cited by scholars other than Dr. van Langenhove have been given on pp. 471-474 above.

27 The page and line references are omitted by Dr. van Langenhove.