Strong and Weak Verbs in Comparison

 

Basis for Comparison	Strong Verbs	Weak Verbs
Number
Type/Origin	Indo-European (reveals suppletivity)	Germanic (reveals dental suffix)
Formation of Past Tense forms	by changing the root-vowel (ablaut): s i ttan (Infinitive) – s æ t (Past Indefinite) (verb “to sit”)	with the help of the dental suffix -t/-d: līcian (Infinitive) – līco d e (Past Indefinite) (verb “to like”)
Formation of Participle2 forms	with the help of the suffix –en(+ sometimes root-vowel interchange): f i ndan (Infinitive) – f u nd en (Participle 2) (verb “to find”)	with the help of the dental suffix -t/-d: cēpan (Infinitive) – cēpe d (Participle 2) (verb “to keep”)
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)	Weak verbs were derivatives from nouns, adjectives, strong verbs: tellan (to tell) ← talu (a tale) fyllan (to fill) ← fyll (full) fandian (to find out) ← findan (to find)
Productivity	unproductive type (no new words employed this type of form-building)	productive type (new words that appeared employed this type of form-building)
Principle Forms	Infinitive Past Sg Past Pl Participle 2 wrītan – wrāt – writon – writen	Infinitive Past Participle 2 cēpan – cēpte – cēped
Classes	subdivided into 7 classes	subdivided into 3 classes

Strong Verbs and their Development

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 (e.g. to climb, to help, to swallow, to wash, etc.). 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:

 

Class 1	Infinitive	Past Sg	Past Pl	Participle 2
OE	wrītan	wrāt	writon	writen
ME	writen	wrot	writen	writen
NE	write	wrote	written

 

Class 3	Infinitive	Past Sg	Past Pl	Participle 2
OE	findan	fand	fundon	funden
ME	finden	fand	founden	founden
NE	find	found	found

 

Class 6	Infinitive	Past Sg	Past Pl	Participle 2
OE	scacan	scoc	scōcon	scacen
ME	shaken	shook	shoken	shaken
NE	shake	shook	shaken

Analysing the tables above, we can see that the following changes occurred:

· In ME the inflections - an, -on, -en were all reduced to just one inflection à - en.

· In NE the ending -n was lost in the Infinitive and preserved in the Participle 2 in order to distinguish these two forms.

· 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 (e.g. ME writen (Past Pl) – writen (Part. 2))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.

Weak Verbs and their Development

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:

Class 1	Infinitive	Past	Participle 2	Basis for Subdivision
OE	styrian	styrede	stured	stem-suffix -j most verbs – with front root-vowel derived from nouns, adjectives
ME	stiren	stirede	stired
NE	stir	stirred	stirred

Class 2	Infinitive	Past	Participle 2	Basis for Subdivision
OE	lōcian	lōcode	lōcod	stem-suffix –oja most numerous class most verbs – with back root-vowel
ME	looken	lookede	looked
NE	look	looked	looked

Class 3	Infinitive	Past	Participle 2	Basis for Subdivision
OE	libban	lifde	lifd	3 verbs only: habban (to have), libban (to live), secζan (to say)
ME	livien	livde	lived
NE	This class merged with class 1 in ME

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) (e.g. Scand. to skate, Fr. to charm, Lat. to decorate, etc.) and, as it has already been mentioned above, many originally strong verbs turned into weak (e.g. to bake, to laugh, to help, to lie, etc.). 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 (e.g. to wear was originally weak and became strong because of the mistaken analogy with to swear, to ring (mistaken analogy with to sing), to hide (mistaken analogy with to ride)).

On-Finite Forms

Participle 1

The formation of the Participle 1 was as follows:

 

OE	ME	NE
berende	bering	bearing

In OE Participle 1 was considered Present Participle, had only the form of the Active Voice, possessed the categories of Number, Gender, Case. It was used predicatively and attributively (agreed with the noun in Number, Gender, Case).

In ME it lost its nominal and adjectival features together with the categories of Number, Gender, Case and became unchangeable.

Participle 2

As it has been mentioned in the table above, in OE Participle 2 was formed:

· in strong verbs – with the help of the suffix –en (+ sometimes root-vowel interchange) + often marked by prefix ζe-:

e.g. OE bindan (Infinitive) – ζe b u nd en (Participle 2) (to bind)

In ME prefix ζe- was weakened to prefix i-/y- (e.g. ME y-runne (run, Part.2 from “to run”) and in NE it disappeared at all.

· in weak verbs – with the help of the suffix -t/-d:

e.g. OE cēpan (Infinitive) – cēpe d (Participle 2) (to keep)

Participle 2, unlike Participle 1, had two meanings of the category of Voice:

 

OE	NE
Active Voice	Passive Voice
ζegān	ζeboren	gone, born
somebody was gone, i.e. he did it himself = he was the subject/active doer of the action	somebody was born, i.e. somebody gave birth to him = he was the object/passive recipient of the action	No Voice distinctions observed

 

Thus in OE Participle 2 was considered Past Participle, had the forms of the Active and Passive Voice, possessed the categories of Number, Gender, Case. It was used predicatively and attributively (agreed with the noun in Number, Gender, Case).

In ME it lost the category of Voice and the categories of Number, Gender, Case and became unchangeable.

Infinitive

In OE the Infinitive resembled the Noun and had the category of Case (only two Cases – Nominative (Nom) and Dative (Dat)):

e.g. OE Nom writan (uninflected) – Dat to wrītan ne (inflected, indicated direction or purpose).

In ME the Infinitive lost the Dative Case (the inflected form) and only one form was left:

e.g. ME (to) writ en.

Particle to remained in NE as a formal sign of the infinitive with no meaning of direction or purpose:

e.g. NE (to) writ e.

Though sometimes the traces of these meanings are still visible:

e.g. He came to feed the horses (purpose).

Gerund

The Gerund appeared only in the 12^th c. Actually it presented a mixture of the OE Verbal Noun (with suffix -unζ/-inζ) and Participle 1 and its characteristics were:

· It took direct object (verbal feature) (e.g. buying a book);

· It could be preceded by an article or a possessive pronoun (noun feature) (e.g. the cleaning of my room, your coming late).

Preterite-Present Verbs

OE

The preterite-present verbs had the following characteristics:

· Their Present -Tense forms resembledPast -Tense forms (Germ. “Präteritum” = past tense, that’s why they were called so);

· Some of these verbs did not have a full paradigm and were called “ defective ”;

· These verbs expressed attitude and were followed by the Infinitive without “to” (NB! Most of these verbs are present-day modal verbs);

· Out of 12 preterite-present verbs only 6 survived in ModE:

āζ (ought), cunnan (can), dear (dare), sculan (shall), maζan (may), mōt (must).

E.g.:

Numb.	Pers.	Present	Past
(formed like Past Tense of strong verbs)	(formed like Past Tense of weak verbs)
cunnan	sculan	cunnan	sculan
Sg	1^st	cann	sceal	cuðe	sceolde
2^nd	canst	scealt	cuðest	sceoldest
3^rd	cann	sceal	cuðe	sceolde
Pl	-	cunnon	sculon	cuðon	sceoldon

ME

The following changes happened to the preterite-present verbs:

· They lost their Verbals (non-finite forms) (e.g. OE cunnen – Part 2 of cunnan);

· They lost the Number and Mood distinctions (e.g. OE cann (Indicative) – cunne (Subjunctive); OE cann (Sg) – cunnon (Pl)).

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).

Willan:

· had the meaning of volition;

· resembled the preterite-present verbs in meaning (attitude) and in function (was followed by the Infinitive without “to”);

· eventually became a modal verb and also together with sculan developed into an auxiliary for the formation of the Future-Tense forms.

 

Dōn

This verb combined the features of the weak and strong verbs:

 

Infinitive	Past	Participle 2
strong verb feature (root-sound interchange) + weak verb feature (dental suffix -d)	strong verb feature (suffix -nand prefix ζe -)
dōn	dyde	ζedōn

 

ζan

This verb was suppletive and also combined the features of the weak and strong verbs:

 

Period	Infinitive	Past	Participle 2
OE	ζān	ēode (suppletivism + weak verb feature (dental suffix -d))	ζeζān (strong verb feature (suffix -nand prefix ζe -)
ME	goon	wente (suppletivism (from OE wendan) + weak verb feature (dental suffix -t)	goon (strong verb feature (suffix -n))

Bēon

This verb was highly suppletive and in OE employed two separate words/roots (Infinitives):

Present	OE	ME	NE
Numb.	Pers.	wesan	bēon	been	been
Sg	1^st	eom	bēo	am	am
2^nd	eart	bist	art	are
3^rd	is	biþ	is	is
Pl	-	sint	bēoþ	are/arn	are
Past	wesan	been	be
Sg	1^st	w æ s	was	was
2^nd	w ǽ re	wēre	were
3^rd	w æ s	was	was
Pl	-	w ǽ ron	wēren	were

Analytical Forms

In OE there were no analytical forms. They appeared later:

· ME – Future Tense, Perfect, Passive and Subjunctive forms;

· NE – Continuous and Do-forms;

and had the following characteristics:

· They consisted of 2 elements:

- a verb of broad semantics and high frequency (an auxiliary);

- a non-finite form (Infinitive, Participle 1, 2).

 

Future-Tense Forms

In OE there was no Future Tense. Future actions were expressed by Present-Tense forms and modal phrases with sculan (shall), willan (will), maζan (may), cunnan (can), etc.

Formation

sculan/willan + Infinitive

Willan had more strong modal meaning (volition) that was later weakened and almost lost.

2. 13^th – 14^th c. – these forms were very common and sculan (shall) and willan (will) were completely interchangeable.

3. 17^th c. – John Wallis introduced the rule “ shall – 1^st person, will – 2^nd and 3^rd person”.

4. In ModE there is a tendency to use will + 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd person without any distinction (earlier will + 1^st person had the modal meaning of volition).

Perfect Forms

Formation

habban/bēon + Participle 2

↓ ↓

with transitive with intransitive (this distinction is still left in German)

verbs verbs

2. In ME and NE only the auxiliary habban was left while bēon ceased to be used in the Perfect forms not to confuse them with the Passive forms (though some of these forms are still left, e.g. He is gone).

Passive Forms

Formation

bēon/werthen + Participle 2

2. Werthen died out in late ME.

3. Passive constructions were often marked with prepositions “by/with” (to show the doer of the action or the instrument of the action).

Subjunctive-Mood Forms

1. These forms were not always analytical in OE but were widely used in:

· independent clauses – to express wish, command, hypothetical condition, concession, purpose (e.g. Sīēn hira ēāζan āþistrode. – Be their eyes darkened!);

· dependent clauses – temporal clauses (related to future) (e.g. Bring me þæt ic ēte. – Bring me that, I would eat), etc.;

· impersonal sentences (e.g. Methinks – I think (мне думается), me lycige – I like (мне нравится)) – went out of use in NE.

2. In ME and NE analytical forms of the Subjunctive Mood appeared.

Formation:

biden (bid)/ leten (let)/ neden (need)/ sholde (should)/ wolde (would) + Infinitive

These were the modal phrases that were used to express problematic or imaginary actions. The forms with sholde / wolde outnumbered all other forms, soon they weakened their modal meaning and became auxiliaries: should – 1^st person, would – 2^nd, 3^rd person.

3. Meaning of the Subjunctive forms:

· in the Past – present or future imaginary or unreal actions (e.g. He thought he would cope with the task);

· in the Present – future probable or problematic actions (e.g. She thinks he would still come).

4. Peculiarities:

· should/would + Infinitive à simultaneous actions (e.g. If I was young I would be the happiest person in the world);

· should/would + Perfect Infinitive à past or preceding actions (e.g. If I had known all this I would have left that house immediately).

Continuous Forms

Sometimes they were found in OE:

Formation

bēon + Participle 1

2. In OE it denoted a “ quality ” or a “ lasting state ” and was characterising a person or a thing indicated by the Subject of the sentence. The continuance was not limited in time (as it is in the ModE Continuous forms) and resembled more present-day Indefinite Tense forms, e.g.:

Sēō eorðe is berende missenlīcra fuζela – This land bears many birds.

3. In ME Continuous forms fell into disuse.

4. In NE these forms reappeared together with a synonymous form:

be + Participle 1 = be + on/in + Gerund (indicated a process of limited duration)

e.g.:

He was on huntinge – He was hunting (literally, He was on hunting).

5. 18^th c. – Continuous forms became well-established.

6. 19^th c. – Continuous forms in the Passivewere accepted as a norm (e.g. The house is being built – previously such forms were considered clumsy and non-grammatical).

Do-Forms

1. In NE “do-periphrasis” was used in the Past and Present of the Indicative Mood.

2. 16^th c. – “Do” was used in negative, affirmative and interrogative sentences and was freely interchangeable with the simple forms (without “do”), e.g.:

Heard you all this? = Did you hear all this?

I know not why he cries. = I don’t know why he cries.

He knew it. = He did know it (without any meaning of emphasis).

3. 17^th c. – “do” was left only in negative and interrogative sentences to keep the word-order S + P + O (e.g. I (S) pity (P) him (O). Do you (S) pity (P) him (O)?). In affirmative sentences “do” acquired an emphatic meaning (e.g. Did you really see him? – I did see him, I swear!).