Yoko Iyieri PhD Thesis - Research@StAndrews:FullText - University ...

Pere the grekes hade grymly ben gird vnto dethe,
Hade not Achffles ben cheualrous & choise of his dedis
(PT 5247-8)
Haf he neuer sli sin don (EMFI 105/8).
(2) Conditional clauses with if
Heo feol on hire bedde,
Per heo knif hudde,
To sle wiJ king loje
& hure selue boje,
In I)at vike ni3te,
If horn come ne rni3te (KH 1195-1200)
3yf he ne myghte wyJ noun answere
On oujer maner hym seluen were,
Pe prest Jat tellyJ goddys cunseyl,
He shal se hyt wroJer heyl (FIS 3671-4)
Ac wo me ssel answerie . 3ff I'ou nemi3t no3t a3en come
(SEL 7/64)
QuoJ Jat burde to je burne, Blame 3e disserue,
3ff 3e luf not jat lyf jat 3e lye nexte,
Bifore alle Je wy3ez in Je worlde wounded in hert'
(GGK 1779-81)
And thought "whethyr I better bee,
yif nejy man it After had" (SMA 3456-7).
Conditional clauses in general present a fairly marked tendency to
employ ne alone throughout the ME period as the above tables
display, which however is more pronounced with conditional clauses
where the verb precedes the subject. As the first table shows, even
the Group 2 texts, whose overall sample provides some notable
number of the adverb not, still present ne alone almost consistently
(94.5%). That never, no, etc. are almost entirely avoided is also
noteworthy in the light of their frequent occurrence in the whole
sample. Group 3 develops some examples of not, which however are
mainly attested in DT (seven of the total of eight examples). Ne
alone is stifi common at this late stage of the development of ME
negative constructions, at which not alone or never, no, etc. alone
are predominant elsewhere. The situation is not clear in the case of
Group 1 because of the sparseness of relevant examples, but the
non-occurrence of never, no, etc. in this group at least does not
145