Resultado da Busca
Old English. The grammar of Old English differs considerably from Modern English, predominantly being much more inflected. As a Germanic language, Old English has a morphological system similar to that of the Proto-Germanic reconstruction, retaining many of the inflections thought to have been common in Proto-Indo-European and also including ...
- Vowels and Diphthongs.
- Consonants.
- Accentuation.
- INFLECTIONS.
- Cases.
- Gender.
- O.E. heall,
- O.E. sunu,
- O.E. tung-an,
- III.
- VII.
- Ic bær, I bore.
- PRET. PLUR.
- Wē bǣr-on, we bore.
- ORDER OF WORDS.
- MIDDLE ENGLISH.
- ǣ, ēa, ēo ea
- lȳs=lice; bī=by; scīnan= to shine; stīg rāp=sty-rope
- (2) Analogy.
- VOCABULARY.1
- ðæt geoc, yoke.
- sēo costnung, temptation.
- D.I.
- feld-es, etc.).
- 52. Paradigms of sēo dur-u, door; sēo hǫnd, hand:
- sēo dǣd, deed.
- sēo nosu, nose.
- II.
- G.D.I.
- VOCABULARY.
- sēo heorte, heart.
- Plur. N.A. fēt męn tēð cȳ
- D. fæder brēðer mēder dęhter swyster
- VOCABULARY.
- 74. Paradigm of hwā, hwæt, who, what?
- plural: Næfde hē þēah mā ðonne twēntig hrȳðera, and twēntig scēapa, and twēntig swȳna, He
- 15. fīftēoða etc.
- æt, at.
- be ēastan, east of. on emnlange (efn-lang =
- dwelt in (= which he in-habited); Hē wæs swȳðe spēdig man on ðǣm ǣhtum ðe hiera spēda on
- ge
- oððe, or.
- lǣsta dǣl, the least part; Ðonne cymeð sē man sē ðæt swiftoste hors hafað tō ðǣm ǣrestan dǣle
- mōdes bēoð dīgelran ðonne ðā wunda ðæs līchaman, The wounds of the mind are more secret than
- norðor
- statement as reported”2 ðēah man āsętte twēgen fǣtels full ealað oððe wæteres,though
- PRESENT.
- Gerund. Past Participle.
- PRESENT.
- sēo spēd, riches [speed].
- geongunnen geriden gesungen gewriten
- Contact Verbs.
- VI.
- ābrocen gecweden gesewen grōwen ofslægen gesprecen gestolen gestǫnden geweaxen
- PRETERIT.
- Past Participle.
- CHAPTER XXII.
- āhton.
- East Anglians had given king Alfred oaths; ǫnd hæfdon miclne dǣl ðāra horsa freten (not
6. The long vowels and diphthongs will in this book be designated by the macron ( ̄). Vowel length should in every case be associated by the student with each word learned: quantity alone sometimes distinguishes words meaning wholly different things: fōr, he went, for, for; gōd, good, god, God; mān, crime, man, man. Long vowels and diphthongs: ā a...
8. There is little difference between the values of Old English consonants and those of Modern English. The following distinctions, however, require notice: The digraph th is represented in Old English texts by ð and þ, no consistent distinction being made between them. In the works of Alfred, ð (capital, Ð) is the more common: ðās, those; ðæt, ...
11. The accent in Old English falls usually on the radical syllable, never on the inflectional ending: bríngan, to bring; stānas, stones; bérende, bearing; īdelnes, idleness; frḗonscipe, friendship. But in the case of compound nouns, adjectives, and adverbs the first member of the compound (unless it be ge- or be-) receives the stronger stress: h...
1 Taken separately, every syllable ending in a single consonant is long. It may be said, therefore, that all closed syllables are long; but in the natural flow of language, the single final consonant of a syllable so often blends with a following initial vowel, the syllable thus becoming open and short, that such syllables are not recognized as pr...
12. There are five cases in Old English: the nominative, the genitive, the dative, the accusative, and the instrumental.1 Each of them, except the nominative, may be governed by prepositions. When used without propositions, they have, in general, the following functions: The nominative, as in Modern English, is the case of the subject of a finit...
13. The gender of Old English nouns, unlike that of Modern English, depends partly on meaning and partly on form, or ending. Thus mūð, mouth, is masculine; tunge, tongue, feminine; ēage, eye, neuter. No very comprehensive rules, therefore, can be given; but the gender of every noun should be learned with its meaning. Gender will be indicated in t...
Mn.E. hall. Gmc. bōni-z, O.E. bēn, Mn.E. boon. Gmc. sunu-z,
Mn.E. son, n-stems (Weak Declension) Remnants of other Con- sonant De- clensions (c) Gmc. tungōn-iz
Mn.E. tongue-s. Gmc. ƒōt-iz, O.E. fēt, Mn.E. feet. Gmc. frijōnd-iz, O.E. frīend, Mn.E. friend-s. Gmc. brōðr-iz,
Bindan, to bind: Ic bind-e, I bind or shall bind. IV. Beran. to bear: Ic ber-e, I bear or shall bear. V. Metan, to measure: Ic mēt-e, I measure or shall measure.
Feallan, to fall: Ic faell-e, I fall or shall fall.
Ic mæt, I measured. Ic fōr, I went. Ic fēoll, I fell.
Wē bit-on, we bit. Wē bud-on, we bade. Wē bund-on, we bound.
Wē mǣton, we measured. Wē fōron, we went. Wē fēoll-on, we fell.
20. The order of words in Old English is more like that of Modern German than of Modern English. Yet it is only the Transposed order that the student will feel to be at all un-English; and the Transposed order, even before the period of the Norman Conquest, was fast yielding place to the Normal order. The three divisions of order are (1) Normal, (...
ston-es sun-e sun-e ox-en swift-er swift-est lok-ede
(as in o (as in no)1 e (as in he) i (y) (as in mine) o (as in do) ou (ow) (as in thou) sea) nā=no; stān=stone; bān= bone; rād=road; āc=oak; hāl=whole; hām=home; sāwan=to sow; gāst= ghost. hē=he; wē=we; ðē=thee; mē=me; gē=ye; hēl=heel; wērig=weary; gelēfan=to believe; gēs=geese. mīn=mine; ðīn=thine; wīr =wire; mȳs=mice; rīm= rime (wrongly spelt rhym...
(shortened to stirrup, stīgan meaning to mount). dō=I do; tō=too, to; gōs= goose; tōð=tooth; mōna= moon; dōm=doom; mōd= mood; wōgian=to woo; slōh=I slew. ðū=thou; fūl=foul; hūs= house; nū=now; hū=how; tūn=town; ūre=our; ūt= out; hlūd=loud; ðūsend= thousand. ǣ: sǣ=sea; mǣl=meal; dǣlan=to deal; clǣne= clean; grǣdig=greedy. ēa: ēare=ear; ēast=east; d...
24. But more important than vowel shifting is the great law of Analogy, for Analogy shapes not only words but constructions. It belongs, therefore, to Etymology and to Syntax, since it influences both form and function. By this law, minorities tend to pass over to the side of the majorities. “The greater mass of cases exerts an assimilative influ...
sē hierde, herdsman [shep-herd]. ǫnd (and), and. sē sęcg, man, warrior. sē seolh, seal. sē stān, stone. sē wealh, foreigner, Welshman [wal-nut]. sē weall, wall. sē wīsdōm, wisdom.
ðæt geset, habitation [settlement]. ðæt hēafod, head.
sēo cwalu, death [quail, quell]. sēo fōr, journey [faran]. sēo frōfor, consolation, comfort. hwā, who? hwær, where?
fręm-e cwēn-e A. Plur. N.A. fręm-e fręm-a cwēn cwēn-e (a) G. D.I. fręm-a fręm-um cwēn-a cwēn-um
NOTE.—Note the general aversion of all O.E. long stems to final –u: cf. N.A. plural hof-u, but bearn, bān; N. singular gief-u, but wund, rōd; N. singular fręm-u, but cwēn, wyrt; N.A. singular sun-u, dur-u, but feld, hǫnd. (a) Masculine u-Stems.
feld feld-a (es) feld-a (e) feld-a (as) feld-a feld-um G. dur-a hǫnd-a
sē dǣl, part [a great deal]. ðā Dęne, Danes. sē frēondscipe, friendship. seō hȳd, skin, hide. ðā lǫndlēode, natives. ðā Mierce, Mercians. ðā Rōmware, Romans.
fretenne), and (they) had devoured a large part of the horses. NOTE.—Many sentences might be quoted in which the participle does agree with the direct object, but there seems to be no clear line of demarcation between them and the sentences just cited. Originally, the participle expressed a resultant state, and belonged in sense more to the object...
fretenne), and (they) had devoured a large part of the horses. NOTE.—Many sentences might be quoted in which the participle does agree with the direct object, but there seems to be no clear line of demarcation between them and the sentences just cited. Originally, the participle expressed a resultant state, and belonged in sense more to the object...
fretenne), and (they) had devoured a large part of the horses. NOTE.—Many sentences might be quoted in which the participle does agree with the direct object, but there seems to be no clear line of demarcation between them and the sentences just cited. Originally, the participle expressed a resultant state, and belonged in sense more to the object...
fretenne), and (they) had devoured a large part of the horses. NOTE.—Many sentences might be quoted in which the participle does agree with the direct object, but there seems to be no clear line of demarcation between them and the sentences just cited. Originally, the participle expressed a resultant state, and belonged in sense more to the object...
fretenne), and (they) had devoured a large part of the horses. NOTE.—Many sentences might be quoted in which the participle does agree with the direct object, but there seems to be no clear line of demarcation between them and the sentences just cited. Originally, the participle expressed a resultant state, and belonged in sense more to the object...
fretenne), and (they) had devoured a large part of the horses. NOTE.—Many sentences might be quoted in which the participle does agree with the direct object, but there seems to be no clear line of demarcation between them and the sentences just cited. Originally, the participle expressed a resultant state, and belonged in sense more to the object...
fretenne), and (they) had devoured a large part of the horses. NOTE.—Many sentences might be quoted in which the participle does agree with the direct object, but there seems to be no clear line of demarcation between them and the sentences just cited. Originally, the participle expressed a resultant state, and belonged in sense more to the object...
fretenne), and (they) had devoured a large part of the horses. NOTE.—Many sentences might be quoted in which the participle does agree with the direct object, but there seems to be no clear line of demarcation between them and the sentences just cited. Originally, the participle expressed a resultant state, and belonged in sense more to the object...
fretenne), and (they) had devoured a large part of the horses. NOTE.—Many sentences might be quoted in which the participle does agree with the direct object, but there seems to be no clear line of demarcation between them and the sentences just cited. Originally, the participle expressed a resultant state, and belonged in sense more to the object...
fretenne), and (they) had devoured a large part of the horses. NOTE.—Many sentences might be quoted in which the participle does agree with the direct object, but there seems to be no clear line of demarcation between them and the sentences just cited. Originally, the participle expressed a resultant state, and belonged in sense more to the object...
fretenne), and (they) had devoured a large part of the horses. NOTE.—Many sentences might be quoted in which the participle does agree with the direct object, but there seems to be no clear line of demarcation between them and the sentences just cited. Originally, the participle expressed a resultant state, and belonged in sense more to the object...
fretenne), and (they) had devoured a large part of the horses. NOTE.—Many sentences might be quoted in which the participle does agree with the direct object, but there seems to be no clear line of demarcation between them and the sentences just cited. Originally, the participle expressed a resultant state, and belonged in sense more to the object...
fretenne), and (they) had devoured a large part of the horses. NOTE.—Many sentences might be quoted in which the participle does agree with the direct object, but there seems to be no clear line of demarcation between them and the sentences just cited. Originally, the participle expressed a resultant state, and belonged in sense more to the object...
fretenne), and (they) had devoured a large part of the horses. NOTE.—Many sentences might be quoted in which the participle does agree with the direct object, but there seems to be no clear line of demarcation between them and the sentences just cited. Originally, the participle expressed a resultant state, and belonged in sense more to the object...
fretenne), and (they) had devoured a large part of the horses. NOTE.—Many sentences might be quoted in which the participle does agree with the direct object, but there seems to be no clear line of demarcation between them and the sentences just cited. Originally, the participle expressed a resultant state, and belonged in sense more to the object...
fretenne), and (they) had devoured a large part of the horses. NOTE.—Many sentences might be quoted in which the participle does agree with the direct object, but there seems to be no clear line of demarcation between them and the sentences just cited. Originally, the participle expressed a resultant state, and belonged in sense more to the object...
fretenne), and (they) had devoured a large part of the horses. NOTE.—Many sentences might be quoted in which the participle does agree with the direct object, but there seems to be no clear line of demarcation between them and the sentences just cited. Originally, the participle expressed a resultant state, and belonged in sense more to the object...
fretenne), and (they) had devoured a large part of the horses. NOTE.—Many sentences might be quoted in which the participle does agree with the direct object, but there seems to be no clear line of demarcation between them and the sentences just cited. Originally, the participle expressed a resultant state, and belonged in sense more to the object...
fretenne), and (they) had devoured a large part of the horses. NOTE.—Many sentences might be quoted in which the participle does agree with the direct object, but there seems to be no clear line of demarcation between them and the sentences just cited. Originally, the participle expressed a resultant state, and belonged in sense more to the object...
fretenne), and (they) had devoured a large part of the horses. NOTE.—Many sentences might be quoted in which the participle does agree with the direct object, but there seems to be no clear line of demarcation between them and the sentences just cited. Originally, the participle expressed a resultant state, and belonged in sense more to the object...
fretenne), and (they) had devoured a large part of the horses. NOTE.—Many sentences might be quoted in which the participle does agree with the direct object, but there seems to be no clear line of demarcation between them and the sentences just cited. Originally, the participle expressed a resultant state, and belonged in sense more to the object...
fretenne), and (they) had devoured a large part of the horses. NOTE.—Many sentences might be quoted in which the participle does agree with the direct object, but there seems to be no clear line of demarcation between them and the sentences just cited. Originally, the participle expressed a resultant state, and belonged in sense more to the object...
fretenne), and (they) had devoured a large part of the horses. NOTE.—Many sentences might be quoted in which the participle does agree with the direct object, but there seems to be no clear line of demarcation between them and the sentences just cited. Originally, the participle expressed a resultant state, and belonged in sense more to the object...
fretenne), and (they) had devoured a large part of the horses. NOTE.—Many sentences might be quoted in which the participle does agree with the direct object, but there seems to be no clear line of demarcation between them and the sentences just cited. Originally, the participle expressed a resultant state, and belonged in sense more to the object...
fretenne), and (they) had devoured a large part of the horses. NOTE.—Many sentences might be quoted in which the participle does agree with the direct object, but there seems to be no clear line of demarcation between them and the sentences just cited. Originally, the participle expressed a resultant state, and belonged in sense more to the object...
fretenne), and (they) had devoured a large part of the horses. NOTE.—Many sentences might be quoted in which the participle does agree with the direct object, but there seems to be no clear line of demarcation between them and the sentences just cited. Originally, the participle expressed a resultant state, and belonged in sense more to the object...
fretenne), and (they) had devoured a large part of the horses. NOTE.—Many sentences might be quoted in which the participle does agree with the direct object, but there seems to be no clear line of demarcation between them and the sentences just cited. Originally, the participle expressed a resultant state, and belonged in sense more to the object...
fretenne), and (they) had devoured a large part of the horses. NOTE.—Many sentences might be quoted in which the participle does agree with the direct object, but there seems to be no clear line of demarcation between them and the sentences just cited. Originally, the participle expressed a resultant state, and belonged in sense more to the object...
fretenne), and (they) had devoured a large part of the horses. NOTE.—Many sentences might be quoted in which the participle does agree with the direct object, but there seems to be no clear line of demarcation between them and the sentences just cited. Originally, the participle expressed a resultant state, and belonged in sense more to the object...
fretenne), and (they) had devoured a large part of the horses. NOTE.—Many sentences might be quoted in which the participle does agree with the direct object, but there seems to be no clear line of demarcation between them and the sentences just cited. Originally, the participle expressed a resultant state, and belonged in sense more to the object...
fretenne), and (they) had devoured a large part of the horses. NOTE.—Many sentences might be quoted in which the participle does agree with the direct object, but there seems to be no clear line of demarcation between them and the sentences just cited. Originally, the participle expressed a resultant state, and belonged in sense more to the object...
fretenne), and (they) had devoured a large part of the horses. NOTE.—Many sentences might be quoted in which the participle does agree with the direct object, but there seems to be no clear line of demarcation between them and the sentences just cited. Originally, the participle expressed a resultant state, and belonged in sense more to the object...
fretenne), and (they) had devoured a large part of the horses. NOTE.—Many sentences might be quoted in which the participle does agree with the direct object, but there seems to be no clear line of demarcation between them and the sentences just cited. Originally, the participle expressed a resultant state, and belonged in sense more to the object...
- 512KB
- 89
13 de out. de 2021 · Old English Online is an introductory digital Old English textbook written by a team led by Victoria Koivisto-Kokko and Tom Birkett. It includes well-written grammar notes, passages for reading (with translation), and exercises (with answers).
- Colin Gorrie
- colin@colingorrie.com
- Toronto
Grammar of Old English. Grammar of Old English — quite different from the grammar of modern English. Being one of the ancient Germanic languages, Old English has a morphological system that is similar to the Germanic one, retaining many of the changes that were common in the Proto-Indo-European language, as well as the characteristic elements of German grammar, for example, umlaut.
12 de set. de 2021 · 1 Old English. 2 Nouns. 3 Declensions. 4 Adjectives. 5 Verbs. 6 Pronouns. 7 Adverbs. 8 Prepositions. 9 Conjunctions. Old English was a Germanic language, which means it is also an Indo-European language.
14 de jun. de 2009 · Old English grammar by Wright, Joseph, 1855-1930; Wright, Elizabeth Mary, 1863- joint author. Publication date 1908 Topics English language Publisher
Recorded by Thomas M. Cable, Professor Emeritus of the University of Texas at Austin. Old English is the language of the Germanic inhabitants of England, dated from the time of their settlement in the 5th century to the end of the 11th century. It is also referred to as Anglo-Saxon, a name given in contrast with the Old Saxon of the inhabitants ...
