Print

Print


Dear Carrol,

I cannot make the thorn mark, so I am transcribing it as a capital "Th,"
and omitting the other marks, but this transcription will show the similarity:

THa genealaehte he and wraTH his wunda and on ageat ele and win and
hine on his nieten sette and gelaedde on his laecehus and hine lacnode;

Then approached he and bound his wounds and in poured oil and wine and
him on his beast set and took into his hospital and him treated;

Sorry to everyone who can transcribe the OE on their computer, but it
shows the Germanic placement of the modifier before the verb--on his
beast set.  (Not my translation.)  OE inflections also have the genitive,
dative, accusative, etc., for both singular and plural.

I have no idea why Jacek is distressed that I had an undergraduate
teaching minor in German and about 5 semesters of Anglo-Saxon
language and literature in the doctoral program at Michigan (partly with
Sherman Kuhn, editor of the Middle English Dictionary, but this is a
ridiculous choice to note that.  One cannot do Scottish Studies without a
comparable linguistic base even if one is not a specialist in linguistics.
What IS his problem?
Nancy


Date sent:              Fri, 10 Jan 2003 11:39:32 -0600
Send reply to:          "T. S. Eliot Discussion forum." <[log in to unmask]>
From:                   Carrol Cox <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:                Re: Screw grammar/ Apostrophe's
To:                     [log in to unmask]

Nancy Gish wrote:
>
> It seems worth noting that Old English is a Germanic language and that
> it is easier to learn it if you speak German than if you speak modern
> English.  Because the changes (post 1066) took place more slowly and
> less completely in the north than the south, modern Scots is much closer
> to German and shares sounds lost in modern English (the sound of Loch,
> licht, and muir--which get mispronounced by English and Amercans as "k"
> and "oo," and has many more cognates:  "ken" is know; for example,
> "licht" is light in both languages; "kirk" is "kirche" and "night" is
> "nicht." So I think we really have as a history an invasion of German by
> French that became "English" and the reversal of English words in German
> is just part of a constant process.  But I think the Germans should
> refuse to let their version be invaded. Nancy
>

It's been fifty years since I read any Old English -- and I don't
remember whether it had that participial construction of modern German and
Russian. And if I remember correctly -- this is also 50 years or so ago --
my Russian instructor said that the Russians had deliberately imported the
construction from German, during a period of infatuation with German
culture. The Russian language _allows_ it but hadn't had it before
sometime in the 19th century. (I won't swear by this because my memory of
it is pretty vague.)

Carrol