OE weak verbs and their further development

Weak Verbs: Number (900), Type/Origin ( Germanic (reveals dental suffix), Formation of Past Tense forms ( with the help of the dental suffix -t/-d), Formation of Participle2 forms ( with the help of the dental suffix -t/-d), Derivation ( Weak verbs were derivatives from nouns, adjectives, strong verbs), Productivity ( productive type (new words that appeared employed this type of form-building), Principle Forms ( Infinitive Past Sg Participle 2), Classes (Classes). 1) The division of weak verbs into classes was based on the original stem-building suffix of a verb that was already hard to distinguish even in OE. 2) Weak verbs were not as complex as strong ones and had a greater regularity and simplicity. That’s why they were productive, i.e. all borrowed verbs used weak model of form-building (suffix -t/-d) and, as it has already been mentioned above, many originally strong verbs turned into.The opposite process of turning of weak verbs into strong was very rare and was mainly based on phonetic similarity between some strong and weak verbs, i.e. was a result of mere confusion that later was accepted as a norm due to its persistent and regular character

The OE verb had numerous persons&number cases but it had fewer gram.categories than NE verb has.Weak verbs form their Past forms&Part.II by ending the suffix-d,-t.Had 4principle forms:

-Inf.(macian), -Past Sg, -PartII, -Past Pl

There’re purely of Germanic origin.Presented a productive type.Had 3 classes

- The diversion depended on stem building suffix; Already in OE this suffix can’t be observed. It can be traced only ethimologically.

cl.I: Inf.-an; -the Past-de,-ede,-te; -PartII-d,-ed,-t (the root vowels of these verbs were mutated – cepan – cepte, tellan-tallde)

clII: the most numerous; the only productive class of weak verbs, as a result it served as a model for all new verbs of OE and ME; -cl 2 was based on the suffix oja; j- was presented in the Inf & Pr. tense– lic ia n – licide – lic o al (liked), macian; o- was presented in the Past forms – licode, lufode

clIII the least numerous (3 verbs only: habban, libbon, secgan – have, live, say) -inf.-an without vowel before the suf.

The suffix –ode in the Past tense can be transformed in –ed in NE, in ME it was [ed]

21. OE strong verbs & their further dev-t

Strong Verbs: Number(300), Type/Origin ( Indo-European (reveals suppletivity), Formation of Past Tense forms ( by changing the root-vowel (ablaut), Formation of Participle2 forms ( with the help of the suffix –en (+ sometimes root-vowel interchange), Derivation ( Strong verbs were root-words /non-derivatives (i.e. they were not derived from some other words/roots but were the words/roots from which other words were derived), Productivity ( unproductive type (no new words employed this type of form-building), Principle Forms ( Infinitive Past Sg Past Pl Participle 2), Classes ( subdivided into 7 classes).

1)As far as the strong verbs were a non-productive class, some strong verbs turned into weak with time, i.e. started to employ -t/-d suffix in their form-building. Thus in NE only 70 strong verbs out of 300 in OE remained. 2)The strong verbs were subdivided into 7 classes according to the type of vowel gradation/ablaut. The classes that survived best through different periods of the history were classes 1, 3, 6.

Strong VERBS, changes: 1) In ME the inflections - an, -on, -en were all reduced to just one inflection à - en. 2) In NE the ending -n was lost in the Infinitive and preserved in the Participle 2 in order to distinguish these two forms. 3)In NE Past Singular and Past Plural forms were unified, usually with the Singular form preferred as a unified form because Past Plural and Participle 2 often had similar forms and it was hard to distinguish them à the category of Number disappeared in the Verb. In ModE the subdivision into classes was lost though we still can trace some peculiarities of this or that class in the forms of the irregular verbs.

The OE verb had numerous persons and number cases, but fewer gram. categ. than NE verb had. Str. verbs form their Past tense by changing their root vowel, had 4 principle forms: 1)Infinitive, 2)Past sg, 3)Past pl, 4)Participle II

They can be found in Rus → IE origin. Eg: беру – брал,

Often denoted the most important actions and states. In NE they are mainly irregular verbs.

Had 7 classes:

1. 1-6 classes use vowel gradation;

2. 7 class include reduplication verbs, build their Past tense repeating the root vowel.

3. some verbs with the root ending in –s; -p; -f employed an interchange of consonants [s → z → r], [θ → ð → d], [f → v];

4. The classes differed in the number of verbs and in their role and weight in the language.

5. Classes 4 and 5 deffered in the stems of Part. II. Classes 2, 3 and 4 – had identical vowels in the stems of Part. II.;

6. Classes 1 and 2 - contained in the root [I, u]. Classes 3, 4 and 5 – contained the gradation.

7. In ME many str. verbs changed into weak – they began to use dental suffix instead of the root verb change.

8. The root vowel in the Past sg and pl fell together. In the 15^th cent – one stem is used. In NE – 3 forms of str verbs are used

 

 

22. OE preterite-present & anomalous verbs & their further development

OE: The preterite-present verbs had the following characteristics: 1) Their Present -Tense forms resembledPast -Tense forms. (Germ. “Präteritum” = past tense, that’s why they were called so);Later they acquired present meaning but preserved many features of the past. 2) Some of these verbs did not have a full paradigm and were called “ defective ”; 3) These verbs expressed attitude and were followed by the Infinitive without “to” (NB! Most of these verbs are present-day modal verbs); 4)Out of 12 preterite-present verbs only 6 survived in ModE: ought, can, dare, shall, may, must. Some of the verbs acquired forms of the verbals infinitive+ participle.

ME: The following changes happened to the preterite-present verbs: 1) They lost their Verbals (participle and infinitive) (non-finite forms); 2) They lost the Number and Mood distinctions

NE: The paradigm of the preterite-present verbs (that had already become modal verbs) was reduced to one or two forms (e.g. must (just one form), can, could (just two forms), etc.).

Anomalous Verbs: They were irregular verbs that combined the features of the weak and strong verbs. There were 4 of them – willan (will), bēon (to be), ζān (to go), dōn (to do). Will:1) had the meaning of volition; 2) resembled the preterite-present verbs in meaning (attitude) and in function (was followed by the Infinitive without “to”); 3)eventually became a modal verb and also together with sculan developed into an auxiliary for the formation of the Future-Tense forms. To do: This verb combined the features of the weak and strong verbs. Can: This verb was suppletive and also combined the features of the weak and strong verbs. To be: This verb was highly suppletive and in OE employed two separate words/roots (Infinitives).