{"title":"古诺森伯兰的动词前缀","authors":"William W. Kruger","doi":"10.1075/nowele.00027.kru","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In late Old English dialects, adverbial elements are frequently morphologically ambiguous (independent words, clitics, verbal prefixes, etc.), and an important facet of the proper treatment of these items is the quality of source-data in different texts. This paper examines the usage of three adverbial/prepositional elements in the Northumbrian Lindisfarne Glosses: eft ‘again, after’, ymb ‘around’, and ofer ‘over’. Skeat (1871–87), whose transcription of the original manuscript is the primary reference for research on the Glosses, frequently transcribes these items as prefixes, alongside other OE prefixes like ge-, a-, for-, and be-. However, Skeat also deviates from this pattern in many cases, leaving their proper analysis uncertain. Nevertheless, various works (e.g., Cook 1894; Bosworth 2011), have indeed taken these items to be prefixes. I follow Fernandez-Cuesta (2016) in revisiting the original Lindisfarne manuscript to determine the correct treatment of these items, concluding that eft and ofer should not be analyzed as prefixes in the manuscript, while ymb should have prefix status.","PeriodicalId":41411,"journal":{"name":"NOWELE-North-Western European Language Evolution","volume":"177 1","pages":"192-219"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Verbal prefixes in Old Northumbrian\",\"authors\":\"William W. Kruger\",\"doi\":\"10.1075/nowele.00027.kru\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract In late Old English dialects, adverbial elements are frequently morphologically ambiguous (independent words, clitics, verbal prefixes, etc.), and an important facet of the proper treatment of these items is the quality of source-data in different texts. This paper examines the usage of three adverbial/prepositional elements in the Northumbrian Lindisfarne Glosses: eft ‘again, after’, ymb ‘around’, and ofer ‘over’. Skeat (1871–87), whose transcription of the original manuscript is the primary reference for research on the Glosses, frequently transcribes these items as prefixes, alongside other OE prefixes like ge-, a-, for-, and be-. However, Skeat also deviates from this pattern in many cases, leaving their proper analysis uncertain. Nevertheless, various works (e.g., Cook 1894; Bosworth 2011), have indeed taken these items to be prefixes. I follow Fernandez-Cuesta (2016) in revisiting the original Lindisfarne manuscript to determine the correct treatment of these items, concluding that eft and ofer should not be analyzed as prefixes in the manuscript, while ymb should have prefix status.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41411,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"NOWELE-North-Western European Language Evolution\",\"volume\":\"177 1\",\"pages\":\"192-219\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-12-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"NOWELE-North-Western European Language Evolution\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1075/nowele.00027.kru\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NOWELE-North-Western European Language Evolution","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/nowele.00027.kru","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
摘要
摘要在晚期古英语方言中,状语成分在形态上经常是模棱两可的(独立词、副词、动词前缀等),而正确处理这些成分的一个重要方面是不同文本中源数据的质量。本文研究了Northumbrian Lindisfarne词典中三个副词/介词的用法:left ' again, after ', ymb ' around '和offer ' over '。Skeat(1871-87)对原稿的抄写是研究《gloses》的主要参考资料,他经常将这些项目抄写为前缀,与其他OE前缀一起,如ge-, a-, for-和be-。然而,Skeat在许多情况下也偏离了这种模式,使他们的正确分析不确定。尽管如此,各种作品(例如,Cook 1894;博斯沃思(Bosworth 2011),确实把这些项目作为前缀。我跟随Fernandez-Cuesta(2016)重新审视了Lindisfarne的原始手稿,以确定对这些条目的正确处理,并得出结论认为,在手稿中,left和offer不应该被分析为前缀,而ymb应该具有前缀的地位。
Abstract In late Old English dialects, adverbial elements are frequently morphologically ambiguous (independent words, clitics, verbal prefixes, etc.), and an important facet of the proper treatment of these items is the quality of source-data in different texts. This paper examines the usage of three adverbial/prepositional elements in the Northumbrian Lindisfarne Glosses: eft ‘again, after’, ymb ‘around’, and ofer ‘over’. Skeat (1871–87), whose transcription of the original manuscript is the primary reference for research on the Glosses, frequently transcribes these items as prefixes, alongside other OE prefixes like ge-, a-, for-, and be-. However, Skeat also deviates from this pattern in many cases, leaving their proper analysis uncertain. Nevertheless, various works (e.g., Cook 1894; Bosworth 2011), have indeed taken these items to be prefixes. I follow Fernandez-Cuesta (2016) in revisiting the original Lindisfarne manuscript to determine the correct treatment of these items, concluding that eft and ofer should not be analyzed as prefixes in the manuscript, while ymb should have prefix status.