This -éie-: éjo- derivative verb was represented in Germanic by the -ijā- type, the first class of weak verbs.3 Although Germanic causative verbs are closely associated with this type, the class cannot be regarded as a causative category with any more reason than may be advanced for regarding any other weak verb class as a container of verbs of one aspect only. The case for agreement between form and function in the Germanic weak verb may not rightly be pushed further than Wilmanns * carried it in his comment upon Jacobi's attempt to fix rigidly a relation between type and meaning in these verb classes: “Die Gebiete der verschiedenen (schwachen Conjugationen] lassen sich nicht von einander abgrenzen. ... Auch die Bedeutung ermöglicht keine strenge Scheidung, obwohl eine gewisse Beziehung zwischen Form und Bedeutung unverkennbar ist ... ; in der ersten treten die Factitiva oder Causativa, in der dritten die Durativa ... und Inchoativa hervor, doch finden sich Verba von gleicher Bedeutung auch in der anderen Klassen." Germanic weak verb classes were reduced in Old English practically to two. These two classes were in part distinguished by phonetic and inflectional differences. The phonetic characteristics of the first class are umlaut of the radical vowel and gemination of the consonant of the verb stem. These phonetic changes were made, however, only under particular conditions; the vowels of many verbs of the first class never suffered umlaut; while the consonants, never including r, were doubled only in the stems of verbs with a short radical vowel, and then only in certain forms of the present indicative and the imperative.

The two Old English weak verb classes contain verbs of various aspects of action. These classes are too few, of course, to provide a category for every action-aspect. Kellner misrepresents the cases when he says: “If a verb was derived from an adjective, it

• Dieter, Altgermanische Dialekte, $ 215; Kluge, Vorgeschichte der alt. germanischen Dialekte, $ 192; Collitz, Das Schwache Preteritum und Seine Vorgeschichte, pp. 100-101.

* Deutsche Grammatik, II, 49.
* In Die Bedeutung der Schwachen Conjugationen, Berlin, 1843.

Historical Outlines of English Syntax, p. 211. Kellner adds (p. 212) that “even in Old English we see that the distinction is no longer strictly observed."

Strictly” is by far too weak a limitation. See Koch, Histosplit into forms of different meaning. If formed by means of -ja (1st conj.), it had a causative meaning; if by -7 (2d conj.), an intransitive one.” At no stage of the language was the matter of function distribution so simple and orderly as this; surely it was not so at any time when we are able to observe the facts of usage in the written record. The conclusion is directed by the traditional assumption that we proceed in language from primitive specification to civilized generalization.

The facts that follow in regard to the distribution of verbs between classes I and II of the weak verb according to aspect of action are drawn from a consideration of one hundred fairly common causative verbs taken from Alfred's Version of Bede's Ecclesiastical History, Alfred's Version of Boethius' De Consolatione Philosophiae (early prose), Ælfric's Homilies, Wulfstan's Homilies (late prose), Exodus, Daniel, Christ, and Beowulf. A lexical search would easily have furnished the whole list of causative verbs preserved in the record; but the completeness of the dictionary material would tend to give equal importance to all verbs of this sort, to the common and to the unfamiliar causative verb.

In this group of one hundred causative verbs so chosen sixty-one are of class I; thirty-nine are of class II. This is approximately a proportion of three to two. All of the verbs in this number derived from transitive verbs of the strong conjugation, sixteen in count, are of class I. Only about ten per cent. of the approximately three hundred strong verbs seem to have developed causatives.

In the case of some verbs, double aspect of meaning is distinguished by difference in form as described by Kellner in the quotation drawn above from his Historical Outlines of English Syntax: hætan, 'make hot, heat'-hatian, 'be, grow hot'; wierman, 'make warm '-warmian, 'get warm. But distinction in form does not always mark difference in aspect of meaning.

rische Grammatik der englischen Sprache, § 132, and Bladin, Studies on Denominative Verbs in English, p. 7, for diagrams of a cross section of the English language at a time “when I class verbs formed on adjectives have both transitive and intransitive senses, while 2 class verbs just begin to adopt intransitive sense.” One may well wonder at what precise moment this cross section was cut.

In many instances verbs of class I bear both causative and intransitive sense: stillan, 'make [and] become still’; styntan, make [and] become dull. While trymman has the same double function, trumian is recorded only in an intransitive aspect of meaning; and the complex untrumian, again, means both 'make weak' and 'become weak.' Appear in class I, too, verbs of only intransitive sense: swigan, 'be, become silent'; celan, 'be, become cool,' beside colian, also with an intransitive sense.

Many verbs of class II exhibit only an intransitive aspect. But, as in the case of class I, the larger number of class II verbs in the list examined show both causative and intransitive functions; as, lytlian, “be, become [and] make old': (ge) idlian, 'be, become [and] make empty. Other verbs of class II, indeed, leave record of only a causative meaning: niwian, 'make new, renew'; (ge) niðerian, 'bow down.'

No obligatory form, then, marked the causative verb in Old English. Dependence for indicating the causative aspect of action was placed largely upon the word-order and the context of the sentence. Syntactical necessity, indeed, demanded no more; but desire to emphasize the prominent element in the causative expression must have been felt by precise speakers. Furthermore, the directly converted causative verb represented all shades of causative meaning--from a mild 'cause' to 'compel.' Here was opportunity for Old English speakers to bring into use a special process - by invention, composition, borrowing, or any other means --- to express causative action and to particularize among its degrees of compulsion. The users of a language do not, however, always take the chances open to them to differentiate by form the distinctions which logical considerations point out; perversely they disregard these opportunities, and just as perversely they often waste two or more forms upon a single logical function. If in the later and more fixed stage of a language a form does grow to meet a demand for further specialization of meaning, it is likely to be made by analysis. The inflectional system, which in the case of the causative might express the manner of the action in the same word with the action itself, is congealed and will not provide the process. But in the formal language of the Old English written record only a limited use of a causative verbal periphrasis is found. Verbal periphrases of any sort are, indeed, not so common in this language as they are in present-day English." Of them, the most familiar are beon, habban, and weorðan joined with present and past participles to form the passive voice, present and past perfect tenses, and present and past progressive tenses. Sculan and willan, too, are near the point of becoming full-fledged auxiliaries. But the behavior of the Old English verb of the formal record is not distinguished by a habit of composition.20

Follow here the results of an investigation into the use of verbal compositions in Old English for expressing causative action. These results confirm with their particulars the general statement made above: that the use of causative verbal periphrases in written Old English is narrowly restricted.


1. Don.

For use as a causative verb, don 11 was at any time semantically available to Old English speakers. The primary meaning of its base * dhě-: * dhő-, put, place,' is a signification from which a specific causative meaning easily develops, as the writer has shown in an article published in the first number of the seventeenth volume of The Journal of English and Germanic Philology (Jan

'See Sweet, New English Grammar, 88 2203 ff.; Erdmann, Essay on the History and Modern Use of the Verbal Forms in -ing in the English Language, Stockholm, 1871, pp. 12 ff.; Akerlund, The History of the Definite Tenses in English, Cambridge, 1911; Pessels, The Present and Past Periphrastic Tenses in Anglo-Saxon, Strassbourg, 1896.

8 It is, of course, here recognized that in many cases verbal compositions in Old English mean no more than the simple verb forms.

• Blackburn, The English Future: Its Origin and Development, Leipzig, 1892.

20 “ Though our mode of tense formation by auxiliaries began in Old English and was generally extended in Middle English, it has been for the most part settled and developed in modern times ” (Cambridge History of English Literature, XIV, 501).

11 I include gedon. Nothing like a systematic distinction between don as imperfective and gedon as perfective verb appears in preserved Old Eng. lish usage. See Klaeber, The Journal of English and Germanic Philology, XVIII, 2, pp. 250 ff., April, 1919; Knott, Modern Philology, xv, 1, 64; Larz, Actionsart in Beowulf, Wurzburg, 1908.

uary, 1918).12 And I. E. *dhě-: * dhõ-, in its dialectical variants, was used in a causative sense.

The construction dependent upon causative *dhě-: *dhă varied among a double nominal object, a nominal object plus an adjective predicate, and an infinitive. Use of dhā- in Sanskrit seems to have been restricted in the causative sense to its employment with a double nominal object; 13 as, mami devt dadhire havya váham (=me the gods [have] made oblation-bearer). Under correction, it is used with a following infinitive only in compositions.14 Sanskrit made large use of the directly converted causative verb and also employed kar 15 as a causative verbal-phrase formerindeed with a following infinitive: tena sa pranāmám kāritas (- by him he was caused to make obeissance). Any predisposition of dhā-'s to causative use may thus have been hindered. Use of d[h]ā- as a causative and with a predicate adjective is attested in Avestan: sātəm dabāiti urvanam (= lactum facit animum) zšayamam avanam dāyata (=regnatum religiosum facite).

While mouéw is more commonly used in the Greek causative periphrasis, ríonu (<*dhe-), too, finds causative employment.18 Causative ríonu is followed by two nominal objects, by a nominal object and an adjectival predicate, by a noun clause, and (infrequently) by an infinitive.

Latin facere is widely used in the causative sense. In the art language of the classical Roman writers facere, in this meaning, is regularly followed by ut, ne, or the simple subjunctive, and by predicate nouns and predicate adjectives.17 The infinitive is

13 See also Yoshioka, A Semantic Study of the Verbs of Doing and Mak. ing in the Indo-European Languages, Tokio, 1908.

18 Lanman, Sanskrit Reader, s. v. dha- (p. 176); “ 6. make, cause, produce."

14 Whitney, Sanskrit Grammar, § 1071; Fay, “ Pro Domo Mea,” American Journal of Philology, XXXVII, 2, April-June, 1916.

16 Yoshioka, op. cit., pp. 18-19; Lanman, op. cit., s. v. kr (p. 143). The word is cognate with Latin creare, which is used only in the general sense of 'make'; while facere, cognate with Skt. dha-, employed generally in the wide meaning ‘put,' make,' is used as a causative.

1. Liddell and Scott, Greek Dictionary, 8. v. rionul, B. II: Simonson, Greek Grammar, n (“Syntax"), § 2216, 2; Nunn, A Short Syntax of New Testament Greek, pp. 89 ff.

17 Kühner, Ausführliche Lateinische Grammatik, II, 1, 695.

« VorigeDoorgaan »