Vocabulary 233
as in writing letters takes time. Consequently, a formation like Modern English writing-table is also ambivalent: writing can be analysed as a verbal noun, cf. ‘table for writing’, or as a participle relating to the paraphrase ‘table on which one can write’. More often than not the pattern can today be simply interpreted as a morphological rival of a simple V + N compound.
The major semantic types are: V + Subject/Agent (spyre-mann ‘tracker’, w¯ıg˙-mann ‘fighting man = warrior’); V + Object/Goal (feald-e-stol¯ ‘foldingstool’, tyrn-geat˙ ‘turn-stile’); V + Locative (bæc-hus¯ ‘bake-house’; ete-land ‘eating land = pasture’); V + Instrumental (bærn-¯ısen ‘branding iron’, hwete-stan¯ ‘whetstone’); V + Temporal (reste-dæg˙ ‘rest day’); V + Cause (fielle-seocness,¯ fielle-wærc ‘sickness that makes one fall = epilepsy’, sp¯ıw-drenc˙ ‘emetic’).
Second participle + N
This pattern is relatively weak and is mainly represented by bahuvrihis of the type wunden-feax ‘with twisted mane’. Regular compounds are broden¯ -mæl,¯ sceaden˙- mæl,¯ wunden-mæl¯ ‘damascened sword’, nægled˙-cnearr ‘nail-fastened vessel’, eten-læs¯ ‘pasture’.
Adverb + N
There are many compounds of this type, where the adverb combines with an independent primary or derived noun, e.g. ofer-ealdorman ‘chief officer’, oferbiterness ‘excessive bitterness’, or where the combination can also be considered a derivative from a verbal compound, e.g. ofer-leorness¯ ‘transgression’ < oferleoran¯ ‘transgress’. It is therefore not always possible to provide an unambiguous analysis.
Typical formations are æt-eaca¯ ‘to-adding = addition’, an¯ -buend¯ ‘one living alone = hermit’, fore-breost¯ ‘chest’, forþ-fæder ‘forefather’, in-flæscness˙ ‘incarnation’, mid-ges˙¯ıþ ‘fellow traveller’, ofer-lufu ‘too great love’, under-cyning ‘underking’, wiþer-steall ‘resistance’.
4.2.4.2Compound adjectives
N + Adj
Basically, the same semantic types as in Modern English occur:
(a)The dt can be regarded as a complement of the adjective: eag¯ -syne¯ ‘visible to the eye’, ellen-rof¯ ‘famed for strength’, hand-tam ‘tamed by hand’, deofol¯ -seoc¯ ‘possessed by the devil’.
(b)The dm is compared to an implicit property of the dt; the comparison can be bleached to mere intensification: blod¯ -read¯ ‘blood-red’, hunig˙- swete¯ ‘sweet as honey’, hete-grim ‘fierce’, regn˙-heard ‘very hard’ (regn˙ ‘rain, showers of rain’).
(c)The dm functions as an attribute of the dt, probably going back to a reversed bahuvrihi (cf. Carr, 1939: 260, 341): seoc¯ -mod¯ ‘having a sick heart’ (bahuvrihi) > mod¯ -seoc¯ ‘sick with regard to the heart,
234 D I E T E R K A S T O V S K Y
heartsick’ (reversed bahuvrihi), ferþ-weri¯ g˙ ‘soul-weary’, mod¯ -glæd ‘glad at heart’.
Adj + Adj
The following relations occur:
(a)additive (nearu-fah¯ ‘difficult and hostile’, earm-ceari˙g˙ ‘poor and sorrowful’)
(b)subordinative (brun¯ -basu ‘brownish-purple’, heard-sæli¯g˙ ‘unhappy’)
(c)intensifying/downtoning (eal-mihtig˙ ‘all-mighty’, fela-g˙eomor¯ ‘very sad’, efen-eald ‘of equal age’, stær¯-blind ‘stoneblind’, healf-dæd¯ ‘half-dead’)
(d)dt functions as goal of the dm (clæn¯-georne˙ ‘clean-prone’, ellor-fus¯ ‘ready to depart’)
(e)dt functions as manner adverb with a deverbal adjective (deop¯ -þancol ‘deep-thinking’, fela-specol ‘much-speaking = talkative’, hearmcwidol ‘evil-speaking’)
N/Adv (Adj) + first participle
Most of these formations are kennings; in their inflected forms they are not always distinguishable from synthetic agent nouns of the type land-buend(e)¯ ‘one who lives in the land’ / ‘living in the land’, and we often find doublets (cf. K¨arre, 1915: 7ff.; Carr, 1939: 211ff.). The first part functions as Subject (hunig˙-flowende¯ ‘flowing with honey’, blod¯ -iernende ‘blood-running’), Object (ealo-drincende ‘beerdrinking’, sweord-berende ‘sword-bearing’), Locative (benc˙-sittende ‘sitting on the bench’, sæ¯-l¯ıþende ‘sea-faring’), Instrumental (rond-w¯ıgende˙ ‘fighting with a shield’, sweord-w¯ıgende˙ ‘fighting with a sword’), Adverb (an¯ -buende¯ ‘dwelling alone’, ful¯ -stincende˙ ‘foul-smelling’). These patterns still exist in Modern English.
N/Adv (Adj) + second participle
Again, the determinant functions as an argument of the underlying verb, i.e. as Subject (ceorl˙-boren ‘low-born’, hunger-biten ‘bitten by hunger’), Instrumental (hand-locen ‘joined by hand’, w¯ın-druncen ‘drunken with wine’), Locative (æht¯- boren ‘born in bondage’, heofon¯ -cenned ‘heaven-born’), Manner (æwum¯-boren ‘legally born’, wundor-agræfen ‘wonderously engraved’; this relation does not exist in Modern English), Adjective/Adverb (æþel-boren ‘of noble birth’, full- r¯ıpod ‘fully riped = mature’, healf-brocen ‘half-broken’).
Adverb/Particle + Adj/Participle
This type can be illustrated by the following examples: æfter-writen ‘written afterwards’, ær¯-nemned ‘afore-mentioned’, eft-boren ‘born again’, fore-cweden ‘aforesaid’, forþ-snotor ‘very wise’, in-gemynde˙ ‘well-remembered’, ofer-froren ‘frozen over’, ofer-ceald˙ ‘excessively cold’, þurh-læred¯ ‘thoroughly learned’, wiþer-mede¯ ‘antagonistic’.
Vocabulary 235
4.2.4.3Compound verbs
In OE verbal compounds were mostly restricted to combinations with adverbs or prepositions as dts. These occurred in two patterns, viz. as ‘inseparable’ and ‘separable’ compounds. With the former, the adverbial or prepositional particle always occurred before the verb in all syntactic environments and could not be interrupted by any material, cf. the infinitive to¯ ofer-feohtanne ‘conquer’, or he¯ for-com¯ ‘he came before’. This property makes the respective formations similar to prefixations, and the semantics corroborate this: the particles more often than not have a non-literal meaning. With the separable pattern, the particle could be separated from the verb, cf. the infinitive forþ to¯ brenganne ‘bring forth’, and could also occur after the verb, e.g. brenganne forþ. The separable pattern is the antecedent of the Modern English phrasal verbs come in, go out, eat up, etc., with the particle in postverbal position and very often keeping its basic locative meaning. The type out-do, over-bid, under-cut, on the other hand, continuing the Old English inseparable type, has undergone semantic modification, adopting a non-literal meaning. For OE, the distinction between the two patterns is not always clear (cf. Hiltunen, 1983: 25ff.), and I will not make any attempt in the following very limited set of examples to separate the two patterns; nor will there be any attempt to distinguish between phrasal adverbs, prepositional adverbs and prepositions.
Some of the most important particles are: æfter ‘after’ (æfter-folgian ‘succeed’), æt ‘at’ (æt-beon¯ ‘be present’), aweg/onwe˙g˙ ‘away’ (aweg˙-gan¯ ‘go away’), be ‘around’ (be-bugan¯ ‘flow around’), fore ‘before’ (fore-sittan ‘preside’), forþ ‘forth’ (forþ-beran ‘bring forth’), full ‘completely’ (full-fremman ‘fulfil’), geond˙ ‘completely’ (geond˙-drincan ‘drink excessively’), in(n) ‘in’ (in-faran ‘go in’), ofer ‘over, too much’ (ofer-faran ‘go over’, ofer-don¯ ‘overdo’), to¯ ‘to; apart’ (to¯- cl¯ıfan ‘cleave to’, to¯-beran ‘carry off’), þurh ‘through’ (þurh-seon¯ ‘see through’), under ‘under’ (under-delfan ‘dig under’), up¯ ‘up’ (up¯ -gan¯ ‘go up’), ut¯ ‘out’ (ut¯ - gan¯ ‘go out’), wiþer ‘against’ (wiþer-standan ‘withstand’).
There are two further patterns which should be mentioned. The first is illustrated by cyne-helmian ‘crown’, riht-w¯ısan ‘justify’, n¯ıd-niman ‘take by force’. These are derivations from nominal compounds, i.e. cynehelm ‘crown’, riht-w¯ıs ‘justifiable’, or back-derivations (n¯ıd-niman < n¯ıd-nimung ‘commit n¯ıd-nimung’). The other pattern is illustrated by ellen-campian ‘campaign vigorously’, ge˙-cwealm- bæran¯ ‘torture to death’, ge˙-þanc-metian ‘deliberate’, morgen-wacian ‘rise early’, wea¯ -cwanian¯ ‘lament’. The status of this pattern is less clear, since there does not seem to exist a corresponding nominal basis. This may be due to fragmentary evidence, but it might also indicate a sporadic attempt at verbal composition, which seems to be developing in Modern English, cf. verbs like cold-rinse, warm-iron, chain-drink, etc.
Prefixes are functionally equivalent to an adjective when they modify a noun (e.g. sin- in sin-dream¯ ‘everlasting joy’), equivalent to an adverb when they modify an adjective (e.g. sin-ceald˙ ‘perpetually cold’) or a verb (e.g. mis-cweþan ‘speak ill’), or equivalent to a preposition (e.g. æ¯-felle ‘without skin’). In the
236 D I E T E R K A S T O V S K Y
latter case prefixation is combined with (affixless) derivation, since a change in word class is involved; these formations might therefore be regarded as negative bahuvrihis involving both prefixation and zero derivation; see Kastovsky (2002b).
At the end of the tenth century, the system of the OE verbal prefixes was in a state of advanced decay, both semantically and formally, and many prefix combinations had lost their transparency: it was no longer possible to associate a consistent meaning with a given prefix such as a-/a¯-, ge˙-, or oþ-; very often the verbal base and the prefixed form seem to have had the same meaning (cf. Horgan, 1980; Hiltunen, 1983). Thus in subsequent copies of one and the same text prefixes are often omitted, added to the base form, or exchanged for other prefixes, but without any apparent semantic effect. This decaying system was therefore an easy victim to inroads from two domains: the replacement by semantically more clearly defined Romance prefixes in the course of ME borrowing, and the strengthening and eventual dominance of the phrasal verbs of the type go out, eat up, let in, etc. In view of this, I will restrict the exemplification of OE prefixation to types which are still relevant in Modern English, and those which had a certain quantitative significance in OE.
The prefix a-/æ- (not surviving into Modern English) is relatively frequent, but how much meaning it actually contributed is not clear: cf. pairs like bacan/a- bacan ‘bake’, beran/a-beran ‘bear’, where there does not seem to be any semantic difference; but sometimes it seems to mean ‘out’, e.g. a-berstan ‘burst out’, a- cleopian ‘call out’, and sometimes it seems to be intensifying, e.g. a-beatan¯ ‘beat to pieces’. It has a stressed allomorph æ´- in deverbal nouns like æ´-cyrf¯ ‘woodchoppings’, æ¯-rist ‘rising, resurrection’.
The prefix and´- (not surviving) was the stressed (nominal) variant of the unstressed verbal prefix on-; the original meaning had been ‘against’, but was partly obscured, e.g. and-cwiss ‘answer’ (cf. on-cweþan ‘to answer’), and-giet˙ ‘understanding’ (cf. on-gietan˙ ‘to understand’).
The status of be-/b¯ı- (surviving only to a limited extent) is not always quite clear, and some instances might be treated also as representing a preposition. The following, however, seem to be clear cases of prefixation with specific functions:
(a)transitivisation: be-feohtan ‘take by fighting’, be-sprengan˙ ‘besprinkle’;
(b)intensification: be-brecan ‘break to pieces’, be-gn¯ıdan ‘rub thoroughly’; (c) no specific meaning: be-beodan¯ ‘offer, announce’, be-c˙eapian¯ ‘sell’. It also occurs in deverbal nouns such as be-clypping ‘embrace’, be-fr¯ıgnung˙ ‘inquiry’. In independent nominal formations the prefix is b¯ı-, e.g. b¯ı-fylce˙ ‘neighbouring people’, b¯ı-geng(e)˙ ‘worship, practice’.
For- (not surviving as a productive prefix) occurs with verbs and deverbal nouns as well as with adjectives. The following meanings occur: ‘loss, destruction’ (for-berstan ‘burst asunder’, for-don¯ ‘destroy’), intensification, perfectivity (forbærnan ‘burn up’, for-b¯ıtan ‘bite through’, for-heard ‘very hard’, for-manig˙ ‘very many’), but often also without any specific meaning (for-beodan¯ ‘forbid’, forgiefan˙ ‘forgive’).
Vocabulary 237
One of the most frequent prefixes was ge˙-, which, however, did not survive the Middle English period, just like ge˙- in its function as a co-marker of the past participle; it occurred with verbs, adjectives and nouns, where it had different functions.
Verbal ge˙-, when it can still be attributed a recognisable meaning, denotes ‘perfectivity, result’, often also transitivising an intransitive verb, e.g. ge˙-ærnan ‘gain by running’, ge˙-ascian¯ ‘learn by asking’. But many instances do not seem to exhibit a semantic difference between the simplex and the prefixation, e.g. (ge˙)-adlian¯ ‘be, become ill’, (ge˙-)æmtigian˙ ‘to empty’, or the meaning difference between the simplex and the prefixation is idiosyncratic, e.g. standan ‘to stand’: ge˙-standan ‘endure, last’, weorþan ‘be worthy’: ge˙-weorþan ‘agree’.
Related to this is an adjectival-participial meaning ‘provided with’, which may or may not involve an intermediate verb form; in some instances there is no explicit derivative suffix, i.e. the formation should be interpreted as a zero derivative accompanied by a prefix (ge˙-bird(-e) ‘bearded’, ge˙-fræg(˙-e) ‘known (by asking)’), but in others there is a suffix (ge˙-clad¯ -ed ‘clothed’, ge˙-glof¯ -ed ‘gloved’); in some other instances, the meaning is ‘associativity’, as with some nouns (ge˙-feder-en ‘having the same fathers’, ge˙-mod¯ -Ø ‘of one mind’).
With nouns other than direct derivatives from ge˙-verbs, two related meanings occur: ‘collectivity’ and ‘associativity’. The first refers to a collectivity of persons or objects, e.g. ge˙-geng˙ ‘body of fellow-travellers’, ge˙-bro¯þor ‘brethren’, or a repetitive action, e.g. ge˙-beorc ‘barking’. The second indicates that the subject performs some overt or implied action in conjunction with somebody else (often a translation of Lat. con-), e.g. ge˙-fara ‘one who travels with another’, ge˙-bedda ‘one who lies in bed with another’.
Mis- (surviving with the help of French mes-) had the meaning ‘bad, badly’, and occurs with verbs (mis-cweþan ‘speak ill’, mis-don¯ ‘do evil’), nouns (mis- ge˙-hygd˙ ‘evil thought’, mis-(ge)widere˙ ‘bad weather’) and participial adjectives (mis-boren ‘abortive’).
Another frequent prefix is un-, which survived in all of its functions. Its basic meaning comprises negativity (‘not, opposite’), primarily producing complementaries and antonyms with adjectives and corresponding adjectival nouns, e.g. un-æþele ‘of low birth’, un-berende ‘unbearable, unfruitful’, un-brad¯ ‘narrow’, but also with primary nouns, cf. un-ar¯ ‘dishonour’, un-friþ ‘enmity’. From this basic meaning, a pejorative meaning seems to have developed, viz. ‘bad(ly), excessively’, e.g. un-forht ‘very afraid’, un-lagu ‘bad law, injustice’. With verbal bases, the prefix has reversative force, denoting the undoing of the result of a pre-action, e.g. un-bindan ‘unbind’, un-don¯ ‘undo’. The other meanings (privative and ablative) current in Modern English (e.g. privative behead, defrost, stone; ablative deplane, disbar, unsaddle) did not exist in Old English and were added later under French and Latin influence in connection with the adoption of the prefixes de- and dis- (see Kastovsky, 2002a).
Most of the Old English prefixes did not survive, and the Modern English prefix system is basically the result of later borrowing from French, Latin and Greek.
238 D I E T E R K A S T O V S K Y
In contradistinction to prefixes, suffixes may cause morphophonemic alternations, especially due to i-mutation and related phenomena such as gemination and palatalisation. But even though these alternations seem to have preserved some productivity until late Old English, the originally morphophonemic status of this alternation had changed to a purely allomorphic one, because in all instances the conditioning phonological factor had been lost. It is therefore not surprising that in late Old English we find more and more instances where an alternating derivative is replaced by a non-alternating one, and in Middle English this homological principle eventually prevails, at least in the native Germanic vocabulary.
The reason for this development is the progressive weakening and eventual loss of final unstressed syllables. This also had consequences for a number of word-formation patterns which had originally contained a suffix. This suffix was lost and the patterns in question shifted to affixless (i.e. zero) derivation. This holds for deadjectival and denominal weak verbs as well as for certain deverbal and deadjectival nouns. Thus the original structure of weak verbs was stem (base) + derivational affix (= stem formative) + inflection proper (tense, person + number); cf. class 1 (Inf. *trum + j + an, Pret. *trum + i + d + a), class 2 (Inf. *luf + o j + an, Pret. *luf + o + d + a). The alternating elements /j i/ and /o j o / are referred to as stem formatives, indicating a particular inflectional class, but at the same time having the function of derivational suffixes, i.e. they do double duty: at this early (Germanic and pre-Old English) stage, inflection and derivation overlap (see Kastovsky, 1996). These structures represent the situation reconstructed for the fifth century (see Hogg, 1992b: 157–8, 160) and are still morphologically fully transparent. But with the loss of /i, j/ or its reduction to /e/ (cf. OE trymm-an, trym-ed-e) and the reduction of /o j o / to /i, a, o/ (cf. OE luf-ian, luf-ast, luf-od-e), this transparency was lost. These changes eliminated the overt stem formative/derivational suffix, whose surviving reflexes became an integral part of the inflectional endings, e.g. *trum + i + d + a > trym + ed + e, *luf + o + d + a > luf + od + e. The patterns in question now have to be reinterpreted as affixless derivations, because the inflectional endings did not have any derivational function: inflection and word formation became completely separated.
Similar developments happened with deverbal nouns such as lyge˙ < *lug + i + Ø (: leog¯ + an) or deadjectival nouns such as hæte¯ < *hat¯ + i + Ø, where -i- was originally both a stem formative and a derivational suffix, but subsequently lost this function. These patterns also shifted to zero derivation, probably in the pre-Old English or the earliest Old English period.
4.2.4.4Nominal suffixes
The principal nominal suffixes are -dom¯ , -en, -end, -ere, -estre, -had¯ ,
-incel˙, -ing, -ling, -ness, -scipe˙, -þ(o)/-t, -ung/-ing, -wist.
Suffixes determine gender affiliation. Some suffixes, e.g. -dom¯ , -en, -estre, -had¯ , -ling, -ness, -ing/-ung, are gender-invariant, others, e.g. -end, -ere, belong to more than one gender.
Vocabulary 239
The suffix -dom¯ (Modern English -dom) goes back to the noun dom¯ ‘judgement’, but this meaning is no longer present, so that -dom¯ has to be regarded at least as a suffixoid, if not a real suffix. It derives denominal and deadjectival abstract nouns with the meanings ‘state, condition, fact of being, action of’, e.g. denominal caserd¯ om¯ ‘empire’, campdom¯ ‘contest’, martyrdom¯ ‘martyrdom’; deadjectival freod¯ om¯ ‘freedom’, w¯ısdom¯ ‘wisdom’.
With the suffix -en (not surviving) there are two semantic patterns, both deriving feminine nouns. The first is the counterpart of German -in (Herrin, Lehrerin) deriving feminines from nouns denoting male beings (an extremely restricted pattern in Modern English; see Kastovsky & Dalton-Puffer, 2002), e.g. fyxen ‘vixen’, gyden ‘goddess’, mynecen ‘nun’. The second pattern produces abstract and concrete deverbal and denominal derivatives. Action nouns: s¯ıen f. ‘sight’, swefen n. ‘sleep, dream’; object/result: fæsten f. ‘fortress’, sellen f. ‘gift’; instrumental nouns: fæsten n. ‘fastener’; locative nouns: hengen˙ f. ‘rack, cross’, byrgen˙ f., n.‘grave’.
One of the most productive suffixes is -end, which primarily forms Agent nouns and is a rival of -ere. The latter remained the major Agent-noun-forming suffix in Modern English, whereas -end was lost in Middle English. Agent nouns (biddend ‘petitioner’, hælend¯ ‘Saviour’, lærend¯ ‘teacher’, dæl¯-nimend’ ‘participle’), Object nouns (gehæftend˙ ‘prisoner’), instrumental nouns ((ge˙-)b¯ıcniend ‘forefinger’) are strong masculines. There are also some feminine action nouns, e.g. n¯ıd-nimend ‘taking by force’, blinnend ‘rest, ceasing’.
The suffix -ere also forms primarily masculine Agent nouns, but other semantic categories also occur. It was originally denominal (e.g. scipere˙ ‘sailor’, sc˙o(h)ere¯ ‘shoemaker’), but was subsequently extended to deverbal derivation with the same semantic categories that are covered by -end: leornere ‘pupil’, sce˙awere¯ ‘mirror’, punere¯ ‘pestle’, word-samnere ‘catalogue’ (all masculine), as well as the neuter Action noun (dirne-)geli˙gere˙ ‘adultery’.
In contradistinction to Modern English (or German), Old English had a suffix deriving female Agent nouns directly from verbs or nouns, viz.-estre, which did not presuppose a male agent to which it could be added (cf. steward > stewardess, Lehrer > Lehrerin). Deverbal derivatives are hleapestre¯ ‘female dancer’, tæppestre ‘female tavern-keeper’, wæscestre˙ ‘washer’; denominal derivatives are byrþestre ‘female carrier’, fiþelestre ‘female fiddler’. This situation provided the possibility of minimal pairs such as bæcere: bæcestre ‘male/female baker’, etc. The female reference of -estre was lost in Middle English, so that Modern English -ster-nouns like gangster, roadster, speedster are no longer gender-specific and -er has also become gender-neutral.
The status of -had¯ is comparable to that of -dom¯ . It originally goes back to the noun had¯ ‘state, rank, position, character’, which frequently occurred as a determinatum in compounds. But in this capacity it underwent semantic bleaching, so that at least in late Old English it had reached the status of a suffixoid, developing into a real suffix in Middle English, which its Modern English counterpart -hood/-head certainly is. Examples are: abbudhad¯ ‘rank of an abbot’, camphad¯ ‘warfare’, cildh˙ad¯ ‘childhood’.
240 D I E T E R K A S T O V S K Y
English has never been very productive in the domain of diminutives. For Old English, only one suffix is recorded, neuter -incel˙ (not surviving), as in bogin¯ cel˙ ‘small bough’, husin¯ cel˙ ‘little house’, scipin˙cel˙ ‘little ship’.
The suffix -ing, still active in Modern English, forms masculine nouns denoting ‘proceeding or derived from N/Adj/V’, often also with a patronymic function, e.g. Scylding˙ ‘descendant of the Scylds’, w¯ıcing ‘pirate’; æþeling ‘son of a noble’, ierming ‘poor wretch’; fostring¯ ‘fosterchild’, l¯ısing ‘free man’.
The suffix -ling is related to -ing and resulted from a reanalysis of derivatives such as æþeling, etc., where the stem-final consonant was mistakenly also associated as the initial consonant of the suffix. This resulted in formations such as deorling¯ ‘favourite’, geongling˙ ‘youngling’, fostorling¯ ‘fosterchild’.
One of the most productive suffixes to derive feminine Action and State nouns (but also other semantic patterns) from adjectives and verbs is -ness. Typical deadjectival formations are æþelness ‘nobility’, beorhtness ‘brightness’, bitterness ‘bitterness’. Deverbal formations can be based on the present or the past participle, but also on the simple verb stem, which is no longer possible in Modern English. Sometimes we find doublets and even triplets without any meaning difference. Action nouns are brecness ‘breach’, costness ‘temptation’, astandendness ‘continuance’, geb˙etendness¯ ‘emendation’, uparisenness¯ ‘resurrection’, cirredness ‘turning’; blinness/ablinnendness ‘cessation’, forgifness/for˙gifennes˙
‘forgiveness’, leorness/l¯ eorendness/l¯ eoredness¯ ‘departure, passing away’, al¯ısness/al¯ısendness/al¯ısedness ‘redemption’. Object/result nouns are onbærnness ‘incense’, an-/insetness ‘ordinance, regulation’, agendness¯ ‘property’, alegedness˙ ‘interjection’, foreset(ed)ness ‘preposition’. Instrumental and locative nouns are fedness¯ ‘nourishment’, gereordness˙ ‘food’, smireness ‘ointment’, wuneness ‘dwelling’, behydedness¯ ‘secret place’. There may well have been a diachronic development with derivation from the infinitive stem having been the earlier preference, being gradually superseded by derivation from the participles.
The very productive suffix -scipe˙ forms masculine abstract nouns with the meanings ‘state, act, fact’ (bodscipe˙ ‘message’, freonds¯ cipe˙ ‘friendship’, leods¯ cipe˙ ‘nation, people’).
The suffix family -þ(o)/-t derives feminine deadjectival abstract nouns (with and without umlaut), e.g. fyl¯þ ‘filth’, h¯ıehþ(o) ‘height’; a particular strong group is derived from adjectives with the suffix -leas¯ , e.g. larl¯ east/l¯ arl¯ ¯ıest ‘ignorance’, l¯ıfleast¯ ‘lack of life = death’.
The suffix alternants -ung/-ing derive feminine deverbal nouns from both strong and weak verbs; -ung primarily occurs with weak class 2 verbs, and -ing elsewhere, although this originally relatively clear-cut complementary distribution is no longer fully observed in late Old English. The surviving form, both for verbal nouns, gerunds (and eventually also present participles) is -ing. The typical semantic patterns are Action nouns (binding ‘binding’, huntung ‘hunting’); Agent nouns (gaderung ‘gathering, assembly’, (ge)m˙eting¯ ‘meeting, assembly’); Object/Result nouns (beorning ‘incense’, agnung¯ ‘possessions’); Instrumental
Vocabulary 241
nouns (lacnung¯ ‘medicine’, wering ‘dam’); Locative nouns (cyping¯ ‘market’, wunung ‘dwelling’).
The survival rate of the Old English nominal suffixes was clearly higher than that of the prefixes, although there were quite a number of casualties, too, and later on a considerable influx of French and Latin suffixes competing with the native suffixes.
4.2.4.5Adjectival suffixes
The following adjectival suffixes are of major importance for Old English: -bære¯, -cund, -ed(e)/-od(e), -en, -feald, -full, -ig˙, -isc˙, -leas¯ , -l¯ıc˙, -sum,
-weard, most of which survived into Modern English.
The status of -bære¯ (related to beran ‘carry’, not surviving) is not quite clear, but it seems that it had reached the status of a suffixoid (if not of a full-fledged suffix) rather than still being the second member of a compound. The meaning is ‘productive of, having’, e.g. æppelbære¯ ‘apple-bearing’, atorb¯ ære¯ ‘poisonous’, cornbære¯ ‘corn-bearing’.
The suffix -cund (not surviving) produces denominal and deadjectival adjectives meaning ‘of the nature of, originating from’; cf. denominal engelcund ‘angelic’, gastcund¯ ‘spiritual’, godcund ‘divine’; deadjectival æþelcund ‘of noble birth’, innancund ‘internal’, yfelcund¯ ‘evil’.
The suffix alternants -ed(e)/-od(e) are related to the weak past participle endings (just as Modern English -ed in bearded), meaning ‘provided with’. The bases are simple or compound nouns, the latter resulting in extended bahuvrihi compounds, e.g. feower¯ -fote,¯ feower¯ -fete¯ > feower¯ -fotede¯ ‘four-footed’. We thus find many bahuvrihi and extended bahuvrihi doublets. Other meanings are ‘resembling, having the character of’, e.g. a-gimmed˙ ‘set with gems’, an¯ -hyrned ‘having one horn’, feower¯ -hweolod¯ ‘four-wheeled’.
The suffix -en derives denominal adjectives with the meanings ‘made of, consisting of, characterised by’. Older formations have i-umlaut, more recent ones do not: æscen˙ ‘made of ash-wood’, c˙eoslen¯ ‘gravelly’, hyrnen ‘made of horn’.
The suffix -feald is used to form adjectives with the meaning ‘-fold’ from numerals and quantifiers, e.g. anfeald¯ ‘single’, manigfeald˙ ‘manifold’.
The suffix -ful ‘having, being’, still very productive today, derives adjectives from nouns, adjectives, and occasionally from verbs, e.g. denominal andgietful˙ ‘intelligent’, bealoful ‘wicked’; deadjectival earmful ‘wretched, miserable’, geornful˙ ‘eager’; deverbal hyspful ‘contumelious, ridiculous’.
The very productive suffix -ig˙ (Modern English -y) produces denominal, deadjectival and deverbal adjectives meaning ‘characterised by, having’, many of which are extended bahuvrihis. This is a rival of -l¯ıc˙, so that we find many -ig/˙-l¯ıc˙ doublets. Examples are: adli¯ g˙ ‘sick’, blissig˙ ‘joyful’, blodi¯ g˙ ‘bloody’ (denominal); untrymig˙ ‘infirm’, gesyndi˙g˙ ‘sound’ (deadjectival); c˙eori¯ g˙ ‘querulous’, gefyndi˙g˙ ‘inventive, capable’ (deverbal).