0 INTRODUCTION

5. CORPORA AND METHODOLOGY
combinations in which it may occur and which cannot be the same as that of
another sign.
Lloyd (2011) systematically analyzes the semantic differences of the above-mentioned
suffixes in the ME period. I will follow Lloyd’s example here, dealing with each suffix
independently in order to reflect its peculiarities. The origin (Germanic or Romance) of
each has been used as a basis for classification.
5.2.1.1. The Germanic suffix –ing
As noted in Chapter 2, over the course of ME the native suffix –ing, initially used to form
action nouns, developed into a “gerund” with verbal characteristics. There has been
extensive discussion on this process (Jespersen 1940 [1909] Vol. V: 86-150; Huddleston
2002a: 81-83; see also Chapter 2 above), but the present section focuses only on its
morphology and semantics.
OE had two suffixes to form action nouns from weak verbs, –ung and –ing. The
former was originally used with verbs belonging to class 2, such as lufian ‘to love,’ whose
infinitive ended in –ian (see further Hogg 2005 [1992] Vol I: 160-162), while –ing was
used with class 1 verbs, such as trymman ‘to strengthen’ (see Hogg 2005 [1992] Vol I:157-
159). This verbal class was the most common one among weak verbs, having an infinitive
ending in –an, preterite in –(e)de, and past participle in –(e)d. Thus, instances of action
nouns from the two kinds of weak verbs are hergung ‘plunder’ (cf. preterite hergode), and
hering ‘praising’ (cf. preterite herede; see Jespersen (1942 [1909] Vol. VI: 377). However,
in some texts an alternation between –ing and –ung can be found. As Jespersen (1942
[1909] Vol. VI: 377) puts it, “in some texts –ing and –ung alternate according to the vowel
142