English, we can only work with the evidence we have. That is to say, if
no text shows loss of Verner’s Law in
respect of a particular verb, all that
this tells us is that there is no extant example of the loss, not that the loss
never occurred. This is quite a subtle point, but the distinction is an
important one, which should always be borne in mind when dealing with
historical languages.
5.5 Modal verbs
As I said at the beginning of this chapter, the present-day English
category of modals sits only uncomfortably into Old English. This is
perhaps particularly true in terms of morphology.
Historically speaking,
the verbs which we call ‘modals’ almost all belonged to a group which is
called
preterite-present verbs. Such verbs originally had a preterite or
past tense morphology but this morphology had acquired a present tense
meaning. If we take a typical such verb,
cunnan ‘can, know’, then it is
possible to observe that it has many of the features which would be
normally associated with a class III verb such as
singan. In particular it
can be
observed that forms such as cann ‘I know’ and
cunnon ‘we know’
relate in form to the past tense forms
sang and
sungon respectively. Even
in present-day English we find
he can and this lacks the final inflectional
-s which we expect to find with every 3rd person singular verb; the lack
of final
-s is something that today we still associate only with strong verb
past tense forms, as in
sang ‘he sang’.
Because these preterite-present verbs had forms which were preterite
in form but present in meaning, they had to find new past tense forms
from somewhere. The solution to this was to
form a new past tense using
the dental suffix associated with the weak verbs, although in a somewhat
altered, and not always well understood, formation.
One obvious result of all this is that the preterite-present forms look
rather irregular, both in their (new) present and past tense morphologies,
and cannot easily be classified in a homogenous fashion. The other
difficulty they present us with is the confusion which arises between
morphological form and morphological content.
Another way of putting
this would be to describe this as the confusion between preterite-
presents and modals, for the point is that not every preterite-present
has modal features, and equally not every modal was a preterite-present
verb. Add to this the fact that the modal category is not particularly
robust in Old English, with some verbs showing modal syntactic features
and others showing
only semantic indications, and it is difficult to avoid
the conclusion that the situation is a mess. It has to be said, however,
that much of the mess is of our own devising, and reflects the results of
64
AN INTRODUCTION TO OLD ENGLISH
02 pages 001-166 29/1/03 16:09 Page 64
attempting to use a nomenclature which can be shared between Old and
present-day English. There is a judgement to be made about whether or
not this is wise, and although the nomenclature does seem preferable,
nevertheless a ‘health warning’ needs to be issued.
The above having been said, we can list the following modal verbs:
Dostları ilə paylaş: