Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-5lx2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-26T19:19:16.240Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Inorganic -e and double n in the Caligula Brut: implications for case marking1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 October 2014

SEIJI SHINKAWA*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Business Administration, Hakuoh University, 1117 Daigyoji, Oyama, Tochigi 323-8585Japanshinkawa@fc.hakuoh.ac.jp

Abstract

This article investigates variant forms of the demonstrative ‘that’ and the adjective in the Caligula Manuscript of Laȝamon's Brut and concludes that they to a large extent maintain the traditional category distinction between the accusative and the dative by the use of the suffixes -ne and -Vn (where V stands for any vowel) respectively. There are, however, factors that potentially compromise the status of these terminations as case markers: phonetic reduction (which has often been invoked), capricious addition or deletion of final e, occasional doubling or simplification of nasals, and simply unexpected choices of forms in the paradigm. These seem to be consistent with the sort of mistakes that scribes might occasionally make when faced with an original that has a different orthographical and morphological system from their own, and they are not as disruptive of the case-marking system as at first sight they might appear. For one thing, they occur rather rarely and are generally outnumbered by historically expected forms; for another, the resultant unexpected case forms, usually with the stem vowel preferred by the historical forms in the case of the demonstrative, are predominantly accompanied by a historically motivated case form of their head noun. The status of accusative -ne and dative -Vn, in fact, appears to be stable enough to lead to the development of a system or subsystem of indicating case regardless of gender considerations in their respective case contexts. These suffixes can therefore be treated validly as independent case markers, although in concrete cases the possibility always exists that there is an optional final e, an unhistorical double or single n, or an unexpected choice of inflectional forms.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

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.)

Footnotes

1

The writer would like to express his deep gratitude to two anonymous English Language and Linguistics referees and to the editor, Dr Wim van der Wurff, for their useful comments on earlier drafts.

References

Allen, Cynthia L. 1995. Case marking and reanalysis: Grammatical relations from Old to Early Modern English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bennett, Jack A. W. & Smithers, Geoffrey V. (eds.). 1982. Early Middle English verse and prose, 2nd edn, rev. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Bosworth, Joseph & Toller, T. Northcote (eds.). 1898. An Anglo-Saxon dictionary: Based on the manuscript collections of the late Joseph Bosworth. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brook, George L. & Leslie, Roy F. (eds.). 1963, 1978. Laȝamon: Brut (Early English Text Society 250, 277). 2 vols. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, Alistair. 1959. Old English grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Jones, Charles. 1988. Grammatical gender in English: 950 to 1250. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Laing, Margaret & Lass, Roger. 2003. Tales of the 1001 nists: The phonological implications of litteral substitution sets in some thirteenth-century South-West Midland texts. English Language and Linguistics 7 (2), 257–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madden, Frederic (ed.). 1847. Laȝamons Brut, or chronicle of Britain: A poetical semi-Saxon paraphrase of the Brut of Wace; Now first published from the Cottonian Manuscripts in the British Museum; Accompanied by a literal translation, notes, and a grammatical glossary. 3 vols. London: The Society of Antiquaries of London.Google Scholar
McSparran, Frances. 2005. Following the scribal trail: The BL Cotton Caligula A. ix copy of Laȝamon's Brut. In Ritt, Nikolaus & Schendl, Herbert (eds.), Rethinking Middle English: Linguistic and literary approaches, 4266. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Middle English dictionary. 1952–2001. http://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/med/ (3 April 2011).Google Scholar
Millar, Robert McColl. 1995. Ambiguity in ending and form: ‘Reinterpretation’ in the demonstrative systems of Laȝamon's ‘Brut’. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 96, 145–68.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Bruce. 1985. Old English syntax. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Shinkawa, Seiji. 2012. Unhistorical gender assignment in Laȝamon's Brut: A case study of a late stage in the development of grammatical gender toward its ultimate loss (Linguistic Insights: Studies in Language and Communication 156). Bern: Peter Lang.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanley, Eric G. 1968. The date of Laȝamon's ‘Brut’. Notes and Queries 213, 85–8.Google Scholar
Stanley, Eric G. 1969. Laȝamon's antiquarian sentiments. Medium Ævum 38, 2337.Google Scholar
Toller, T. Northcote (ed.). 1921. An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary: Based on the manuscript collections of the late Joseph Bosworth; Supplement. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar