CHAPTER I.

Introduction.

1. The subject of this inquiry has hitherto received but little attention from students of English Historical Syntax. Koch (Hist Gramm. § 109) and Mätzner (Hist. Gramm. II, p. 198 ff.) content themselves with giving a list of verbs impersonal in M.E. but personal in Mod. E., and with adducing a few instances, while the information supplied by Mason (Eng. Gr. §§ 247, 382 note, 496) is still scantier. The statements made ›y Einenkel (Streifzüge, p. 111-116) and Kellner (Introd. o Blanchardyn § 17) are based upon too few data for their conclusions to be of great value to English Historical Syntax generally; moreover, their results cannot always be accepted vithout a certain amount of reserve, as I shall have opportunities of showing later on. None of the above investigators have attempted to account for the changes stated by them. This has been done by Jespersen in his excellent work Progress in Language (§§ 173—180) but the quantity of maerials he makes use of is altogether insufficient, and an adequate treatment of such a comprehensive subject cannot be condensed into ten small pages printed in rather large type. n questions like the one I propose dealing with, reliable reults can only be obtained from an examination of a large number of texts, representing the various dialects and stages of development of Middle English.

2. It is usual to call the verbs and phrases treated in the ollowing pages, impersonal, because the word it, which often precedes them, is 'a purely grammatical empty subject-word" Sweet, New Eng. Gr. § 257). Most of them, however, can also ave other subjects than it; they can be used as personal verbs. From a logical point of view 'subjectless' sentences are, of ourse, an impossibilty (Paul, Princ. d. Sprachgesch. Cap. VI), and from a grammatical point of view the question whean der Ga a f, Transition.

1

ther from the very beginning there were 'subjectless' sentence in Primitive Indo-Germanic, is as yet an open one. Delbrück who discusses the question in Brugmann's Grundriss V (Syn tax II, Ka. XXXVII) arrives at the following conclusion: "Ich glaube also jetzt, dass die Frage sich mit den Mitteln de historischen Sprachforschung in Bezug auf die fertige in dogermanische Flexionssprache nicht entscheiden lässt" (Se also Delbrück, Grundfragen der Sprachforschung p. 43). As the matter stands, it will for practical reasons be advisable to retain the time-honoured term of 'impersonal verbs' and to adhere to the distinction between really impersonal and quasi impersonal verbs. The former express natural phenomena as, it thunders, it rains, it is freezing, and can have no other subject than it, while the latter, although generally or origi nally personal verbs, have it for their grammatical, provisional subject, while the real, logical subject is expressed in the form of a clause as, it seems he did not understand you; methinks (it me thinks) it wears upon its face my guilt For motto (Byron, Werner III, I.) The former have undergone no change in English, and lie, therefore, outside the scope of my investigations. As to the latter, the change to which they have been subject, affected them not only when they were quasiimpersonal, but also when they were employed as personal verbs, so that Jespersen's words 'A great many verbs which in old English were impersonal, have become personal in Modern English' (§ 173) express less than what he means to say. What we are to understand is that in O. E. and early M. E. there were a certain number of verbs, often used quasi-impersonally, which governed a noun or pronoun in the dative or accusative, and that in late M. E. the relation between these verbs and the nouns and pronouns so governed, became reversed, so that the former came to be governed by the latter, which became the subject of the sentence. E. g. a sentence like ,if my servyse or I may lyke yow... (Chaucer, Troil. & Cris. I. 431), became 'if ye (you) may like my servyse or me'; me [ne] lakketh but my deth (Chaucer, Compl. unto Pite 105) was turned into 'I lakke but my deth'.

3. The question we have to deal with is, therefore, a most interesting instance of case-shifting. No Germanic language

has undergone such profound changes in its case system as English has (see Jespersen, Progress, Ch. VII). The difference between dative and accusative had already disappeared in early M.E. In the cases of nouns, adjectives and numerals the simplifying process went even further: with a few exceptions nominative, dative, and accusative were levelled under one form. If we now remember that in Middle English the order of words gradually became fixed, so that in late M. E. we generally find the verb after the subject, and consider this fact in connection with the circumstance that very often the complement of the so-called impersonal verb retained its place before the verb, we see that this 'endingless' objective might easily be taken for a nominative. Even if there had been no other causes of confusion, this one alone would probably have proved sufficient ultimately to subvert the relation between the verb and its complement, as the inflected objectives only formed a very small minority, and would have formd it difficult to hold their own their against overwhelming odds.

Before proceeding to a more detailed discussion of the causes of the transition it will be advisable to enumerate the verbs that form the subject of the present inquiry. In order to economize space, and also in order to distinguish constructions of the "methinks" type in a convenient way from others that will be dealt with later on (B, C, and D constructions, see 41) I will call verbs like "methinks", "melists", "meseems" type A verbs.

CHAPTER II.

A. Type A verbs in Old English.

4. Like all the other old Germanic dialects, O. E. was rich in verbs that could enter into the type A construction. Without counting derivatives and compounds, I have found their number to be about 40. A few of them were already obsolescent in O. E., and several others got lost in early M. E., before the transition had begun, so that it will be

unnecessary to quote instances of them. One, behofian, has resisted the prevailing tendency until the present day, and still exclusively occurs in the A construction (it behoves me you, etc.), although in Scotch it may at one time occasion ally have been used 'personally', for in Lindesay's Minor Poems 577/114 we find, "he behouit for till depart."

The following list contains the verbs and phrases that claim our attention.

5. gebyrian, with dative. This verb has two meanings viz. 'happen', cf. Du. gebeuren, and 'be fit, becoming, belong, pertain to, it behoves', cf. Germ. gebühren. Only the latter signification need be instanced here, as the former was already obsolete in early M. E.

Alfred's Death, Grein I, 385/22, Syaan hine man byrigde, swa him wel gebyrede.

Luke XI 42, Corp. has þing eow gebyrede to donne; Hatt. *) eow geberede; Lind. & Rushw. different.

Ibid. XII 12, Corp. & Hatt., Halig gast eow lærð on þære tide þa þing be cow specan gebyred; Lind., behofad Rushw. bi-hofað.

Ibid. XIII 16, Corp., ne gebyrede hyre beon unbunden; Hatt., ne byrede hire; Lind. & Rushw. different.

Ibid. XXIV 46, Corp. & Hatt., pus gebyrede crist polian. Lind. & Rushw. different.

Blickl. Hom. III/13, bis is se rihta geleafa þe aghwyl cum men gebyred.

6. eglian, 'molest, trouble', with datwe.

Judip 185, he mid læum us eglan moste.

Cura Pastoralis 234/8, him eglde æt he was betra donne he.

Boethius 15/23, Wenst þu þæt hit hwæt niwes sie oppe hwæthwugu ungewunelices þæt þe on becumen 15, swelce oprum monnu ær þæt ilce ne eglede?

Chronicle 1086 (Earle's ed. 220/33), Dæt him stranglice eglade.

Laws (of King Edm.) I 246/22, me eglep swide (from Bosw. T.)

*) Hatton is an early M. E. (Kentish) transcript of an O. E. version.