Page images
PDF
EPUB

The usage here agrees with the construction employed with the verbs durfa and behofa of similar meaning and differs from that of the Corpus and Rushworth MSS.

3. With Adjectives Used Substantively.

menigo of dær dreate gelefdon on him:-many of the crowd believed on him. Jno. 7, 31.

This use is very rare.

B. FROM + Dative.

1. With Pronouns.

(a) With Personal Pronouns:

-du ec from degnum disses monnes ard:-thou art also of the disciples of this man. Jno. 18, 17.

(b) With Interrogative Pronouns.

Hua from iuih1 dyde willo Fadres?-which of you did the will of the Father?-21, 31.

Hualc from iuh geðreað mec from synne?-which of you convinceth me of sin? Jno. 8, 46.

(c) With Indefinite Pronouns.

Oðer oððe sum oder from degnum his cued to him:-another or some other of his disciples spoke to him. 8, 21. Also Mark 7, 1; Luke 7, 36.

-sum oder from uðuutum cuedon betuih him des ebalsas :certain of the scribes said among themselves he blasphemeth. 9, 3.

And sendon to him sume from alaruas and Herodes degnum: -and they sent to him certain of the pharisees and servants of Herod. Mark 12, 13. Cf. Luke 11, 45.

Ah aron sumo from iuh ðaðe neglefad :—but there are certain among you who do not believe. Jno. 6, 64.

—ænigmonn of iuih oððe from iuih ne gefregne mec:—no man among you shall ask me. Jno. 16, 5.

1

1 Latin: Quix ex duobus. Duobus misunderstood and taken as vobis.

(d) With Numerals:

an from ðæm ðiowum:—one of the servants. Luke 14, 66. enne from celmertmonnum:—one of thy hired servants. Luke

15, 19.

twoege from degnum:-two of the disciples. Jno. 7, 19.

-gif twoege from iuih efne-gedeahtes ofer eorðu of eghuelc ding:-if two of you shall agree on earth concerning anything. 18, 19.

2. With Nouns.

Ɖæt folc cueð ðis is de Hælend witga from Nazaret Geliornessa-the people said: This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee.

This use of from is quite common.

3. With a Superlative.

Sæt leasest is from allum sedum:-which is the least of all

[blocks in formation]

CONCLUSION.

With nouns the genitive does not vary greatly from WestSaxon usage. It is regularly used to express partitive and possessive relations. As in W. S. translations from Latin, of +dative is occasionally employed to denote origin and material, but rarely possession. Contrary to W. S. from+ dative a few times takes the place of a genitive.

The use of the genitive to denote possession is by far the most common and merges almost imperceptibly into the qualifying genitive. There is here practically no limit to the kind of a qualification which a noun in the genitive may afford. This Gloss contains very few noun compounds; it prefers to connect two nouns by means of a genitive. Whether or not this indicates the true conditions in Northumbrian is very difficult to decide, the glossator here as elsewhere having followed his original very closely. The other versions show greater freedom and more compounds.

The subjective and objective genitive are used as in W. S. A prepositional construction may take the place of an objective genitive.

From the brief survey of the use of the genitive with verbs in West-Saxon, it is evident that in the period to which the greater part of W. S. literature belongs the substitution of other cases and constructions for this use of the genitive was already taking place. In Northumbrian the development had proceeded very much farther; the genitive occurs only a few times with verbs. The verbs which yet govern the genitive are also construed with other cases and constructions.

Eft-gemyna and geðenca are the only verbs denoting mental action which still retain the genitive regularly. The adjective gemyndig of the same meaning is more irregular.

Gema, when in a periphrastic tense and meaning ‘be solici

tous, appears with genitive, dative, and prepositional constructions.

Gemilsa and milsa appear frequently, and, quite contrary to W. S. usage, are accompanied by the genitive several times. The original has the genitive most often. The dative occurs more frequently than the genitive in the gloss, however.

The genitive is not used with verbs denoting acquisition. The occurrence with gestrioniga noted above is the only one in this gloss. In the works of Alfred the Great it governs the accusative, and streinan the genitive. Striona is used with the accusative in this gloss. Bata appears with the accusative elsewhere in this text as also in W. S.

Ricsa governs the genitive once, no doubt due to the original; elsewhere verbs of rule and control appear with the accusative or other constructions.

Verbs denoting separation prefer of and from+dative. This is also the usage in the W. S. and Rushworth versions. With verbs meaning give, take, drink, partake of, etc., the accusative regularly occurs but sometimes of +dative is employed and the direct object which is to govern the phrase must be supplied. This last usage is suggested by the original. Wülfing notes some occurrences of this construction in Aelfric. Cf. Wülfing's Work, 755. The instrumental genitive appears with gefylla, forberna, gefulwa though mið + dative is more common. Of+dative appears a few times with gefylla.

The genitive occurs still less with adjectives. Gemyndig, full, and scyldig being alone construed with this case. Prepositional constructions have here as elsewhere largely replaced the genitive. A close correspondence to the original usually prevails.

It seems that the use of to + dative with the above adjectives cannot be altogether due to the Latin. The Gloss does not show such a close correspondence with reference to cases throughout, that an entirely unfamiliar construction would be employed merely because a dative was used in the original

and not a genitive. It seems more likely that in addition to a genitive, to dative was used in speech. As noted above Old Norse shows parallel constructions with these adjectives, and bearing in mind the considerable Scandinavian element in the population and the bilingual conditions which prevailed, it seems likely that such constructions had come into use among their Scandinavian neighbors, at any rate it may be granted that this use of the construction was not new to them.

Prepositional constructions have displaced the genitive most extensively with pronouns, especially the indefinite, and with numerals used substantively. Numerals twenty and above take the genitive as in W. S.

The sparing use of the genitive with verbs and adjectives, while in some instances it may be accounted for by the construction found in the original, cannot always be attributed to this. The extensive use of the accusative with verbs which regularly take the genitive in W. S. can hardly be ascribed to the original. It is almost inconceivable that the glossator could throughout use the accusative with verbs which regularly took the genitive in speech. Though as has been noted frequently, the agreement with the original is noticeable, deviations occur with great regularity in certain constructions. As an example, I may refer to the usual method of rendering a Latin participial construction with a finite verb. The glossator also renders Latin datives with prepositional constructions and vice-versa. These occurrences are very common.

The most noticeable deviation from W. S. usage in the syntax of the genitive with nouns, pronouns, and numerals will be found in the frequent substitution of prepositional constructions for the inflected form. The uniform correspondence between the gloss and the original in this respect and especially the fact that these constructions never displace a genitive unless the Latin contains a model indicates that the construction is probably due to the original. The Rushworth gloss (Matthew) employs the genitive and is not affected by de, ex +ablative, when they have partitive force. The usage of the

« PreviousContinue »