WEBVTT

00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:11.200 align:middle line:84%
[SQUEAKING]
[RUSTLING] [CLICKING]

00:00:11.200 --> 00:00:18.820 align:middle line:84%
ARTHUR BAHR: So as promised, you
got longer and fuller accounts

00:00:18.820 --> 00:00:24.400 align:middle line:84%
of some of the syntactic
principles especially

00:00:24.400 --> 00:00:29.920 align:middle line:84%
and word order stuff that we
got the kind of simplified

00:00:29.920 --> 00:00:37.540 align:middle line:84%
or somewhat simplified
version of in Baker last time.

00:00:37.540 --> 00:00:44.140 align:middle line:84%
I'm going to hit what I consider
the high points of Mitchell

00:00:44.140 --> 00:00:49.330 align:middle line:84%
and Robinson's account of
syntax through the pages

00:00:49.330 --> 00:00:51.415 align:middle line:90%
that we read for today.

00:00:51.415 --> 00:00:54.250 align:middle line:90%


00:00:54.250 --> 00:00:59.440 align:middle line:84%
But I'm happy to take
questions throughout.

00:00:59.440 --> 00:01:03.910 align:middle line:90%
So starting really with--

00:01:03.910 --> 00:01:07.150 align:middle line:84%
one thing I will say
at the top of page 63,

00:01:07.150 --> 00:01:11.810 align:middle line:84%
because I had to look this up,
the use of a single verb form

00:01:11.810 --> 00:01:15.500 align:middle line:84%
where modern English would
use a resolved tense or mood--

00:01:15.500 --> 00:01:20.960 align:middle line:84%
so a resolved tense
simply means one

00:01:20.960 --> 00:01:24.420 align:middle line:84%
where you use a form
of the verb to be,

00:01:24.420 --> 00:01:29.030 align:middle line:84%
at least in this case-- so
"is going" or "was going."

00:01:29.030 --> 00:01:36.410 align:middle line:84%
I think I mentioned before, for
our phrase in modern English,

00:01:36.410 --> 00:01:39.860 align:middle line:84%
we would tend to say,
"The sun is shining."

00:01:39.860 --> 00:01:42.830 align:middle line:84%
Old English would be
much likelier to simply

00:01:42.830 --> 00:01:51.875 align:middle line:84%
to use the conjugated form of
that verb: sēo sunne scīneð,

00:01:51.875 --> 00:01:56.570 align:middle line:84%
"shineth" in its cognate,
rather than is scīnende,

00:01:56.570 --> 00:01:59.090 align:middle line:84%
which it could
theoretically say.

00:01:59.090 --> 00:02:04.670 align:middle line:84%
But it would sound quite
unidiomatic in Old English.

00:02:04.670 --> 00:02:09.710 align:middle line:84%
So in terms of their,
Mitchell and Robinson's

00:02:09.710 --> 00:02:18.650 align:middle line:84%
that is, account of word
order, which starts on page 63,

00:02:18.650 --> 00:02:25.770 align:middle line:84%
I want to highlight paragraph
145 on the next page,

00:02:25.770 --> 00:02:27.560 align:middle line:90%
on page 64.

00:02:27.560 --> 00:02:35.810 align:middle line:84%
This S - V word order is most
common in subordinate clauses.

00:02:35.810 --> 00:02:39.620 align:middle line:84%
I previewed and we talked a
little bit about that last

00:02:39.620 --> 00:02:43.160 align:middle line:84%
time, that when you're
dealing with a subordinate,

00:02:43.160 --> 00:02:45.710 align:middle line:84%
a complex sentence in Old
English-- that is to say,

00:02:45.710 --> 00:02:48.980 align:middle line:84%
one with a main clause and one
or more subordinate clauses--

00:02:48.980 --> 00:02:52.730 align:middle line:84%
be very much on the
lookout for the verb

00:02:52.730 --> 00:02:57.140 align:middle line:84%
to come at the end of
that subordinate clause.

00:02:57.140 --> 00:03:00.170 align:middle line:84%
This can be tricky,
especially if you're

00:03:00.170 --> 00:03:02.660 align:middle line:84%
dealing with the past
tense of a strong verb that

00:03:02.660 --> 00:03:04.880 align:middle line:90%
may not have an ending.

00:03:04.880 --> 00:03:09.500 align:middle line:84%
So make sure, when you're
looking for the verbs,

00:03:09.500 --> 00:03:16.920 align:middle line:84%
that you're looking at the end
of the clause in particular.

00:03:16.920 --> 00:03:19.440 align:middle line:84%
And then the next
bit that I wanted

00:03:19.440 --> 00:03:22.310 align:middle line:90%
to note, the top of page 65--

00:03:22.310 --> 00:03:25.260 align:middle line:90%


00:03:25.260 --> 00:03:28.650 align:middle line:84%
a context in which you get
the verb subject, what they're

00:03:28.650 --> 00:03:34.350 align:middle line:84%
calling the verb subject word
order, is in principal clauses

00:03:34.350 --> 00:03:37.110 align:middle line:90%
introduced by certain adverbs.

00:03:37.110 --> 00:03:39.390 align:middle line:84%
So they give the
example "Then came

00:03:39.390 --> 00:03:44.700 align:middle line:84%
the dawn," which
sounds archaic, poetic,

00:03:44.700 --> 00:03:46.050 align:middle line:90%
whatever you want to call it.

00:03:46.050 --> 00:03:47.970 align:middle line:84%
In Old English, it
would not sound--

00:03:47.970 --> 00:03:49.740 align:middle line:84%
it would just sound
totally normal.

00:03:49.740 --> 00:03:51.930 align:middle line:84%
And we've seen
gazillions of examples,

00:03:51.930 --> 00:03:54.990 align:middle line:84%
I think, already in our
relatively brief time

00:03:54.990 --> 00:04:00.420 align:middle line:90%
reading of þā - verb - subject.

00:04:00.420 --> 00:04:04.530 align:middle line:84%
And we're going
to see still more.

00:04:04.530 --> 00:04:14.070 align:middle line:84%
This is not an absolute
rule, as paragraph 147

00:04:14.070 --> 00:04:15.795 align:middle line:90%
explains in some detail.

00:04:15.795 --> 00:04:19.950 align:middle line:90%


00:04:19.950 --> 00:04:26.010 align:middle line:84%
At the 2/3, maybe 3/4 of the
way down that long paragraph,

00:04:26.010 --> 00:04:29.700 align:middle line:84%
they write that the
old preference for VS--

00:04:29.700 --> 00:04:34.080 align:middle line:84%
that is to say verb-subject
word order-- after an adverb,

00:04:34.080 --> 00:04:36.780 align:middle line:84%
as in modern German,
is, at times,

00:04:36.780 --> 00:04:38.760 align:middle line:84%
conquered by the
new preference--

00:04:38.760 --> 00:04:41.370 align:middle line:84%
that is to say new
in Old English--

00:04:41.370 --> 00:04:43.710 align:middle line:90%
for a subject-verb word order.

00:04:43.710 --> 00:04:46.080 align:middle line:84%
So it's not a hard
and fast rule,

00:04:46.080 --> 00:04:48.510 align:middle line:84%
as at least in my memory
of studying German

00:04:48.510 --> 00:04:55.140 align:middle line:84%
it is, that the verb
has to be second.

00:04:55.140 --> 00:04:58.380 align:middle line:84%
But it is still a
strong preference.

00:04:58.380 --> 00:05:01.010 align:middle line:90%


00:05:01.010 --> 00:05:05.390 align:middle line:84%
All right, any questions
about their account,

00:05:05.390 --> 00:05:08.195 align:middle line:84%
their more detailed
account of word order?

00:05:08.195 --> 00:05:13.540 align:middle line:90%


00:05:13.540 --> 00:05:16.750 align:middle line:84%
I think Mitchell and
Robinson do quite a nice job

00:05:16.750 --> 00:05:20.510 align:middle line:84%
of explaining both
recapitulation

00:05:20.510 --> 00:05:21.760 align:middle line:90%
and anticipation.

00:05:21.760 --> 00:05:27.190 align:middle line:84%
We saw examples of
anticipation last time.

00:05:27.190 --> 00:05:31.555 align:middle line:84%
Recapitulation is the
sort of flip side of that.

00:05:31.555 --> 00:05:34.960 align:middle line:90%


00:05:34.960 --> 00:05:40.720 align:middle line:84%
I like their comparison of
this to a modern politician

00:05:40.720 --> 00:05:45.040 align:middle line:84%
who has the desire, but not
the ability to be an orator.

00:05:45.040 --> 00:05:48.640 align:middle line:84%
And they call it the device
of pausing in mid-sentence

00:05:48.640 --> 00:05:52.780 align:middle line:84%
and starting afresh with a
pronoun or some group of words

00:05:52.780 --> 00:05:56.060 align:middle line:84%
which sums up what
has gone before.

00:05:56.060 --> 00:05:59.680 align:middle line:84%
So they give the simple
example from Alfred's preface

00:05:59.680 --> 00:06:04.900 align:middle line:84%
to the translation of the
pastoral cure, [LATIN],,

00:06:04.900 --> 00:06:14.720 align:middle line:84%
Alfred writes, Ūre ieldran,
ðā ðe ðās stōwa ǣr hīoldon,

00:06:14.720 --> 00:06:18.470 align:middle line:84%
"Our ancestors, who previously
occupied these places"--

00:06:18.470 --> 00:06:22.220 align:middle line:84%
so he's got a relatively long--
and it's not even that long.

00:06:22.220 --> 00:06:27.200 align:middle line:84%
But he's got a subject, and
then a dependent clause.

00:06:27.200 --> 00:06:31.220 align:middle line:84%
So our ancestors, who previously
occupied these places,

00:06:31.220 --> 00:06:34.640 align:middle line:90%
ðā ðe ðās stōwa ǣr hīoldon...

00:06:34.640 --> 00:06:37.880 align:middle line:84%
And then he, as Mitchell
and Robinson say,

00:06:37.880 --> 00:06:40.980 align:middle line:84%
pauses, as it were, for
thought, and then goes on.

00:06:40.980 --> 00:06:43.940 align:middle line:90%
hīe lufodon wīsdōm.

00:06:43.940 --> 00:06:46.760 align:middle line:90%
So that hīe might look like--

00:06:46.760 --> 00:06:50.180 align:middle line:90%
indeed, it could be an object.

00:06:50.180 --> 00:06:54.950 align:middle line:84%
But in this case, it's a
recapitulative nominative

00:06:54.950 --> 00:07:01.430 align:middle line:84%
that looks back to the
subject, Ūre ieldran.

00:07:01.430 --> 00:07:05.630 align:middle line:84%
And that ambiguity gets resolved
by the fact that wīsdōm, which

00:07:05.630 --> 00:07:08.490 align:middle line:90%
is the actual direct object--

00:07:08.490 --> 00:07:11.400 align:middle line:84%
there's nothing for
wisdom to do there,

00:07:11.400 --> 00:07:13.180 align:middle line:90%
if it's not the direct object.

00:07:13.180 --> 00:07:18.210 align:middle line:84%
And in fact, lufodon has
a plural verb ending.

00:07:18.210 --> 00:07:22.900 align:middle line:84%
So we know that hīe
has to be the subject.

00:07:22.900 --> 00:07:27.620 align:middle line:84%
This is not wildly common,
the recapitulation.

00:07:27.620 --> 00:07:30.470 align:middle line:84%
It's certainly less
common than anticipation.

00:07:30.470 --> 00:07:36.050 align:middle line:84%
But it is something to be
aware of because it sounds--

00:07:36.050 --> 00:07:40.160 align:middle line:84%
yeah, I mean, as Mitchell
and Robinson say,

00:07:40.160 --> 00:07:41.660 align:middle line:84%
it looks like the
kind of thing--

00:07:41.660 --> 00:07:43.550 align:middle line:84%
it feels like the
kind of thing that

00:07:43.550 --> 00:07:47.480 align:middle line:84%
happens from oral delivery,
when you're not sure how

00:07:47.480 --> 00:07:48.770 align:middle line:90%
the sentence is going to end.

00:07:48.770 --> 00:07:49.937 align:middle line:90%
And you get partway through.

00:07:49.937 --> 00:07:52.010 align:middle line:84%
And you're like, oh
God, what was I doing?

00:07:52.010 --> 00:07:54.350 align:middle line:84%
And yet, here in Old
English, we often see it

00:07:54.350 --> 00:07:56.810 align:middle line:84%
in written sources,
when presumably they

00:07:56.810 --> 00:08:00.390 align:middle line:84%
had time to go back and edit,
but, for whatever reason,

00:08:00.390 --> 00:08:02.540 align:middle line:84%
didn't feel that it
was necessary to do so.

00:08:02.540 --> 00:08:06.480 align:middle line:90%


00:08:06.480 --> 00:08:11.430 align:middle line:84%
Anticipation-- so if you take
a look at the second paragraph

00:08:11.430 --> 00:08:14.160 align:middle line:90%
in section--

00:08:14.160 --> 00:08:16.030 align:middle line:90%
or I mean, I think that's--

00:08:16.030 --> 00:08:20.670 align:middle line:84%
whatever that sigil
is in 148 on page 66,

00:08:20.670 --> 00:08:25.080 align:middle line:84%
the common use of a pronoun
to anticipate a noun clause

00:08:25.080 --> 00:08:27.940 align:middle line:84%
may be compared with
that or with this.

00:08:27.940 --> 00:08:30.600 align:middle line:84%
So the simple example
that they give

00:08:30.600 --> 00:08:35.260 align:middle line:84%
is Þā þæt Offan mǣġ ǣrest
onfunde þæt se eorl nolde yrhðo

00:08:35.260 --> 00:08:35.760 align:middle line:90%
ġeþolian.

00:08:35.760 --> 00:08:38.730 align:middle line:90%


00:08:38.730 --> 00:08:41.520 align:middle line:84%
So literally, they
write, or they translate,

00:08:41.520 --> 00:08:43.590 align:middle line:90%
"When the kinsmen of Offa"--

00:08:43.590 --> 00:08:48.430 align:middle line:84%
Offan mǣġ-- "first
learned that thing"--

00:08:48.430 --> 00:08:51.810 align:middle line:90%
so ǣrest onfunde þæt--

00:08:51.810 --> 00:08:59.040 align:middle line:84%
the first þæt-- namely that,
the second þæt, "the leader

00:08:59.040 --> 00:09:00.820 align:middle line:90%
would not tolerate cowardice."

00:09:00.820 --> 00:09:05.730 align:middle line:84%
Literally, "the noble,
the earl, the noble

00:09:05.730 --> 00:09:11.010 align:middle line:84%
did not desire to
suffer cowardice."

00:09:11.010 --> 00:09:17.940 align:middle line:84%
Those two "that"s are a very
good example of anticipation.

00:09:17.940 --> 00:09:21.990 align:middle line:84%
So when you see
that first þæt, you

00:09:21.990 --> 00:09:25.510 align:middle line:84%
have to basically keep
your mind flexible and say,

00:09:25.510 --> 00:09:28.410 align:middle line:84%
all right, I don't quite know
what this that is doing there.

00:09:28.410 --> 00:09:29.860 align:middle line:90%
Keep reading.

00:09:29.860 --> 00:09:34.230 align:middle line:84%
And then when you
see the verb onfunde,

00:09:34.230 --> 00:09:37.860 align:middle line:84%
which is going to
require a direct object--

00:09:37.860 --> 00:09:39.510 align:middle line:84%
and in this case,
the direct object

00:09:39.510 --> 00:09:41.760 align:middle line:90%
is going to be a noun clause.

00:09:41.760 --> 00:09:42.780 align:middle line:90%
"He found out."

00:09:42.780 --> 00:09:43.980 align:middle line:90%
He found something out.

00:09:43.980 --> 00:09:45.090 align:middle line:90%
What did he find out?

00:09:45.090 --> 00:09:46.650 align:middle line:90%
"He found out that"--

00:09:46.650 --> 00:09:53.370 align:middle line:84%
it's that discovery that
onfunde is going to be--

00:09:53.370 --> 00:09:57.310 align:middle line:84%
is a transitive verb that
needs a direct object

00:09:57.310 --> 00:09:59.590 align:middle line:84%
and that the direct object
is going to be a clause.

00:09:59.590 --> 00:10:03.130 align:middle line:84%
That's what
retroactively, as it were,

00:10:03.130 --> 00:10:08.140 align:middle line:84%
clarifies that the first
þæt is anticipation.

00:10:08.140 --> 00:10:10.450 align:middle line:84%
So as I said last
time, you don't have

00:10:10.450 --> 00:10:13.060 align:middle line:90%
to translate that first þæt.

00:10:13.060 --> 00:10:15.820 align:middle line:84%
You just have to be able
to parse it correctly

00:10:15.820 --> 00:10:17.275 align:middle line:90%
and understand what it's doing.

00:10:17.275 --> 00:10:21.990 align:middle line:90%


00:10:21.990 --> 00:10:25.410 align:middle line:90%
Any questions on that?

00:10:25.410 --> 00:10:29.490 align:middle line:84%
Hit is a perfectly
viable, although

00:10:29.490 --> 00:10:39.660 align:middle line:84%
less common alternative to þæt,
as an anticipatory pronoun.

00:10:39.660 --> 00:10:42.240 align:middle line:84%
The other thing to be
aware of is, however,

00:10:42.240 --> 00:10:45.450 align:middle line:84%
even though þæt and
hit are by far the most

00:10:45.450 --> 00:10:49.770 align:middle line:84%
common, because they are the
accusative, when you have

00:10:49.770 --> 00:10:53.070 align:middle line:84%
verbs, which Old English
has quite a number of,

00:10:53.070 --> 00:10:54.540 align:middle line:84%
as we've discussed,
when you have

00:10:54.540 --> 00:10:58.500 align:middle line:84%
verbs that take a different
case from the accusative,

00:10:58.500 --> 00:11:04.590 align:middle line:84%
you will see the anticipatory
pronoun or demonstrative,

00:11:04.590 --> 00:11:11.530 align:middle line:84%
in whatever the case is,
that that verb takes.

00:11:11.530 --> 00:11:16.630 align:middle line:84%
So for example, wēnan,
the verb "to believe,"

00:11:16.630 --> 00:11:21.735 align:middle line:84%
which takes the
genitive, what form

00:11:21.735 --> 00:11:24.260 align:middle line:90%
would that þæt take instead?

00:11:24.260 --> 00:11:27.345 align:middle line:90%


00:11:27.345 --> 00:11:28.280 align:middle line:90%
AUDIENCE: þæs.

00:11:28.280 --> 00:11:31.460 align:middle line:84%
ARTHUR BAHR: þæs,
exactly, very good, yeah.

00:11:31.460 --> 00:11:37.580 align:middle line:84%
All right, any questions
on anticipation?

00:11:37.580 --> 00:11:44.830 align:middle line:90%


00:11:44.830 --> 00:11:49.560 align:middle line:84%
So the splitting of heavy
groups on page 67, paragraph

00:11:49.560 --> 00:11:51.540 align:middle line:90%
or section 149--

00:11:51.540 --> 00:11:53.100 align:middle line:90%
this is an example.

00:11:53.100 --> 00:11:58.380 align:middle line:84%
This is basically the splitting
of compounds, compound subjects

00:11:58.380 --> 00:12:02.560 align:middle line:84%
and compound objects that
we talked about last time.

00:12:02.560 --> 00:12:08.640 align:middle line:84%
So they just go
into more detail.

00:12:08.640 --> 00:12:12.560 align:middle line:84%
And I don't think there's
anything substantively

00:12:12.560 --> 00:12:14.460 align:middle line:84%
different that we
need to dwell on.

00:12:14.460 --> 00:12:16.895 align:middle line:90%
But if I'm wrong, let me know.

00:12:16.895 --> 00:12:23.160 align:middle line:90%


00:12:23.160 --> 00:12:27.870 align:middle line:84%
And then next, on page
68, we have correlation.

00:12:27.870 --> 00:12:31.590 align:middle line:84%
Again, this is mostly
review of things

00:12:31.590 --> 00:12:33.660 align:middle line:90%
that we talked about last time.

00:12:33.660 --> 00:12:42.840 align:middle line:84%
I would highlight the bottom
of page 68 in section 151.

00:12:42.840 --> 00:12:47.700 align:middle line:84%
They note that word order-- this
is really just recapitulating.

00:12:47.700 --> 00:12:48.750 align:middle line:90%
See what I did there--

00:12:48.750 --> 00:12:50.910 align:middle line:84%
recapitulating stuff
that we saw in Baker.

00:12:50.910 --> 00:12:54.420 align:middle line:84%
Word order is an even more
useful and reliable guide

00:12:54.420 --> 00:12:56.880 align:middle line:84%
than context, for
it may be taken

00:12:56.880 --> 00:13:01.740 align:middle line:84%
as a pretty safe rule
for prose that, when

00:13:01.740 --> 00:13:04.380 align:middle line:84%
one of two
correlative þā clauses

00:13:04.380 --> 00:13:07.860 align:middle line:84%
has the word order verb subject,
it's the principal clause.

00:13:07.860 --> 00:13:09.630 align:middle line:90%
And þā must mean "then."

00:13:09.630 --> 00:13:12.840 align:middle line:84%
The temporal clause
introduced by þā-- and really,

00:13:12.840 --> 00:13:16.620 align:middle line:84%
that's the subordinate clause
introduced by þā ("when") may

00:13:16.620 --> 00:13:19.230 align:middle line:90%
have the word order S ...

00:13:19.230 --> 00:13:22.590 align:middle line:90%
V or simply SV.

00:13:22.590 --> 00:13:27.210 align:middle line:84%
So in that case, we see that
the subordinate clause most

00:13:27.210 --> 00:13:31.530 align:middle line:84%
commonly, I would say,
does have that S ...

00:13:31.530 --> 00:13:35.640 align:middle line:84%
V, where the inflected
form of the verb

00:13:35.640 --> 00:13:37.380 align:middle line:84%
in the subordinate
clause gets kind of

00:13:37.380 --> 00:13:43.710 align:middle line:84%
shunted to the end of the clause
as we've discussed earlier.

00:13:43.710 --> 00:13:46.590 align:middle line:84%
But again, not a
hard and fast rule.

00:13:46.590 --> 00:13:50.370 align:middle line:84%
And this is true-- even though
they give the they specify that

00:13:50.370 --> 00:13:53.310 align:middle line:84%
this is, in the case of
specifically with þā,

00:13:53.310 --> 00:13:59.745 align:middle line:84%
it's equally the case, as they
go on to clarify, with þone ...

00:13:59.745 --> 00:14:04.530 align:middle line:84%
þone, þǣr ... þǣr, þider
... þider, and þā ...

00:14:04.530 --> 00:14:12.040 align:middle line:90%
þā in section 152.

00:14:12.040 --> 00:14:15.250 align:middle line:90%
Any questions on that?

00:14:15.250 --> 00:14:22.250 align:middle line:90%


00:14:22.250 --> 00:14:24.890 align:middle line:84%
So noun clauses
on page 70-- this

00:14:24.890 --> 00:14:30.290 align:middle line:84%
is where we most typically
get instances of anticipation

00:14:30.290 --> 00:14:32.570 align:middle line:90%
with þæt or hit.

00:14:32.570 --> 00:14:37.940 align:middle line:84%
And they refer you back to
paragraph 148 for all of that.

00:14:37.940 --> 00:14:41.810 align:middle line:90%


00:14:41.810 --> 00:14:45.110 align:middle line:84%
My reading of these
pages is really

00:14:45.110 --> 00:14:49.610 align:middle line:84%
that they're mostly
concerned with assuaging

00:14:49.610 --> 00:14:55.580 align:middle line:84%
our fears about the indicative
versus the subjunctive.

00:14:55.580 --> 00:15:02.120 align:middle line:84%
So the upshot of all of
this-- there's a lot of detail

00:15:02.120 --> 00:15:06.140 align:middle line:84%
and many examples on pages
71 and the top of 72.

00:15:06.140 --> 00:15:08.870 align:middle line:84%
I would say that the
upshot takes place

00:15:08.870 --> 00:15:12.740 align:middle line:84%
in the second full
paragraph of page 72.

00:15:12.740 --> 00:15:19.810 align:middle line:84%
We may say that while the rules
set out above often works,

00:15:19.810 --> 00:15:22.030 align:middle line:84%
fluctuation between
the subjunctive

00:15:22.030 --> 00:15:24.820 align:middle line:84%
and the indicative in
Old English noun clauses

00:15:24.820 --> 00:15:26.840 align:middle line:90%
is often of little significance.

00:15:26.840 --> 00:15:30.770 align:middle line:84%
So what this means
for you practically is

00:15:30.770 --> 00:15:34.700 align:middle line:84%
you really don't need to
worry about translating,

00:15:34.700 --> 00:15:41.990 align:middle line:84%
about how you
translate that mood,

00:15:41.990 --> 00:15:43.790 align:middle line:84%
whether it's indicative
or subjunctive.

00:15:43.790 --> 00:15:51.050 align:middle line:84%
Simply use whichever seems
most idiomatic or most natural

00:15:51.050 --> 00:15:52.460 align:middle line:90%
in modern English.

00:15:52.460 --> 00:15:57.620 align:middle line:84%
And if I want to test you
on what the ending is,

00:15:57.620 --> 00:16:00.050 align:middle line:90%
I'll ask specifically.

00:16:00.050 --> 00:16:03.530 align:middle line:84%
I won't be judging you
based on your translation

00:16:03.530 --> 00:16:07.340 align:middle line:84%
of an ambiguous
indicative or subjunctive.

00:16:07.340 --> 00:16:14.020 align:middle line:90%


00:16:14.020 --> 00:16:19.700 align:middle line:84%
The next bit that is
actually quite interesting,

00:16:19.700 --> 00:16:27.620 align:middle line:84%
because Mitchell and Robinson
read the same text differently

00:16:27.620 --> 00:16:31.550 align:middle line:84%
in two different
places in their book,

00:16:31.550 --> 00:16:37.670 align:middle line:84%
comes in paragraph or
section 159 on page 73.

00:16:37.670 --> 00:16:43.940 align:middle line:84%
They get very exercised and
in my understanding not--

00:16:43.940 --> 00:16:45.860 align:middle line:84%
well, I don't
entirely understand

00:16:45.860 --> 00:16:49.400 align:middle line:84%
why they get so exercised
about the question

00:16:49.400 --> 00:16:58.070 align:middle line:84%
of whether an
interrogative pronoun can--

00:16:58.070 --> 00:17:00.950 align:middle line:84%
whether you can use
interrogative words also

00:17:00.950 --> 00:17:04.880 align:middle line:84%
as relative pronouns
in Old English.

00:17:04.880 --> 00:17:07.099 align:middle line:84%
As we talked about last
time, modern English

00:17:07.099 --> 00:17:09.890 align:middle line:90%
finds this completely normal.

00:17:09.890 --> 00:17:13.490 align:middle line:84%
We say, "Who is there?",
who being interrogative,

00:17:13.490 --> 00:17:17.240 align:middle line:84%
and also "I know
who is there," where

00:17:17.240 --> 00:17:21.700 align:middle line:90%
who is a relative pronoun.

00:17:21.700 --> 00:17:24.280 align:middle line:84%
For my money, Old
English actually

00:17:24.280 --> 00:17:26.960 align:middle line:90%
does this quite a lot as well.

00:17:26.960 --> 00:17:31.120 align:middle line:84%
And we see one example
in a very cool phrase

00:17:31.120 --> 00:17:33.790 align:middle line:90%
from "The Wanderer."

00:17:33.790 --> 00:17:40.960 align:middle line:90%
This is the quoted bit in 159.

00:17:40.960 --> 00:17:43.930 align:middle line:84%
Ond iċ hēan þonan
wōd winterċearig

00:17:43.930 --> 00:17:47.170 align:middle line:84%
ofer waþema ġebind, sohte sele
drēorig sinċes bryttan, hwǣr iċ

00:17:47.170 --> 00:17:49.780 align:middle line:84%
feor oþþe nēah
findan meahte þone þe

00:17:49.780 --> 00:17:51.220 align:middle line:90%
in meoduhealle mīne wisse.

00:17:51.220 --> 00:17:58.630 align:middle line:90%


00:17:58.630 --> 00:18:03.590 align:middle line:90%
So the main verb here is--

00:18:03.590 --> 00:18:06.310 align:middle line:84%
if I can find the chalk,
there's profusion.

00:18:06.310 --> 00:18:12.770 align:middle line:90%


00:18:12.770 --> 00:18:18.260 align:middle line:90%
So the main verb here is sohte.

00:18:18.260 --> 00:18:20.810 align:middle line:84%
By the way, notice--
where is the iċ?

00:18:20.810 --> 00:18:26.450 align:middle line:84%
Notice how far that initial
iċ is separated from its verb.

00:18:26.450 --> 00:18:28.730 align:middle line:84%
You have hēan þonan
wōd winterċearig

00:18:28.730 --> 00:18:31.280 align:middle line:90%
ofer waþema ġebind--

00:18:31.280 --> 00:18:34.460 align:middle line:84%
You have to wait all the
way past that, almost a line

00:18:34.460 --> 00:18:39.500 align:middle line:84%
and a half, to get
to the main verb.

00:18:39.500 --> 00:18:42.620 align:middle line:84%
So they are saying that
this is a main verb that

00:18:42.620 --> 00:18:47.870 align:middle line:84%
has as objects both a noun
and a clause containing

00:18:47.870 --> 00:18:49.640 align:middle line:90%
a dependent question.

00:18:49.640 --> 00:18:51.710 align:middle line:84%
And what they mean
by that here is

00:18:51.710 --> 00:18:58.310 align:middle line:84%
that sohte has one object, one
direct object, which is just

00:18:58.310 --> 00:18:59.720 align:middle line:90%
the noun, hall.

00:18:59.720 --> 00:19:03.230 align:middle line:90%
"I sought a hall."

00:19:03.230 --> 00:19:09.190 align:middle line:84%
And then the second direct
object is that whole clause.

00:19:09.190 --> 00:19:18.030 align:middle line:90%


00:19:18.030 --> 00:19:20.700 align:middle line:90%
"I sought a hall."

00:19:20.700 --> 00:19:24.210 align:middle line:84%
And I also-- although,
that's all implied.

00:19:24.210 --> 00:19:25.470 align:middle line:90%
There's no "and I also."

00:19:25.470 --> 00:19:27.600 align:middle line:90%
"I sought a hall, ...

00:19:27.600 --> 00:19:35.070 align:middle line:84%
sought where I-- I looked for
the place where I, far or near,

00:19:35.070 --> 00:19:41.080 align:middle line:84%
might find one who, in the mead
hall, might know"-- et cetera,

00:19:41.080 --> 00:19:43.330 align:middle line:90%
et cetera, et cetera.

00:19:43.330 --> 00:19:45.580 align:middle line:84%
Now, what's interesting
about this--

00:19:45.580 --> 00:19:48.690 align:middle line:84%
take a look at note 1 at
the bottom of the page.

00:19:48.690 --> 00:19:53.940 align:middle line:84%
The first object of
sohte is sinċes bryttan

00:19:53.940 --> 00:19:57.870 align:middle line:84%
in our text, where the
attractive compound sele

00:19:57.870 --> 00:20:02.640 align:middle line:84%
drēorig, "sad for a
hall," is accepted.

00:20:02.640 --> 00:20:04.380 align:middle line:84%
So basically, what
they're saying here

00:20:04.380 --> 00:20:07.500 align:middle line:90%
is that if you flip to--

00:20:07.500 --> 00:20:08.190 align:middle line:90%
let's see.

00:20:08.190 --> 00:20:12.000 align:middle line:90%


00:20:12.000 --> 00:20:14.970 align:middle line:84%
Yeah, on page 279,
where you actually

00:20:14.970 --> 00:20:21.540 align:middle line:84%
have the text of "The
Wanderer" in Old English,

00:20:21.540 --> 00:20:28.080 align:middle line:84%
they print these
lines, 23 through 27--

00:20:28.080 --> 00:20:31.170 align:middle line:84%
yeah, they print them
completely-- well,

00:20:31.170 --> 00:20:32.970 align:middle line:90%
completely differently.

00:20:32.970 --> 00:20:39.130 align:middle line:84%
They pull together sele
drēorig into a single compound.

00:20:39.130 --> 00:20:45.720 align:middle line:84%
So this is a good example of
how ambiguous Old English poetry

00:20:45.720 --> 00:20:46.620 align:middle line:90%
can be.

00:20:46.620 --> 00:20:50.820 align:middle line:84%
The very same editors
in the very same edition

00:20:50.820 --> 00:20:54.780 align:middle line:84%
of their own textbook
are in one case reading

00:20:54.780 --> 00:21:00.090 align:middle line:84%
sele as the accusative
object or as one

00:21:00.090 --> 00:21:03.510 align:middle line:84%
of the accusative objects,
one accusative object

00:21:03.510 --> 00:21:06.510 align:middle line:90%
of the verb sohte.

00:21:06.510 --> 00:21:16.470 align:middle line:84%
And in the second,
where it's seledrēorig.

00:21:16.470 --> 00:21:21.960 align:middle line:84%
here, sele becomes part of
a compound that's modifying

00:21:21.960 --> 00:21:24.180 align:middle line:90%
the speaker of the sentence.

00:21:24.180 --> 00:21:34.230 align:middle line:84%
And they read sinċes bryttan,
"a dispenser of treasure,"

00:21:34.230 --> 00:21:35.490 align:middle line:90%
as the object.

00:21:35.490 --> 00:21:39.150 align:middle line:84%
Of course, you can do that
because the weak noun ending

00:21:39.150 --> 00:21:41.710 align:middle line:90%
of bryttan is so ambiguous.

00:21:41.710 --> 00:21:44.790 align:middle line:90%


00:21:44.790 --> 00:21:46.210 align:middle line:90%
It could be accusative.

00:21:46.210 --> 00:21:50.880 align:middle line:84%
So it could be "I,
dreary for a hall"--

00:21:50.880 --> 00:21:52.110 align:middle line:90%
i.e.

00:21:52.110 --> 00:21:54.780 align:middle line:90%
really in search of a hall--

00:21:54.780 --> 00:21:56.670 align:middle line:90%
"sought dispenser of treasure."

00:21:56.670 --> 00:22:05.390 align:middle line:84%
Or it could be, as on page
73, "I sought sad," meaning--

00:22:05.390 --> 00:22:08.990 align:middle line:84%
so drēorig is going to
become modern English dreary.

00:22:08.990 --> 00:22:11.900 align:middle line:84%
But it really means
"sad" in Old English.

00:22:11.900 --> 00:22:16.700 align:middle line:84%
"I sought the hall of a
dispenser of treasure."

00:22:16.700 --> 00:22:20.630 align:middle line:84%
So in-- on page 73,
bryttan has to be genitive.

00:22:20.630 --> 00:22:26.090 align:middle line:84%
And as they're construing it
on page 279 in the actual text,

00:22:26.090 --> 00:22:27.570 align:middle line:90%
it's accusative.

00:22:27.570 --> 00:22:30.590 align:middle line:84%
So this is a great example
of-- and honestly, both

00:22:30.590 --> 00:22:32.970 align:middle line:90%
are possible.

00:22:32.970 --> 00:22:39.530 align:middle line:84%
So it's a great example of
how the ambiguity of endings

00:22:39.530 --> 00:22:45.540 align:middle line:84%
in Old English creates ambiguity
in the literature itself.

00:22:45.540 --> 00:22:48.680 align:middle line:84%
So the grammatical
characteristics

00:22:48.680 --> 00:22:52.880 align:middle line:84%
or texture of the
language inflect literally

00:22:52.880 --> 00:22:59.910 align:middle line:84%
and metaphorically the poetic
potential of the language.

00:22:59.910 --> 00:23:03.510 align:middle line:84%
And you can see, if
you have the whole text

00:23:03.510 --> 00:23:06.840 align:middle line:84%
and you and you can
turn to page 279--

00:23:06.840 --> 00:23:11.100 align:middle line:84%
you can see the facsimile of the
opening page of "The Wanderer"

00:23:11.100 --> 00:23:12.750 align:middle line:90%
from The Exeter Book.

00:23:12.750 --> 00:23:18.840 align:middle line:84%
And you can see how
different the script looks

00:23:18.840 --> 00:23:20.790 align:middle line:84%
and how, in Old English,
there is actually

00:23:20.790 --> 00:23:24.400 align:middle line:90%
quite a bit of word separation.

00:23:24.400 --> 00:23:29.030 align:middle line:90%


00:23:29.030 --> 00:23:31.490 align:middle line:84%
They don't take us
all the way down--

00:23:31.490 --> 00:23:36.220 align:middle line:84%
oh yeah, so if you
take a look at--

00:23:36.220 --> 00:23:40.180 align:middle line:90%
it's sort of opposite line--

00:23:40.180 --> 00:23:44.410 align:middle line:84%
it's about opposite
line 26 and 27.

00:23:44.410 --> 00:23:46.130 align:middle line:84%
If you look at the
left-hand side,

00:23:46.130 --> 00:24:00.890 align:middle line:84%
you can see a long S. It
sort of looks like sohte.

00:24:00.890 --> 00:24:02.600 align:middle line:90%
And then I see a word--

00:24:02.600 --> 00:24:04.550 align:middle line:84%
I see a pretty clear
word separation

00:24:04.550 --> 00:24:09.240 align:middle line:84%
between sele and drēorig
right after that.

00:24:09.240 --> 00:24:14.720 align:middle line:84%
So I think the scribe at least
seems to have construed it

00:24:14.720 --> 00:24:16.808 align:middle line:90%
as this option.

00:24:16.808 --> 00:24:18.350 align:middle line:84%
AUDIENCE: If you
look up above though

00:24:18.350 --> 00:24:20.558 align:middle line:84%
in the first couple of lines
where it's really clear,

00:24:20.558 --> 00:24:23.000 align:middle line:84%
there's also a word
separation between all sorts

00:24:23.000 --> 00:24:23.852 align:middle line:90%
of other things.

00:24:23.852 --> 00:24:24.560 align:middle line:90%
ARTHUR BAHR: Yes.

00:24:24.560 --> 00:24:27.860 align:middle line:84%
AUDIENCE: Which presumably are
being interpreted as compounds

00:24:27.860 --> 00:24:29.090 align:middle line:90%
by M and R.

00:24:29.090 --> 00:24:31.310 align:middle line:84%
ARTHUR BAHR: Yeah,
yeah, yeah, exactly.

00:24:31.310 --> 00:24:34.772 align:middle line:84%
AUDIENCE: Every one that looks
like, to me, a compound word

00:24:34.772 --> 00:24:36.230 align:middle line:84%
has word separation
in Old English.

00:24:36.230 --> 00:24:37.230 align:middle line:90%
ARTHUR BAHR: Yeah, yeah.

00:24:37.230 --> 00:24:38.810 align:middle line:90%
So that's a very good point.

00:24:38.810 --> 00:24:42.290 align:middle line:90%
And it's quite un--

00:24:42.290 --> 00:24:42.980 align:middle line:90%
so you're right.

00:24:42.980 --> 00:24:44.180 align:middle line:90%
It's quite unreliable.

00:24:44.180 --> 00:24:45.950 align:middle line:84%
And even into the
middle English period,

00:24:45.950 --> 00:24:50.420 align:middle line:84%
one often has a
noticeable, quote unquote,

00:24:50.420 --> 00:24:55.610 align:middle line:84%
"word separation" between
even prefixes of verbs--

00:24:55.610 --> 00:24:59.120 align:middle line:84%
all of these scribes
seem to be figuring out--

00:24:59.120 --> 00:25:03.590 align:middle line:84%
making it up as they
go along in many cases.

00:25:03.590 --> 00:25:06.380 align:middle line:84%
So you're quite right,
Alyssa, the fact

00:25:06.380 --> 00:25:08.420 align:middle line:90%
that there looks like--

00:25:08.420 --> 00:25:10.910 align:middle line:84%
that there is some kind
of separation between sele

00:25:10.910 --> 00:25:14.690 align:middle line:84%
and drēorig does not
necessarily mean that it

00:25:14.690 --> 00:25:17.030 align:middle line:90%
has to be construed that way.

00:25:17.030 --> 00:25:19.280 align:middle line:84%
AUDIENCE: The way they
write W's is so cursed.

00:25:19.280 --> 00:25:21.170 align:middle line:90%
They look like Ps.

00:25:21.170 --> 00:25:22.100 align:middle line:90%
ARTHUR BAHR: Yes.

00:25:22.100 --> 00:25:23.570 align:middle line:84%
AUDIENCE: A lot of the
variations in here I've seen

00:25:23.570 --> 00:25:24.653 align:middle line:90%
before look like long S's.

00:25:24.653 --> 00:25:27.320 align:middle line:84%
But there R's a little
janky, like that.

00:25:27.320 --> 00:25:31.985 align:middle line:84%
Oh, P and W, I don't know
how to deal with that.

00:25:31.985 --> 00:25:34.710 align:middle line:84%
ARTHUR BAHR: Yeah, Old English
Ws, it's super interesting.

00:25:34.710 --> 00:25:38.030 align:middle line:90%
So that's the win.

00:25:38.030 --> 00:25:39.200 align:middle line:90%
That's the wynn.

00:25:39.200 --> 00:25:42.290 align:middle line:84%
And for whatever
reason, we haven't--

00:25:42.290 --> 00:25:44.660 align:middle line:90%
so take a look at--

00:25:44.660 --> 00:25:45.920 align:middle line:90%
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE].

00:25:45.920 --> 00:25:46.820 align:middle line:84%
ARTHUR BAHR: Where
do you see that?

00:25:46.820 --> 00:25:48.528 align:middle line:84%
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]
in the fourth line.

00:25:48.528 --> 00:25:49.670 align:middle line:90%
[INAUDIBLE]

00:25:49.670 --> 00:25:51.380 align:middle line:90%
ARTHUR BAHR: Yes, good.

00:25:51.380 --> 00:25:52.790 align:middle line:90%
So excellent.

00:25:52.790 --> 00:25:54.680 align:middle line:90%
Swā and then cwǣð.

00:25:54.680 --> 00:25:59.900 align:middle line:84%
You can see that nice C-wynn,
and then the A-E ligature

00:25:59.900 --> 00:26:02.610 align:middle line:90%
for the ash, and then the--

00:26:02.610 --> 00:26:05.840 align:middle line:84%
oh, by the way, I think I've
been using eth and thorn

00:26:05.840 --> 00:26:09.140 align:middle line:84%
interchangeably and haven't
maybe ever actually given

00:26:09.140 --> 00:26:10.880 align:middle line:90%
the full explanation.

00:26:10.880 --> 00:26:14.380 align:middle line:90%
So eth and thorn--

00:26:14.380 --> 00:26:18.970 align:middle line:84%
thorn, eth-- these
are absolutely

00:26:18.970 --> 00:26:21.170 align:middle line:90%
interchangeable in Old English.

00:26:21.170 --> 00:26:23.530 align:middle line:84%
There's no difference
in pronunciation,

00:26:23.530 --> 00:26:26.180 align:middle line:84%
or meaning, or
anything like that.

00:26:26.180 --> 00:26:31.790 align:middle line:84%
So thorn-- God, I can't
even write today--

00:26:31.790 --> 00:26:33.470 align:middle line:90%
and eth.

00:26:33.470 --> 00:26:38.300 align:middle line:84%
In Old Norse and modern
Icelandic, this is the unvoiced

00:26:38.300 --> 00:26:40.190 align:middle line:90%
and this is the voiced.

00:26:40.190 --> 00:26:43.370 align:middle line:90%
So [f] versus [v].

00:26:43.370 --> 00:26:46.370 align:middle line:84%
But there's no difference
in Old English.

00:26:46.370 --> 00:26:50.600 align:middle line:84%
To your point, Alyssa, about
the weirdness of the wynn,

00:26:50.600 --> 00:26:54.950 align:middle line:84%
I think that the reason
that we haven't--

00:26:54.950 --> 00:27:00.350 align:middle line:84%
everybody transliterates
the wynn to W

00:27:00.350 --> 00:27:01.940 align:middle line:84%
is because the
wynn and the thorn

00:27:01.940 --> 00:27:06.320 align:middle line:90%
look so similar in Old English.

00:27:06.320 --> 00:27:08.730 align:middle line:90%
I mean, there is a difference.

00:27:08.730 --> 00:27:12.300 align:middle line:84%
So the thorn-- take
a look at line 5.

00:27:12.300 --> 00:27:16.630 align:middle line:90%


00:27:16.630 --> 00:27:23.020 align:middle line:84%
wrāþra, you can see there's
a wynn-R blurring into the A.

00:27:23.020 --> 00:27:28.100 align:middle line:84%
And then the thorn, there's a
marked ascender above the line.

00:27:28.100 --> 00:27:30.700 align:middle line:84%
So that's the difference
between the wynn and the thorn,

00:27:30.700 --> 00:27:33.010 align:middle line:84%
is that the wynn kind
of looks like a thorn

00:27:33.010 --> 00:27:35.545 align:middle line:84%
if you got rid of
the top ascender.

00:27:35.545 --> 00:27:38.475 align:middle line:90%


00:27:38.475 --> 00:27:39.100 align:middle line:90%
AUDIENCE: Wait.

00:27:39.100 --> 00:27:42.640 align:middle line:84%
So how would you write
a P in Old English

00:27:42.640 --> 00:27:44.988 align:middle line:90%
or in this specific script?

00:27:44.988 --> 00:27:46.530 align:middle line:84%
ARTHUR BAHR: That's
a great question.

00:27:46.530 --> 00:27:51.100 align:middle line:84%
P is quite an unusual
letter in Old English.

00:27:51.100 --> 00:27:54.025 align:middle line:84%
AUDIENCE: It seems to
only occur in [INAUDIBLE]..

00:27:54.025 --> 00:27:57.160 align:middle line:84%
ARTHUR BAHR: Yeah, so
we saw it in plēoliċ--

00:27:57.160 --> 00:28:00.670 align:middle line:84%
the Aelfric thinks it's
very plēoliċ or dangerous

00:28:00.670 --> 00:28:03.070 align:middle line:90%
to translate Genesis.

00:28:03.070 --> 00:28:05.830 align:middle line:90%
If you can find a P real quick--

00:28:05.830 --> 00:28:07.630 align:middle line:90%
AUDIENCE: Right after Swā--

00:28:07.630 --> 00:28:10.302 align:middle line:90%
Swā cwæð eardstapa...

00:28:10.302 --> 00:28:11.010 align:middle line:90%
ARTHUR BAHR: Yes.

00:28:11.010 --> 00:28:12.730 align:middle line:84%
AUDIENCE: There's a
mark of serif on it.

00:28:12.730 --> 00:28:15.105 align:middle line:84%
ARTHUR BAHR: Yeah, it looks
like a little bit of a serif.

00:28:15.105 --> 00:28:18.190 align:middle line:90%
So they've accentuated this.

00:28:18.190 --> 00:28:23.620 align:middle line:84%
So there's a P. And then a
wynn is more like-- also,

00:28:23.620 --> 00:28:27.790 align:middle line:84%
in many scripts, the
chamber of the wynn

00:28:27.790 --> 00:28:31.750 align:middle line:84%
is quite a lot bigger than the
chamber of the P. This scribe

00:28:31.750 --> 00:28:35.620 align:middle line:84%
doesn't seem to observe
that, unfortunately.

00:28:35.620 --> 00:28:37.220 align:middle line:90%
But yeah, it's a great question.

00:28:37.220 --> 00:28:41.240 align:middle line:84%
I think the short answer
probably, Tara, is context.

00:28:41.240 --> 00:28:42.920 align:middle line:90%
I mean, a P--

00:28:42.920 --> 00:28:45.260 align:middle line:84%
as so often is the
case in Old English--

00:28:45.260 --> 00:28:47.120 align:middle line:84%
have you gotten
used to this yet?

00:28:47.120 --> 00:28:49.520 align:middle line:84%
How do you tell the
difference between x and y?

00:28:49.520 --> 00:28:51.230 align:middle line:90%
Context.

00:28:51.230 --> 00:28:52.400 align:middle line:90%
So yeah.

00:28:52.400 --> 00:28:54.920 align:middle line:84%
AUDIENCE: Sorry, where
is the line [INAUDIBLE]??

00:28:54.920 --> 00:28:58.040 align:middle line:90%


00:28:58.040 --> 00:29:00.230 align:middle line:90%
AUDIENCE: Oh, OK.

00:29:00.230 --> 00:29:01.550 align:middle line:90%
I didn't see that.

00:29:01.550 --> 00:29:04.340 align:middle line:84%
ARTHUR BAHR: This was all a
very entertaining digression

00:29:04.340 --> 00:29:06.680 align:middle line:90%
from the bottom of page 73.

00:29:06.680 --> 00:29:07.265 align:middle line:90%
No, it's good.

00:29:07.265 --> 00:29:09.140 align:middle line:84%
I mean, there isn't
actually a lot of grammar

00:29:09.140 --> 00:29:10.280 align:middle line:90%
to get through today.

00:29:10.280 --> 00:29:11.300 align:middle line:90%
So this is perfect.

00:29:11.300 --> 00:29:14.900 align:middle line:84%
And now, it'll be up on
the interwebs for those

00:29:14.900 --> 00:29:17.580 align:middle line:90%
who had to miss today.

00:29:17.580 --> 00:29:21.672 align:middle line:84%
Let's take a look at
the top of page 74.

00:29:21.672 --> 00:29:31.290 align:middle line:90%


00:29:31.290 --> 00:29:34.890 align:middle line:84%
They say hwilċne is
strictly an interrogative

00:29:34.890 --> 00:29:36.660 align:middle line:90%
introducing a noun clause.

00:29:36.660 --> 00:29:39.480 align:middle line:84%
And the literal sense
is et cetera, et cetera.

00:29:39.480 --> 00:29:43.110 align:middle line:84%
It is easy to see how such
a juxtaposition of noun

00:29:43.110 --> 00:29:46.440 align:middle line:84%
and interrogative would lead
to the use of the interrogative

00:29:46.440 --> 00:29:47.520 align:middle line:90%
as a relative.

00:29:47.520 --> 00:29:51.420 align:middle line:84%
But this stage has not been
reached in Old English.

00:29:51.420 --> 00:29:54.870 align:middle line:84%
For our purposes, you don't
need to worry about this.

00:29:54.870 --> 00:29:58.890 align:middle line:84%
Just translate it as it's
written and you'll be fine.

00:29:58.890 --> 00:29:59.670 align:middle line:90%
OK?

00:29:59.670 --> 00:30:02.310 align:middle line:84%
Well, not as it's written
in the word for word sense,

00:30:02.310 --> 00:30:04.590 align:middle line:84%
but just translate the
words in the word order

00:30:04.590 --> 00:30:07.530 align:middle line:90%
that they have to be.

00:30:07.530 --> 00:30:11.330 align:middle line:90%
All right, and that's actually--

00:30:11.330 --> 00:30:12.980 align:middle line:84%
oh no, there's one
more little bit

00:30:12.980 --> 00:30:17.810 align:middle line:84%
on page 75, the accusative
and the infinitive.

00:30:17.810 --> 00:30:21.020 align:middle line:84%
We've talked about
this as well, the fact

00:30:21.020 --> 00:30:24.140 align:middle line:84%
that Old English,
because it doesn't

00:30:24.140 --> 00:30:30.470 align:middle line:84%
have a passive infinitive
form, often uses--

00:30:30.470 --> 00:30:34.610 align:middle line:84%
well, I shouldn't say often,
can use the infinitive

00:30:34.610 --> 00:30:40.280 align:middle line:84%
as a sort of implied
passive infinitive,

00:30:40.280 --> 00:30:44.090 align:middle line:84%
as Mitchell and Robinson note
toward the bottom of section

00:30:44.090 --> 00:30:48.940 align:middle line:90%
161.

00:30:48.940 --> 00:30:52.480 align:middle line:90%
Any questions on that?

00:30:52.480 --> 00:31:00.067 align:middle line:90%


00:31:00.067 --> 00:31:01.900 align:middle line:84%
All right, I think
that's all of the grammar

00:31:01.900 --> 00:31:04.660 align:middle line:84%
that you had to go
through for today.

00:31:04.660 --> 00:31:07.160 align:middle line:84%
So it's a quick day for
our recording friend.

00:31:07.160 --> 00:31:09.210 align:middle line:90%
Thank you very much.

00:31:09.210 --> 00:31:12.000 align:middle line:90%