The Syntax of Early English - Cryptm.org

216 The syntax of early EnglishHistorically, what seems to have happened is that sentences like (4a) were atsome point reanalysed from a benefactive construction as in (4) into a (for)NP to V construction as in (5). To see what made the reanalysis from (4) into(5) possible, we must first turn to Old English. Old English was like Germanand Dutch in that the construction in (5) was not possible, while the constructionin (5) was. In (7) there are several Old English instances of this type withan adjectival predicate and a æt-clause; as the translations supplied show, theuse of a for complementizer would be possible or even preferred in presentdayEnglish.(7) a. Hit is gecyndelic æt ealle eorlice lichaman beoit is natural that all earthly bodies arefulran on weaxendum monan onne on wanigendumfuller on waxing moon than on waning‘It is natural for all earthly bodies to be fuller under a waxing moon thana waning moon’ (ÆTemp 8.13)b. foræm hit is rihtg æt a goodan hæbben goodtherefore it his right that the goodan have goodedlean hiora godes, 7 a yflan hæbban witereward of-their good and the evil have punishmenthiora yflesof-their evil‘therefore it is good for the good to be rewarded for the good deeds thatthey do, and for the evil to be punished for their evil deeds’ (Bo 39.135.15)Old English also had the benefactive construction of (4), but with the benefactiverole expressed by the dative case, and not yet by a for-phrase, as theexamples in (8) show.(8) a. Hit is swie earfoe ænigum [DAT] to eowienne twam hlafordum‘It is very difficult for-anyone to serve two lords’ (ÆAdmon 1.2.46)b. nis me [DAT] earfee to geolianne eodnes willannot-is me [DAT] difficult to suffer lord’s will‘it is not hard for me to endure the will of the Lord’ (GuthA, B 1065)c. es traht is langsum eow [DAT] to gehyrennethis tract is long for-you to hear‘this treatise is tedious for you to listen to’ (ÆCHom II, 41.308.138)These constructions still occur in Middle English, but often with the prepositionfor instead of a dative inflection, due to the general loss of inflections thatis taking place at this time. The construction without for, however, also stilloccurs in Middle English, and begins to be used very much like the ModernEnglish for NP to V construction as in (5), i.e. with the original dative NP asthe subject of the following infinitive. This is made possible of course by thefact that for nominal NPs, the dative ending is no longer distinguishable from