The Beginning of the End: The Decline of External Possessors in Old English

The Beginning of the End The Decline of External Possessors in Old English 1

ABSTRACT

The loss of the DATIVE EXTERNAL POSSESSOR (DEP) as a productive construction in

English has been regarded as setting English apart from most European languages

While this claim can be disputed the loss of this construction in English needs an

explanation Both internal and external explanations have been suggested but we lack

a solid empirical base for evaluating them This article aims to supply the beginnings

of the empirical foundation necessary for further discussion of this topic by presenting

the results of a systematic corpus-based study of external possessors with body parts

playing the role of subject or (accusative) object in Early Old English This

investigation establishes that any explanation for the eventual loss of DEPs must be

compatible with the fact that the construction was already reduced at an early stage in

Old English compared with Gothic and although productive was more limited in its

range and use The varied with the INTERNAL POSSESSOR (IP) the unmarked

possessive construction Contact with Brythonic Celtic at an early stage provides a

possible explanation for this early decline

1 Introduction

11 External Possessor constructions

Present Day English has no construction parallel to that illustrated in (1) for German

(1) Die Mutter wusch dem Kind die Haare

the mother washed theDAT child theACC hairs

lsquothe mother washed the childrsquos hairrsquo (Haspelmath 1999 109 ex 1)

In this example dem Kind is the possessor of die Haare but instead of appearing

within the NP containing the possessum it is an NP at the sentence level marked with

2

dative case

Havers (1911) introduced the term DATIVUS SYMPATHETICUS ldquosympathetic dativerdquo

for such datives Much recent work has used the term EXTERNAL POSSESSOR

introduced by Vergnaud amp Zubizaretta (1992) which I will abbreviate as EP

Haspelmath (1999) gives this definition

In an external-possession construction a possessive modifier does not occur as a

dependent constituent of the modified NP but NP-externally as a constituent of

the clause

Haspelmath (1999 109)

Haspelmathrsquos focus was on constructions in which the possessor is in the dative case

or DATIVE EXTERNAL POSSESSORS which I abbreviate as DEPs DEPs are found in Old

English (OE)

(2) Gif thornu thornaeligt thornurhteon ne maeligge scearpa him thorna scancan

If you that carry-out not may scarify himDAT theACC legsACC

lsquoIf you cant accomplish that scarify his legsrsquo

(colaeceLch_II_[1]4413489)

The loss of the DEP construction in English in favor of the ldquointernal possessorrdquo

(IP) has relevance to our understanding of syntactic change The two main contenders

as explanations for this development involve the role of the loss of the

dativeaccusative distinction and contact with other languages

At present no empirical base adequate for evaluating these explanations is

available Vennemann (2002 212) comments that his impression is that the IP

construction is ldquorelatively rarerdquo in OE but notes the need for a more detailed

investigation No substantial progress has been made in this regard since the

publication of Vennemannrsquos article The main purpose of this paper is to improve the

3

empirical base for further study of the loss of productive EPs in English focusing

particularly on early OE

One reason why this empirical base is of theoretical importance is that there is a

school of thought that the OE texts significantly distort spoken OE in various respects

including the syntax of possession Vennemann (2002) includes the loss of EPs as one

of the examples of ldquoCeltic syntaxrdquo that he says arose in Middle English (ME) In a

similar vein Tristram (2004) sees a sudden typological change between written OE

and the ME writings Tristram like Vennemann explains these apparently sudden

changes as a result of the fact that OE writing was conservative dominated by an

Anglo-Saxon elite and did not represent the vernacular Similar views are expressed

in Schrijver (2014) By this view ordinary spoken English was significantly affected

in the course of its acquisition by non-native speakers especially Brythonic Celts

who greatly outnumbered the Germanic elite This vernacular English only appeared

in writing after the ldquoWest Saxon standardrdquo was destroyed by the Norman Invasion

If we believe that the syntax we find in Early Middle English (EME) texts is not a

direct development from the syntax of the late OE texts our accounts of the syntactic

changes that took place will differ substantially from accounts we give if we assume

that we are dealing with essentially different languages In particular we could not

assume as is standard in generative studies that the OE texts give us a good basis for

extrapolating a grammar of this period and positing changes that result in a grammar

that is reflected in the EME texts2 It is therefore crucial to examine the evidence for

the idea that certain constructions were suppressed in OE writing because they were

typical of Celtic rather than Germanic syntax

Each of these constructions must be examined individually and in depth This

paper will be restricted to IPs and DEPs I will pay particular attention to the evidence

4

bearing on the question of the suppression of IPs in OE particularly early OE texts

The empirical findings of the present investigation will not only be relevant to the

debate about ldquosubmergedrdquo Celtic syntax in OE and to the question of possible Celtic

influence more generally in the decline of EPs in English but will provide new data

relevant to future investigations of how EPs were lost in Middle English

12 Scope terminology and organisation

Landau (1999 3) summarises the ldquosurface phenomenonrdquo of what he (along with Lee-

Schoenfeld 2006) calls the POSSESSOR DATIVE CONSTRUCTION (PDC)

A dative phrase syntactically behaving like a normal dative argument of the verb

(by movement diagnostics and so on) is in fact associated with another argument

in the sentence interpreted as a possessor of that argument

The argument-like syntax of the dative in this construction sets it apart from

superficially similar ldquofree dativesrdquo such as the ldquoethical dativerdquo

There is substantial disagreement on the best syntactic treatment of EPs Landau

outlines the two basic approaches The first is exemplified by this clause in Koumlnigrsquos

(2001 971) cross-linguistic definition of EP constructions

(iii) Despite being coded as a core argument the possessor phrase is not licensed

by the argument frame of the verb itself

Payne amp Barshi give a similar definition (1999 3) The other major school of thought

is that the possessor dative is an argument of the verb (such as BENEFACTIVE)

The main focus of this paper will be on the range and frequency of the DEP at an

early stage in English in order to evaluate this question how accurate is the

impression expressed by various observers that the IP was at best unusual before

Middle English in those situations where a DEP could be used In order to address

this question it is not necessary or even helpful to take a stance on the status of the

5

dative element as an argument of the verb or how the dative case is licensed These

questions must be addressed in constructing a satisfying formal account of the

changes to English syntax which resulted in the loss of productive EPs At this point

when our understanding of the loss of the construction in English is based on

unsystematic use of examples and speculation about what is plausible a systematic

consideration of the ldquosurface phenomenardquo of the DEP in OE and how these compare

with what we can reconstruct for Germanic generally is essential before further

syntactic analysis can be fruitful I have couched the discussion in terms that will be

of relevance and use to linguists coming from a wide range of theoretical perspectives

in further explorations of causes for the loss of the DEP

The restrictions on DEPs vary across languages but one factor which is always

mentioned in discussions of DEPs is some notion of ldquoaffectednessrdquo For Haspelmath

(1999 111) the two most important characteristics of the ldquoEuropean EP prototyperdquo

are the use of dative case for the possessor and the ldquostrict affectedness condition ie

EPs are only possible if the possessor is thought of as being mentally affected by the

described situationrdquo3 Vergnaud amp Zubizaretta (1992 595) treat the dative possessor

in French as a complement of the verb which is rdquolsquoaffected by the action or state

referred tordquo and Landau (1999 3) notes that PDCs are not semantically equivalent to

their IP counterparts because they all imply that the possessor is somehow affected by

the action denoted by the verb [Landaursquos emphasis]4 The notion of affectedness plays

a central role in Lee-Schoenfeldrsquos (2006) analysis of possessor dative constructions in

German where it is observed (p 108) that the German PDC gets better as the

negative or positive effect is conveyed Vennemann who assumes that OE was

essentially like Modern German with regard to DEPs states that ldquothe dative is

obligatory for affected possessors in Germanrdquo and explains that a DEP in German

6

presents an action which happens to the possessor with respect to some body part

while an IP reports an event which happened to the body part (2002 208)

However it is not easy to define affectedness It is clear enough that the possessor

of an arm is affected when that arm is amputated but when we are talking about

rubbing someonersquos feet there is not likely to be a permanent change in the possessor

While the choice of a DEP rather than an IP may reflect the speakerwriterrsquos focus on

the effect the rubbing had on the person it is often impossible to prove a writerrsquos

attitude from a corpus study

Despite these problems it is a plausible working hypothesis that some sort of

affectedness would play an important role in the use of DEPs in early OE

Furthermore Vennemannrsquos (2002 212) remark about his impression of the rarity of

IPs in earlier OE refers specifically to affected possessors There is no disagreement

that IPs were used as a neutral possessive strategy in all stages in English and so

there is little point in recording the raw numbers of IPs and DEPS in early OE My

study was therefore designed to capture all DEPs but with IPs to collect only

examples where a DEP might reasonably be expected as a possibility as will be

explained in section 31

The current investigation was limited in several respects First it was restricted to

body parts and some secretions from the body such as blod ldquobloodrdquo Cross-

linguistically EPs are especially associated with inalienable possession and Payne amp

Barshi (1997) place body parts at the top of the hierarchy of accessibility of possessa

to external possession With this restriction we reduce the number of interacting

variables involved in trying to cover the six sub-types of sympathetic datives

distinguished by Haversrsquo (1911) pioneering work with the aim of arriving at a clear

picture of one type before moving on to further research with other types of possessa

7

A second restriction of the investigation concerns the (surface) grammatical

relation of the possessum Typologists have found that EP constructions are subject to

certain implicational hierarchies Haspelmathrsquos (1999 113-115) ldquoSyntactic Relations

Hierarchyrdquo states that universally direct objects are more favoured as the possessa of

EPs than intransitive subjects are with unaccusative subjects in a higher position on

the hierarchy than unergative ones An interesting question for the study of the loss of

DEPs in English is whether they disappeared according to this hierarchy A

complication here involves possessa which are the objects of prepositions

(3) ethonne hie him on ethaeligt nebb spaeligtton

when they himDAT in the face spat

lsquowhen they spat in his facersquo

(cocuraCP3626171700)

Examples like (3) are very common in OE but I excluded them from my main

investigation because it is clear that nominal phrases which are the objects of

prepositions differ from ldquobarerdquo nominal phrases in important respects5 For one thing

the constraints on the DEP were much less limited with prepositional object possessa

than they were with what I will call DIRECT ARGUMENTS namely nominative subjects

and accusative objects as will emerge from the discussion

This freer use of EPs of prepositional objects than with direct arguments is in line

with the finding by typologists that EPs are productive only with prepositional objects

in some languages According to Haspelmath (1999 113) the possessa which are

most likely to participate in EP constructions in Europe are in prepositional phrases

Languages which have EPs with body part objects of prepositions but not bare NPs

includes not only English (with its relics like stare X in the face look X in the eye)

and Dutch (Vandeweghe 1987) but also Norwegian Loslashdrup (2009) discusses a

8

construction in Norwegian found with ldquounergativerdquo verbs (intransitive verbs with

actor subjects)6

(4) Han traringkket henne paring foslashttene

he stepped her on feetDEF

lsquoHe stepped on her feetrsquo (Loslashdrup 2009 ex 13)

According to Loslashdrup the body part is always in a prepositional phrase The

prepositional constructions warrant a separate study and an important question for

future research on the loss of productive DEPs is whether they remained longest with

prepositional object possessa However the restriction of the systematic study to

direct arguments reduces the possible variables determining the use of IPs or EPs and

therefore gives us the clearest picture of a sub-system It also seems best in the first

systematic investigations to focus on the EP constructions which have not left a trace

in Present Day English namely where the body part plays the role of (surface) subject

or direct object

Neither Ahlgrenrsquos investigation of ldquonouns of possessionrdquo (ie inalienably

possessed nouns) in English nor Haversrsquo (1911) discussion of the sympathetic dative

systematically separates possessa which are prepositional objects from direct

arguments Their findings although extremely valuable therefore do not make some

distinctions which were important in OE grammar and obscure the patterns which

emerge from the more narrowly focused present investigation

The investigation thus covers only DEPs in which the body part is an accusative

object as in (2) or a nominative subject as in (5)

9

(5) thornaeligt him thornaeligt heafod wand foreth on etha flore

that himDAT the head went forth on the floor

lsquothat his head rolled onto the floorrsquo

Judith 111-12

I will use the abbreviations DEPDA ldquoDative External Possessor of Direct Argumentrdquo

and IPDA ldquoInternal Possessor of Direct Argumentrdquo for DEPs and IPs involving a

subject or object possessum The use of the category ldquosubjectrdquo here requires some

comment Some subjects such as the subjects of ldquounaccusativerdquo verbs are treated as

underlying objects in some frameworks One reason for using a ldquosurfaceyrdquo

classification of subjects defined by nominative case is that nominal phrases playing

these surface relations have particular distributional characteristics The typical

positioning of a subject early in the sentence may play a significant role in the

asymmetry in the relative frequency of DEPs with subjects and objects as discussed

below A further refinement of subjects into different types would in principle be

desirable in testing possible hypotheses about the decline of DEPs such as that they

declined following the Hierarchy of Grammatical Relations mentioned above but

examples are too few in number to make further subclassification illuminating

The definitions given above exclude ldquoimplicitrdquo possessors

(6) Hond up abraeligd Geata dryhten

Hand up raised Geatsrsquo lord

lsquothe lord of the Geats raised up his handrsquo

(cobeowul8025752108) (lines 2575-6)7

In this construction the subject is interpreted as the possessor of the body part8 It is

treated as a type of EP by some linguists eg Vergnaud and Zubizaretta (1992) but

excluded in definitions of EPs such as that of Koumlnig (2001 971) While the

10

connection between EPs and implicit possessor constructions is intriguing this

investigation with its focus on DEPs will not present systematic findings concerning

implicit possessors A thorough investigation of the loss of the DEP in ME should

also look into the temporal relationship of this change with the loss of implicit

possessors

The paper is organised as follows Section 2 looks at DEPDAs in Gothic as a

preliminary to establishing that early OE was already more restrictive in its use of this

construction than Common Germanic seems to have been Section 3 examines the

facts available about IPDAs and DEPDAs in early OE The methodology used is

explained in section 31 32 looks at OE poetry and in section 33 I examine early

OE prose looking at subjects in section 331 and objects in 332 and finishing with

an evaluation of possible Latin influence in 333 A preliminary evaluation of the

adequacy of the explanations which have been proposed for the loss of EPs in ME is

given in section 4 I summarise the main conclusions of this investigation and suggest

some avenues of further research in section 5

2 The affected IP not a Germanic construction

Some recent literature gives the impression that affected IPs were not a feature of

Common Germanic and were new to English at some stage Filppula (2008 30) refers

to the ldquoinnovative internal possessor typerdquo in OE while Vennemann (2002 208)

speaks of the DEP as ldquothe inherited constructionrdquo However Havers (1911 317)

concludes that the Indo-European language families generally showed an interchange

between the genitive and the dativus sympatheticus For example he shows (p 1) that

both constructions were used in Homeric Greek in what appear to be descriptions of

the same situation differing only in the attitude the writer is expressing towards the

event Haversrsquo discussion of the early Germanic languages shows that variation was

11

the normal state in all of them

Before turning to OE it is worthwhile to consider briefly the likely Common

Germanic situation A systematic comparison of all the earliest daughters of this

language is beyond the scope of this paper However I have carried out an

investigation of the gospels in Gothic the earliest Germanic language for which we

have extensive records to compare with the findings for early OE All other things

being equal it would be reasonable to assume that the syntax of Gothic reflects

Common Germanic syntax reasonably well

Of course all other things are not actually equal Our only extensive Gothic text is

a translation from Greek of the major part of the gospels and St Paulrsquos epistles Some

scholars have taken the view that little can be learned of Gothic syntax because it is

highly affected by the Greek exemplar However most recent scholarship on Gothic

syntax (eg Ferraresi 2005) has reached the conclusion that the Gothic text was no

slavish translation it is nothing like a word-for-word gloss Of most relevance here is

the fact that the Gothic treatment of possessed body parts frequently diverges from the

Greek It is therefore reasonable to expect that the Gothic translation can yield some

useful information on this area of syntax in the Common Germanic period

Examples (7) and (8) show that the Gothic does not blindly follow the Greek

original in the syntax of body parts In Biblical Greek the dative and genitive cases

had not yet undergone the syncretism found in Modern Greek and possessors of body

parts could appear in the genitive case or as possessive pronouns as well as in the

dative case In these examples the Gothic uses a DEP while the (presumed) Greek

original had a genitive9

12

(7) sa izei uslauk augona thornamma

thatMASCNOMSG who MASCNOMSG opened eyes theMASCDATSG

blindin

blindMASCDATSG

lsquohe who opened the blind manrsquos eyesrsquo

Gk οὗτος ὁ ἀνοίξας τοὺς ὀφθαλmicroοὺς τοῦ τυφλοῦ

this the having-opened theACCPL eyes ACCPL theGEN blindGEN

John 1137

(8) ithorn Seimon Paitrus hellip afmaimait imma auso taihswo

Then Simon Peter severed pro3SGDAT earACC right

lsquoThen Simon Peterhellipcut off his right earrsquo

Gk καὶ ἀπέκοψεν αὐτοῦ τὸ ὠτάριον τὸ δεξιόν

and cut-off pro3SGGEN the ear the right

John 1810

Harbert (2007 166) notes that the DEP is not used in Gothic (or early Germanic

languages generally) ldquoin cases when only the meronym not the holonym is affected

by the actionrdquo That is when the body part (the meronym) has been affected but this

does not affect the possessor (the holonym) an IP is the only construction which is

found as in ushafjands augona seina ldquoraising eyes hisrdquo at Luke 620

While Harbert only indicates that the DEP is not found when there is no effect on

the holonym it would be easy to jump to the conclusion that this means that the IP

was not used in Gothic with affected possessors In fact however sentences with a

highly affected IP are not rare

13

(9) usluknoda thornan munthorns is suns

opened then mouthNOMSG his immediately

lsquohis mouth was unlocked immediatelyrsquo

Luke 164

Example (9) contrasts with (7) where a dative is used for a similar beneficial effect

on the possessor The Gothic of (9) is like the Greek in using an IP but as has been

established by examples like (7) and (8) the Gothic translator was not unwilling to

depart from the Greek in its treatment of the possessors of body parts It seems that an

IP was an acceptable alternative in Gothic to a DEP even when the holonym was

substantially affected

This does not mean that the translation was not affected in any way by the syntax

of the original Havers (1911 257-267) notes that the prenominal or postnominal

position of a genitive in the Greek seems to affect the choice of an IP or DEP with

the postnominal genitive usually remaining genitive in the Gothic So it is entirely

possible that Greek influence resulted in more IPs than would have been natural in

Gothic The important point however is that both IPs and DEPs were grammatical

since the Gothic did not always follow the Greek in the use of an IP

We cannot be certain of exactly what the situation was in Common Germanic but

it seems reasonable to conclude that while only IPDAs were used for unaffected

possessors IPDAs and DEPDAs were both possible with possessors who were

affected either adversely or beneficially We find variation not only in Gothic but

also in other early Germanic languages Havers (1911 295) notes (p 295) the

variation between IP and DEP in the same line of the Old Saxon Heliand

14

(10) thar uuerethat miacutena hendi gebundana faethmos uuerethat mi

there become my hands bound arms become pro1SGDAT

thar gefastnod

there fastened

lsquomy hands will be bound there my arms will be fetteredrsquo

Heliand 3526-7 (cited from Behaghel 1958 authorrsquos translation)

With this background we can turn to the investigation of early OE

3 Early Old English

31 Methodology

For this investigation I relied primarily on CorpusSearch queries applied to selected

texts of the York-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of OE (Taylor Warner Pintzuk amp Beths

2003 henceforth YCOE) and Pintzuk amp Plugrsquos (2001) York Poetry Corpus I

supplemented the York Poetry Corpus with my own examination of Judith (Griffith

1997 edition) Andreas (Krapp 1932 3-51) and Genesis (Krapp 1931 1-87)

For the electronic searches I compiled a list of (variant forms of) more than 80

words for body parts consulting the Thesaurus of Old English (Roberts et al 2000)

and running lexicon searches on the texts in YCOE10 My corpus searches fell into

two basic types those for IPs and those for DEPs The DEP searches were

straightforward the search queries looked for body parts coded either as subjects or

objects combined with an element in the dative case11 After a culling of examples in

which the dative could not be interpreted as the possessor of the body part these

searches yielded all examples of DEPDAs

Searching appropriately for IPs was more complicated An initial investigation that

collected examples of direct argument body parts showed that whenever a text

contained a significant number of examples of body parts playing the role of direct

15

arguments the number of IPs was very large compared with DEPs For example I

found 72 examples of IPs with body part objects in my Early West Saxon (EWS)

texts compared with only 14 examples of DEPs with such objects These raw

numbers are not very illuminating since it is well known that the use of EPs in

languages which have them is always subject to limitations not imposed on IPs If we

want to assess the extent of the competition between IPs and DEPs we can expect to

learn the most from a comparison of examples of the two types in contexts where the

more limited construction (the DEP) is found It is a reasonable hypothesis that DEPs

would only be found when an effect on the possessor was being conveyed My initial

search for DEPs confirmed that these were nearly completely restricted to verbs than

could be expected to report an adverse effect such as stingan ldquoto stabrdquo Vennemann

(2002) and others have furthermore assumed that an IP would at best be unusual in

such situations In order to test this assumption I compiled a list of ldquoaffecting verbsrdquo

for use in my searches for IPDAs which made it possible to compare variation

between DEPDAs and IPDAs with these verbs

I also wanted to see what verbs the DEPDAs were found with and to see whether

DEPDAs were favored over IPDAs with these verbs For this I compiled a list of

ldquoexternal possessorrdquo verbs that is verbs found in the corpus with IPDAs of body

parts A decision had to be made here about verbs which meant ldquoberdquo or ldquobecomerdquo

The semantic range of these verbs is so great and the number of examples that would

contain them so large that including them in this list would render the results of little

use for purposes of comparison Therefore I excluded these verbs from my list

However the inclusion of participles occurring with DEPs of subjects ensured that

most examples of DEPDAs with these verbs were in fact captured by the list The few

examples of DEPDAs not captured by either list were of course collected in my

16

original searches for DEPDAs and are discussed individually below

To summarize the searches for subject and object body parts in sentences which

also contained a dative collected all examples of DEPDAs The searches for IPDAs

and DEPDAs with ldquoaffectingrdquo verbs gave a picture of variation with such verbs and

the searches for IPDAs using the ldquoexternal possessorrdquo verbs gave a way of examining

the use of IPDAs with verbs that also appeared with DEPDAs Combined with the

examination of the ldquobebecomerdquo sentences it also gave a way of confirming that the

external possessor verbs were very nearly a proper subset of the affecting verbs

32 The evidence from the poetry

The bulk of OE poetry is found in four manuscripts dating from around 1000 in the

late OE period12 Although it is often assumed that some of these poems are of early

composition the confidence which scholars once had in being able to distinguish

early from late poetry no longer exists as discussed by Fulk Cain and Anderson

(2003) Despite this uncertainty it is reasonable to assume that at least some of the

linguistic conventions of poetry represent older features of the language In particular

despite the lack of a consensus on the early composition of Beowulf there is no doubt

that this poem has linguistic features which make it unusual such as the low

frequency of definite determiners13 I will therefore consider the evidence available

from the poetry before turning to the early prose and will discuss the situation in

Beowulf before looking at the other poetry

Havers (1911 274) comments that the sympathetic dative is represented with a

large number of examples in Beowulf and Ahlgren (1946 sect129) states that ldquoin

Beowulf constructions with the Dativus Sympatheticus are far more numerous than

such with the poss adjrdquo However as Mitchell observes (1985 sect306) the ldquonoun of

possessionrdquo is most often governed by a preposition in OE DEPs are very common

17

with prepositional phrases in Beowulf and in other poetry With the direct arguments

though we find only a small number of examples in which the body part is a direct

argument of the verb and the possessor is expressed either as a dative or a

genitivepossessive More commonly the possessor is implicit as in (6) above

I have found only one clear example of a DEP with an accusative body part object

in Beowulf14

(11) ac him hildegrap heortan wylmas banhus gebraeligc

but himDAT hostilegrip heartrsquos beats body crushed

lsquobut (my) hostile grip crushed his body the beating of his heartrsquo

(cobeowul7825012045) (lines 2507-8)

With body part subjects the situation is more complicated I found three examples

which might be construed as DEPs15

(12) a hwaeligthornre him sio swiethre swaethe weardade hand on Hiorte

however himDAT the right trackACC guarded hand in Heorot

lsquohowever his right hand remained behind (lit ldquoguarded the trackrdquo in Heorotrsquo

(cobeowul6520961708) (lines 2098-9)

b thornaeligr unc hwile waeligs hand gemaeligne

there usDAT while was hand together

lsquothere we had hand-together for a whilersquo

(cobeowul6621351741) (line 2137)

c hyre syethethan waeligs aeligfter beahethege breost geweorethod

herDATGEN later was after ring-giving breast adorned

lsquoher breast was adorned after the ring-givingrsquo

(cobeowul6721721775) (lines 2175-6)

(12a) is the clearest example of a DEPs of a subject body part (12b) is probably to be

18

discarded as an example of this construction The note on this line in Mitchell amp

Robinsonrsquos (1999) edition suggests the translation ldquothere for a while it was hand to

hand for the two of usrdquo Hand gemaeligne is probably best treated as a sort of compound

with the dative as belonging to one of the various types of ldquofreerdquo datives found in OE

which expressed involvement in the action but not possession16 In (12c) we have the

form hyre which was ambiguously dative or genitive in OE An interpretation that

this is a possessive pronoun which was separated from its possessor is possible given

the freedom to separate elements of the nominal phrase in OE especially in poetry

However editors of Beowulf usually treat this form as dative in this line if they

comment on it at all and so it seems best to treat this as a DEP in which the possessor

of the body part can be seen as beneficially affected

It can also be noted that there are examples in which an EP of a body part object of

preposition is juxtaposed with what I have treated as implicit possessors as in him on

eaxle weareth syndolh sweotol seonowe onsprongun burston banlocan ldquoa lasting

wound was clear on his shoulder (lit ldquohim on shoulderrdquo) sinews sprang apart joints

burstrdquo at lines 816-19 This interpretation is in accordance with the parsing of the

York Poetry Corpus but an alternative interpretation of the dative him as applying to

the bare NP subjects seonowe and banlocan is certainly possible which would

increase the number of DEPDAs

There are not enough examples of direct argument body parts with expressed

possessors in Beowulf to draw many conclusions However given the small number

of examples of expressed possessors of direct arguments in Beowulf the existence of

even one example of a highly affected IPDA is significant17

19

(13) ac sio hand gebarn modiges mannes

but the hand burned braveGEN manGEN

lsquoBut the hand of the brave man burned (ie was burnt)rsquo

Beowulf ll2697-8

It is also of interest to note that the one clear example of a beneficially affected

possessor uses an IP rather than a DEP18

(14) beaduscruda betst thornaeligt mine breost wereeth

battle-garment best which myACC breast protects

lsquothe best battle-garment which protects my breastrsquo

(cobeowul16452376) (line 253)

These examples are important in showing that the use of IPs with affected possessors

was not a late development as has sometimes been assumed

The remaining poetry fleshes out the meagre findings for Beowulf I found only

seven examples of DEPs of direct object body parts In each case the effect on the

possessor is negative usually drastically

(15) thornaeligt heo healfne forcearf thornone sweoran him

that she halfACC cut theACC neck himDAT

lsquothat she cut his neck half way throughrsquo

Judith 105-6

I found six examples of IPs with possessors of body part objects including the

examples in (16)

(16)a thorne thornaeligt wif feoeth and thornin heafod tredeeth

thee the woman hates and thy head treads

lsquothe woman will hate you will tread on your headrsquo

Genesis A 912

20

b ond ic sumra fet forbraeligc bealosearwum

and I someGENPL feet destroyed snaresDAT

lsquoand I destroyed the feet of some with snaresrsquo

(cocynew1264681356)

The example from Genesis A and another in lines 2491-2 of that poem are of

particular interest because of the traditional assumption that the religious poems of the

Junius manuscript are early (but see discussion above)

With subject body parts I found six examples of DEPs In one example the DEP

does not convey any effect on the possessor but is merely part of a description

(17) Is him thornaeligt heafod hindan grene

Is himDAT the head behind green

lsquothe back of his head is greenrsquo

(cophoeni102293197)

This example is very similar to a sentence presented in Bolkestein (2001) in his

analysis of dative possessors as experiencers in Latin

(18) rostra his et praelonga crura rubent

beaks 3PLDAT and long legs arered

lsquoTheir beaks and long leg are redrsquo

(Plin NH 10129 as cited as Bolkestein 2001 ex 22)

Bolkestein comments that he would have expected a genitive rather than a dative in

this sentence but does not attempt an explanation Examples in which the possessor of

a subject body part is not affected as in (17) are so infrequent that it is difficult to

know what to make of them but it is worth noting that Haspelmath (1999 113) places

stative verbs at the bottom of the hierarchy of types of situations where DEPs are

found It is also of interest to note that if we had expanded the words for inalienable

21

possessa to included words meaning ldquomind spiritrdquo etc we would have found several

examples of a DEP in the poetry as in him waeligs leoht sefa ldquohis heartmind was joyfulrdquo

(lit ldquohim was light mindrdquo) at Andreas 1255 With these ldquomindrdquo word examples

positive as well as negative states of mind appear with a dative What is most

important here is not how to analyse such uses with states and changes of state but to

note that a preliminary search with ldquomindrdquo words on prose texts (both earlier and

later) suggests that no clear examples of this sort are to be found in the prose

indicating a decline of the dative in the period when it was still a highly functional

case

With my remaining five externally possessed body part subjects the possessor is

negatively affected by an action as in (5) and (19)

(19) Sint me leoethu tolocen

Are meDAT limbs dislocated

lsquomy limbs are dislocatedrsquo

Andreas 1404

IPs are also found in some instances in which the possessor is clearly affected

(20) Calde gethornrungen waeligron mine fet

coldINST pinched were my feet

lsquomy feet were pinched with coldrsquo

(coexeter1438119)

I found six such examples in the poems other than Beowulf IPs are therefore not

demonstrably less common than DEPs in similar situations of adverse effect

To summarise the evidence of the poetry expressed possessors are not common

with direct body part objects Importantly there is one example each of a beneficially

and a negatively affected IP even in Beowulf usually regarded as enshrining archaic

22

syntax and highly adversely affected IPs appear in the other poetry The poetry does

not support the idea of a period when the IP was not used with affected possessors

33 The Evidence from the early prose

In this section I consider prose of ninth century or earlier composition It is not until

the revival of learning in the late ninth century in Wessex that texts are lengthy

enough to yield sufficient examples for drawing conclusions about the treatment of

possessors of body parts in prose Because the number of examples from manuscripts

belonging to this period is still rather small I have added some texts which can be

assumed to have been composed in this period but are only found in copies made in a

later period

Before discussing the results I will briefly describe the texts For EWS I used the

YCOE files which are based on manuscripts identified by Campbell (1959 sect16) and

Bately (1980 xxxix) as being generally accepted as representing the EWS dialect19

These manuscripts contain the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (ASC) Orosius and Alfredrsquos

translation of the Cura Pastoralis (CP) The investigation of ASC was limited to the

EWS portion referred to here as ASC(A)20 I have used citations from YCOE which

are based on Plummerrsquos edition but have cross-checked these with Batelyrsquos more

reliable 1986 edition

The collection of medicinal recipes known as Baldrsquos Leechbook probably has EWS

origins Nokes (2004 74) thinks that King Alfred the Greatrsquos court was involved in

the compilation of the original text of the Leechbook However no one disputes Kerrsquos

(1957 item 264) judgment that the manuscript probably written at the West Saxon

capital of Winchester is from about half a century later

The laws of King Alfred are found in the same manuscript as ASC(A) but are

dated by Ker (1957 item 39) as mid-tenth century They are especially valuable as

23

examples of original prose that is not translated from Latin

Gregoryrsquos Dialogues was translated from Latin by Bishop Werferth of Worcester

sometime between the early 870s and early 890s (Yerkes 1982 9) Unfortunately this

translation is found today only in manuscripts copied a century or more later the

Cambridge Corpus Christi College manuscript 322 containing Werferthrsquos version

belongs to the second half of the eleventh century (Ker 1957 item 60)21

My searches for DEPDAs in these texts found a total of 62 DEPDAs (31 of objects

and 31 of subjects) These results are not meaningful without a comparison with

IPDAs Tables 1 and 2 below in which the manuscripts dating close to their time of

composition are kept separate from those contained in later manuscripts present the

results of my comparisons of DEPDAs and IPDAs with ldquoexternal possessorrdquo and

ldquoaffectingrdquo verbs respectively These two types of verbs do not completely cover all

examples of DEPs of subjects as discussed above my searches for DEPs of subjects

yielded six examples that the ldquoexternal subjectrdquo list did not capture containing forms

of ldquoberdquo or ldquobecomerdquo in active sentences However an initial perusal of these tables

before we move on to discuss the results for objects and subjects in more detail is

enough to establish two things

First the results confirm a strong association between DEPDAs and affecting

verbs in these prose texts Adding columns 3 and 7 in Table 1 we get 56 DEPDAs

Table 2 indicates that 55 of these involve my ldquoaffectingrdquo verbs Even if it were the

case (as it is not) that none of the six examples not represented in either table involved

a strong effect it would still be true that a very substantial majority of the examples

involved such an effect

Second certain affecting verbs must particularly favor DEPDAs This is

particularly apparent with DEPs of subjects Table 1 shows that of the 32 examples of

24

Text IP Obj DEP Obj

Total Ext V Obj

Text IP Subj

DEP Subj

Total Ext V Subj

EWS MS cura 1 3 4 cura 2 2 4 oros 1 9 10 oros 0 4 4 ASC 1 2 3 ASC 0 0 0 Total EWS 3 14 17 Total EWS 2 6 8

9thC Composition later MS Leechbook 2 3 5 Leechbook 1 16 17

GD 6 3 9 GD 3 2 5

Alfred Laws

2 11 13 Alfred Laws

1 1 2

Total later MSS

10 17 27 Total later MSS

5 19 24

Grand Total 13 31 44

Grand Total 7 25 32

Table 1 Internal and External Possessors with External Possessor Verbs in Texts of 9th Century Composition

Text IP Obj DEP Obj Total Aff V Obj

Text IP Subj

DEPSubjTotal Aff V Subj

EWS MSS cura 8 3 11 cura 5 2 7 oros 3 9 12 oros 0 4 4 ASC 1 2 3 ASC 0 0 0 Total EWS 12 14 26 Total EWS 5 6 11


GD 13 3 16 GD 3 2 5 Alfred Laws

2 11 13 Alfred Laws

1 1 2

Total later MSS


5 19 24



Table 2 Internal and External Possessors with Highly Affecting Verbs in Texts of 9th Century Composition

possessed body part subjects the possessor was a DEP in 25 In other words it seems

that if a verb appears with a DEP at all it favors DEPs over IPs In contrast we see

25

from Table 2 that the possessor is a DEP only a bit more than half the time with the

body part subjects of affecting verbs Although a DEPDA almost always involved an

affected possessor an affected possessor was often not a DEP

Let us turn now to a closer inspection of objects and subjects

331 Object possessa

The examples of (21) and (22) are representative for EWS and the later manuscripts

of ninth century origin respectively

(21)a Her Offa Miercna cyning het AEligthornelbryhte rex thornaeligt heafod

Here Offa Merciansrsquo king ordered AthelbertDAT king the head

of aslean

off strike

lsquoIn this year Offa king of the Mercians ordered King Athelbertrsquos head struck

offrsquo

(cochronA-1ChronA_[Plummer]7921585)

b thorna heton thorna consulas Hasterbale thornaeligt heafod ofaceorfan

then ordered the consuls HasterbalDAT the head cut-off

lsquoThen the consuls ordered Hasterbalrsquos head to be cut offrsquo

(coorosiuOr_410105342190)

c ETHonne etham lareowum aethistriaeth ethaeligs modes eagan

when theDAT teacherDATPL darken theGEN mindGEN eyes

when the teachersrsquo mindrsquos eye darkens

(cocuraCP54512255)

26

(22) a teoh him thorna loccas

pull himDAT theACC locksACC

lsquopull his hairrsquo

(colaeceLch_II_[2]16262331

b Gif mon oethrum thornaeligt neb ofaslea

If one otherDAT the nose strikeoff

lsquoIf someone strikes off anotherrsquos nosersquo

(colawafLawAf_148163)

camp him thornaeligt heafod sythornthornan of aceorf

and himDAT the head afterwards off cut

lsquoand then cut off his headrsquo

(cogregdCGDPref_and_3_[C]1319832564

My searches only revealed one example of an externally possessed object in which

the effect on the possessor is not clearly adverse

(23) a amp ethonne sceal mon thornam men hellip thorna handa amp

and then shall one theDAT manDAT theACC handsACC and

thorna fet gnidan swiethe amp thornyn

theACC feetACC rub smartly and squeeze

lsquoand the you shall rub smartly and squeeze the mans hands and feet


It is impossible to know whether the writer used a DEP here because the ldquosmartrdquo

squeezing could be expected to cause pain It is clear enough though that even if the

DEP was occasionally used when a beneficial effect (or no effect) was in the writerrsquos

mind the association between adversely affected possessors and DEPs with objects is

unmistakablemdashof the 30 DEPs of objects listed in Table 2 example (19) is the only

27

one where any question arises With the exception of gnidan ldquorubrdquo the ldquoExternal

Possessor Verbsrdquo of Table 2 found with possessed objects turn out to be on the

ldquoaffecting verbsrdquo list also22 While this is not particularly surprising the frequency of

IPs with exactly the same types of effects may be So in the same texts yielding

examples (21a-c) and (22 a-c) we also find (24a-c) and (25a-c)

(24) a amp his eagan astungon

and his eyes stabbed

lsquoand stabbed out his eyesrsquo

(cochronA-1ChronA_[Plummer]7971597)23

b hie het gebindan amp hellip mid aeligxsum heora heafda of aceorfan

them ordered bind and with axes their heads off cut

lsquoHe ordered them to be bound and helliptheir heads to be cut off with axesrsquo


c ahefegiaeth hira heortan etha byrethenna ethaeligs forhwirfdan gewunan

oppress their heartsACC the burdens theGEN perverseGEN habits

lsquothe burdens of the perverse habits oppress their heartsrsquo

(cocuraCP116712432)

(25) a ne ahwaeligr his lichoman wanige

nor anywhere his body weaken

lsquonor anywhere weaken his body


28

b Gif monnes ceacan mon forsliheth thornaeligt hie beoeth forode

If manrsquos jaws one strikes that they are broken

lsquoIf someone strikes a mans jaws so violently that they are broken


c amp asloh thornaeligs deacones heafod of

and struck theGEN deaconGEN head off

lsquoand struck the deaconrsquos head offrsquo

(cogregdCGDPref_and_4_[C]24293244351)

The ldquoobjectsrdquo columns of Tables 1 and 2 indicate that although there was a good deal

of individual variation in the texts the EWS texts and the texts of EWS composition

found in later manuscripts give us the same overall picture First with the affecting

verbs the frequency of IPs and DEPs is roughly the same Second a small number of

verbs yield a disproportionate number of DEPs Table 1 shows 31 DEPs with these

verbs and only 13 IPs suggesting that if a verb used a DEP at all it favoured DEPs

over IPs In fact we find that DEPs were nearly but not quite categorical in

descriptions of beheadings and other amputations Since most (but not all) of our

examples come from texts which are associated with Latin originals this raises the

question of whether the IPs might not be due to Latin influence This question will be

addressed below but first we will turn to our subject possessa

332 Subject possessa

Things are more complicated with subjects as discussed above As with objects

DEPs are mostly limited to reports of situations in which the possessor is adversely

affected

29

(26) a thorna for thornaeligm ciele him gescruncan ealle thorna aeligdra

then for the cold himDAT shrank all theNOM veinsNOM

lsquoThen because of the cold all his veins shrankrsquo


b ETHonne etham lareowum aethistriaeth ethaeligs modes eagan


when the teachersrsquo mindrsquos eyes darken

(cocuraCP54512255)

(27) a amp him se maga micla thornindethorn

and himDAT the stomach greatly swells

lsquoand his stomach swells greatlyrsquo


b amp him bieth micge geolu

and him DAT is urine yellow

lsquoand his urine is yellowrsquo


c Gif men sie se earm mid Honda mid ealle of acorfen

If manDAT beOPT the arm with hand with all off cut

lsquoIf a manrsquos arm with the hand and all below cut is offrsquo


d amp him waeligron gebundene thorna fet amp thorna handa

and himDAT were bound the feet and the hands

lsquoHis hands and feet were boundrsquo


30

Example (27b) was captured in my searches for DEPs but not by either verb list since

it involves a form of ldquoberdquo in a sentence which is not passive Although it is not on the

ldquoaffected listrdquo the negative effect is clearmdashthe overly yellow urine is a symptom of

disease Four of the six examples not represented in the tables are like this However

I found one example in which a DEP is used where the effect on the possessor was

clearly positive in a description of a monkrsquos return to life after dying

(28) thorna sonahellip him waeligron thorna limu cwiciende amp faeliggre

then immediately him were the limbs alive and fair

lsquothen immediately his limbs became alive and fairrsquo


In another example from the same text the possessor is not clearly affected hire waeligs

aweaxen swa aheardod hyd swylce olfendan on thornam earmum amp on thornam cneowum

ldquoher skin had grown as hard as a camelrsquos on the arms and the kneesrdquo

(cogregdCGDPref_and_4_[C]1728724243) As discussed for the poetry it appears

that DEPs with verbs of being and becoming may have had a wider range but with

body parts at least their use with other than negatively affected possessors was

unusual As with objects IPs of subjects are in variation with DEPs in the same texts

(29) a Sien hira eagan aethistrode ethaeligt hi ne geseon

beOPT their eyes darkened that they not see

lsquoMay their eyes be darkened so that they do not seersquo

(cocuraCP1298118)

31

b amp his micgge bieth blodread swilce hio blodig sie

and his urine is blood-red as it bloody is

lsquoand his urine is blood red as though it is bloodyrsquo


c Gif monnes sconca bieth ofaslegen wieth ethaeligt cneou

If manGEN leg is struckoff with the knee

lsquoIf a manrsquos leg is struck off at the kneersquo


Example (29b) was naturally not captured by my lists but I noted seven such

examples of ldquoberdquo describing a symptom using an IP of a subject in the Leechbook

alone Although this variation especially in the native prose of Alfredrsquos laws shows

that IPs were possible with body part subjects even when the effect on the possessor

was negative and severe a comparison of the results for subjects with those for

objects in Tables 1 and 2 reveals an interesting asymmetry While DEPs and IPs were

nearly equally common overall with objects with body part subjects the preference

for DEPs is unmistakable

It is possible to suggest a reason based on information structure for the greater

relative frequency of DEPs with subjects Body parts are usually not as topical as their

possessors The DEP gave a writer a way of positioning the possessor in a more

topical position by encoding it as a dative NP at the sentence level while at the same

time shifting the body part subject to a position later in the sentence more suitable for

new information So for example if an IP had been used in (17b) the resulting string

would be amp his micge bieth geolu Although this string is perfectly grammatical (cf

29b) the use of the DEP both positions the more topical information him and the new

information micge in more usual spots for new and old information In contrast

32

substituting a DEP for an IP with an object possessum would not usually have such an

effect So example (25c) would come out as amp asloh thornaeligm deacone thornaeligt heafod of or

possibly amp thornaeligm deacone asloh thornaeligt heafod of Since objects like thornaeligt heafod are

already in a position suitable for new information (late in the sentence) little is gained

in terms of discourse organization

It is particularly interesting to note the subjectobject asymmetry in the Leechbook

Since this text is a rich source of body parts it is disappointing to find that the

possessor of a body part playing the role of object was usually not named In keeping

with the impersonal and clinical nature of the handbook the ldquoleechrdquo was usually

given an instruction such as ldquocut the legrdquo rather than ldquocut his legrdquo or ldquocut him the

legrdquo24 The difference with the possessed subjects which are usually in descriptions of

symptoms is striking Presumably the DEP is highly favored here because the

emphasis is on what is happening to the patient rather than on the treatment

Various factors may have favored one construction over the other but both

DEPDAs and IPDAs were in clearly variation in the texts and any idea that IPDAs

were rare or unusual before EME has no basis in the texts It has been suggested

however that IPs in OE texts might be due to the influence of Latin We turn now to a

consideration of the evidence for this position

333 Latin Influence

Since the majority of our examples from the prose texts are from texts translated from

or at least based on Latin originals we need to consider whether the use of DEPs and

IPs in these texts might have been influenced by the Latin the scribes were translating

Ahlgren (1946 211) expressed the belief that the use of the ldquopossessive adjectiverdquo

(=IP) instead of the dativus sympatheticus was ldquowas most probably promoted

[Ahlgrenrsquos emphasis] by the influence of the language of the Church which was

33

largely modelled on Latin usagesrdquo Vennemann (2002 212) expresses his opinion that

Ahlgren is possibly right about this at least in some instances However the examples

that Ahlgren produces to show that the OE normally followed the Latin construction

come entirely from Biblical translations especially from interlinear glosses A more

systematic comparison of the OE translations with the Latin originals than this is

needed since OE writers especially likely to stay as close as possible to Latin syntax

in translating the Vulgate Bible see for example Taylor (2008) for an interesting case

study of different translation effects in Biblical and other translations

I have compared the Latin original when available with all the IPs and DEPs

found in this investigation other than those found in the Leechbook which was

compiled from too many sources to make it practical to track the originals down

None of the translations studied in this investigation are translations of the Bible

although my results contain some biblical quotations which may indeed be directly

affected by the Latin A difference in translation style may partially account for the

fact that that IPs were proportionally more frequent in CP while DEPs were dominant

in the Orosius The translation of Orosius is a very free one Entire sections of the

Latin text have been omitted and new observations inserted by the translator along

with substantial rewording of the sections where the essential story has been

preserved25 Bately (1988 126-7) stresses that despite the closeness of the translation

in CP it is not a slavish one

The possibility of a translation style which was different from a more native style

seems at first glance to be strengthened by a comparison of Alfredrsquos laws with its

frequent use of DEPs with his translation of CP However this difference is more

likely due to the fact that the Laws describe more drastic effects where a DEP is more

expected than any of the CP examples The very different subject matter of CP

34

which is a manual for priests similarly provides fewer opportunities for expressing

affected possessors of body parts than does the Orosius in which descriptions of

battles and decapitations are common

It furthermore seems that translations effects although they may have played some

role were not strong with the possessive constructions In even fairly close

translations the translator clearly was capable of substituting a DEP for an IP or

unexpressed possessor in the Latin One of the three DEPs with object parts in CP

replaces an IP in the Latin26

(30) amp him ethone stiethan suiran forbraeligce

and himDAT theACCSGMASC stiff neck brokeOPT

lsquoand (that he) broke his stiff neckrsquo


The Latin has rigida colla victorum lsquo(the) stiff necks(acc) victors(gen)rsquo Even in the

more Latinate Gregoryrsquos Dialogues we find considerable divergence from the

possessive constructions used in the Latin original

To sum up the choice of an IP or a DEP may have been influenced in some

individual examples by translation effects However in the texts under consideration

this gives all appearances of being a matter of choosing one idiomatic option over

another rather than a distortion of English syntax or normal usage and the fact that

IPs are found in poetry confirms that both options were native The subjectobject

asymmetry is inconsistent with the idea that Latin was responsible for all IPs Finally

some DEPs were used in the Vulgar Latin originals a fact which suggests that scribes

would have no reason to consider IPs DEPs inappropriate in their translations

4 Decline of the EP preliminary observations

A thorough evaluation of the reasons why the EP was lost as a productive

35

construction must await a systematic examination of the facts of late OE and ME

However the findings of the present investigation into early OE have implications for

any account of how the construction finally disappeared Here it is important to

distinguish between possible reasons for the initial decline of the construction and

accounts of later changes to the grammar which made EPs not only unusual but

impossible except in fixed phrases

The most important finding is that the DEPDA was on the decline well before the

EME period DEPDAs were in variation with IPDAs in the earliest records and at no

time was an IP of a body part rare even in the situations that favored an EP The

evidence from the poetry suggests a reduction in the range of the DEPDA from

Common Germanic With body parts the small number of relevant poetic examples

makes a meaningful comparison with the early prose difficult However preliminary

research into the ldquomindrdquo words strongly suggests a further contraction of the range of

the DEPDA fairly early in English it is at best unusual in the earliest extensive prose

with these words contrasting with its frequent use in poetry This early contraction of

the DEPDA is problematic for two explanations that have been suggested for the loss

of EPs The first favored by Ahlgren (1946) is that this was due to the loss of the

dativeaccusative distinction The second proposal is McWhorterrsquos (2002) suggestion

that Scandinavian speakers shifting to English simplified the grammar by dispensing

with EPs

Both explanations take as their starting point the assumption of an abrupt change in

the EME period We have seen that with direct arguments at least the change in EME

must not have been as sudden as is sometimes assumed since the decline of DEPDAs

seems to have started much earlier Space does not allow for an extensive discussion

of the situation in later OE but some observations can be made here

36

DEPDAs had clearly contracted by the late OE period even in texts where the

dativeaccusative distinction is well maintained for example in AEliglfricrsquos writings of

the end of the tenth century The large size of the AEliglfrician corpus makes clear

AEliglfricrsquos preference for IPDAs even when the possessor was very severely affected

(31) THORNa het se haeligthornena cynincg his heafod ofaslean

then ordered the heathen king his head off-strike

lsquothen the heathen king order his head to be struck offrsquo

(coaeliveAEligLS_[Oswald]1625472)

However the DEPDA is not entirely lacking in AEliglfricrsquos works Of the 56 examples I

collected of possessed body part objects of affecting verbs three had a DEP

Examples (31) and (32) illustrate variation by this author

(32) and mid anum swencge slogon him of thornaeligt heafod

and with one blow struck himDAT off the head

lsquoand with one blow struck off his headrsquo

(coaeliveAEligLS_[Edmund]1237036)

Both examples come from a single manuscript which is close to AEliglfric both in time

and dialect and can be taken as good evidence for AEliglfricrsquos own usage Combining the

AEliglfrician texts with some other Late West Saxon (LWS) texts I found a total of five

DEPs with body part objects and six with body part subjects all involving actions

with drastic effect on the possessor It seems likely that the most drastically affected

possessors were the last bastions of DEPDAs although confirmation of this

suggestion must await a systematic examination of late OE and early ME It is clear

however that DEPDAs were significantly reduced by later OE

The impression of a sudden reduction in EPs in EME is at least partially due to the

fact that it is still easy enough to find DEPs with prepositional objects in LWS texts

37

However closer examination of the examples suggests that these DEPs were largely

lexically-governed Nearly half of the LWS examples involve the verb cuman

ldquocomerdquo as in THORNis com thorna to earan thornam aeligethelborenan cnihte ldquothis came then to the

ears of the high-born youthrdquo at coaeliveAEligLS[Lucy]572202 Most of the examples

involve only a small number of verbs and a limited set of body parts compared with

IPs where the range of verbs and body parts is much larger

It appears then that there was no abrupt halt to a highly productive construction in

EME but rather a more gradual decline before the end of the OE period Neither case

marking collapse nor Scandinavian influence can explain this the dativeaccusative

system was still quite healthy at this time and the texts in question come from the area

least affected by Scandinavian settlement Furthermore EME examples like (33) and

(34) are problematic for both explanations

(33) amp thornrengde thorne man thornaeligrinne ethat him braeligcon alle thorne limes

and crushed the man therein that him brokePL all the limbs

lsquoand crushed the man in it so that all his limbs brokersquo

(CMPETERB55444) (113727)

(34) amp all himm waeligrenn fet amp thorneos Tobollenn amp toblawenn

and all him were feet and thighs puffedup and swollen

lsquoand his feet and thighs were all puffed up and swollenrsquo

(CMORMI2802293)

These DEPDAs come from twelfth century texts in which the accusativedative

distinction has been entirely lost More examples can be found in other EME texts

categorised in Allen (2008) and (2006) as ldquocase impoverishedrdquo A thorough

investigation of possessors of body parts in the EME period has not yet been carried

out but my preliminary findings indicate that no correlation between DEPDAs and

38

the presence or not of a distinct dative case in this period can be established It is true

that examples are not common in the case impoverished texts but they are no more

common in the ldquocase richrdquo texts This is not what we would expect if the loss of these

constructions resulted directly from the loss of the dativeaccusative distinction It

should be noted also that the small number of EPs in the EME texts may result not

just from further reduction in their use but also from the different subject matter of

these texts It is only by comparing the relative frequency of EPs and IPs in similar

situations that we can judge how reduced the use of EPs was in EME and no

systematic comparison has been carried out as yet

The lack of a correlation between DEPs and dialect areas is also highly

problematic for McWhorterrsquos (2002) Scandinavian explanation By that hypothesis

examples like (34) from the Ormulum an autograph manuscript by an author with a

Scandinavian surname in a highly Scandanavianized area are unexpected

A more promising approach to the loss of EPs in English is to look at the role of

Celtic speakers shifting to English The fact that Breton lacks EP constructions

(Koumlnig amp Haspelmath 1998 and Haspelmath 1999) lends support to the view that EPs

were not a feature of Insular Celtic and so this is an area where Celtic speakers might

have imposed their syntactic habits as argued by Vennemann (2001) Filppula (2008

30-40) and Hickey (2012) among others

It is plausible that the Celtic population of England affected English grammar in

the process of language shift The traditional view that Celtic could not have affected

OE materially because of the paucity of Celtic loan words is no longer considered

tenable by most scholars It is furthermore now generally accepted that although we

cannot be certain of the numbers of Celts remaining in England after the Anglo-Saxon

invasion those numbers were substantial As noted by Lutz (2009) Grimmer (2007)

39

argues for a significant population of Celts in Inersquos kingdom of Wessex on the basis

that this kingrsquos laws (promulgated between c688 and c693) specify a special (lower)

wergild for Britons

What exactly would the effect of Celtic contact on possessor constructions have

been Lutz (2009) follows Thomason amp Kaufman (1988) in assuming imperfect

language learning as the cause of ldquosubstratum effectsrdquo However there is no reason to

assume that the Celts learning English failed to learn the DEP or in terms of Van

Coetsem (2000) imposed their IP-only grammar on the English they were learning

One plausible scenario is that the Celts shifting to English learned the DEP

construction but reserved it for its most central uses with highly affected possessors

of direct arguments and in prepositional phrases generally If these Celts had a

significant effect on Old English this more restricted use would have spread through

the population

What is of primary importance to students of diachronic English syntax here is that

the possessor constructions give no evidence for the suppression of ldquoCeltic syntaxrdquo in

OE texts We are justified taking the grammar that can be constructed from late OE

texts as our starting point in seeking an account of the loss of EPs in ME The

appearance of a rather Celtic flavor in these constructions in the OE texts should not

in fact come as a surprise Even if we assume that a Germanic elite suppressed some

ldquoCeltic syntaxrdquo there is no reason to assume that IPs were stigmatized because they

had always been a part of the language even with highly affected possessors A

difference in the relative frequency of DEPs and IPs in ldquoCeltic Englishrdquo and

ldquoGermanic Englishrdquo is not likely to have been the subject of conscious correction27

A final observation is that if we focus only on how English lost productive EP

constructions we are in danger of losing sight of the fact that no Germanic language

40

has simply retained the old use of the DEP It seems that the distinction between the

IP and EP constructions has sharpened in German for example In earlier Germanic

and OE the DEPDA may have focused on the affectedness of the possessor but the

IPDA did not convey a lack of effect Havers (1911) also repeatedly notes that in

many early languages the dativus sympatheticus was strongly favored with

pronominal possessors while the genitive was more common with nominal

possessors This sort of variation is gone from languages like modern German where

the use of the dative is required to convey affectedness of the whole without regard to

topicality of the possessor This sharpening of the distinction between the IP and the

DEP in German seems to have been a general development of the ldquonuclearrdquo Indo-

European languages while in the more peripheral European languages of Indo-

European descent the DEP declined or was lost Koumlnig amp Haspelmath (1998) and

Haspelmath (1999) show that EP constructions can be regarded as an areal feature of

European languages independent of genetic relationships since non-Indo-European

languages in the ldquocorerdquo European area have adopted this typically Indo-European

construction As Haspelmath (1999 116) comments ldquothe languages displaying the

dative EP construction form a contiguous area in the center and south of Europerdquo The

European languages which lack DEPs are not in the nucleus of the European

Sprachbund It is unsurprising a peripheral language like English should fail to

participate in a general strengthening of a distinction between two constructions

particularly when the ldquoall purposerdquo variant (the IP) was already gaining ground on the

ldquospecial purposerdquo DEP in a period before this continental strengthening began

Systematic investigations into the history of EPs in Germanic languages generally

looking at changes to the nature of the variation that they all inherited are needed

These investigation must distinguish among other things direct argument from

41

prepositional object possessa

5 Conclusions

The following conclusions emerge from this investigation

1 Variation between DEPs and IPs in essentially the same situations was not an

innovation of OE but an inheritance from Indo-European and Germanic It does

appear that there was an innovative restriction of the range of DEPs to negative

effects in the case of direct argument body parts early in OE

2 The relatively high frequency of IPs even at the oldest attested stage of English

means that the scene was set for the eventual loss of the EP well before either the loss

of the dativeaccusative distinction or contact with Scandinavian languages could

have triggered their decline Preliminary investigation of EME texts suggests that

DEPs were equally rare in case rich and case impoverished dialects and in dialects

more and less influenced by Scandinavian contact This disappearance of EPs in ME

does not seem to have been abrupt although more research is needed

3 It is not unlikely although not provable that contact with Insular Celtic favoured

the use of IPs at an early stage initiating the progressive restriction of the DEP as a

marked construction

4 The findings concerning negative effects with accusative body parts do not apply to

body part objects of prepositions The loss of EPs in English both with direct

arguments and with prepositional phrases awaits a systematic investigation to

supplement the valuable observations of earlier scholars

42

REFERENCES

Ahlgren Arthur 1946 On the use of the definite article with lsquonouns of possessionrsquo in

English Uppsala Appelbergs boktryckeriaktiebolag

Allen Cynthia 2008 Genitives in early English Typology and evidence Oxford

Oxford University Press

Allen Cynthia L 2006 Case syncretism and word order change In Ans van

Kemenade amp Bettelou Los (eds) Handbook of the history of English 201-23

Oxford Blackwell

Amos Ashley Crandell Angus Cameron amp Antonette DiPaolo Healey 2008

Dictionary of Old English A to G online Toronto Dictionary of Old English

Project

Amos Ashley Crandell 1980 Linguistic means of determining the dates of Old

English literary texts Cambridge Massachusetts The medieval academy of

America

Bately Janet (ed) 1986 The Anglo-Saxon chronicle A collaborative edition Volume

3 MS A Cambridge D S Brewer

Bately Janet (ed) 1980 The Old English Orosius (Early English Text Society

Supplementary Series 6) London Oxford University Press

Bately Janet M 1988 Old English prose before and during the reign of Alfred

Anglo-Saxon England 17 93-138

Behaghel Otto (1958) Heliand und Genesis Herausgegeben von Otto Behagehel 7

Auflage bearbeitet von Walther Mitzka Tuumlbingen Max Niemeyer

Bolkestein A Machtelt 2001 Possessors and experiencers in Classical Latin In

Baron Iregravene Herslund Michael amp Soslashrensen Finn (eds) Dimensions of

possession 269-83 Amsterdam amp Philadelphia John Benjamins

43

Campbell Alistair 1959 Old English grammar Oxford Clarendon Press

Crisma Paola 2011 The emergence of the definite article in English In Sleeman

Antonia Petronella amp Perridon Harry (eds) The noun phrase in Romance and

Germanic Structure variation and change 175-92 Amsterdam amp Philadelphia

John Benjamins Pub Co

Ferraresi Gisella 2005 Word order and phrase structure in Gothic Leuven

Dudley MA Peeters

Filppula Markku 2008 The linguistic outcomes of the early contact In Filppula

Marrku Juhani Klemola amp Heli Paulasto English and Celtic in contact 24-

132 New York Routledge

Fulk R D Christopher M Cain amp Rachel S Anderson 2003 A history of Old

English literature Malden MA Blackwell

Griffith Mark (ed) 1997 Judith Exeter University of Exeter Press

Grimmer Martin 2007 Britons in Early Wessex The evidence of the Law Code of

Ine In Nick Higham (ed) Britons in Anglo-Saxon England 102-14

Manchester Boydell Press

Harbert Wayne 2007 The Germanic languages Cambridge Cambridge University

Press

Haspelmath Martin 1999 External possession in a European areal perspective In

Doris L Payne amp Immanuel Barshi (eds) External possession 109-35

Amsterdam amp Philadelphia Benjamins

Havers Wilhelm 1911 Untersuchungen zur Kasussyntax der indogermanischen

Sprachen Strassburg Karl J Truumlbner

Hickey Raymond 2012 English and the Celtic hypothesis In Terttu Nevalainen amp

Elizabeth Closs Traugott (eds) The Oxford handbook of the history of

44

English 497-507 Oxford Oxford University Press

Ker Neil R 1957 Catalogue of manuscripts containing Anglo-Saxon Oxford

Clarendon Press

Koumlnig Ekkehard 2001 Internal and external possessors In Martin Haspelmath

Ekkehard Koumlnig Wulf Oesterreicher amp Wolfgan Raible (eds) Language

typology and language universals vol 2 970-8 Berlin amp New York Walter

de Gruyter

Koumlnig Ekkehard amp Martin Haspelmath 1998 Les constuctions aacute possesseur externe

dans les langues dEurope In Jack Feuillet (ed) Actance et valence dans les

langues de lEurope 525-606 Berlin amp New York Mouton de Gruyter

Krapp George Philip (ed) 1931 The Junius manuscript (The Anglo-Saxon poetic

records 1) New York Columbia University Press

Krapp George Philip (ed) 1932 The Vercelli book (The Anglo-Saxon Poetic Records

2) London Routledge amp Kegan Paul

Landau Idan 1999 Possessor raising and the structure of VP Lingua 107 1-37

Lee-Schoenfeld Vera 2006 German possessor datives raised and affected Journal

of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 9 101-42

Loslashdrup Helge 2009 Looking possessor raising in the mouth Norwegian possessor

raising with unergatives Paper presented at LFG2009 httpcsli-

publicationsstanfordedu

Lutz Angelika 2009 Celtic influence on Old English and West Germanic English

Language and Linguistics 13 227-49

McWhorter John 2002 What happened to English Diachronica 19 217-72

Migne Jacques Paul (ed) 1849 Sancti Gregorii Papae I (Cognomento Magni) opera

omnia (Patrologiae cursus completus sive Bibliotheca universalis integra

45

uniformis commoda oeconomica ecclesiasticorum vol 77) Paris Petit-

Moutrouge

Migne Jacques Paul 1857 Patrologiae cursus completus sive Bibliotheca

universalis integra uniformis commoda oeconomica omnium sspatrum

doctorum scriptorumque ecclesiasticorum vol 31 Paris Petit-Moutrouge

Mitchell Bruce 1985 Old English syntax Oxford Clarendon Press

Mitchell Bruce Robinson Fred C amp Webster Leslie 1998 Beowulf An edition

with relevant shorter texts Malden MA Blackwell Publishers

Nokes Richard Scott 2004 The several compilers of Balds Leechbook Anglo-Saxon

England 33 51-76

Payne Doris L amp Barshi Immanuel 1999 External possession what where how

and why In Payne Doris L amp Barshi Immanuel (eds) External possession

3-29 Amsterdam amp Philadelphia Benjamins

Pintzuk Susan amp Leendert Plug 2001 The York-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Old

English Poetry Distributed by the Oxford Text Archive

Plummer Charles (ed) 1989 Two of the Saxon chronicles parallel Oxford

Clarendon Press

Roberts Jane Annette Christian Kay amp Lynne Grundy 2000 A thesaurus of Old

English 2nd edn 2 vols (Costerus NS 131-132) Amsterdam amp Atlanta

Rodophi

Schrijver Peter 2014 Language contact and the origins of the Germanic languages

New York amp London Routledge

Sweet Henry (ed) 1885 The oldest English texts (Early English Text Society 83)

London Oxford University Press

Taylor Ann 2008 Contact effects of translation Distinguishing two kinds of

46

influence in Old English Language Variation and Change 20 341-65

Taylor Ann Anthony Warner Susan Pintzuk amp Frank Beths 2003 The York-

Toronto-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Old English Prose Distributed by the

Oxford Text Archive

Thomason Sarah amp Terrence Kaufman 1988 Language contact creolization and

genetic linguistics University of California Press

Tristram Hildegard 2004 Diglossia in Anglo-Saxon England or what was spoken

Old English like Studia Anglica Posnaninsia 40 87-110

Van Coetsem Frans 2000 A general and unified theory of the transmission process in

language contact (Monographien zur Sprachwissenschaft 19) Heidelberg

Winter

Vandeweghe W (1987) The possessive dative in Dutch syntactic reanalysis and

predicate formation In Auwera Johan van der amp Louis Goossens (eds) Ins

and outs of predication 137-51 Dordrecht Foris

Vennemann Theo 2002 On the rise of lsquoCelticrsquo syntax in Middle English In Peter J

Lucas amp Angela M Lucas (eds) Middle English from tongue to text Selected

papers from the Third International Conference on Middle English Language

and Text held at Dublin Ireland 1-4 July 1999 203-234 Bern Peter Lang

Vergnaud Jean-Roger amp Maria Luisa Zubizaretta 1992 The definite determiner and

the inalienable construction in French and English Linguistic Inquiry 23 595-

652

Yerkes David 1982 Syntax and style in Old English Binghamton New York

Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies

1 Thanks to ltsnipgt for comments on a previous draft of this paper Any shortcomings

47

are my own

2 This is of course an oversimplification There is no single grammar of a period but

only the grammars of individual speakers By ldquothe grammarrdquo of a period I mean rules

held in common by the speech community

3 Haspelmath goes on to note (p 113) that ldquothe affectedness condition is not equally

strong in all languages and it has been conventionalized in various ways by different

languagesrdquo Although a corpus search cannot give us a complete picture of what role

ldquoaffectednessrdquo played in early Old English it is nevertheless informative

4 Landau points out problems with defining ldquoaffectednessrdquo in section 523 However

he comments in footnote 1 ldquounless otherwise mentioned PDC is always associated

with an affectedness implication for PDrdquo

5 Crisma similarly (2011 104) excludes complements of prepositions from her

investigation into the frequency of determiners with count nouns in Old English

6 Loslashdrup stresses that the Norwegian construction is not a DEP and argues for an

analysis in which a non-thematic possessor is treated as a core argument of the verb

He uses the common term POSSESSOR RAISING for the construction although his

Lexical Functional treatment does not involve actual movement of the possessor

7 I have cited the examples from Beowulf as they appear in the York corpus but as it

can be rather difficult to locate an example from these citations I have also provided

the exact line number

8 In this example the body part lacks a determiner but examples with determiners are

found in the same text

9 As discussed by Ferraresi (2005 2) and the electronic Wulfila Project

(httpwwwwulfilabe) we do not know what Greek text Bishop Wulfila used

48

Nevertheless the corpus is large enough that it is reasonable to expect that we should

be able to get a good picture of consistent divergences from the Greek that was most

likely to have been in Wulfilarsquos Greek original

10 I included heorte ldquoheartrdquo even when it referred to the soul or mind rather than the

body but not mod or hyge both of which mean ldquomindrdquo but never refer to a physical

body part I included words for the whole body also but did not count examples of

IPs in which the body in question was a corpse or the body part (eg a saintrsquos head)

belonged to a corpse and the possessor was clearly not capable of being affected and

so only one of the constructions under consideration (the IP) would be expected My

searches yielded no examples of DEPs with these types

11 A slight complication involved the small number of examples of what Ahlgren

(1946 sect130) as the ldquoblendedrdquo construction in which both a dative at sentence level

and an IP appear I have counted these examples as DEPs

12 Unfortunately those few poems which are undoubtedly early such contain no

examples of relevance

13 Amos (1980 124) concludes that it is impossible to determine whether this feature

represents one poetrsquos idiosyncrasy or a reflection of forms which represented the

usage of an early period

14 The restriction to accusative objects rules out examples such as thornaeligt him hildegrap

hrethornre ne mihte eorres inwitfeng aldre gescethornethan ldquothat the battle-grip of irersquos

malicious grasp could not harm his breast his liferdquo at 1446-7 Both hrethornre ldquobreastrdquo

and aldre ldquoliferdquo are in the dative case as objects of gescethornethan ldquoharmrdquo

15 We might add thornaeligt him for swenge swat aeligdrum sprong foreth at line 2966 with the

translation ldquoso that because of the blow his blood spurted from his veinsrdquo but a

49

translation ldquospurted from him from his veinsrdquo is probably better

16 I am indebted to Wim Van der Wurrf (pc) for the observation that Dutch has a

noun handgemeen which means ldquoscufflerdquo

17 At lines 2080 and 2651-2 we have IPs describing very drastic situations in leofes

mannes lic eall forswealg ldquodear manrsquos body (he) completely devouredrdquo and thornaeligt

minne lichaman hellipgled faeligethmie ldquothat fire embrace my bodyrdquo Here we are dealing

with an entire body rather than part of it so I did not include the example in my

figures I excluded also excluded onbraeligd thorna bealohydighelliprecedes muthornan ldquo(he) tore

open then the mouth of the hallrdquo at (723-4) because the possessor is not animate so

no dative would be expected

18 This example was not found in my systematic searches since it does not involve

either a dative or an affecting verb but I noted it in my reading

19 These are cochronAo23psd coorosiuo2psd coprefcurao2psd cocurao2psd

and cocuraCpsd I have excluded the Old English versions of Boethius and works

traditionally associated with King Alfred but only found in manuscripts from

substantially later periods

20 This ends with the annal for 924 in Plummerrsquos (1962 [1892-1899]) edition

21 A revised version not studied here is found in a manuscript from earlier in the

eleventh century See Yerkes (1982) for a discussion of the difference in the syntax of

the two versions His discussion of possessives in sections sectsect4-5 indicates no

systematic differences in the use of DEPs in the two versions

50

22 Gnidan is also found with an IP in the Leechbook in smire amp gnid ealne thorninne

lichoman mid ldquosmear and rub all your body with itrdquo at


23 It should be noted that this example is coordinated with (10a) in a single sentence

This makes possible an analysis in which the coordination is between his tungon

forcurfon and his eagan astungon rather than between thornaeligm papan his tungon

forcurfon and his eagan astungon in which case the dative would apply to both

conjuncts My search with the affecting verbs only turned up three examples in the

ASC(A) Because of its subject matter this text therefore cannot give us a good idea

of the variation between IPs and DEPs in original Early West Saxon prose

24 Note that I am excluding from my study examples with the very common

expression (for)laeligtan X(dat) blod ldquolet X bloodrdquo This expression is probably better

treated as a ditransitive construction than as a DEP

25 For the Latin version of the Orosius I have consulted Migne (1857)

26 For the Latin I have used Migne (1849)

27 This is not to rule out the possible role of suppression in the timing of the

appearance of other constructions such as periphrastic do considered one of the most

convincing examples of Celtic influence by Filppula (2008) and others Each case

must be treated individually

2

dative case

Havers (1911) introduced the term DATIVUS SYMPATHETICUS ldquosympathetic dativerdquo

for such datives Much recent work has used the term EXTERNAL POSSESSOR

introduced by Vergnaud amp Zubizaretta (1992) which I will abbreviate as EP

Haspelmath (1999) gives this definition

In an external-possession construction a possessive modifier does not occur as a

dependent constituent of the modified NP but NP-externally as a constituent of

the clause

Haspelmath (1999 109)

Haspelmathrsquos focus was on constructions in which the possessor is in the dative case

or DATIVE EXTERNAL POSSESSORS which I abbreviate as DEPs DEPs are found in Old

English (OE)

(2) Gif thornu thornaeligt thornurhteon ne maeligge scearpa him thorna scancan

If you that carry-out not may scarify himDAT theACC legsACC

lsquoIf you cant accomplish that scarify his legsrsquo


The loss of the DEP construction in English in favor of the ldquointernal possessorrdquo

(IP) has relevance to our understanding of syntactic change The two main contenders

as explanations for this development involve the role of the loss of the

dativeaccusative distinction and contact with other languages

At present no empirical base adequate for evaluating these explanations is

available Vennemann (2002 212) comments that his impression is that the IP

construction is ldquorelatively rarerdquo in OE but notes the need for a more detailed

investigation No substantial progress has been made in this regard since the

publication of Vennemannrsquos article The main purpose of this paper is to improve the

3


























4


























5


























6


























7


























8


actor subjects)6












or direct object









9




Judith 111-12


















(cobeowul8025752108) (lines 2575-6)7




10





possessors





















11
























12



blindin

blindMASCDATSG




John 1137






John 1810










13




Luke 164




















14



thar gefastnod

there fastened




3 Early Old English

31 Methodology

















15


























16


























17






in Beowulf14




(cobeowul7825012045) (lines 2507-8)






(cobeowul6520961708) (lines 2098-9)




(cobeowul6621351741) (line 2137)




(cobeowul6721721775) (lines 2175-6)


18
























19




Beowulf ll2697-8















Judith 105-6


examples in (16)




Genesis A 912

20




(cocynew1264681356)









(cophoeni102293197)













21









case






Andreas 1404





(coexeter1438119)






22










later period
















23


























24

Text IP Obj DEP Obj

Total Ext V Obj

Text IP Subj

DEP Subj

Total Ext V Subj



GD 6 3 9 GD 3 2 5

Alfred Laws

2 11 13 Alfred Laws

1 1 2

Total later MSS


5 19 24


Grand Total 7 25 32



Text IP Subj





2 11 13 Alfred Laws

1 1 2

Total later MSS


5 19 24






25





331 Object possessa





of aslean

off strike


offrsquo









(cocuraCP54512255)

26


























27

















(cocuraCP116712432)





28























affected

29








(cocuraCP54512255)

















30





















(cocuraCP1298118)

31


























32



















333 Latin Influence







33


























34


























35




















with EPs






36


























37
















(CMPETERB55444) (113727)




(CMORMI2802293)






38


























39



wergild for Britons










the population













40


























41


5 Conclusions















marked construction





42

REFERENCES







Oxford Blackwell



Project



America












43







Dudley MA Peeters











Press








44



Clarendon Press




de Gruyter



















45


Moutrouge








England 33 51-76







Clarendon Press



Rodophi






46




Oxford Text Archive







Winter










652




47

are my own
























48

























49






















50




















3


























4


























5


























6


























7


























8


actor subjects)6












or direct object









9




Judith 111-12


















(cobeowul8025752108) (lines 2575-6)7




10





possessors





















11
























12



blindin

blindMASCDATSG




John 1137






John 1810










13




Luke 164




















14



thar gefastnod

there fastened




3 Early Old English

31 Methodology

















15


























16


























17






in Beowulf14




(cobeowul7825012045) (lines 2507-8)






(cobeowul6520961708) (lines 2098-9)




(cobeowul6621351741) (line 2137)




(cobeowul6721721775) (lines 2175-6)


18
























19




Beowulf ll2697-8















Judith 105-6


examples in (16)




Genesis A 912

20




(cocynew1264681356)









(cophoeni102293197)













21









case






Andreas 1404





(coexeter1438119)






22










later period
















23


























24

Text IP Obj DEP Obj

Total Ext V Obj

Text IP Subj

DEP Subj

Total Ext V Subj



GD 6 3 9 GD 3 2 5

Alfred Laws

2 11 13 Alfred Laws

1 1 2

Total later MSS


5 19 24


Grand Total 7 25 32



Text IP Subj





2 11 13 Alfred Laws

1 1 2

Total later MSS


5 19 24






25





331 Object possessa





of aslean

off strike


offrsquo









(cocuraCP54512255)

26


























27

















(cocuraCP116712432)





28























affected

29








(cocuraCP54512255)

















30





















(cocuraCP1298118)

31


























32



















333 Latin Influence







33


























34


























35




















with EPs






36


























37
















(CMPETERB55444) (113727)




(CMORMI2802293)






38


























39



wergild for Britons










the population













40


























41


5 Conclusions















marked construction





42

REFERENCES







Oxford Blackwell



Project



America












43







Dudley MA Peeters











Press








44



Clarendon Press




de Gruyter



















45


Moutrouge








England 33 51-76







Clarendon Press



Rodophi






46




Oxford Text Archive







Winter










652




47

are my own
























48

























49






















50




















4


























5


























6


























7


























8


actor subjects)6












or direct object









9




Judith 111-12


















(cobeowul8025752108) (lines 2575-6)7




10





possessors





















11
























12



blindin

blindMASCDATSG




John 1137






John 1810










13




Luke 164




















14



thar gefastnod

there fastened




3 Early Old English

31 Methodology

















15


























16


























17






in Beowulf14




(cobeowul7825012045) (lines 2507-8)






(cobeowul6520961708) (lines 2098-9)




(cobeowul6621351741) (line 2137)




(cobeowul6721721775) (lines 2175-6)


18
























19




Beowulf ll2697-8















Judith 105-6


examples in (16)




Genesis A 912

20




(cocynew1264681356)









(cophoeni102293197)













21









case






Andreas 1404





(coexeter1438119)






22










later period
















23


























24

Text IP Obj DEP Obj

Total Ext V Obj

Text IP Subj

DEP Subj

Total Ext V Subj



GD 6 3 9 GD 3 2 5

Alfred Laws

2 11 13 Alfred Laws

1 1 2

Total later MSS


5 19 24


Grand Total 7 25 32



Text IP Subj





2 11 13 Alfred Laws

1 1 2

Total later MSS


5 19 24






25





331 Object possessa





of aslean

off strike


offrsquo









(cocuraCP54512255)

26


























27

















(cocuraCP116712432)





28























affected

29








(cocuraCP54512255)

















30





















(cocuraCP1298118)

31


























32



















333 Latin Influence







33


























34


























35




















with EPs






36


























37
















(CMPETERB55444) (113727)




(CMORMI2802293)






38


























39



wergild for Britons










the population













40


























41


5 Conclusions















marked construction





42

REFERENCES







Oxford Blackwell



Project



America












43







Dudley MA Peeters











Press








44



Clarendon Press




de Gruyter



















45


Moutrouge








England 33 51-76







Clarendon Press



Rodophi






46




Oxford Text Archive







Winter










652




47

are my own
























48

























49






















50




















5


























6


























7


























8


actor subjects)6












or direct object









9




Judith 111-12


















(cobeowul8025752108) (lines 2575-6)7




10





possessors





















11
























12



blindin

blindMASCDATSG




John 1137






John 1810










13




Luke 164




















14



thar gefastnod

there fastened




3 Early Old English

31 Methodology

















15


























16


























17






in Beowulf14




(cobeowul7825012045) (lines 2507-8)






(cobeowul6520961708) (lines 2098-9)




(cobeowul6621351741) (line 2137)




(cobeowul6721721775) (lines 2175-6)


18
























19




Beowulf ll2697-8















Judith 105-6


examples in (16)




Genesis A 912

20




(cocynew1264681356)









(cophoeni102293197)













21









case






Andreas 1404





(coexeter1438119)






22










later period
















23


























24

Text IP Obj DEP Obj

Total Ext V Obj

Text IP Subj

DEP Subj

Total Ext V Subj



GD 6 3 9 GD 3 2 5

Alfred Laws

2 11 13 Alfred Laws

1 1 2

Total later MSS


5 19 24


Grand Total 7 25 32



Text IP Subj





2 11 13 Alfred Laws

1 1 2

Total later MSS


5 19 24






25





331 Object possessa





of aslean

off strike


offrsquo









(cocuraCP54512255)

26


























27

















(cocuraCP116712432)





28























affected

29








(cocuraCP54512255)

















30





















(cocuraCP1298118)

31


























32



















333 Latin Influence







33


























34


























35




















with EPs






36


























37
















(CMPETERB55444) (113727)




(CMORMI2802293)






38


























39



wergild for Britons










the population













40


























41


5 Conclusions















marked construction





42

REFERENCES







Oxford Blackwell



Project



America












43







Dudley MA Peeters











Press








44



Clarendon Press




de Gruyter



















45


Moutrouge








England 33 51-76







Clarendon Press



Rodophi






46




Oxford Text Archive







Winter










652




47

are my own
























48

























49






















50




















6


























7


























8


actor subjects)6












or direct object









9




Judith 111-12


















(cobeowul8025752108) (lines 2575-6)7




10





possessors





















11
























12



blindin

blindMASCDATSG




John 1137






John 1810










13




Luke 164




















14



thar gefastnod

there fastened




3 Early Old English

31 Methodology

















15


























16


























17






in Beowulf14




(cobeowul7825012045) (lines 2507-8)






(cobeowul6520961708) (lines 2098-9)




(cobeowul6621351741) (line 2137)




(cobeowul6721721775) (lines 2175-6)


18
























19




Beowulf ll2697-8















Judith 105-6


examples in (16)




Genesis A 912

20




(cocynew1264681356)









(cophoeni102293197)













21









case






Andreas 1404





(coexeter1438119)






22










later period
















23


























24

Text IP Obj DEP Obj

Total Ext V Obj

Text IP Subj

DEP Subj

Total Ext V Subj



GD 6 3 9 GD 3 2 5

Alfred Laws

2 11 13 Alfred Laws

1 1 2

Total later MSS


5 19 24


Grand Total 7 25 32



Text IP Subj





2 11 13 Alfred Laws

1 1 2

Total later MSS


5 19 24






25





331 Object possessa





of aslean

off strike


offrsquo









(cocuraCP54512255)

26


























27

















(cocuraCP116712432)





28























affected

29








(cocuraCP54512255)

















30





















(cocuraCP1298118)

31


























32



















333 Latin Influence







33


























34


























35




















with EPs






36


























37
















(CMPETERB55444) (113727)




(CMORMI2802293)






38


























39



wergild for Britons










the population













40


























41


5 Conclusions















marked construction





42

REFERENCES







Oxford Blackwell



Project



America












43







Dudley MA Peeters











Press








44



Clarendon Press




de Gruyter



















45


Moutrouge








England 33 51-76







Clarendon Press



Rodophi






46




Oxford Text Archive







Winter










652




47

are my own
























48

























49






















50




















7


























8


actor subjects)6












or direct object









9




Judith 111-12


















(cobeowul8025752108) (lines 2575-6)7




10





possessors





















11
























12



blindin

blindMASCDATSG




John 1137






John 1810










13




Luke 164




















14



thar gefastnod

there fastened




3 Early Old English

31 Methodology

















15


























16


























17






in Beowulf14




(cobeowul7825012045) (lines 2507-8)






(cobeowul6520961708) (lines 2098-9)




(cobeowul6621351741) (line 2137)




(cobeowul6721721775) (lines 2175-6)


18
























19




Beowulf ll2697-8















Judith 105-6


examples in (16)




Genesis A 912

20




(cocynew1264681356)









(cophoeni102293197)













21









case






Andreas 1404





(coexeter1438119)






22










later period
















23


























24

Text IP Obj DEP Obj

Total Ext V Obj

Text IP Subj

DEP Subj

Total Ext V Subj



GD 6 3 9 GD 3 2 5

Alfred Laws

2 11 13 Alfred Laws

1 1 2

Total later MSS


5 19 24


Grand Total 7 25 32



Text IP Subj





2 11 13 Alfred Laws

1 1 2

Total later MSS


5 19 24






25





331 Object possessa





of aslean

off strike


offrsquo









(cocuraCP54512255)

26


























27

















(cocuraCP116712432)





28























affected

29








(cocuraCP54512255)

















30





















(cocuraCP1298118)

31


























32



















333 Latin Influence







33


























34


























35




















with EPs






36


























37
















(CMPETERB55444) (113727)




(CMORMI2802293)






38


























39



wergild for Britons










the population













40


























41


5 Conclusions















marked construction





42

REFERENCES







Oxford Blackwell



Project



America












43







Dudley MA Peeters











Press








44



Clarendon Press




de Gruyter



















45


Moutrouge








England 33 51-76







Clarendon Press



Rodophi






46




Oxford Text Archive







Winter










652




47

are my own
























48

























49






















50




















8


actor subjects)6












or direct object









9




Judith 111-12


















(cobeowul8025752108) (lines 2575-6)7




10





possessors





















11
























12



blindin

blindMASCDATSG




John 1137






John 1810










13




Luke 164




















14



thar gefastnod

there fastened




3 Early Old English

31 Methodology

















15


























16


























17






in Beowulf14




(cobeowul7825012045) (lines 2507-8)






(cobeowul6520961708) (lines 2098-9)




(cobeowul6621351741) (line 2137)




(cobeowul6721721775) (lines 2175-6)


18
























19




Beowulf ll2697-8















Judith 105-6


examples in (16)




Genesis A 912

20




(cocynew1264681356)









(cophoeni102293197)













21









case






Andreas 1404





(coexeter1438119)






22










later period
















23


























24

Text IP Obj DEP Obj

Total Ext V Obj

Text IP Subj

DEP Subj

Total Ext V Subj



GD 6 3 9 GD 3 2 5

Alfred Laws

2 11 13 Alfred Laws

1 1 2

Total later MSS


5 19 24


Grand Total 7 25 32



Text IP Subj





2 11 13 Alfred Laws

1 1 2

Total later MSS


5 19 24






25





331 Object possessa





of aslean

off strike


offrsquo









(cocuraCP54512255)

26


























27

















(cocuraCP116712432)





28























affected

29








(cocuraCP54512255)

















30





















(cocuraCP1298118)

31


























32



















333 Latin Influence







33


























34


























35




















with EPs






36


























37
















(CMPETERB55444) (113727)




(CMORMI2802293)






38


























39



wergild for Britons










the population













40


























41


5 Conclusions















marked construction





42

REFERENCES







Oxford Blackwell



Project



America












43







Dudley MA Peeters











Press








44



Clarendon Press




de Gruyter



















45


Moutrouge








England 33 51-76







Clarendon Press



Rodophi






46




Oxford Text Archive







Winter










652




47

are my own
























48

























49






















50




















9




Judith 111-12


















(cobeowul8025752108) (lines 2575-6)7




10





possessors





















11
























12



blindin

blindMASCDATSG




John 1137






John 1810










13




Luke 164




















14



thar gefastnod

there fastened




3 Early Old English

31 Methodology

















15


























16


























17






in Beowulf14




(cobeowul7825012045) (lines 2507-8)






(cobeowul6520961708) (lines 2098-9)




(cobeowul6621351741) (line 2137)




(cobeowul6721721775) (lines 2175-6)


18
























19




Beowulf ll2697-8















Judith 105-6


examples in (16)




Genesis A 912

20




(cocynew1264681356)









(cophoeni102293197)













21









case






Andreas 1404





(coexeter1438119)






22










later period
















23


























24

Text IP Obj DEP Obj

Total Ext V Obj

Text IP Subj

DEP Subj

Total Ext V Subj



GD 6 3 9 GD 3 2 5

Alfred Laws

2 11 13 Alfred Laws

1 1 2

Total later MSS


5 19 24


Grand Total 7 25 32



Text IP Subj





2 11 13 Alfred Laws

1 1 2

Total later MSS


5 19 24






25





331 Object possessa





of aslean

off strike


offrsquo









(cocuraCP54512255)

26


























27

















(cocuraCP116712432)





28























affected

29








(cocuraCP54512255)

















30





















(cocuraCP1298118)

31


























32



















333 Latin Influence







33


























34


























35




















with EPs






36


























37
















(CMPETERB55444) (113727)




(CMORMI2802293)






38


























39



wergild for Britons










the population













40


























41


5 Conclusions















marked construction





42

REFERENCES







Oxford Blackwell



Project



America












43







Dudley MA Peeters











Press








44



Clarendon Press




de Gruyter



















45


Moutrouge








England 33 51-76







Clarendon Press



Rodophi






46




Oxford Text Archive







Winter










652




47

are my own
























48

























49






















50




















10





possessors





















11
























12



blindin

blindMASCDATSG




John 1137






John 1810










13




Luke 164




















14



thar gefastnod

there fastened




3 Early Old English

31 Methodology

















15


























16


























17






in Beowulf14




(cobeowul7825012045) (lines 2507-8)






(cobeowul6520961708) (lines 2098-9)




(cobeowul6621351741) (line 2137)




(cobeowul6721721775) (lines 2175-6)


18
























19




Beowulf ll2697-8















Judith 105-6


examples in (16)




Genesis A 912

20




(cocynew1264681356)









(cophoeni102293197)













21









case






Andreas 1404





(coexeter1438119)






22










later period
















23


























24

Text IP Obj DEP Obj

Total Ext V Obj

Text IP Subj

DEP Subj

Total Ext V Subj



GD 6 3 9 GD 3 2 5

Alfred Laws

2 11 13 Alfred Laws

1 1 2

Total later MSS


5 19 24


Grand Total 7 25 32



Text IP Subj





2 11 13 Alfred Laws

1 1 2

Total later MSS


5 19 24






25





331 Object possessa





of aslean

off strike


offrsquo









(cocuraCP54512255)

26


























27

















(cocuraCP116712432)





28























affected

29








(cocuraCP54512255)

















30





















(cocuraCP1298118)

31


























32



















333 Latin Influence







33


























34


























35




















with EPs






36


























37
















(CMPETERB55444) (113727)




(CMORMI2802293)






38


























39



wergild for Britons










the population













40


























41


5 Conclusions















marked construction





42

REFERENCES







Oxford Blackwell



Project



America












43







Dudley MA Peeters











Press








44



Clarendon Press




de Gruyter



















45


Moutrouge








England 33 51-76







Clarendon Press



Rodophi






46




Oxford Text Archive







Winter










652




47

are my own
























48

























49






















50




















11
























12



blindin

blindMASCDATSG




John 1137






John 1810










13




Luke 164




















14



thar gefastnod

there fastened




3 Early Old English

31 Methodology

















15


























16


























17






in Beowulf14




(cobeowul7825012045) (lines 2507-8)






(cobeowul6520961708) (lines 2098-9)




(cobeowul6621351741) (line 2137)




(cobeowul6721721775) (lines 2175-6)


18
























19




Beowulf ll2697-8















Judith 105-6


examples in (16)




Genesis A 912

20




(cocynew1264681356)









(cophoeni102293197)













21









case






Andreas 1404





(coexeter1438119)






22










later period
















23


























24

Text IP Obj DEP Obj

Total Ext V Obj

Text IP Subj

DEP Subj

Total Ext V Subj



GD 6 3 9 GD 3 2 5

Alfred Laws

2 11 13 Alfred Laws

1 1 2

Total later MSS


5 19 24


Grand Total 7 25 32



Text IP Subj





2 11 13 Alfred Laws

1 1 2

Total later MSS


5 19 24






25





331 Object possessa





of aslean

off strike


offrsquo









(cocuraCP54512255)

26


























27

















(cocuraCP116712432)





28























affected

29








(cocuraCP54512255)

















30





















(cocuraCP1298118)

31


























32



















333 Latin Influence







33


























34


























35




















with EPs






36


























37
















(CMPETERB55444) (113727)




(CMORMI2802293)






38


























39



wergild for Britons










the population













40


























41


5 Conclusions















marked construction





42

REFERENCES







Oxford Blackwell



Project



America












43







Dudley MA Peeters











Press








44



Clarendon Press




de Gruyter



















45


Moutrouge








England 33 51-76







Clarendon Press



Rodophi






46




Oxford Text Archive







Winter










652




47

are my own
























48

























49






















50




















12



blindin

blindMASCDATSG




John 1137






John 1810










13




Luke 164




















14



thar gefastnod

there fastened




3 Early Old English

31 Methodology

















15


























16


























17






in Beowulf14




(cobeowul7825012045) (lines 2507-8)






(cobeowul6520961708) (lines 2098-9)




(cobeowul6621351741) (line 2137)




(cobeowul6721721775) (lines 2175-6)


18
























19




Beowulf ll2697-8















Judith 105-6


examples in (16)




Genesis A 912

20




(cocynew1264681356)









(cophoeni102293197)













21









case






Andreas 1404





(coexeter1438119)






22










later period
















23


























24

Text IP Obj DEP Obj

Total Ext V Obj

Text IP Subj

DEP Subj

Total Ext V Subj



GD 6 3 9 GD 3 2 5

Alfred Laws

2 11 13 Alfred Laws

1 1 2

Total later MSS


5 19 24


Grand Total 7 25 32



Text IP Subj





2 11 13 Alfred Laws

1 1 2

Total later MSS


5 19 24






25





331 Object possessa





of aslean

off strike


offrsquo









(cocuraCP54512255)

26


























27

















(cocuraCP116712432)





28























affected

29








(cocuraCP54512255)

















30





















(cocuraCP1298118)

31


























32



















333 Latin Influence







33


























34


























35




















with EPs






36


























37
















(CMPETERB55444) (113727)




(CMORMI2802293)






38


























39



wergild for Britons










the population













40


























41


5 Conclusions















marked construction





42

REFERENCES







Oxford Blackwell



Project



America












43







Dudley MA Peeters











Press








44



Clarendon Press




de Gruyter



















45


Moutrouge








England 33 51-76







Clarendon Press



Rodophi






46




Oxford Text Archive







Winter










652




47

are my own
























48

























49






















50




















13




Luke 164




















14



thar gefastnod

there fastened




3 Early Old English

31 Methodology

















15


























16


























17






in Beowulf14




(cobeowul7825012045) (lines 2507-8)






(cobeowul6520961708) (lines 2098-9)




(cobeowul6621351741) (line 2137)




(cobeowul6721721775) (lines 2175-6)


18
























19




Beowulf ll2697-8















Judith 105-6


examples in (16)




Genesis A 912

20




(cocynew1264681356)









(cophoeni102293197)













21









case






Andreas 1404





(coexeter1438119)






22










later period
















23


























24

Text IP Obj DEP Obj

Total Ext V Obj

Text IP Subj

DEP Subj

Total Ext V Subj



GD 6 3 9 GD 3 2 5

Alfred Laws

2 11 13 Alfred Laws

1 1 2

Total later MSS


5 19 24


Grand Total 7 25 32



Text IP Subj





2 11 13 Alfred Laws

1 1 2

Total later MSS


5 19 24






25





331 Object possessa





of aslean

off strike


offrsquo









(cocuraCP54512255)

26


























27

















(cocuraCP116712432)





28























affected

29








(cocuraCP54512255)

















30





















(cocuraCP1298118)

31


























32



















333 Latin Influence







33


























34


























35




















with EPs






36


























37
















(CMPETERB55444) (113727)




(CMORMI2802293)






38


























39



wergild for Britons










the population













40


























41


5 Conclusions















marked construction





42

REFERENCES







Oxford Blackwell



Project



America












43







Dudley MA Peeters











Press








44



Clarendon Press




de Gruyter



















45


Moutrouge








England 33 51-76







Clarendon Press



Rodophi






46




Oxford Text Archive







Winter










652




47

are my own
























48

























49






















50




















14



thar gefastnod

there fastened




3 Early Old English

31 Methodology

















15


























16


























17






in Beowulf14




(cobeowul7825012045) (lines 2507-8)






(cobeowul6520961708) (lines 2098-9)




(cobeowul6621351741) (line 2137)




(cobeowul6721721775) (lines 2175-6)


18
























19




Beowulf ll2697-8















Judith 105-6


examples in (16)




Genesis A 912

20




(cocynew1264681356)









(cophoeni102293197)













21









case






Andreas 1404





(coexeter1438119)






22










later period
















23


























24

Text IP Obj DEP Obj

Total Ext V Obj

Text IP Subj

DEP Subj

Total Ext V Subj



GD 6 3 9 GD 3 2 5

Alfred Laws

2 11 13 Alfred Laws

1 1 2

Total later MSS


5 19 24


Grand Total 7 25 32



Text IP Subj





2 11 13 Alfred Laws

1 1 2

Total later MSS


5 19 24






25





331 Object possessa





of aslean

off strike


offrsquo









(cocuraCP54512255)

26


























27

















(cocuraCP116712432)





28























affected

29








(cocuraCP54512255)

















30





















(cocuraCP1298118)

31


























32



















333 Latin Influence







33


























34


























35




















with EPs






36


























37
















(CMPETERB55444) (113727)




(CMORMI2802293)






38


























39



wergild for Britons










the population













40


























41


5 Conclusions















marked construction





42

REFERENCES







Oxford Blackwell



Project



America












43







Dudley MA Peeters











Press








44



Clarendon Press




de Gruyter



















45


Moutrouge








England 33 51-76







Clarendon Press



Rodophi






46




Oxford Text Archive







Winter










652




47

are my own
























48

























49






















50




















15


























16


























17






in Beowulf14




(cobeowul7825012045) (lines 2507-8)






(cobeowul6520961708) (lines 2098-9)




(cobeowul6621351741) (line 2137)




(cobeowul6721721775) (lines 2175-6)


18
























19




Beowulf ll2697-8















Judith 105-6


examples in (16)




Genesis A 912

20




(cocynew1264681356)









(cophoeni102293197)













21









case






Andreas 1404





(coexeter1438119)






22










later period
















23


























24

Text IP Obj DEP Obj

Total Ext V Obj

Text IP Subj

DEP Subj

Total Ext V Subj



GD 6 3 9 GD 3 2 5

Alfred Laws

2 11 13 Alfred Laws

1 1 2

Total later MSS


5 19 24


Grand Total 7 25 32



Text IP Subj





2 11 13 Alfred Laws

1 1 2

Total later MSS


5 19 24






25





331 Object possessa





of aslean

off strike


offrsquo









(cocuraCP54512255)

26


























27

















(cocuraCP116712432)





28























affected

29








(cocuraCP54512255)

















30





















(cocuraCP1298118)

31


























32



















333 Latin Influence







33


























34


























35




















with EPs






36


























37
















(CMPETERB55444) (113727)




(CMORMI2802293)






38


























39



wergild for Britons










the population













40


























41


5 Conclusions















marked construction





42

REFERENCES







Oxford Blackwell



Project



America












43







Dudley MA Peeters











Press








44



Clarendon Press




de Gruyter



















45


Moutrouge








England 33 51-76







Clarendon Press



Rodophi






46




Oxford Text Archive







Winter










652




47

are my own
























48

























49






















50




















16


























17






in Beowulf14




(cobeowul7825012045) (lines 2507-8)






(cobeowul6520961708) (lines 2098-9)




(cobeowul6621351741) (line 2137)




(cobeowul6721721775) (lines 2175-6)


18
























19




Beowulf ll2697-8















Judith 105-6


examples in (16)




Genesis A 912

20




(cocynew1264681356)









(cophoeni102293197)













21









case






Andreas 1404





(coexeter1438119)






22










later period
















23


























24

Text IP Obj DEP Obj

Total Ext V Obj

Text IP Subj

DEP Subj

Total Ext V Subj



GD 6 3 9 GD 3 2 5

Alfred Laws

2 11 13 Alfred Laws

1 1 2

Total later MSS


5 19 24


Grand Total 7 25 32



Text IP Subj





2 11 13 Alfred Laws

1 1 2

Total later MSS


5 19 24






25





331 Object possessa





of aslean

off strike


offrsquo









(cocuraCP54512255)

26


























27

















(cocuraCP116712432)





28























affected

29








(cocuraCP54512255)

















30





















(cocuraCP1298118)

31


























32



















333 Latin Influence







33


























34


























35




















with EPs






36


























37
















(CMPETERB55444) (113727)




(CMORMI2802293)






38


























39



wergild for Britons










the population













40


























41


5 Conclusions















marked construction





42

REFERENCES







Oxford Blackwell



Project



America












43







Dudley MA Peeters











Press








44



Clarendon Press




de Gruyter



















45


Moutrouge








England 33 51-76







Clarendon Press



Rodophi






46




Oxford Text Archive







Winter










652




47

are my own
























48

























49






















50




















17






in Beowulf14




(cobeowul7825012045) (lines 2507-8)






(cobeowul6520961708) (lines 2098-9)




(cobeowul6621351741) (line 2137)




(cobeowul6721721775) (lines 2175-6)


18
























19




Beowulf ll2697-8















Judith 105-6


examples in (16)




Genesis A 912

20




(cocynew1264681356)









(cophoeni102293197)













21









case






Andreas 1404





(coexeter1438119)






22










later period
















23


























24

Text IP Obj DEP Obj

Total Ext V Obj

Text IP Subj

DEP Subj

Total Ext V Subj



GD 6 3 9 GD 3 2 5

Alfred Laws

2 11 13 Alfred Laws

1 1 2

Total later MSS


5 19 24


Grand Total 7 25 32



Text IP Subj





2 11 13 Alfred Laws

1 1 2

Total later MSS


5 19 24






25





331 Object possessa





of aslean

off strike


offrsquo









(cocuraCP54512255)

26


























27

















(cocuraCP116712432)





28























affected

29








(cocuraCP54512255)

















30





















(cocuraCP1298118)

31


























32



















333 Latin Influence







33


























34


























35




















with EPs






36


























37
















(CMPETERB55444) (113727)




(CMORMI2802293)






38


























39



wergild for Britons










the population













40


























41


5 Conclusions















marked construction





42

REFERENCES







Oxford Blackwell



Project



America












43







Dudley MA Peeters











Press








44



Clarendon Press




de Gruyter



















45


Moutrouge








England 33 51-76







Clarendon Press



Rodophi






46




Oxford Text Archive







Winter










652




47

are my own
























48

























49






















50




















18
























19




Beowulf ll2697-8















Judith 105-6


examples in (16)




Genesis A 912

20




(cocynew1264681356)









(cophoeni102293197)













21









case






Andreas 1404





(coexeter1438119)






22










later period
















23


























24

Text IP Obj DEP Obj

Total Ext V Obj

Text IP Subj

DEP Subj

Total Ext V Subj



GD 6 3 9 GD 3 2 5

Alfred Laws

2 11 13 Alfred Laws

1 1 2

Total later MSS


5 19 24


Grand Total 7 25 32



Text IP Subj





2 11 13 Alfred Laws

1 1 2

Total later MSS


5 19 24






25





331 Object possessa





of aslean

off strike


offrsquo









(cocuraCP54512255)

26


























27

















(cocuraCP116712432)





28























affected

29








(cocuraCP54512255)

















30





















(cocuraCP1298118)

31


























32



















333 Latin Influence







33


























34


























35




















with EPs






36


























37
















(CMPETERB55444) (113727)




(CMORMI2802293)






38


























39



wergild for Britons










the population













40


























41


5 Conclusions















marked construction





42

REFERENCES







Oxford Blackwell



Project



America












43







Dudley MA Peeters











Press








44



Clarendon Press




de Gruyter



















45


Moutrouge








England 33 51-76







Clarendon Press



Rodophi






46




Oxford Text Archive







Winter










652




47

are my own
























48

























49






















50




















19




Beowulf ll2697-8















Judith 105-6


examples in (16)




Genesis A 912

20




(cocynew1264681356)









(cophoeni102293197)













21









case






Andreas 1404





(coexeter1438119)






22










later period
















23


























24

Text IP Obj DEP Obj

Total Ext V Obj

Text IP Subj

DEP Subj

Total Ext V Subj



GD 6 3 9 GD 3 2 5

Alfred Laws

2 11 13 Alfred Laws

1 1 2

Total later MSS


5 19 24


Grand Total 7 25 32



Text IP Subj





2 11 13 Alfred Laws

1 1 2

Total later MSS


5 19 24






25





331 Object possessa





of aslean

off strike


offrsquo









(cocuraCP54512255)

26


























27

















(cocuraCP116712432)





28























affected

29








(cocuraCP54512255)

















30





















(cocuraCP1298118)

31


























32



















333 Latin Influence







33


























34


























35




















with EPs






36


























37
















(CMPETERB55444) (113727)




(CMORMI2802293)






38


























39



wergild for Britons










the population













40


























41


5 Conclusions















marked construction





42

REFERENCES







Oxford Blackwell



Project



America












43







Dudley MA Peeters











Press








44



Clarendon Press




de Gruyter



















45


Moutrouge








England 33 51-76







Clarendon Press



Rodophi






46




Oxford Text Archive







Winter










652




47

are my own
























48

























49






















50




















20




(cocynew1264681356)









(cophoeni102293197)













21









case






Andreas 1404





(coexeter1438119)






22










later period
















23


























24

Text IP Obj DEP Obj

Total Ext V Obj

Text IP Subj

DEP Subj

Total Ext V Subj



GD 6 3 9 GD 3 2 5

Alfred Laws

2 11 13 Alfred Laws

1 1 2

Total later MSS


5 19 24


Grand Total 7 25 32



Text IP Subj





2 11 13 Alfred Laws

1 1 2

Total later MSS


5 19 24






25





331 Object possessa





of aslean

off strike


offrsquo









(cocuraCP54512255)

26


























27

















(cocuraCP116712432)





28























affected

29








(cocuraCP54512255)

















30





















(cocuraCP1298118)

31


























32



















333 Latin Influence







33


























34


























35




















with EPs






36


























37
















(CMPETERB55444) (113727)




(CMORMI2802293)






38


























39



wergild for Britons










the population













40


























41


5 Conclusions















marked construction





42

REFERENCES







Oxford Blackwell



Project



America












43







Dudley MA Peeters











Press








44



Clarendon Press




de Gruyter



















45


Moutrouge








England 33 51-76







Clarendon Press



Rodophi






46




Oxford Text Archive







Winter










652




47

are my own
























48

























49






















50




















21









case






Andreas 1404





(coexeter1438119)






22










later period
















23


























24

Text IP Obj DEP Obj

Total Ext V Obj

Text IP Subj

DEP Subj

Total Ext V Subj



GD 6 3 9 GD 3 2 5

Alfred Laws

2 11 13 Alfred Laws

1 1 2

Total later MSS


5 19 24


Grand Total 7 25 32



Text IP Subj





2 11 13 Alfred Laws

1 1 2

Total later MSS


5 19 24






25





331 Object possessa





of aslean

off strike


offrsquo









(cocuraCP54512255)

26


























27

















(cocuraCP116712432)





28























affected

29








(cocuraCP54512255)

















30





















(cocuraCP1298118)

31


























32



















333 Latin Influence







33


























34


























35




















with EPs






36


























37
















(CMPETERB55444) (113727)




(CMORMI2802293)






38


























39



wergild for Britons










the population













40


























41


5 Conclusions















marked construction





42

REFERENCES







Oxford Blackwell



Project



America












43







Dudley MA Peeters











Press








44



Clarendon Press




de Gruyter



















45


Moutrouge








England 33 51-76







Clarendon Press



Rodophi






46




Oxford Text Archive







Winter










652




47

are my own
























48

























49






















50




















22










later period
















23


























24

Text IP Obj DEP Obj

Total Ext V Obj

Text IP Subj

DEP Subj

Total Ext V Subj



GD 6 3 9 GD 3 2 5

Alfred Laws

2 11 13 Alfred Laws

1 1 2

Total later MSS


5 19 24


Grand Total 7 25 32



Text IP Subj





2 11 13 Alfred Laws

1 1 2

Total later MSS


5 19 24






25





331 Object possessa





of aslean

off strike


offrsquo









(cocuraCP54512255)

26


























27

















(cocuraCP116712432)





28























affected

29








(cocuraCP54512255)

















30





















(cocuraCP1298118)

31


























32



















333 Latin Influence







33


























34


























35




















with EPs






36


























37
















(CMPETERB55444) (113727)




(CMORMI2802293)






38


























39



wergild for Britons










the population













40


























41


5 Conclusions















marked construction





42

REFERENCES







Oxford Blackwell



Project



America












43







Dudley MA Peeters











Press








44



Clarendon Press




de Gruyter



















45


Moutrouge








England 33 51-76







Clarendon Press



Rodophi






46




Oxford Text Archive







Winter










652




47

are my own
























48

























49






















50




















23


























24

Text IP Obj DEP Obj

Total Ext V Obj

Text IP Subj

DEP Subj

Total Ext V Subj



GD 6 3 9 GD 3 2 5

Alfred Laws

2 11 13 Alfred Laws

1 1 2

Total later MSS


5 19 24


Grand Total 7 25 32



Text IP Subj





2 11 13 Alfred Laws

1 1 2

Total later MSS


5 19 24






25





331 Object possessa





of aslean

off strike


offrsquo









(cocuraCP54512255)

26


























27

















(cocuraCP116712432)





28























affected

29








(cocuraCP54512255)

















30





















(cocuraCP1298118)

31


























32



















333 Latin Influence







33


























34


























35




















with EPs






36


























37
















(CMPETERB55444) (113727)




(CMORMI2802293)






38


























39



wergild for Britons










the population













40


























41


5 Conclusions















marked construction





42

REFERENCES







Oxford Blackwell



Project



America












43







Dudley MA Peeters











Press








44



Clarendon Press




de Gruyter



















45


Moutrouge








England 33 51-76







Clarendon Press



Rodophi






46




Oxford Text Archive







Winter










652




47

are my own
























48

























49






















50




















24

Text IP Obj DEP Obj

Total Ext V Obj

Text IP Subj

DEP Subj

Total Ext V Subj



GD 6 3 9 GD 3 2 5

Alfred Laws

2 11 13 Alfred Laws

1 1 2

Total later MSS


5 19 24


Grand Total 7 25 32



Text IP Subj





2 11 13 Alfred Laws

1 1 2

Total later MSS


5 19 24






25





331 Object possessa





of aslean

off strike


offrsquo









(cocuraCP54512255)

26


























27

















(cocuraCP116712432)





28























affected

29








(cocuraCP54512255)

















30





















(cocuraCP1298118)

31


























32



















333 Latin Influence







33


























34


























35




















with EPs






36


























37
















(CMPETERB55444) (113727)




(CMORMI2802293)






38


























39



wergild for Britons










the population













40


























41


5 Conclusions















marked construction





42

REFERENCES







Oxford Blackwell



Project



America












43







Dudley MA Peeters











Press








44



Clarendon Press




de Gruyter



















45


Moutrouge








England 33 51-76







Clarendon Press



Rodophi






46




Oxford Text Archive







Winter










652




47

are my own
























48

























49






















50




















25





331 Object possessa





of aslean

off strike


offrsquo









(cocuraCP54512255)

26


























27

















(cocuraCP116712432)





28























affected

29








(cocuraCP54512255)

















30





















(cocuraCP1298118)

31


























32



















333 Latin Influence







33


























34


























35




















with EPs






36


























37
















(CMPETERB55444) (113727)




(CMORMI2802293)






38


























39



wergild for Britons










the population













40


























41


5 Conclusions















marked construction





42

REFERENCES







Oxford Blackwell



Project



America












43







Dudley MA Peeters











Press








44



Clarendon Press




de Gruyter



















45


Moutrouge








England 33 51-76







Clarendon Press



Rodophi






46




Oxford Text Archive







Winter










652




47

are my own
























48

























49






















50




















26


























27

















(cocuraCP116712432)





28























affected

29








(cocuraCP54512255)

















30





















(cocuraCP1298118)

31


























32



















333 Latin Influence







33


























34


























35




















with EPs






36


























37
















(CMPETERB55444) (113727)




(CMORMI2802293)






38


























39



wergild for Britons










the population













40


























41


5 Conclusions















marked construction





42

REFERENCES







Oxford Blackwell



Project



America












43







Dudley MA Peeters











Press








44



Clarendon Press




de Gruyter



















45


Moutrouge








England 33 51-76







Clarendon Press



Rodophi






46




Oxford Text Archive







Winter










652




47

are my own
























48

























49






















50




















27

















(cocuraCP116712432)





28























affected

29








(cocuraCP54512255)

















30





















(cocuraCP1298118)

31


























32



















333 Latin Influence







33


























34


























35




















with EPs






36


























37
















(CMPETERB55444) (113727)




(CMORMI2802293)






38


























39



wergild for Britons










the population













40


























41


5 Conclusions















marked construction





42

REFERENCES







Oxford Blackwell



Project



America












43







Dudley MA Peeters











Press








44



Clarendon Press




de Gruyter



















45


Moutrouge








England 33 51-76







Clarendon Press



Rodophi






46




Oxford Text Archive







Winter










652




47

are my own
























48

























49






















50




















28























affected

29








(cocuraCP54512255)

















30





















(cocuraCP1298118)

31


























32



















333 Latin Influence







33


























34


























35




















with EPs






36


























37
















(CMPETERB55444) (113727)




(CMORMI2802293)






38


























39



wergild for Britons










the population













40


























41


5 Conclusions















marked construction





42

REFERENCES







Oxford Blackwell



Project



America












43







Dudley MA Peeters











Press








44



Clarendon Press




de Gruyter



















45


Moutrouge








England 33 51-76







Clarendon Press



Rodophi






46




Oxford Text Archive







Winter










652




47

are my own
























48

























49






















50




















29








(cocuraCP54512255)

















30





















(cocuraCP1298118)

31


























32



















333 Latin Influence







33


























34


























35




















with EPs






36


























37
















(CMPETERB55444) (113727)




(CMORMI2802293)






38


























39



wergild for Britons










the population













40


























41


5 Conclusions















marked construction





42

REFERENCES







Oxford Blackwell



Project



America












43







Dudley MA Peeters











Press








44



Clarendon Press




de Gruyter



















45


Moutrouge








England 33 51-76







Clarendon Press



Rodophi






46




Oxford Text Archive







Winter










652




47

are my own
























48

























49






















50




















30





















(cocuraCP1298118)

31


























32



















333 Latin Influence







33


























34


























35




















with EPs






36


























37
















(CMPETERB55444) (113727)




(CMORMI2802293)






38


























39



wergild for Britons










the population













40


























41


5 Conclusions















marked construction





42

REFERENCES







Oxford Blackwell



Project



America












43







Dudley MA Peeters











Press








44



Clarendon Press




de Gruyter



















45


Moutrouge








England 33 51-76







Clarendon Press



Rodophi






46




Oxford Text Archive







Winter










652




47

are my own
























48

























49






















50




















31


























32



















333 Latin Influence







33


























34


























35




















with EPs






36


























37
















(CMPETERB55444) (113727)




(CMORMI2802293)






38


























39



wergild for Britons










the population













40


























41


5 Conclusions















marked construction





42

REFERENCES







Oxford Blackwell



Project



America












43







Dudley MA Peeters











Press








44



Clarendon Press




de Gruyter



















45


Moutrouge








England 33 51-76







Clarendon Press



Rodophi






46




Oxford Text Archive







Winter










652




47

are my own
























48

























49






















50




















32



















333 Latin Influence







33


























34


























35




















with EPs






36


























37
















(CMPETERB55444) (113727)




(CMORMI2802293)






38


























39



wergild for Britons










the population













40


























41


5 Conclusions















marked construction





42

REFERENCES







Oxford Blackwell



Project



America












43







Dudley MA Peeters











Press








44



Clarendon Press




de Gruyter



















45


Moutrouge








England 33 51-76







Clarendon Press



Rodophi






46




Oxford Text Archive







Winter










652




47

are my own
























48

























49






















50




















33


























34


























35




















with EPs






36


























37
















(CMPETERB55444) (113727)




(CMORMI2802293)






38


























39



wergild for Britons










the population













40


























41


5 Conclusions















marked construction





42

REFERENCES







Oxford Blackwell



Project



America












43







Dudley MA Peeters











Press








44



Clarendon Press




de Gruyter



















45


Moutrouge








England 33 51-76







Clarendon Press



Rodophi






46




Oxford Text Archive







Winter










652




47

are my own
























48

























49






















50




















34


























35




















with EPs






36


























37
















(CMPETERB55444) (113727)




(CMORMI2802293)






38


























39



wergild for Britons










the population













40


























41


5 Conclusions















marked construction





42

REFERENCES







Oxford Blackwell



Project



America












43







Dudley MA Peeters











Press








44



Clarendon Press




de Gruyter



















45


Moutrouge








England 33 51-76







Clarendon Press



Rodophi






46




Oxford Text Archive







Winter










652




47

are my own
























48

























49






















50




















35




















with EPs






36


























37
















(CMPETERB55444) (113727)




(CMORMI2802293)






38


























39



wergild for Britons










the population













40


























41


5 Conclusions















marked construction





42

REFERENCES







Oxford Blackwell



Project



America












43







Dudley MA Peeters











Press








44



Clarendon Press




de Gruyter



















45


Moutrouge








England 33 51-76







Clarendon Press



Rodophi






46




Oxford Text Archive







Winter










652




47

are my own
























48

























49






















50




















36


























37
















(CMPETERB55444) (113727)




(CMORMI2802293)






38


























39



wergild for Britons










the population













40


























41


5 Conclusions















marked construction





42

REFERENCES







Oxford Blackwell



Project



America












43







Dudley MA Peeters











Press








44



Clarendon Press




de Gruyter



















45


Moutrouge








England 33 51-76







Clarendon Press



Rodophi






46




Oxford Text Archive







Winter










652




47

are my own
























48

























49






















50




















37
















(CMPETERB55444) (113727)




(CMORMI2802293)






38


























39



wergild for Britons










the population













40


























41


5 Conclusions















marked construction





42

REFERENCES







Oxford Blackwell



Project



America












43







Dudley MA Peeters











Press








44



Clarendon Press




de Gruyter



















45


Moutrouge








England 33 51-76







Clarendon Press



Rodophi






46




Oxford Text Archive







Winter










652




47

are my own
























48

























49






















50




















38


























39



wergild for Britons










the population













40


























41


5 Conclusions















marked construction





42

REFERENCES







Oxford Blackwell



Project



America












43







Dudley MA Peeters











Press








44



Clarendon Press




de Gruyter



















45


Moutrouge








England 33 51-76







Clarendon Press



Rodophi






46




Oxford Text Archive







Winter










652




47

are my own
























48

























49






















50




















39



wergild for Britons










the population













40


























41


5 Conclusions















marked construction





42

REFERENCES







Oxford Blackwell



Project



America












43







Dudley MA Peeters











Press








44



Clarendon Press




de Gruyter



















45


Moutrouge








England 33 51-76







Clarendon Press



Rodophi






46




Oxford Text Archive







Winter










652




47

are my own
























48

























49






















50




















40


























41


5 Conclusions















marked construction





42

REFERENCES







Oxford Blackwell



Project



America












43







Dudley MA Peeters











Press








44



Clarendon Press




de Gruyter



















45


Moutrouge








England 33 51-76







Clarendon Press



Rodophi






46




Oxford Text Archive







Winter










652




47

are my own
























48

























49






















50




















41


5 Conclusions















marked construction





42

REFERENCES







Oxford Blackwell



Project



America












43







Dudley MA Peeters











Press








44



Clarendon Press




de Gruyter



















45


Moutrouge








England 33 51-76







Clarendon Press



Rodophi






46




Oxford Text Archive







Winter










652




47

are my own
























48

























49






















50




















42

REFERENCES







Oxford Blackwell



Project



America












43







Dudley MA Peeters











Press








44



Clarendon Press




de Gruyter



















45


Moutrouge








England 33 51-76







Clarendon Press



Rodophi






46




Oxford Text Archive







Winter










652




47

are my own
























48

























49






















50




















43







Dudley MA Peeters











Press








44



Clarendon Press




de Gruyter



















45


Moutrouge








England 33 51-76







Clarendon Press



Rodophi






46




Oxford Text Archive







Winter










652




47

are my own
























48

























49






















50




















44



Clarendon Press




de Gruyter



















45


Moutrouge








England 33 51-76







Clarendon Press



Rodophi






46




Oxford Text Archive







Winter










652




47

are my own
























48

























49






















50




















45


Moutrouge








England 33 51-76







Clarendon Press



Rodophi






46




Oxford Text Archive







Winter










652




47

are my own
























48

























49






















50




















46




Oxford Text Archive







Winter










652




47

are my own
























48

























49






















50




















47

are my own
























48

























49






















50




















48

























49






















50




















49






















50




















50




















The Beginning of the End: The Decline of External Possessors in Old English

Documents