Боргуль Н. М. Пособие по основам теории изучаемого языка, печать
UNIT 9. MIDDLE ENGLISH MORPHOLOGY
жүктеу/скачать 0,78 Mb. Pdf көрінісі
|
Оқытылатын тіл
- Бұл бет үшін навигация:
- § 2. The adjective
| UNIT 9. MIDDLE ENGLISH MORPHOLOGY
§ 1. The noun In ME noun morphology was considerably simplified. The OE system of declensions gradually passed out of use. It is explained mainly by weakening of inflections due to the process of leveling of unstressed endings: too many forms were homonymous which made using case endings useless. Thus, after several centuries of reduction, only 2 cases were left: Nominative and Genitive (formed by means of the suffix –es). OE division into genders, being mainly a classifying feature (and not a grammatical category proper) disappeared as well. Now gender was semantically associated with the differentiation of sex and therefore the formal grouping into genders was smoothly and naturally superseded by a semantic division into inanimate and animate nouns, with a further subdivision of the latter into males and females. The category of Number proved to be the most stable of all. In Late ME the ending –es was the prevalent marker of nouns in the plural. The ME plural ending – en , used as a variant marker (especially in the weak declension in the Southern dialects) lost its productivity, so in Standard MnE it is found only in oxen, brethren, and children . The small group of ME nouns with homonymous forms of number (ME deer, hors, thing ) has been further reduced to few exceptions in MnE: deer, sheep, swine. The group of former root-stems has survived only as exceptions: man, tooth , etc . It should be noted, however, that not all irregular forms in MnE are traces of OE declensions: some forms have come from other languages together with the borrowed words. § 2. The adjective In the course of the ME period the adjective underwent greater simplifying changes than any other part of speech. It lost all its grammatical categories with the exception of the degrees of comparison. In OE the adjective was declined to show gender, case and number of the noun it modified; it had a five-case paradigm and two types of declension, weak and strong. By the end of the OE period the agreement of the adjective with the noun had become looser and in the course of Early ME it was practically lost. Though the grammatical categories of the adjective reflected those of the noun, most of them disappeared even before the noun lost the respective distinctions. The degrees of comparison is the only set of forms which the adjective has preserved through all historical periods. However, the endings used to build up the forms of the degrees of comparison have considerably altered. In OE the forms of the comparative and the superlative degrees were built by adding the suffixes –ra and –est/-ost, to the form of the positive degree. Sometimes affixation was accompanied by an interchange of the root-vowel; a few adjectives had suppletive forms. 30 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. 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 mā, bet, betst, swī ƥ or – ‗ more‘, ‗ better‘, ‗ to a greater degree‘ with adjectives and participles. It is remarkable 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. жүктеу/скачать 0,78 Mb. Достарыңызбен бөлісу:
|