The Syntax of Early English - Cryptm.org

76 The syntax of early English(15) swetest him unche hamsweetest him-OBJ seems them-OBJ‘they seem sweetest to him’ (Ancr 52a.15; Denison 1993: 70)(16) ne of al et eauer wa is ne schal ham neauer wontinnor of all that ever woe is not will them-OBJ never lack‘nor will they ever be lacking in anything that is miserable’(SWard 152; Denison 1993: 70)This configuration with two objective NPs or one objective NP and a PP surviveduntil 1500, but then disappeared, like all other constructions with a nullexpletive subject (see 3.2.1 above).Impersonals were also used until the end of the Middle English period in thepattern with an objective EXPERIENCER and a clausal THEME, as in (17).(17) me marvaylyyth mychil why God euyth wyckyd men swychme-OBJ marvels much why God gives wicked men suchpowerpower‘I wonder a lot why God gives wicked people such power’(Dives&Pauper I.1.336.2)Here the distinction between (12a) and (15–16) is in a way neutralized, sincethe clause can be seen as parallel to either a nominative or an objective NP. Ineither case, the sentence would lack a preverbal nominative subject. In example(18), the same verb occurs with a nominative EXPERIENCER subject.(18) I merveyll that I here no tidyngges from yowI-NOM marvel that I hear no news from you‘I wonder why I don’t hear any news from you’ (Paston Letters 76.38)The specific verb used in (17) and (18), marvel, is a loan from French that isfirst attested in English in the fourteenth century (see OED, s.v. marvel, vb.).Its use in (17) and (18) clearly shows that impersonals formed a productive categoryalso in Middle English. Another sign of this is the fact that some nativeverbs that did not show impersonal syntax in Old English began to do so inMiddle English. The verb must, for example, is often found in true impersonalconstructions such as (19).(19) us must worschepyn hymus-OBJ must worship him‘we must worship him’(Dives&Pauper I.1.206.34)The very brief presentation of the impersonal facts given in 2.2.2 and in thissection hides various controversial issues, brought out well in Denison (1990).For one thing, we have not said anything about impersonal verbs with one argument(such as rain and happen); their behaviour is of course different, but also