Book Review: Siever's Old English Grammar.

1904 ◽  
Vol 59 (5) ◽  
pp. 75-75
Keyword(s):  
1908 ◽  
Vol s10-IX (226) ◽  
pp. 340-340
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
M. H. Scargill

It is unfortunate that in the field of English studies the science of linguistics has been largely neglected in many Canadian universities. The reasons for this neglect are varied. But the results are always the same: students lamentably ignorant of the most elementary facts about the English language. I have heard an English honors graduate from one of our universities describe Chaucer as “the best of Old English authors.” I have met teachers of English in our schools who complained that, in spite of all their courses, they did not feel equipped to teach English grammar and composition and “hated’ the school “language periods.”


Diachronica ◽  
1987 ◽  
Vol 4 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 123-157 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. Scott Allan

SUMMARY Since the publication of Lightfoot's work on the historical development of the English modal verbs (Lightfoot 1974, 1979:81-120), there have been several replies to his analysis. This article is another contribution to that debate and concentrates on three areas. Firstly, the time scale of the changes is scrutinized to see if it is as uniform as Lightfoot appears to think, and whether or not it supports his claim that a major reanalysis of the base of the grammar occurred in the 16th century. Secondly, the autonomy thesis, i.e., the claim that syntactic change proceeds independently of semantic and phonetic factors, is examined, and lastly Lightfoot's fragment of Old English grammar is assessed for its accuracy. ZUSAMMENFASSUNG Seit der Veröffentlichung von Lightfoots Schriften über die historische Entwicklung der englischen Modalverben (Lightfoot 1974, 1979:81-120) gab es verschiedene Reaktionen auf seine Analyse. Dieser Artikel ist ein weiterer Beitrag zu dieser Debatte und beschäftigt sich mit drei Bereichen. Erstens wird die Chronologie der Veranderungen genau untersucht, urn zu sehen, ob sie tatsachlich so einheitlich vonstatten gegangen ist wie Lightfoot anzunehmen scheint und ob diese seine Behauptung unterstiitzt, daft es im 16. Jahrhundert eine umwälzende syntaktische Neustrukturierung gab. Zweitens wird die Autonomie-These untersucht, d.h. der Anspruch, daft sich syntaktische Veranderungen vollziehen, unabhangig von semantischen und phonetischen Faktoren. Schlieftlich wird Lightfoots Fragment einer Altenglischen Grammatik auf seine Genauigkeit überpruft. RÉSUMÉ Depuis la publication des travaux de D. Lightfoot sur le developpment historique des verbes modaux de 1'anglais (Lightfoot 1974, 1979:81-120) il y avait plusieurs reactions a son analyse. Le present article est une autre contribution a ce debat; il traîte des trois sujets particuliers. D'abord on examine la chronologie des changements afin de verifier l'uniformité maintenue par Lightfoot et sa these d'une restructuration profonde du systéme syntaxique de 1'anglais au XVIe siécle. Ensuit on examine la these (maintenue par Lightfoot) selon laquelle les changements syntaxique procedent independamment des facteurs phonetiques et sémantiques. Finalement on fait une evaluation de l'exactitude de son fragment d'un grammaire du vieux anglais.


2019 ◽  
Vol 72 (2) ◽  
pp. 119-133
Author(s):  
Elly van Gelderen

Abstract The articles in this volume contribute to our understanding of Northumbrian Old English of the 10th century, of the nature of external influence, and of the authorship of the glosses. This introduction provides a background to these three areas. Most of the introduction and contributions examine the Lindisfarne Glosses with some discussion of the Rushworth and Durham Glosses. Section 2 shows that the Lindisfarne glossator often adds a (first and second person) pronoun where the Latin has none but allows third person null subjects. Therefore, although the Latin original has obvious influence, Old English grammar comes through. Section 3 reviews the loss of third person -th verbal inflection in favor of -s, especially in Matthew. This reduction may be relevant to the role of external (Scandinavian and British Celtic) influence and is also interesting when the language of the Lindisfarne and Durham Glosses is compared. In Section 4, the use of overt pronouns, relatives, and demonstratives shows an early use of th-pronouns, casting doubt on a Norse origin of they. Section 5 looks at negation mainly from a northern versus southern perspective and Section 6 sums up. Section 7 previews the other contributions and their major themes, namely possible external (Latin, Norse, or British Celtic) influence, the linguistic differences among glossators, the spacing of ‘prefixes’ as evidence for grammaticalization, and the role of doublets.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document