above.
Examples: fem. - wнfman (a woman), бc (an oak), gбt (a goat), brуc
(breeches), wlуh (seam), dung (a dungeon), furh (a furrow), sulh (a
plough), grut (gruel), lъs (a louse), юrul (a basket), йa (water), niht (a
night), mж'gю (a girl), scrъd (clothes).
There are still some other types of declension, but not too important
fro understanding the general image. For example, r-stems denoted the
family relatives (dohtor 'a daughter', mуdor 'a mother' and several
others), es-stems usually meant children and cubs (cild 'a child', cealf 'a
calf'). The most intriguing question that arises from the picture of the
Old English declension is "How to define which words is which kind of
stems?". I am sure you are always thinking of this question, the same as I
thought myself when first studying Old English. The answer is "I don't
know"; because of the loss of many endings all genders, all stems and
therefore all nouns mixed in the language, and one has just to learn how to
decline this or that word. This mixture was the decisive step of the
following transfer of English to the analytic language - when endings are
not used, people forget genders and cases. In any solid dictionary you will
be given a noun with its gender and kind of stem. But in general, the
declension is similar for all stems. One of the most stable differences of
masculine and feminine is the -es (masc.) or -e in genitive singular of the
Strong declension.
Now I am giving another table, the general declension system of Old
English nouns. Here '-' means a zero ending.
Strong declension (a, ja, wa, у, jу, wу, i -stems).
| |Masculine |Neutral |Feminine |
| |Singular |Plural |Singular |Plural |Singular |Plural |
|Nominativ|- |-as |- |-u (-) |- |-a |
|e | | | | | | |
|Genitive |-es |-a |-es |-a |-e |-a |
|Dative |-e |-um |-e |-um |-e |-um |
|Accustive|- |-as |- |-u (-) |-e |-a |
| |Weak declension |u-stems |
| |Singular |Plural |Singular |Plural |
|Nominative |- |-an |- |-a |
|Genitive |-an |-ena |-a |-a |
|Dative |-an |-um |-a |-um |
|Accustive |-an |-an |- |-a |
The Old English Adjective.
In all historical Indo-European languages adjectives possess
practically the same morphological features as the nouns, the the sequence
of these two parts of speech is an ordinary thing in Indo-European.
However, the Nostratic theory (the one which unites Altaic, Uralic,
Semitic, Dravidian and Indo-European language families into one Nostratic
super-family, once speaking a common Proto-Nostratic language) represented
by Illych-Svitych and many other famous linguists, states that adjectives
in this Proto-Nostratic tongue were morphologically closer to the verbs
than to the nouns.
This theory is quite interesting, because even in Proto-Indo-European,
a language which was spoken much later than Proto-Nostratic, there are some
proofs of the former predicative function of the adjectives. In other
families of the super-family this function is even more clear. In
Altaic languages, and also in Korean and Japanese, which are originally
Altaic, the adjective plays the part of the predicate, and in Korean, for
example, the majority of adjectives are predicative. It means that though
they always denote the quality of the noun, they act the same way as verbs
which denote action. Adjective "red" is actually translated from Japanese
as "to be red", and the sentence Bara-wa utsukusii will mean "the rose is
beautiful", while bara is "a rose", -wa is the nominative marker, and
utsukusii is "to be beautiful". So no verb here, and the adjective is a
predicate. This structure is typical for many Altaic languages, and
probably was normal for Proto-Nostratic as well.
The Proto-Indo-European language gives us some stems which are hard to
denote whether they used to mean an adjective or a verb. Some later
branches reflect such stems as verbs, but other made them adjectives. So it
was the Proto-Indo-European epoch where adjectives as the part of speech
began to transform from a verbal one to a nominal one. And all Indo-
European branches already show the close similarity of the structure of
adjectives and nouns in the language. So does the Old English language,
where adjective is one of the nominal parts of speech.
As well as the noun, the adjective can be declined in case, gender and
number. Moreover, the instrumental case which was discussed before was
preserved in adjectives much stronger than in nouns. Adjectives must follow
sequence with nouns which they define - thet is why the same adjective can
be masculine, neuter and feminine and therefore be declined in two
different types: one for masculine and neuter, the other for feminine
nouns. The declension is more or less simple, it looks much like the
nominal system of declension, though there are several important
differences. Interesting to know that one-syllable adjectives
("monosyllabic") have different declension than two-syllable ones
("disyllabic"). See for yourselves:
Strong Declension
a, у-stems
Monosyllabic
Sg.
Masc. Neut. Fem.
N blжc (black) blжc blacu
G blaces blaces blжcre
D blacum blacum blжcre
A blжcne blжc blace
I blace blace -
Pl.
N blace blacu blaca
G blacra blacra blacra
D blacum blacum blacum
A blace blacu blaca
Here "I" means that very instrumental case, answering the question (by
what? with whom? with the help of what?).
Disyllabic
Masc. Neut. Fem.
Sg.
N йadig (happy) йadig йadigu
G йadiges йadiges йadigre
D йadigum йadigum йadigre
A йadigne йadig йadige
I йadige йadige
Pl.
N йadige йadigu йadiga
G йadigra йadigra йadigra
D йadigum йadigum йadigum
A йadige йadigu йadigu
So not many new endings: for accusative singular we have -ne, and for
genitive plural -ra, which cannot be met in the declension of nouns. The
difference between monosyllabic and disyllabic is the accusative plural
feminine ending -a / -u. That's all.
ja, jу-stems (swйte - sweet)
Sg. Pl.
Masc. Neut. Fem. Masc. Neut. Fem.
N swйte swйte swйtu swйte swйtu swйta
G swйtes swйtes swйtre swйtra swйtra swйtra
D swйtum swйtum swйtre swйtum swйtum swйtum
A swйtne swйte swйte swйte swйtu swйta
I swйte swйte -
wa, wу-stems
Sg.
Masc. Neut. Fem.
N nearu (narrow) nearu nearu
G nearwes nearwes nearore
D nearwum nearwum nearore
A nearone nearu nearwe
I nearwe nearwe
Pl.
N nearwe nearu nearwa
G nearora nearora nearora
D nearwum nearwum nearwum
A nearwe nearu nearwa
Actually, some can just omit all those examples - the adjectival
declension is the same as a whole for all stems, as concerns the strong
type. In general, the endings look the following way, with very few
varieties (note that "-" means the null ending):
[pic]
As for weak adjectives, they also exist in the language. The thing is
that one need not learn by heart which adjective is which type - strong or
weak, as you should do with the nouns. If you have a weak noun as a
subject, its attributive adjective will be weak as well. So - a strong
adjective for a strong noun, a weak adjective for a weak noun, the rule is
as simple as that.
Thus if you say "a black tree" that will be blжc trйow (strong), and "a
black eye" will sound blace йage. Here is the weak declension example
(blaca - black):
Sg. Pl.
Masc. Neut. Fem.
N blaca blace blace blacan
G blacan blacan blacan blжcra
D blacan blacan blacan blacum
A blacan blace blacan blacan
Weak declension has a single plural for all genders, which is pleasant
for those who don't want to remeber too many forms. In general, the weak
declension is much easier.
The last thing to be said about the adjectives is the degrees of
comparison. Again, the traditional Indo-European structure is preserved
here: three degrees (absolutive, comparative, superlative) - though some
languages also had the so-called "equalitative" grade; the special suffices
for forming comparatives and absolutives; suppletive stems for several
certain adjectives.
The suffices we are used to see in Modern English, those -er and -est
