SECTION II. THEORY AND HISTORY OF VERB-ADVERB COMBINATION IN ENGLISH 1. Most of the discussion, heretofore, of the growth of the verbadverb combination in English, as well as in the Germanic tongues in general, has been confined to those aspects of the matter which are concerned with sentence-stress. Professor Curme has shown at some length the gradual shifting of usage in the early English from the verb with inseparable prefix to the combination where the particle or so-called separable prefix follows the verb in the sentence. Others have taken up certain phases of the development in briefer studies in an effort to determine the exact influence that sentence-stress and group-accent have had upon the usage. So that the gradual diminution of the use of the verb with inseparable prefix such as still survives in forgive, foreshadow, outface, outnumber, overtake, overthrow, understand, undertake, withstand, and a few others, has been examined somewhat in detail. It is to be emphasized, however, that with the dropping of the verb with inseparable prefix as a large and vital factor in the development of the English vocabulary, the part that stress plays in the development of the verb-adverb combination becomes much less, and other factors much more important. 2. There can be no question, as others, notably Professor Curme, have shown, that the tendency to stress an adverbial particle following the verb more or less closely, worked, during the Old English and early Middle English periods, toward the elimination of the verb with unstressed, inseparable particle and the gradual increase of the verb-adverb combination such as we are concerned with in this study. And yet Professor Curme's statement (on p. 321) that "we often find accented adverbs and also prefixes, as in, up, ut, etc., after the verb" is likely to give a wrong impression as to the frequency of occurrence of the new usage in the Old English period. In the first 300 lines of the Beowulf, for example, I find twenty-five occurrences of the verb with inseparable prefix such as ofteah (5), forgeaf (17), onsendon (45), forscrifen (106), becom (192), onleac (259), etc., while there are only five examples of the verb 2 G. O. Curme: The Development of Verbal Compounds in Germanic. Paul und Braunes Beiträge 39: 320-361. 1914. 3 T. O. Harrison: The Separable Prefixes in Anglo-Saxon. Baltimore, 1892. H. Eitrem: Stress in English Verb+Adverb Groups. Englische Studien 32:69–77. 1903. J. Ellinger: Ueber die Betonung der aus Verb+Adverb Wortgruppen. Wien 12 used with a separate adverbial modifier of the type under c viz., up ahafen (128), forð gewat (210), ut scufon (215), a (224-5), gewitaþ forð (291). In an equally long passage Genesis occur forty-nine compounds like those above-listed a binations, namely, ford cuman (122) and ahof up (148). (Ll. 1-300) I find sixty uses of the compound and a doubtfu combination, viz., up astag (62), wið þingade (260) (which ably a compound), and fore stondeo (277). In Book II, cha of Alfred's translation of Bede's Ecclesiastical History, fif pounds are used as compared with the two combinations, u (94:15-16) and of cwomon (96:21). In the first of Aelfric's are seventy-seven compounds, and the four combinations to g (59), ut blawap (214), in ateoð (215), and on libbað (216) In order to make the case as strong as possible for the ment of the verb-adverb combination, I have not listed as co verbs with merely the prefix ge-, and, on the other hand, I combinations examples where the adverb is probably in rea arable prefix, altho the scribe has left a slight space betwee verb following. Indeed, of the sixteen examples which listed as combinations, only two show the adverbial parti the verb. So that we may say that in the five Old Englis under examination occurrences of the verb-adverb combinat tically nil whereas the use of the compound i. e. verb wit prefix is fairly common. During the Middle English period the development In pp. 8-15 of the Ancren Riwle I find fifty-four occur But in the next century in the literature of the more of Mandeville's Travels I find eleven occurrences of the native compound, thirty-one of the Romanic, and only four of the verbadverb combination. In lines 1-230 of the B-version of Piers Plowman there are twelve native compounds, eighteen Romanic, and ten combinations. In Chaucer's Canterbury Tales (A 1-500) to fourteen of the native compounds and fifteen of the Romanic only two combinations. are to be found contrasted, viz., ryden out (45) and pinche at (326). The simplicity of the language of Chaucer's General Prolog tends, of course, to exclude the more cumbersome compounds, both native and Romanic, and I think we may safely assume that the combination has not yet become so imbedded in the language that Chaucer would use it at all freely. In the prose Testament of Love, however, Book I, chapters 1-2, the native compound occurs twenty-three times, the Romanic forty-six, and the combination twelve. When the fifteenth century is reached, the combination begins to show real strength, altho it is evidently a part of the language of the common man, even as it has been ever since. In the Ballad of Robin Hood and the Monk, for example, I find eighteen occurrences of the native compound, not one of the Romanic, and twenty of the verb-adverb combination. On the other hand, in the very formal, indeed, rather forced, language of the first five hundred lines of the Digby play of the Conversion of St. Paul the native compound occurs twenty-two times, the Romanic sixty-two, and the combination only fifteen times. Most of the combinations occur in the stage directions or else in the scurrilous conversation of servants. It seems evident, and I wish to emphasize this point in view of certain conclusions that I shall reach regarding later usage, that the development of the verb-adverb combination would have been much more rapid had it not been weakened for some generations or even centuries, by the adoption into the English of numerous Romanic verbs with inseparable prefixes which drove out the native compounds, and for a time made the newer combination unnecessary. In the formal literature, wherein dialog and the language of the street had little place, the Romanic compound verb came into general acceptance as the proper form, and it is only a comparatively recent reaction against the borrowed element-in English which has tended to carry the more plebeian verb-adverb combination to higher planes of literary life. So, in the literature of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, one finds a great diversity in the use of the combination. In Bale's Kynge Johan, Act I, only seven or eight occurrences are to be noted. In The Witch of Edmonton about as many of these combinations occur as would be met with in modern good usage. In the Elizabethan comedies, especially, one is likely to find numerous examples. In the dignified Biblical version of 1611 the combination is less frequently encountered, and is usually to be taken literally, as, for example, enter in, fill up, go on, pluck out, root up, or else with an intensive or perfective value contributed by the particle, such as is seen in burn up, cry out, devour up. The conservatism of the translators of the Holy Scriptures has at all periods tended to avoid any but the most literal of these combinations. And so in the revision of 1882, in Matthew I-XVI, I find only some twenty-two of these, a net increase of four over the King James version. In more recent times the verb with inseparable prefix has maintained a limited place in English because it has developed thru figurative usage certain fixed values quite decidedly different from the earlier literal meanings, values which could not very well be dispensed with. Sometimes the two elements, prepositional-adverb and verb, are used in both compound and combination; but when this occurs, the one is always figurative, the other usually literal. In other words, the compound is to be regarded as a linguistic fossil, the combination as living, organic, in speech. It is also interesting to note, in this connection, that the noun or adjective compounded of these two elements is more common at the present time than the verb-compound, and frequently possessed of meanings quite different from those contributed to the verb-compound. Of the sixteen prepositional-adverbs under consideration at least eleven are used more or less frequently in compound nouns or adjectives derived from or modeled after the verb-compound. Examples are bygone, bystander, downcast, downfall, downpour, downtrodden, forlorn, inborn, inbound, inbred, inroads, intake, offcast, offset, offshoot, offspring, onlooker, onrush, onset, outbreak, outcast, outcome, outcry, outfall, outfit, outlet, output, overbearing, overcast, overflow, overgrown, oversight, overthrow, overwrought, thorofare, upheaval, upkeep, uplift, uproar, upshot, upstart, withdrawal. Of all the nouns just listed only eight have accompanying compound verbs and in each case there is some slight irregularity in the correspondence of noun and verb. Oversight and withdrawal show derivative suffixes, the substantive values of offset and overcast are quite different from the verbal connotations, outfit (the verb) is a late use of outfit (the noun). and overflow and overthrow are comparatively late uses of the verbs as nouns. All the other nouns and adjectives of the list correspond in signification to verb-combinations such as go by, stand by, cast down, tread down, fall down rather than to verbs with the inseparable prefixes. Of the eleven particles used in the above-named noun-compounds, only six, viz., for, off, out, over, up and with are used in modern verb-compounds. In the more common for-compounds forbear, forbid, forget, forgive, forgo, forsake and forswear the early literal meaning has entirely prefix to the verb-compound at the present time. In offset and set off the two values are clearly contrasted and, as noted above, the noun corresponds to the combination rather than to the compound. In most of the verbs still in common use with the prefix out-, such as outbid, outbrave, outdo, outface, outflank, outgrow, out-Herod, outlive, etc., the prefix contributes to the verb the idea of surpassing or going beyond a fixed time or an opponent, a meaning not normally possessed by the prepositional-adverb when it is used alone or when it appears in a noun-compound such as are noted above. The verb-prefix over- is by far the most active of the group in modern English. It has the usual prepositional value in overarch, overhang, overlap, overleap, overlook, overrun, oversee, overshadow, overtake, overthrow, overturn, and perhaps a few other less-commonly used verbs. The preponderatingly active use of it, however, meaning "in excess of an opponent or of that which is fitting," is illustrated in such compounds as overawe, overbid, overcharge, overdo, overdraw, overeat, overload, overpower, overrule, oversell, overwork. In overflow and overreach it might be questioned whether the literal prepositional meaning or the transferred meaning of "in excess" is more strongly felt. Perhaps these two words may be taken as illustrating the process of development of the transferred value from the earlier literal one. At any rate the two uses of over- in composition are still strongly enough entrenched in the language so that the nouns and adjectives do not show any marked divergence from the verbs, either in accent or in meaning. It is only when one makes of the compound verb a verb-combination such as do over, draw over, load over, work over, that the adverb takes on a new meaning, viz., that of repetition, or in look over, run over, take over, throw over, turn over, emphasizes a literal adverbial use which has become slightly obscured in the more figurative usage of the corresponding verb-compounds. Of the few verbs in general use today compounded with up-, upend and uproot are used literally; but a transferred meaning must be recognized in upbraid, uphold and upset. Not one of these can be used as a noun, unless we except upset, which is used colloquially with stress on the prefix. And, finally, with-, in the old compounds withdraw, withhold and withstand, must be regarded as an entirely different word from the modern preposition because, while the preposition has the form of the Old English wið, it has the value of O. E. mid, whereas the prefix with- preserves the O. E. meaning of “against." Consequently the contrast of the above-named old compounds with the new combinations draw with, hold with and stand with is most marked. |