East Germanic Languages

Chapter One: Introduction

This book presents an easily readable account of the comparative syntax of the Old Germanic languages with particular reference to Old English and Old Icelandic. Syntax is examined with reference to the categories of traditional grammar, and is specifically regarded as an examination of the word-order of the languages concerned, the original meaning of the term syntax. The study of word-order is a neglected tool for understanding the Old Germanic languages and their cultures. Virtually all extant work contents itself with a description of perceived word-order within its chosen intellectual framework, without attempting to apply the findings. This book is motivated by the belief that a study of the comparative syntax and particularly the comparative word-order of the Old Germanic languages, can provide unexpected insights into the language, literature, history, culture and achievement of the Old Ger- manic peoples. The term Old is used in this book for the forms of the Germanic languages from the earliest written records through to the time when they conventionally change to a Middle stage. Roughly this is the period of the Early Middle Ages, though Gothic and some early Runic inscriptions go back to a time contemporary with classical antiquity, while some of the materials usually labelled Old in fact date from the High Middle Ages. The conclusions of the study may be presented in brief: • All the Old Germanic languages have precise word-order patterns, which may be described. The endlessly repeated claim that Old Germanic languages were ‘free’ in terms of their word-order is not tenable because the patterns may be set out – and are set out here – and from these patterns clauses rarely deviate. • The rare deviation from the patterns presented may sometimes be for emphasis, less often for a stylistic motivation, and on rare occa- sions a consequence of poor translation of an original. The key concepts are that the deviations are rare, and that when they occur they are significant. They must always have an explanation. The traditional concept of ‘free’ word-order does not constitute an explanation. • The word-order patterns observed and described for all the Old Germanic languages are very similar. Indeed with only a few exceptions they may be regarded as identical – and it is possible that further analysis would remove many of these apparent exceptions. • The Old Germanic languages shared a common word-order, and their syntax must be seen within the context of this common order. Given the common word-order and overwhelmingly similar syntax, it is proposed here that the languages are much more closely related than is generally perceived by scholars working in the area. So for example when a twelfth century Icelandic writer, the ‘First Grammarian’, states that English and Icelandic of the twelfth century are the same language, we should credit his comments. In terms of syntax they are correct. The structure of this book is as follows: This first chapter introduces the topic of word-order in the Germanic languages and in Indo-European, and reviews the position of Germanic within Indo- European. Concepts of language, accent and dialect are explored within the context of the Germanic languages, along with ideas of word-order and meaning. Chapter two sets out the methodology which has been developed for examining word-order. In a nutshell a substantial corpus has been analysed using traditional grammatical categories, and utilising a data- base to search the clause analyses. Chapter three presents the findings of previous studies in syntax and particularly word-order for each of the major Old Germanic languages, while chapter four lists the paradigms of word-order for these languages, with examples. Old English and Old Icelandic have been particularly examined as the best-preserved languages, as well as languages conventionally held to represent different branches of the Germanic family tree, west and north respectively. Old High German merits more discussion than any other Old Germanic language, because there is fair preservation of material, and at least some of it displays the genuine word-order of the language. Gothic is problematic for word-order study though significant texts are preserved, and is in effect treated as a note.

12 Chapter five considers some of the many implications. The chapter is inevitably broad in its scope, and is offered with a view of pointing the significant implications of the findings of this comparative word-order study. Word-order study is a tool which has an impact on understanding the language, literature and history of the Germanic peoples. This book has been presented in a style which is intended to be accessible to both the non-specialist reader, as well as appropriate for specialists with a background in the Old Germanic languages, the mediaeval world, philology, language study, linguistics and many other disciplines. It is intended to find a wider readership than mediaeval linguists. Much of the statistical and exemplary material which provides the foundation of this work is set out in my work elsewhere: The Word Order of Aelfric (1997), The Word Order of Old High German (1998), Syntax of West Germanic (2002); and forthcoming for Old Icelandic. Extensive statistical material and example lists are not repeated here. The style of the book is that of an essay, and footnotes and extensive referencing have been avoided. A particular issue has been the typographic presentation of examples quoted. My policy throughout has been to use the English alphabet with minimal modification, and I have therefore anglicised extensively. The literature of Old Germanic languages studies runs the full gamut from very conservative studies which preserve manuscript pointing and capitalization along with the quirks of scribal spelling (Malcolm Godden’s edition of The Catholic Homilies, for example) to a study such as this which avoids almost all modifications to the English alphabet. Faced with source materials which are capable of spelling the same word in a different way within one line, which are written in several alphabets including various versions of runic, and with the typographic complexities of the modern Scandinavian language where a particular letter can have one sound in one language, another in another, this has seemed the appropriate solution for a work that strives for easy readability. The topic of this book is word-order; those who require the typography of a word can readily identify the source of the quotations and examine the original spelling. I am aware that this is an adventurous change, and will not be appreciated by scholars who like texts littered with the additional and modified letters

13 now so easily produced on a word-processor. Yet the Germanic characters are frequently little more than a source of confusion. The Old English eth can represent either a voiced or unvoiced th, can be used differently by different writers, used indiscriminately by the same writer, used as a spelling convention (initial thorn, medial or final eth), or simply written as th, the uniform practice of the older texts. Much the same comments apply to Old Icelandic. In Modern Icelandic the letter usually (but not always) represents a voiced th; its use can in part (but not always) be explained as a typographic convention (for example it cannot be initial). In Modern Icelandic the sound is sometimes modified to a different sound, typically schwa. It is frequently transliterated as d. This sort of typographic complexity becomes particularly irksome in an age of web-based computer resources, which can sometimes handle the additional characters and letters, but rarely handle them well. I can see scant benefit in reproducing the typographic complexity of a past age, and have therefore transliterated.

1.1 Word-Order and the Unity of the Old Germanic Languages

The argument of this book leads to some surprising conclusions. It is conventional to hold that accents differ from one another primarily on matters of pronunciation (though differences in lexis and even morphology may occasionally be present). By contrast dialects differ in terms of pronunciation and lexis, with perhaps some differences in morphology too; while languages differ in terms of syntax as well as phonology, morphology and lexis. Word-order is fundamental to syntax. Given that word-order patterns exhibited by all the Old Germanic languages may be described in precise terms which approach the status of rules (and probably would be perceived as absolute rules with more work), and that these word-order patterns for all the Old Ger- manic languages when properly described are very similar, even ef- fectively identical, then we are faced with a situation where Old

14 English, Old Icelandic, Old High German and other languages in the Old Germanic family must be regarded as virtually the same language. And this is a conclusion that is sufficiently startling for it to be im- portant to offer some supporting evidence at the outset. I believe the argument is sound: it is demonstrated below that Old Germanic languages have patterns of word-order which approach the status of rules, and it is conventional to consider dialects which share the same syntax to be part of the same language, even if phonology, lexis and morphology differ. For dialects may have unique features of pronunciation, lexis, and even morphology, but are regarded as dialects rather than as separate languages because they have the same syntax. Languages can be differentiated one from another because their syntax is different. I am proposing in this book that it is appropriate to think of a single Old Germanic language with dialects of Old English, Old Ice- landic, Old High German and others. These dialects have substantial differences one from the other, but notwithstanding they are still dialects not separate languages. And by extension I am proposing that because the linguistic affiliations of the early Germanic peoples are closer than has usually been perceived there is reason to suspect that their literary and cultural affiliations might be closer than has generally been perceived. The argument that the Old Germanic languages are better regarded as dialects of the same language is made in this book by a demonstration of uniform word-order, but can be made in other ways. These other ways may be set out briefly. First and simplest are the numerous written records left by speakers of Old Germanic languages which either hint at this unity or tell us directly that it existed. Moulton (1988) provides a useful list of six written sources which suggest that there was unity between the Germanic languages. Following his list the sources are: 1 The Historia Langobardorum of Paul the Deacon, written shortly before 800AD. The Historia Langobardorum states that the fame of the Lombard leader Alboin has spread among Bavarians, Saxons, and ‘other people of the same tongue’. The implication is that the speech of the Lombards, Bavarians, Saxons and ‘other people’ was the same.

15 2 The Old English poem The Battle of Maldon. The poem com- memorates the dead of the battle which took place at Maldon, Essex in 991AD, and was written very shortly after the battle. The battle is between an English army under the command of Byrhtnoth, Earl of Essex, and a group of Norwegian Vikings – described in the poem as Danes, which is how the Vikings from whatever country were usually described in English. The warriors shout demands at one another. There is no suggestion of translation, or of problems in comprehen- sion; rather it is taken for granted that the English and the Vikings could communicate. 3 The First Grammatical Treatise, written in Iceland and by an Icelander (whom we call ‘The First Grammarian’) in the mid twelfth century. Dating is problematic; traditionally 1130–1140 has been seen as the date of composition, though there is now a view which prefers 1170–1180. In Haugen’s translation (1966) The First Grammarian sets out his principle of using the Latin alphabet as opposed to runic for Icelandic:

I have used all the Latin letters that seem to fit our language well and could be rightly pronounced, as well as some letters that seemed needful to me, while those were taken out that did not suit the sounds of our language […] Englishmen write English with Latin letters, as many as can be rightly pronounced in English … Now according to their example, since we are of the same tongue, although there has been much change in one of them or some in both, I have written an alphabet for us Icelanders also, in order that it might become easier to write and read.

The key statement is that in the eyes of a twelfth century Icelander, Icelandic and English are one tongue. An Icelander is not classifying his own North Germanic and England’s West Germanic as two separate languages, but rather as dialects of one language. There is every reason to think the First Grammarian was correct. Haugen speculates ‘it is tempting to suppose that the First Grammarian may have studied in England’ (p.75), and while this is no more than specu- lation it is certainly correct that the First Grammarian had a detailed knowledge of the English alphabet of the twelfth century, and an awareness of matters relating to English grammar and orthography.

16 4 Chapter XIV of the Gesta Danorum of Saxo Grammaticus, written in the early years of the thirteenth century, relates an event which took place in 1170 when a British-born bard, Lucas, encourages the Danish army by reciting some English heroic tales. Saxo relates that ‘strength flowed into the spirits of our warriors from the foreign speech of this man’. Thus an Englishman, speaking English, was understood by the Danish army, who spoke only Danish, though the dialect was sufficiently different to justify the description as ‘foreign speech’. English and Danish are regarded as one language, and writing a gener- ation after the event Saxo considers this so self-evident that he does not need to comment on it. 5 Chapter VII of Gunnlaugs Saga Ormstunga, written about 1300, provides the statement that in the reign of Aethelred the Un- ready (978–1016):

One was then the tongue in England as in Norway and in Denmark. But then the tongues changed in England, when William the Bastard conquered England; from then on French prevailed in England, since he was from there by ancestry.

6 Iosaphat Barbaro of Venice visited the Crimea between 1436 and 1452, meeting there a Gothic community. He wrote:

The Goths speak German. I know this, for I had a German servant with me, and he spoke with them, and they understood each other quite well, just as a Friulian would understand a Florentine.

Taken at face value Iosaphat Barbaro is claiming that Middle High German and what we would call ‘Middle Gothic’, had any of it been preserved, were the same language. Moulton expresses some scepticism, though Barbaro seems at pains to emphasise that German and Gothic were as much one language as two different dialects of his own Italian. It seems to me that it should be considered that Barbaro may have found a group of Germans living in the Crimea, which would certainly explain why they spoke German. Yet Barbaro is care- ful to point out that the people identified themselves as Goths, and it may be that sufficient similarity between Middle High German and ‘Middle Gothic’ could have existed to permit communication – the conclusion that Moulton rather tentatively draws.

17 Moulton’s list provides evidence that during the Middle Ages speakers of Germanic languages regarded their languages as cognate. The changes which affected English following the Norman Conquest took English out of the sphere of a single Germanic language, while German and other Germanic dialects of continental Europe underwent significant changes towards the end of the Middle Ages. Yet as late as the mid twelfth century an Icelandic grammarian could assert that Icelandic and English were the same language. In contrast with the mediaeval spirit of classifying Old Germanic forms of speech as one language is the modern genetic classification. It has become conventional to identify a number of independent Old Germanic languages, and a list divided according to the conventional genetic classification is: • Western Germanic Languages Old English Old High German Old Saxon Old Low Franconian Old Frisian • Northern Germanic Languages Old Icelandic (or Old West Norse) Old Norse (or Old East Norse) Runic Germanic Old Faroese Old Orkney and Shetland Norn • East Germanic Languages Gothic Yet the six sources listed by Mouton do appear to be telling us that all these languages are one and the same – they are rather dialects of one language. Mouton’s list may be supplemented by additional sources from the history of the Germanic peoples, for example: 7 The English church considered the language of Germany to be the same as their own, and sent missionaries to Germany. 8 The poem The Fall of the Angels in Old Saxon is in effect modified to create the English poem Genesis B. But it is hard to regard this as a translation – Genesis B is an Old English poem exhibiting Old Saxon forms.