CATEGORIES:
BiologyChemistryConstructionCultureEcologyEconomyElectronicsFinanceGeographyHistoryInformaticsLawMathematicsMechanicsMedicineOtherPedagogyPhilosophyPhysicsPolicyPsychologySociologySportTourism
Changes within the Adjective System in MEIn OE the adjective was declined to show the gender, case and number of the noun it modified; it had a five-case paradigm and two types of declension, weak and strong. The adjective began to lose its markers even earlier than the noun. The process began at the end of the OEP. In ME lost all its grammatical categories with the exception of the degrees of comparison. The first category to disappear was Gender, which ceased to be distinguished by the adjective in the 11th c. The geographical direction of the changes was generally the same as in the noun declensions. The process began in the North and North-East Midlands and spread south. The decay of the grammatical categories of the adjective proceeded in the following order. The first category to disappear was Gender, which ceased to be distinguished by the adjective in the 11th c. The number of cases shown in the adjective paradigm was reduced: the Instr. case had fused with the Dat. by the end of OE; In the 13th c. case could be shown only by some variable adjective endings in the strong declension (but not by the weak forms); towards the end of the century all case distinctions were lost. Adjectives lost agreement with the noun, but the weak ending -e still remained. The strong and weak forms of adjectives were often confused in Early ME texts. The use of a strong form after a demonstrative pronoun was not uncommon, though according to the existing rules, this position belonged to the weak form. In the 14th c. the difference between the strong and weak form is sometimes shown in the sg with the help of the ending -e (see the paradigm and the examples below). The general tendency towards an uninflected form affected also the distinction of Number, though Number was certainly the most stable nominal category in all the periods. In the I4th c. pi forms were sometimes contrasted to the sg forms with the help of the ending -e in the strong declension. Probably this marker was regarded as insufficient; for in the 13th and particularly 14th c. there appeared a new pl ending -s. The use of -s is attributed either to the influence of French adjectives, which take -s in the pl or to the influence of the ending -s of nouns, e. g.: In other places detitables. (Chaucer) ('In other delightful places.') Adjectiveslost agreement with the noun, but the weak ending -e still remained. The development went along the same lines: that is - the reduction of the endings led to dropping and simplification. The adjective lost the distinction between the strong and the weak declension. The adjective markers of agreement with the noun. Towards the end of the MEP we find only some relics of the old system of declension: in Chaucer’s works - -e goode - the plural of the strong declension, but it was already occasional. The degrees of comparison is the only set of forms which the adjective has preserved through all historical periods. However, the means employed to build up the forms of the degrees of comparison have considerably altered. In OE the forms of the comparative and the superlative degree, like all the grammatical forms, were synthetic: fhey were built by adding the suffixes -ra and -estl-ost, to the form of the positive' degree. Sometimes suffixation was accompanied by an interchange of the root-vowel; a few adjectives had suppletive forms. In ME the degrees of comparison could be built in the same way, only the suffixes had been weakened to -er, -est and the interchange of the root-vowel was less common than before. Since most adjectives with the sound alternation had parallel forms without it, the forms with an interchange soon fell into disuse. Cf. — ME long, lenger, lengest and long, longer, longest (the latter set replaced the former). The alternation of root-vowels in Early NE survived in the adjective old, elder, eldest, where the difference in meaning from older, oldest, made the formal distinction essential. Other traces of the old alternation are found in the pairs farther and further and also in the modern words nigh, near and next, which go back to the old degrees of comparison of the OE adjective neah 'near', but have split into separate words. The most important innovation in the adjective system in the ME period was the growth of analytical forms of the degrees of comparison. The new system of comparisons emerged in ME, but the ground for it had already been prepared by the use of the OE adverbs md, bet, betst, swibor — 'more', 'better', 'to a greater degree1 with adjectives and participles. It is noteworthy that in ME, when the phrases with ME more and most became more and more common, they were used with all kinds of adjective, regardless of the number of syllables and were even preferred with mono- and disyllabic words. Another curious peculiarity observed in Early NE texts is the use of the so-called "double comparatives" and "double superlatives": Shakespeare uses the form worser which is a double comparative. A "double superlative" is seen in: This was the most unkindest cut of all. (Shakespeare) It appears that in the course of history the adjective has lost all the dependent grammatical categories but has preserved the only specifically adjectival category — the comparison. The adjective is the only nominal part of speech which makes use of the new, analytical, way of form-building. Date: 2015-12-24; view: 1760
|