An Introduction to Old English Edinburgh University Press

§7.1, and it is worth emphasising here.
If at some pre-historical time the ancestor of Old English, and the
other Germanic languages, had been regularly verb-final, then what we
are seeing during the Old English period is a gradual, and incomplete,
shift away from that and towards verb-second. There is neither space
nor time to elaborate on this here, but one point we might note is when
such a change occurs, it seems to affect main clauses before subordinate
90
AN INTRODUCTION TO OLD ENGLISH
02 pages 001-166 29/1/03 16:09 Page 90

---

clauses. That certainly happens in Old English. But the prototypical
locus of verb-final order is in subordinate clauses, which is exactly what
we could predict, given what I have just said.
So, if we take the following example which is merely the continuation
of (19) above, you should be able to see that in the subordinate noun
clause (italicised for convenience) the verb appears finally after both the
subject and the object:
(22) ond he¯o hine
t
a¯ monade ond læ¯rde
†
æt he¯ [
] woruldha¯d []
a¯nforle¯te [
]
and she him then encouraged and taught that he secular life should
forsake
There is some variation in the usage of verb-final order in subordinate
clauses, and at least in part this seems to have been a matter of discourse.
Thus relative clauses clearly prefer verb-final order, as in:
(23) … sumne dæ¯l 
t
æs me¯oses
†
e he¯o mid beweaxen wæs
… a part of the moss with which it overgrown was
as do clauses of time, as in:
(24) Sende 
e
a¯ to Scotlande, 
†
æ¯r se g
.
ele¯afa wæs 
´
a¯
sent then to Scotland, where the faith was then
But despite (22) above, noun clauses quite often show verb-second
position.
It would be wrong to give the impression that verb-final position is
only found in subordinate clauses, even if that is the prototypical
position for that word order. In main clauses there is also the possibility
of finding what looks at first sight like a strange mixture of verb-second
and verb-final orders. Consider the following example:
(25) … hu¯ sı¯o 毠wæs æ¯rest on Ebrisc
.
g
.
e
e
ı¯ode funden
… how the law was first in Hebrew found
Note that the two verbs in the complex verb phrase have been separated,
so that the first part appears in verb-second position and the second part
appears in verb-final position.
The only possible explanation of structures such as this is that we
are witnessing part of the process of change from a verb-final to a verb-
second word order, in which only the first verb in the verb phrase is
permitted to occupy the new verb-second position, with any remaining
verb remaining in verb-final position. But at a time where the two basic
word order patterns are clearly rivals, it is not surprising that we find
alternative structures:
CLAUSES
91
02 pages 001-166 29/1/03 16:09 Page 91

---

(26) Nu¯ habba
†
g
.
e¯ g
.
ehyred
t
a¯ Ha¯lgan
T
ry¯nesse
Now have you heard the Holy Trinity
where the verbs are not separated, except by the light personal pronoun.
In subordinate clauses where we expect to find verb-final order in any
case, the complex verb is not separated. The following example shows
more than merely that:
(27)
T
a¯ hı¯ eten hæfdon, hı¯ wunedon 
e
æ
¯
r
When they eaten had, they stayed there
for you will be able to see that the order of the two verbs is the opposite
of what you might have expected. If you have some knowledge of
present-day German the constructions I have just mentioned may be
somewhat familiar to you. And if you know any Dutch, that is even
better, for Dutch has some, although not all, of the variations I have
mentioned.
It would be possible to spend more time on the above word order
issues, for I have only scratched the surface, and in particular I have not
really explored the many variations which arise in real text. However,
in order to demonstrate at least some of the complexities which arise it
is worth taking a quick look at one example of the kind of thing which
actually occurs. Look, therefore, at the following main clause:
(28)
T
a¯ Scipia hæfde g
.
efaren to¯
e
æ¯re nı¯wan byrig
.
Cartaina
Then Scipio had travelled to the new city (of) Carthage
There are two problems here. Firstly, since this is recognisably a main
clause, the first part of the verb ought to occupy verb-second position,
immediately after 
Ê
a¯; secondly, the second part of the verb ought to
occupy final position in the clause. Why are both verbs in the ‘wrong’
place? In the case of hæfde the reason is probably a matter of discourse
structure. If the sentence has started 
Ê
a¯ hæfde Scipia … it would appear
as if part of a list, as in present-day English Then … then … then … But
the actual context of the sentence (trust me on this one!) shows that this
sentence starts a new, or resumed, topic and therefore Scipia is promoted
to second place over hæfde. In the case of g
.
efaren the problem arises
because the following phrase is heavy, and therefore the principle that
heavy elements should appear as near as possible to the end of the clause
comes into play.
7.4 Noun phrase order
Most of the word order properties associated with the internal structure
92
AN INTRODUCTION TO OLD ENGLISH
02 pages 001-166 29/1/03 16:09 Page 92

---

of noun phrases are quite similar to those found in present-day English.
After the complexities of clause word order, this may come to you as
a relief. Indeed, it is fair to claim that the most difficult issue of all is
one that we have already dealt with, namely the double declension of
adjectives, according to whether they are definite or indefinite, see