Progress in Language, with special reference to English

Otto Jespersen

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• eBook ISBN:
  9781135666033
• Subtopic: Linguistics
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

Part of the Otto Jespersen collected English Writings Collection, originally published in 1894, this volume is to a certain extent an English translation of Jespersens' 'Studier over Engelske Kasus, nted en Indledning: Freniskridt i Sproget', which was to the University of Copenhagen in February, 1891 on the development of English Language, but with some notable revisions when translated to English.

CHAPTER VII.

CASE-SHIFTINGS IN THE PRONOUNS.

151. (103) In the Oldest English pronouns we find the nominative, accusative, and dative cases distinct both in point of accidence and syntax, although in a few pronouns there is no formal difference between the nominative and accusative (in the plurals of the third person (hie); in the neuter (hit, hwœt, etc.), in the feminine form heo or hie).

The first step in the simplification of this system is the abandonment of the separate forms mec, þec, usic, eowic, uncit, incit, which are used only in the very oldest texts as accusatives distinct from the datives me, þe, us, eow, unc, inc, and which are soon ousted by the latter forms. By parallel developments occurring somewhat later, the old dative forms hire (hir, her), him and hwam (whom) are made to fill the offices held hitherto by the old accusatives heo, hine and hwone. In some of the southern counties hine is, however, preserved up till our times in the form of [ɐn], see Ellis, Early Engl. Pronunciation, v., p. 43; in the literary transcription of these dialects this is written ‘un, e.g., in Fielding's Tom Jones (Squire Western, etc.), and in Thackeray's Pendennis (i., 62, “Show Mr. Pendennis up to 'un”).¹ In the plural, also, the dative form has expelled the old acc.; hem (O. F. him, heom; preserved in familiar and vulgar speech: “I know 'em”) and the later them are originally datives;² the neuter singular, on the other hand, has preserved the old accusative forms hit (it), þœt (that), hwæt (what), at the expense of the old datives.

The reason of this constant preferring of the dative forms in the person-indicating pronouns is no doubt the fact that these pronouns are used as indirect objects more often than either nouns or adjectives;³ at any rate, it is a phenomenon very frequently found in various languages; compare Danish ham, hende, dem, hvem, originally datives, now also accusatives and partly even nominatives (while it is true that in mig and dig the acc. has outlived the dative); North German wem for wen.¹ French lui as an absolute pronoun (while the acc. has carried the day in elle, eux, elles; moi and toi may be either); Italian lui, lei, loro,2 etc.

152. (104) In this chapter I propose to deal at some length with those tendencies to further modifications of the pronominal case-system which may be observed after the accusatives and datives have everywhere become identical. The forms concerning us are in their present spelling: —

nom.	acc.—dat.
I, we	me, us
thou, ye	thee, you
he, she, they	him, her, them
who	whom.

Simplification has gone further in the case of the pronouns of the second person than in that of the others; in fact, if we were to believe the ordinary grammars, the substitution of you for ye is the only point in which a deviation from the old system has taken place. But ordinary grammars are not always trustworthy; in laying down their rules they are too apt to forget that the English language is one thing, common-sense or logic another thing, and Latin grammar a third, and that these three things have really in many cases very little to do with one another. Schoolmasters generally have an astonishing talent for not observing real linguistic facts, and an equally astonishing inclination to stamp everything as faulty that does not agree with their narrow rules; and the precepts inculcated in the school-room have no doubt had some influence in checking natural tendencies, though the following pages will suffice to show that the best authors have in many points deviated more from the rules laid down in grammars than is generally supposed.

153. (105) Many of the phenomena I shall treat of have, as a matter of course, been noticed and partly explained by modern grammarians of the historical school; I shall specially mention KOCH, Hist. Gramm., ii. (especially p. 244¹); MÄTZNER, Engl Gramm., ii. passim; ABBOTT, A Shakespearian Grammar, § 205 ff.; A. SCHMIDT, Shakespeare-Lexikon; STORM, Englische Philologie, 1881, p. 207 if.; GUMMERE, The English Dative-Nom. of the Person. Pron., in American Journ. of Philol., iv.; W. FRANZ, Die dialektspr. bei Dickens, Engl.St., xii., 223 f., and Zur syntax des älteren Neuenglisch, ibid., xvii., 212 ff; KELLNER, in the Introduction to Caxton's Blanchardyn (EETS. Extra Series 58).

On the whole these authors content themselves with a purely lexical treatment of the matter, giving for instance all the examples of I for me and vice versâ under one head, and only occasionally offering an explanation of some phenomena; the fullest and most satisfactory explanations are found in Storm's excellent work. In the following sections I shall attempt a systematic arrangement according to the psychological or phonetic principles underlying the phenomena and causing speakers or writers to use another case than that exacted by the rules of ordinary grammar. I shall first take those classes of case-shiftings which are of a more general character and may occur more or less frequently in all languages of our type, giving last those which belong more specially to English or to one particular period of English.

It must be specially mentioned that in many of the sentences quoted two or even more causes of shifting have operated concurrently.

I. Relative Attraction.

154. (105) A pronoun in the principal proposition is often put in the case which the corresponding relative pronoun has or ought to have. This is particularly easy to explain where no relative pronoun is used; the so-called relative ellipsis originates in a construction apo koinou, the personal pronoun belonging equally well to both propositions. Examples abound, both where the relative pronoun is expressed and where it is understood.

Chaucer, M.P., 5, 623, “Him that she cheest, he shal her have as swythe” | Caxton (see Kellner, xiv.), “him that he rought with full stroke was all in to brused” | Shak., Cor., v., 6, 5, “Him I accuse (:) the city port by this hath enter'd” | Ant., iii.,i, 15, “him we serues [serve's] away” | Rom., 1032 (ii., 3, 85), “her I loue now Doth grace for grace, and loue for loue allow “(the oldest quarto she whom) | Haml, ii., 1, 42, “him you would sound…be assured he closes…” | Temp., v., 1, 15; As, i., 1, 46; 1 H. VI, iv., 7, 75 | Tennyson, 370 “Our noble Arthur, him Ye scarce can over praise, will hear and know” | Troll., Duke's Ch., i., 161 (a lady writes), “I have come to be known as her whom your uncle trusted and loved, as her whom your wife trusted…”

Very often after it is: —

Marlowe, Jew, 1034, “'Tis not thy wealth, but her that I esteeme” (= I ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Full Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Preface
• Contractions
• Contents
• I. Introduction
• II. Ancient and Modern Languages,
• III. Primitive Grammar,
• IV. The History of Chinese and of Word-Order,
• V. The Development of Language,
• VI. English Case-Systems, Old and Modern,
• VII. Case-Shiftings in the Pronouns,
• VIII. The English Group Genitive,
• IX. Origin of Language,
• Index