14. The oe noun system (grammatical categories, major types of declension).

The OE noun had 2 grammatical categories: number and case. Also, nouns distinguished 3 genders, but gender was not a grammatical category; it was merely a classifying feature accounting for the division of nouns into morphological classes.

The category of number consisted of two members: singular and plural. There were 4 major cases: nominative, genitive, dative, accusative.

The OE system of declensions was based on a number of distinctions: the stem-suffix, the gender of nouns, the phonetic structure of the word, phonetic changes in the final syllables.

Stem-suffixes could consist of vowels (vocalic stems, e.g. a-stems, i- stems), of consonants (consonantal stems, e.g. n-stems), of sound sequences, e.g. -ja-stems, -nd-stems. Some groups of nouns had no stem-forming suffix or had a “zero-suffix”; they are usually termed “root-stems” and are grouped together with consonantal stems, as their roots ended in consonants, e.g. OE man, bōc.

OE nouns are divided as either strong or weak. Weak nouns have their own endings. In general, weak nouns are easier than strong nouns, since they had begun to lose their declensional system. Strong (a,o,i,u –stem). A-stem and its variation ja&wa – m,n. O-stem – jo&wo –f noun. I-stem – m,f,n. U-stem – m,f. j,w –appeare before inflexion. Weak decl – n –m,f,n. es –n. room-stem (Root-stem formed some cases not by an in flexional ending, but by the chance of the root vowel due to mutation)-no form suffixes. Mutation was used to define number and gender of noun. Primary compound (both parts in Nomcase) +adj+noun. Secondary comp.noun (the 2-nd part in Gen Case.)=noun+noun, verb+noun.

15,The changes of the noun grammatical categories in me and their causes.

Most changes occurred to the Noun in ME.

System of Declensions: In ME the declensions disappeared due to the reduction of endings. As far as the Case endings were reduced to one or two, there remained no distinction between the Case forms of different declensions and there was no necessity any more to distinguish these declensions.

Gender: The Gender in OE was not supported semantically. It was only a classifying feature for the declensions and as far as the declensions disappeared there was no necessity to preserve the Gender. It disappeared by the 11^th – 12^th c.

Number: The quantity of the Number endings was also reduced as far as the declensions disappeared. The markers of the Plural became more uniform (-s, -en, root-sound interchange). The preference of the consonantal endings can be explained by the fact that the vowels were more apt to change and reduction then the consonants that in general proved to be more stable.

Case: The Case system was contracted in ME due to the reduction of endings. As far as the Case endings were reduced to one or two, there remained no distinction between the Case forms and there was no necessity any more to distinguish 4 Cases: OE Nom., Dat., Acc. > Common; Gen. > Gen. (Possessive): The usage of the Genitive became more limited. In Singular it was marked by -‘s. In the 17^th – 18^th c. the apostrophe (‘) started to be used in Pl, Gen as far as the plural Genitive ending was lost but some distinction between the Common and the Genitive case in Plural should be preserved.

Causes for Decay of Case System: Influence of the Scandinavian Dialects that were grammatically simpler in comparison with OE Dialects and this influence led to the minimization of grammar; Phonetic reduction of final unstressed syllables (inflections).

Consequences of Case System Decay: The number of prepositions started to grow to help to replace the former Case forms; As far as there was no distinctions between the Cases, the distinction between the Subject and the Object of a sentence was lost  fixed word order appeared (The Subject almost always took the first place and was followed by the Object).

The use of noun cases in OE.

There were 4 major cases: nominative, genitive, dative, accusative. The Nom. case was the case of the subject used with verbs denoting activity, it indicated the subject of the sentence. It was also used for direct address. The Acc. indicated the direct object of the sentence. It was never distinguished in the plural, or in a neuter noun. The Gen. case indicated possession. It also indicated partitive nouns. The meanings of the Gen. case were very complex and can only be grouped under the headings “Subjective” and “Objective” Gen. Subjective Gen. is associated with the possessive meaning and the meaning of origin. Objective Gen. is associated with what is termed “partitive meaning” .The Dat. case indicated the indirect object of the sentence, it was the chief case used with prepositions, Dat. Case could convey an instrumental meaning, indicating the means or manner of an action.

The origin of plural endings in Modern English nouns.

Most changes occurred to the Noun in ME.

Number: The quantity of the Number endings was reduced as far as the declensions disappeared. The markers of the Plural became more uniform (-s, -en, root-sound interchange). The preference of the consonantal endings can be explained by the fact that the vowels were more apt to change and reduction then the consonants that in general proved to be more stable.

In late ME the ending -es was the prevalent marker of nouns in the pl. In Early NE it extended to more nouns – to the new words of the growing E. vocabulary and to many words, which built their plural in different way in ME or employed –es as one of the variant endings.

The ME pl. ending –en used as a variant marker with some nouns lost its former productivity, so that in standard Mod E it is found only in oxen, brethren, and children.

The small group of ME nouns with homonymous forms of number (ME deer, hors, thing0 has been further reduced to 3 ‘exceptions’ in Mod E: deer, sheep, swine.

It follows that the majority of E nouns have preserved and even reinforced the formal distinction on Number in the Comm. Case. Meanwhile they have practically lost 3 distinctions in the Gen. case, for Gen. has a distinct form in the pl only with nouns whose pl ending is not –es.

Despite the regular neutralization of number distinctions in the Gen. case we can say that differentiation of Number in nouns has become more explicit and more precise. The functional load and the frequency of occurrence of the Comm. Case are certainly much higher than those of the Gen.; therefore the regular formal distinction of Number in the Comm. Case is more important than its neutralization in the Gen. case.