Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The subject must agree with its verb in person and number. For most Modern English verbs this simply means that we must remember that a third-person singular subject generally takes a special verb form ending in -s. The verb to be, however, distinguishes all three persons in the present singular (I am, you are, she is) and the second person in the past singular (I was, you were, he was). The pronoun must agree with its antecedent in gender and number. If you speak of a woman named Ruth in one clause and then in the next
clause want to refer to her with a pronoun, the pronoun must be both feminine and singular. The pronouns that and this, when used adjectivally, must agree in number with the nouns they modify: that wolf, those wolves; this horse, these horses. These pronominal adjectives are not inflected for gender.
The first two Modern English rules of concord are largely the same as in Old English. The third Modern English rule is a remnant of an Old English rule that a noun and all its modifiers (adjectives and pronouns used adjectivally) must agree in gender, case and number. All three of these rules are a little more complex in Old English than in Modern English, so you will have to pay careful attention to the rules of concord--at first, anyway.
ewiton him fran [Then (they) departed traveling] N sculon heriean heofonres Weard [Now (we) must praise the Guardian of the kingdom of heaven] In these fragments, the subjects of the verbs ht 'commanded', ewiton 'departed' and sculon 'must' are unexpressed, but context and the form of the verb together give us enough information to figure them out for ourselves. Compound subjects may may be split in Old English, one part divided from the others by the verb or some other sentence element. When this happens, the verb will typically agree with the first part of the subject. Consider these sentences: Hr Henest ond Horsa fuhton wi Wyrtgeorne m cyninge [Here Hengest and Horsa fought with King Vortigern] Hr cum lle on Bretenlond ond his re suna, Cymen ond Wlening ond issa [Here lle and his three sons, Cymen and Wlencing and Cissa, came to Britain] In the first, the compound subject is arranged as in Modern English and the verb (fuhton) is plural. In the second, however, the first part of the compound subject, lle, is divided from the other parts by a prepositional phrase (on Bretenlond 'to Britain'), and the verb (cum, an archaic form of cm 'came') is singular. A spectacular example of this sort of construction is at the beginning of Riddle 46: Wer st t wne mid his wfum twm ond his twen suno ond his tw dohtor, swse esweostor, ond hyra suno twen, frolicu frumbearn. To the Modern English eye it looks as if Wer 'A man' is the sole subject of the singular verb st 'sat', and that everything following mid 'with' is part of a long prepositional phrase ("with his two wives and his two sons . . ."). But in fact the whole of the prepositional phrase is mid his wfum twm; everything that follows is nominative and therefore part of a compound subject. The correct translation (rearranging the sentence so that the parts of the subject come
together) is as follows: "A man, his two sons, his two daughters (beloved sisters), and their two sons (noble first-borns) sat at wine with his two wives."
where we get neuter singular t instead of masculine singular se. A stranger example is in a passage quoted below, t synt fower sweras 'They are four columns', where the same pronoun refers to a masculine plural noun.
heteoncolne, t ho healfne forearf one swran him. [Then the wavy-haired one struck the hostile-minded enemy with a decorated sword, so that she cut through half of his neck. In the main clause of this sentence, one fondsceaan 'the enemy' is the direct object of the verb slh 'struck'. We can tell by its ending that the adjective heteoncolne 'hostile-minded', in the next line, agrees with accusative fondsceaan; since an adjective normally comes before its noun in Modern English, we must move it in our translation, making a noun phrase "the hostile-minded enemy." In the clause of result that follows (t ho . . . swran him), the adjective healfne 'half' agrees with one swran 'the neck', though it is separated from it by the verb forearf 'cut through'. Once again we must gather the fragments of a noun phrase in our translation: "half of his neck." Past and present participles are often inflected as adjectives, even when they form periphrastic verb forms: owre efran e mid m cyninge ofslene wrun [your companions who were slain with the king] Dryhten, hwnne eswe w hingriendne oe yrstendne? [Lord, when did we see you hungering or thirsting?] Here the participles ofslene, hingriendne and yrstendne all have adjective endings.
When participles are inflected, the -e of the nominative/accusative plural past participle is used with all genders and may occasionally be omitted. Feminine nominative singular -u also may be omitted.
t synt fower sweras, synd us eed on Lden: iustitia, t ys rihtwsnys; and er htte prudentia, t ys snoternys; ridde ys temperantia, t ys emetgung;fore ys fortitudo, t ys streng. [They (the cardinal virtues) are four columns, which are called thus in Latin: iustitia, or righteousness; and the second is called prudentia, or prudence; the third istemperantia, or temperance; the fourth is called fortitudo, or strength.] Notice the sequence of ordinal numbers here: er, ridde, fore. The first of these could be any gender, but ridde and fore have the neuter/feminine weak nominative singular ending -e. They do not agree in gender with masculine sweras, their grammatical antecedent, but rather with feminine nouns such as rihtwsnys and snoternys. Editors of an earlier age tended to "fix" such "errors"; modern editors, on the other hand, are more likely to conclude that what looks like "bad grammar" to us did not necessarily look so to the Anglo-Saxons. If the text is readable, there is little reason to emend. Another example of what we are talking about comes at Beowulf, ll. 67-70, where Hrothgar decides to build his great hall Heorot: Him on md bearn t healreed htan wolde, medorn miel men ewyrean one yldo bearn fre efrnon [It came into his mind that he would command men to build a hall--a great mead-hall which the children of men would always hear about] Here the problem is with one in the last line, which looks as if it should be a masculine relative pronoun 'which', but does not agree in gender with the nearest antecedent, neutermedorn 'mead-hall'. Early editors emended one to on[n]e 'than', creating yet another problem by positing an "unexpressed comparative." The better solution is to recognize that writers of Old English were less punctilious than we are about concord. Further, masculine nouns are more common in Old English than either feminines or neuters; when you find an otherwise unmotivated disagreement of gender, it is likely to involve a shift from feminine or neuter to masculine. Do not get carried away with finding "errors" in the Old English texts you read. Violations of the rules of concord are relatively rare, and generally you will be able to see why they happened, as in the examples above.