No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 December 2020
The twofold nature of the participle is sufficiently attested by the fact that it is universally defined as a verbal adjective. The genesis of this twofold nature has been interestingly discussed by Brugmann (I. F., v 88 ff.; Gr. Gr. §§ 479 f.) and by Delbrück (II, p. 477). Mine is the humbler task of pointing out the various manifestations of this dual nature as exemplified in the appositive use of the participle in Anglo-Saxon; to which is appended a brief survey of the same phenomena in the other Germanic languages. This is by no means an easy task, since the same participle may be dominantly adjectival in one sentence, prevailingly verbal in another, and equally divided between the two in a third. Of course, too, a participle may be used as a noun; but in such case it ceases to be a participle; hence in this paper no account is taken of the substantivized participle. However, certain adverbial uses of the participle are treated.
Note 1 in page 144 In his Greek grammar of 1829 (pp. 469, 474), however, Bernhardy has a few words concerning the appositive use of the participle.
Note 1 in page 145 I quote from the fifth edition of his Attische Syntax (Leipzig, 1873), but the same statement, I have been informed, occurs in the first edition (Leipzig, 1843).
Note 2 in page 145 I quote from the ninth edition (Prag, 1870), but substantially the same statement is made in the first edition (Prag, 1852). And in the chapter on the Participle in his Erläuterungen 3 (p. 203) Curtius thus acknowledges his indebtedness to Krüger: “In der Gliederung dieser Gebrauchsweisen bin ich wesentlich K. W. Krüger gefolgt, ohne jedoch in der Reihenfolge mich ihm anzuschliessen.”—My quotation is from the third edition of the Erläuterungen (1875), but it does not differ essentially from the statement of the first edition (1863).
Note 3 in page 145 This note is not in the first edition of the grammar.
Note 1 in page 146 The italics are mine.
Note 1 in page 148 Except the older grammarians (Hickes, Lye, and Manning), who do not treat the construction of the appositive participle.
Note 2 in page 148 Wülfing's treatment of the Appositive Participle has not appeared as yet.
Note 1 in page 151 In one of these (Benet 107. 7) the text has -enne for -endne.
Note 2 in page 151 These regular variants of -ed- will not be specified hereafter.
Note 1 in page 156 In this text the superior letters distinguish different examples in the same line.
Note 1 in page 166 I have expanded the contractions of this text.
Note 1 in page 168 In this text a refers to the top and 6 to the bottom of the page.
*The superior letters outside the parenthesis distinguish the several examples of the same year; those inside the parenthesis are explained by Plummer.
*All starred references are to the Appendix of Benedict1.
*The superior letters (a and b) refer respectively to the top and the bottom of the page; the superior figures distinguish the several examples.
* The past participle must however certainly be allowed to govern the accusative. I should still regard hine bewend as a servile translation of conversus, and the readings of Corp. and A. as representing steps in revision.—J. W. B.
*As Logeman (foot-note to p. 105) says, on belongs with ginnende.
*Einenkel (Mittelengl. Syntax, p. 279) derives the temporal use of the preterite appositive participle from the adjectival (relative) use of the same.
*The translation of this phrase by Grimm (computati numero, note to Elene 1035 in his Andreas u. Elene), by Grein (gezält der Zal nach, in his Glossary sub v. rim), and by Kent (the number told, note to Elene 2) is, like the original, ambiguous, except that Kent does say that the participial phrase is used adverbially. Pratje (§ 158) considers the O. S. gitalda to be attributive.
Note 1 in page 321 The proportion of co-ordinated to subordinated finite verbs is as follows:—
Bede 1 = 2.14:1.
Benedict 1 = 1:1 . 97.
Benet 1 =1:2.
Genesis 1 = 5 .36:1.
Gregory 1 =1:1.56.
Matthew 1 =3:1. Poetical Psalms = 1:1. 88.
Prose Psalms = 1:1. 27.
The ratio of the total co-ordinated to the total subordinated finite verbs in these works is 1.35:1.
*But since, in making this statement, Gering limits himself to the adverbial uses of the appositive participle, there must be more than four examples in all. I have myself found about this number in Mark.
*For the loan of this book I am indebted to Professor James Morgan Hart, who also kindly called my attention to the work of Falk and Torp.
* Paul does not treat the construction.
† Barz (p. 22) puts this under Adverbialer Gebrauch des Participiums, not Appositiver Gebrauch.
* The italics are mine.