Ælfric's Grammatical Terminology

Author(s): Edna Rees Williams

Source: PMLA, Vol. 73, No. 5, Part 1 (Dec., 1958), pp. 453-462
Published by: Modern Language Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/460287
Accessed: 17-04-2016 04:37 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Modern Language Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to PMLA

This content downloaded from 132.239.1.231 on Sun, 17 Apr 2016 04:37:58 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 PMLA
PUBLICATIONS OF THE'MODERN^LANGUAGE'ASSOCIATION^OF^AMERICA
Issued Five Times a Tear
-?-<-
Volume LXXIII December 1958 Number 5, Part 1
-*-*-
iELFRIC'S GRAMMATICAL TERMINOLOGY
By Edna Rees Williams
THE LATINwas
Eynsham, Grammar of iElfric,
a well-known Abbot of
and influential
book in late Old English times; the number of
extant manuscripts in which it appears in whole
or in part and the range of dates represented by
them indicate the extent of its currency then.1
Less familiar to most students today, perhaps,
than his homilies and other scientific and peda-
gogical treatises, it is still a significant part of the
corpus of iElfric's work. Investigation of its pages
extends our knowledge of methods of teaching at
that time and of the particular needs of English
students not yet ready for the more extensive and
detailed Latin grammars of Priscian and Do-
natus, the standard texts of the Middle Ages,
parts of which are adapted and translated in the
Grammar for use in English schools. More fully
and in a particular way the Grammar reveals
JSAhic himself at work: his aims and methods in
the translation and adaptation of original Latin
works for use in England; his mastery of Latin
and of English; his great skill in adapting the
native English tongue to new uses. There has
hitherto been no adequate account of iElfric's
procedure, with the result that his aim and
method in this work have been imperfectly com-
prehended, and critics have tended to bestow
praise and blame somewhat at random. The
present study attempts to present such an ac?
count, through analysis and example, and to es?
timate the subsequent importance of his gram?
matical terminology as a contribution to the de?
velopment of the English vocabulary.
The Grammar is a translation and adaptation
of Priscian's Institutiones Grammaticae of the
sixth century, with occasional passages showing
direct indebtedness to the earlier works of Do-
natus.2 In it the original text of Priscian is much
reduced in scope, sometimes translated literally,
453
This content downloaded from 132.239.1.231 on Sun, 17 Apr 2016 04:37:58 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
often freely adapted with additions and omis?
sions. It has two prefaces by ^Elfric, one in
Latin, one in English.
Simplicity and the greatest possible clarity are
the rule throughout all parts of the Grammar, for
reasons inherent in the very nature of the work
and in iElfric's undoubted intention in compos?
ing it. Knowledge of Latin was essential to stu?
dents in the monastic schools: the service of the
Church and the secular learning of the age both
demanded it. The teaching of Latin must, in
consequence, have occupied the minds of many
men, not only the few teachers now known by
1 Julius Zupitza, ed. Mlfrics Grammatik und Glossar, Erste
Abteilung: Text und Varianten, Sammlung englischer Denk-
maler, Vol. i (Berlin, 1880). References in the text are to this
edition, by page and line: I have in citing certain verbal
forms altered Zupitza's spelling -j- to -i-, and omitted his
marks of quantity throughout. The complete Grammar has
been published once before: William Somner, Dictionarium
Saxonico-Latino-Anglicum (Oxford, 1659). Fragments of it
have been printed: Thomas Philipps, A Fragment of JEljritfs
Anglo-Saxon Grammar (London, 1838); A. Birlinger, Bruch-
stuck aus Alfrics Angelsdchsischer Grammatik, in Pfeiffer's
Germania, xv. The Grammar, in whole or in part, is extant
in 15 known manuscripts: see Zupitza's Vorwort.
2 Aelius Donatus (4th cent.) wrote a grammatical treatise
in 2 sections: the first is known under the title Donati De
Partibus Orationis Ars Minor, or more briefly the Ars
Minor; the second, much longer, is the Ars Maior or Donati
Grammatici Urbis Romae Ars Grammatica. (See W. J. Chase,
The "Ars Minor1 y of Donatus, Univ. of Wis. Studies in the
Social Sciences and History, No. 11, Madison, 1926.) Pris-
cian's work, the Institutiones Grammaticae (6th cent.), is a
more inclusive and advanced treatment than the Ars Minor.
(See editions by Augustus Krehl, Prisciani Caesariensis
Grammatici Opera, 2 vols., Leipzig, 1819-20, and by H. Keil,
Prisciani Grammatici Caesariensis Institutionum Gramma-
ticarum Libri [Grammatici Latini, n, in], Leipzig, 1855-59.)
The question of ^Elfric's indebtedness to Donatus and
Priscian has not been worked out in full and exact detail.
L. K. Shook ("iElfric's Latin Grammar," unpub. Harvard
diss., 1940) deals with it in an illuminating way in connection
with specific passages.
 454 JElfric's Grammatical Terminology
name.8 iElfric's concern in the presentation of
Latin grammar for English students was with
teaching, particularly in this instance the teach?
ing of young students, as both his Latin and his
English words tell us: "Ego iElfricus, ut minus
sapiens, has excerptiones de Prisciano minore uel
maiore uobis puerulis tenellis ad uestram lin-
guam transferre studui . . . " (1:3-5); "ic }?ohte,
}>aet t5eos boc mihte fremian jungum cildum to
anginne ]?aes craeftes, ot5(5aet hi to maran andgyte
becumon" (2:17-19). In a work of this kind there
were difficulties which iElfric did not, perhaps
could not, entirely avoid?for example, the tend?
ency prevalent in most areas of medieval
thought to subject material being discussed to
intricate processes of analysis and classification,
with elaborate systems of division and subdi-
vision.4 But the author's wish to maintain
clarity and simplicity is manifest throughout the
Grammar: in the total organization of his work;
in the omissions, obvious immediately to one
comparing the "excerpts" with Priscian's Insti-
tutiones and evidently directed toward a simpli?
fication of the original; in the terminology he
adopts, with examples and not infrequent pauses
to explain more fully the exact meaning in?
tended in a given section. ^Elfric's own words sug?
gest this controlling desire for clarity and sim?
plicity when, for example, he passes over many
pages of Priscian with the words, "Sa naman . . .
synd denominativa gecwedene, and "Sara ys
fornean ungerim,, (18:1-3), or when he substi-
tutes for long sections of Priscian such brief
statements as "eac we mihton be eallum )?am
o<5rum stafum menigfealdlice sprecan, gif hit on
englisc gedafenlic waere" (6:19-7:2), or "Nelle
we na swycSor her be (5am worde sprecan. wel, gif
Sis aht fremafi" (222:10-11). Wel, gif dis aht
fremafi. That it should be of benefit to young stu?
dents is the writer's purpose, evident throughout,
and it is this purpose that dictates, among other
things, his handling of the essential grammatical
terminology.5
It would be difficult, if not impossible, to de-
termine the exact degree of originality and inven?
tion in this terminology. Trained himself in the
schools of Winchester, beyond doubt familiar
with systems of education elsewhere, ^Elfric
made use, we may be sure, of English equivalents
for Latin terms that were in many instances com?
mon in the teaching of the time. But it is safe to
conclude that much here is his own, typical of
his methods, revealing his own interests and pur?
poses. Alert to the needs of students in English
schools, he was among the first, perhaps the
first, to write texts of Latin grammar in English:
This content downloaded from 132.239.1.231 on Sun, 17 Apr 2016 04:37:58 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
the treatises of the kind now extant, the only
ones we know from that early period, are his; the
words of his English Preface indicate awareness
of a departure, in the use of English, from cus-
tomary procedures; there is the mark of one
mind in much of the grammatical vocabulary
used for subsidiary categories, less noticeable in
the general terms such as those for the parts of
speech. The scientific terminology of the Gram?
mar may safely be said to be iElfric's own in
this sense, that he adopted, systematized, and
perhaps invented terms best suited to his imme?
diate purposes; it may be studied as an example
of his handling of vocabulary in general.
That the system of grammatical terms he in?
troduced served well its immediate purposes may
be assumed; that its usefulness as an independ?
ent, self-explanatory, economical system was as
great as has been claimed for it?that it could,
in other words, have replaced the corresponding
Latin or have served as an independent pattern
in the teaching of grammatical science, thus es-
tablishing itself in the English vocabulary, or
that it was intended to do either, may be ques?
tioned.6
In the first place, that terminology itself, as it
is employed in the Grammar, is to a high degree
Latin, not, strictly speaking, English as many
writers seem to have assumed. The whole pat-
?See, e.g., Alfred's Preface, King Alfred's West-Saxon
Version of Gregory}s Pastoral Care, ed. H. Sweet, EETS,
O.S. 45, 50 [London, 1871-72], pp. 2 ff.
4 Note, e.g., the 29 categories of nouns listed in the Gram?
mar, some overlapping others (pp. 11 ff.); the similar series of
classes of adverbs; the long listing of nouns of the third de-
clension according to their endings and of verbs according to
the form of their perfect tense.
5 The present article was completed before Shook's un?
published dissertation on iElfric's grammatical terminology
was known to me (see n. 2 above). His work is a valuable
contribution to studies of iElfric's methods: its major part
consists of "an investigation of the etymology, semantic de?
velopment and grammatical use of the Latin as well as the
corresponding Old English terms," the stated purpose of the
whole being "to investigate this Old English grammatical
nomenclature and to determine on what principles these new
technical terms are formed." (See the abstract of the disser?
tation in Harvard Univ. Summaries of Theses, 1940 [Cam-
bridge, Mass., 1942], pp. 360-363.) Our discussions, differing
widely in purpose and scope, have necessarily touched on a
few of the same points.
6 We read, e.g., "The special grammatical terms of his
original are not borrowed wholesale but are translated into
their Old English equivalents. . . . On the whole it seems
probable that this grammatical terminology died out, not
from any lack in itself, but because it depended for its exist?
ence on constant literary use. Had it not been for the Con-
quest we should probably still be using ^Elfric's grammatical
vocabulary" (R. M. Wilson, ed. Sawles Warde, Texts and
Monographs: Leeds School of Eng. Lang., No. m, 1938,
p. vi).
 Edna R. Williams 455

tern of terms reveals that, with some notable defectiva [verba], J?aet synd ateorigendlice, forSan
exceptions, the English terms were explanatory Se hi ateoriaS on sumere stowe. (203:1-3)
and were intended to interpret, not to replace,
The list of such examples might be extended
the corresponding Latin. To make unmistak-
indefinitely. After thus introducing the term to
ably clear the meaning of the Latin terms which
be used and explaining it, iElfric varies his prac?
the student must understand and handle with
tice. In a few instances he introduces the term in
ease and familiarity; to use the term, English or
this way once only, thereafter employing only the
Latin, that was clear and best suited to its pur?
Latin expression or the English or interchanging
pose?that was iElfric's aim and his practice. The the two. This is true in his use of Latin names
general proportion of Latin as opposed to Eng?
for the cases of nouns, pronouns, and so on. Each
lish, the possible principles governing the au?
thor's choice of one or the other and the con-
is explained: nominativtjs nemniendlic; geni-
tivus gestrynendlic or geagniendlic; dativus
sistency of his choice, the English terms them?
forgyfendlic; accussativus [sie] wregendlic; vo-
selves, are topics presented for consideration in
cativus clypiendlic or gecigendlic; ablativus
the following pages. The English terms are of par?
ticular interest to students of ^Elfric's vocabu?
cetbredendlic (pp. 22-23). From then on the Latin
term is used exclusively, not only in such formal
lary: all show his ability as a translator, many
listing as that in the paradigms of nouns (pp. 26
reveal his skill in adapting English words and
et al.) but also in the context of an English sen?
processes of word formation to a particular pur?
tence: "seo forme declinung, macaS hire geni-
pose, all reveal the pedagogical intention out of
tivtjm on ce . . . " (21:6-7); "(Seos declinatio
which the work arose. Those English terms which ne macaS na hire vocativum on eallum namum
do replace their Latin counterparts in his work
on ane wisan . . . ; }?a maciaS heora vocativum,
are of significance in the history of the English
swaswa heora nominativtjs byS" (31:15-18).
vocabulary and merit individual attention.
The Latin word for 'case' itself, casus, is used to
In the introductory pages of the Grammar,
the virtual exclusion of its English synonyms;
which are concerned with general grammatical this word and the ramifications of its use are dis?
principles and definitions, in the sections on
cussed separately (see below, pp. 460-461). The
nouns and pronouns and those on adverb and
Latin supinum is explained: "sopinum ys upp
participle, and in the long section on verbs, com-
awend" (136:2). Thenceforth only supinum oc?
prising in all the first 257 pages in Zupitza's edi?
curs (some 29 or more times).
tion of the Grammar, there emerges a full pattern
In far the larger number of instances, however,
of grammatical terms relating to those parts of
he gives the Latin term with its equivalent or ex?
speech: the classes of nouns and pronouns and
planation, thereafter using one or other of them
their attributes of gender, number, case, figura,
but reintroducing at intervals the original ex?
person; the categories of verbs (active, passive,
planation by synonym or phrase. He explains,
neuter, defective, etc.) and their conjugations,
for example, different groups of verbs: "activa
their attributes of mood, tense, person, number,
verba, j?aet synd daedlice word, J?a Se geswuteliaS,
and so on. The pattern, which may be examined
hwaet men doS" (120:3-4). Then, at intervals of
in the tabulation at the end of this study,7 points
some three and eleven lines farther on, he repeats:
to several conclusions regarding ^Elfric's meth?
"(5as . . . synd activa gehatene, J?aet synd daed?
ods and aims in translating Priscian's work into
lice, forSan Se hi geswuteliaS daeda"; and "J?a
English. It shows clearly that Latin terms pre-
word gehatene activa, }?aet synd daedlice" (p.
dominate in actual frequency of repetition and
120). The same kind of emphatic repetition of
in distribution throughout the system.
explanation occurs in connection with passive
In one respect iElfric's practice is invariable:
verbs (120:9-13; 121:1-2). The explanation at
the Latin term to be considered is, in every in?
times has an element of surprise, introduced as
stance, given at least once with its English
it may be in the very midst of passages in which
equivalent, or with an explanatory phrase or
one or the other term has been used repeatedly
clause in English, or with both.
with complete clarity: for example, the passage
tempus tid, modtjs gemet. . . , persona had, in which JElfric, after using frequently some form
ntjmertjs getel. (119:14r-16) of Latin genus 'gender/ suddenly writes, "J?as
praesens tempus ys andwerd tid. (123:14-15) oSre synd trium generum, )?aet is Sreora cynna"
pronomen is tSaes naman speliend, se spelatS J?one
naman ... (8:11-12) 7 The tabulation, so far as it goes, is complete, all instances
nominativus ys nemniendlic: mid tSam casu we of the appearance of the terms within the given pages being
nemnaS ealle tfrng . . . (22:10-11) counted. A few of the grammatical terms used are not listed.

This content downloaded from 132.239.1.231 on Sun, 17 Apr 2016 04:37:58 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
456 ALlfric's Grammatical Terminology
(53:15-16). Possibly, in this instance, the term
dreora indicated the need of retranslation.
There is no entirely clear and consistent inten?
tion on the author's part to be detected in the
appearance of such collocations, intrusion of the
explanatory words seeming most often to be dic?
tated rather by chance than by systematic plan.
The mere fact of repetition serves to maintain
clarity, though we might feel more secure in
attributing such an intention to JEliric could we
be sure that the manuscripts as we have them
represent accurately his own completed copy; it
is likely that the repetition was, to some extent
at least, his own and represents truly his method.
It is noticeable that such re-explanation occurs
nearly always at the beginning of the discussion
of new topics, as for example that of Verbs (pp.
119 ff.), of Adverbs (pp. 222 ff.), and of the Parti-
ciple (pp. 242 ff.); and the repetition of explana?
tory translations in the short summary that con?
cludes the discussion of Nouns (91:7-15) may
well reveal the author's intention of securing
emphasis and clarity by this means. The young
student, perhaps, needed to be reminded of the
exact meaning of the Latin terms.
In many instances throughout the Grammar
either the Latin or the English term is chosen to
the exclusion of the other. No factor which may
be said with certainty to have determined the
choice can be detected in the context; either
the one or the other is used both in listing and in
expository sentences in the text, as has already
been indicated, though probably the Latin tends
to appear more frequently in formal listing, such
as that in the paradigms of nouns and verbs.
Close examination brings out the fact unmis-
takably that Latin occurs throughout more fre?
quently than English, though it is true that an
increasing proportion of English is to be noted in
the later sections of the book.
So far as we can observe his practice in the
extant manuscripts of the Grammar, iElfric em?
ployed Latin terms in preference to English in
certain important instances. Latin names for the
cases of nouns, pronouns, participles; the Latin
word for 'case' itself, castjs; Latin supinum
(sopinum), already mentioned, are all used to
the virtual exclusion of their English equivalents
(p. 455, above, and Table). In like manner Latin
modus, the term for the general concept 'mood
(of verbs),' is more frequent than English gemet,
though the latter occurs often, always with com?
plete clarity; for the names of the different
moods the Latin terms only are used, after the
customary initial explanation in English: in-
DICATIVUS, SUBIUNCTIVUS, INEINITIVUS, and SO
This content downloaded from 132.239.1.231 on Sun, 17 Apr 2016 04:37:58 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
on. Though English tid replaces Latin tempus in
the general sense of 'tense' when used as an inde?
pendent term, the Latin names for the different
individual tenses far exceed the corresponding
English: praesens (tempus) rather than and-
werd tid, praeteritum (tempus) rather than
fordgewiten tid, etc.8 In the same way English
cynn virtually replaces Latin genus as an inde?
pendent term, but masculinum, eemininum,
commune (genus) are far more frequent than the
apparently quite satisfactory English substitutes
werlic, wifiic, gemcenelic (cynn) respectively, and
neutrum than the rather awkward English
nador (cynn), nadres cynnes. The various cate?
gories of nouns, adverbs, participles are given in
terms almost invariably Latin, as accompanying
lists indicate.
These are important and extensive divisions
of the total pattern of grammatical terms. They
are evidence of the extent to which JEliric em?
ployed Latin terms instead of his own English in
the presentation of his subject. Careful always to
explain in English each Latin term, he then uses
a combination of Latin and English, English in
some of the more important positions, but Latin
predominantly in the total pattern.
But it remains true that there is at least made
available here a set of English terms for use in
grammatical science, that a significant number of
them in iElfric's work itself virtually replace the
corresponding Latin. These terms are of particu?
lar interest to students of the language.
General practice of the time is, in all likeli-
hood, represented in the group of English words,
simple terms in most instances, that replace or
outnumber in frequency of occurrence the Latin
terms for such general concepts underlying gram?
matical science as those of mood, tense, person,
number, or for the basic categories of words, the
various parts of speech. Cynn translating genus,
had persona, tid tempus, getel numerus (with
anfeald singularis, menigfeald pluralis), nama
nomen, word verbum, dcd pars (orationis),
geendung terminatio, stcef littera, to list some
of the outstanding examples, were probably well
established in use by iElfric's time; the teaching
monks must have had to talk about grammar
long before that. Such hybrid forms, moreover,
as declinung, by which declinatio is frequently
translated, are not characteristic of ^Elfric's
practice elsewhere.
But in the larger number of more specialized
terms used independently or for purposes of ex-
8 There is to be noted in the later sections of the Grammar
an increasing use of the English terms without the corre?
sponding Latin: andwerd, fordgewiten, towerd (tid).
 Edna
planation, the names of the cases for example,
evidence revealing iElfric's own procedure may
be claimed. In them he shows not only his com-
mand of Latin but also his methods in using the
resources of the English language to render the
concepts of grammar and the Latin terms for
them.
To anyone examining the English terminology,
the precision of his rendering of the Latin term
in English is at once evident. His translations?
single words as frequently, it seems, as possible?
are literal renderings of the Latin. In par-
ticipitjm, for example, he recognizes the two ele?
ments (parti+wk. st. cip-<capere 'to take') and
translates them into English dcel nimend. The
same attention to the radical elements of the
Latin words shows in term after term: vocalis,
Eng. clypiendlic; praepositio, Eng. foresetnys;
casus (Kcadere 'tofall'), Eng./y//;NOMiNATivus,
Eng. nemniendlic; dativus, Eng. forgyfendlic;
indicativus, Eng. gebicniendlic, and on through
all the list of the names of cases and moods. The
number of examples might be increased to in?
clude virtually the entire list of grammatical
terms, but suffice it to say, with ^Elfric, '"Sara ys
fornean ungerim." The results are in the main
happy; but in some instances the English terms
are decidedly heavy, unwieldy, and therefore less
usable than others, chiefly because of this close
adherence to the exact meaning of the Latin
words and their roots. supinum offers one of the
more obviously unsuccessful attempts: "sopi-
ntjm ys upp awend, and hi synd up awende and
brade, forftan Se hi underfoS fela andgytu ..."
(136:2-4). Both betwuxaworpennyss and the term
samod swegend render accurately the inherent
sense of Latin interiectio and consonans re-
spectively, but neither is a useful addition to
English terminology. The same may justly be
said of ungeendigendlic for ineinitivus, under-
Zeodendlic for subiunctivus, firowigendlic for
passivum. As explanatory words?as undoubt-
edly many such terms were intended to be?
especially when supplemented by iElfric's me-
ticulous demonstrations of the origin and mean?
ing of the terms,9 they fulfill their function. The
same is to be said of the instances when he re?
sorted, not to synonyms, but to explanatory
phrase or clause only.
The latter occur most frequently, though not
exclusively, in such lists as those of the cate?
gories of nouns, adverbs, verbs: "neutrum,
natfres cynnes word"; supinum, already cited;
"patriae Sa geswutelia<5 J?aes mannes e<5el"
(13:3-4); "eacticia, J?a synd geworhte sefter
gelicnysse agenes sweges" (14:1-2); "temporalia
This content downloaded from 132.239.1.231 on Sun, 17 Apr 2016 04:37:58 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
R. Williams 457
. . . Sa Se tida getacniaS" (223:17); and so on.
Almost without exception these are clear and
accurate, even literal explanations of the Latin
terms. The explanation of praeteritum plus-
quampereectum, as a final example, reproduces
exactly and step by step the sense of each com?
ponent of the Latin terms: "forSgewiten mare,
)?onne fulfremed, forSan Se hit waes gefyrn
gedon" (124:7-9). Latin praeteritum thus be?
comes English fordgewiten, but no single term is
offered for plusquamperfectum, and the exact
and literal translation "mare j?onne fulfremed"
called for the added phrase of explanation "for?
San Se hit waes gefyrn gedon"; the method is
that of the teacher of beginners in the study of
language.10 These terms are not useful additions
to the vocabulary.
JEliric has demonstrated in too many instances
his ability to find or create simple and clear
terms in which to translate the Latin to leave any
doubt that in these too he might have done so;
the explanation must be sought elsewhere. His
primary aim was to explain the Latin which his
pupils needed to understand; it is as though he
were expressly teaching, not only the principles
of grammar, but also the Latin vocabulary nec?
essary to an understanding of the various topics
in turn. When it was necessary to use particular
terms repeatedly, he adopted either the Latin or
his substitute for it; for less frequently occurring
Latin terms, an English phrase of explanation
might well suffice. There is consistency in the
pattern of his terminology when it is considered
from this point of view.
His methods in translation and the formation
of words have been pointed out and discussed,
notably by Vocadlo, by Shook, by Marguerite-
Marie Dubois.11 Brief reference to certain of his
methods will suffice here.
9 Such an instance occurs in connection with gerundia:
"Das fif word synd . . . gecwedene gerundia of "5am worde
gero ic bere, foroan fte hi beratS manega andgytu" (135:16-
136:1).
10 In his work on Old English terminology, O. Vo?adlo
("Anglo-Saxon Terminology," Prague Studies in English,
rv [1933], 59-85, esp. pp. 75-76) takes full account of these
translations-by-phrase, noting in particular the translation
of gentilia, collectiva, etc. Tentative in his general con-
clusions regarding them, he states his opinion clearly that
it was not necessarily lack of skill on ^Elfric's part that gave
rise to some of his more involved, less succinct translations,
and implies in the course of his discussion the opinion that
it was not always iElfric's intention to find simple equiva?
lents for the Latin terms and the Greek terms adopted by
the Latin grammarians.
11 "Anglo-Saxon Terminology"; "A Technical Construction
in Old English," Mediaeval Studies, u (1940), 253-257, and
"^Elfric's Latin Grammar" (n. 2 above); jEtfric, Sermon-
naire, Docteur et Grammairien (Paris, 1943), pp. 259 ff.
 458 JElfric's Grammatical Terminology
iElfric resorts to direct borrowing of Latin and
Greek terms less frequently than might be ex?
pected. The evidence offered by the extant man?
uscripts of the Grammar of the incorporation in
English of the two Latin words casus and pars
(orationis) is discussed below (pp. 460 f.). From
Latin declinare are derived several hybrid forms,
words combining native and foreign elements (see
p. 461).
Two other methods of increasing the resources
of the vocabulary are more in evidence in the
Grammar. ^Elfric and his predecessors were skill-
ful in adapting native English words to new uses,
as has been amply illustrated: Eng. had, cynn,
tid, nama, word, etc, already close in meaning to
the Latin persona, genus, tempus, nomen,
verbum which they translate, become in the
Grammar strictly grammatical terms and perform
their function well.
Word composition, in this case the combining
of native words and word elements to translate
the foreign term, is probably the most frequently
employed device in the Grammar.12 Detailed in?
vestigation such as Shook's must determine the
full extent of ^Elfric's contribution here; he was
at times using words already existing in English,
changing their connotations by employing them
to express new ideas. But it is virtually certain
that he also created by this method many terms
for presenting the subject of grammar to English
students. Such examples as the following English
translations of Latin might be multiplied many
times: vocales, clypiendlice; semivocales, healf-
clypiende; infinitivus, ungeendigendlic; di-
rivativa, ofcumende or ofgangende or ofgangend-
lice, and so on.
Though less frequent than composition in this
strict sense of the word, the use of compounds
and of two or more connected words is evident
in such translations as stcejgejeg, syllaba; stcefge-
feg or twyfeald sweg, diptongus(-gon) ; wordes ge-
fera, adverbium; naman speliend, pronomen.
In the pages of the Grammar we see ^Elfric at
work, making use at times of terms that had
earlier acquired a specific grammatical sense, but
also developing his own methods for finding and
making words to suit his purpose. Whether his
terms were merely explanatory translations or
were meant to be (or became) independent units
in a system of English grammatical nomencla?
ture is beside the point here. These are new words
in English and reveal the conscious methods of
one of the outstanding contributors to the de?
velopment of the English language. In this proc?
ess of creating a vocabulary in which to express
the principles of grammar new to English, there
This content downloaded from 132.239.1.231 on Sun, 17 Apr 2016 04:37:58 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
is not complete consistency in .^Elfric's handling
of the different Latin forms; there are, however,
certain clearly evident tendencies.
Simple Latin words, as has been pointed out,
are in large measure translated into simple Eng?
lish words: nomen, nama; mutae, dumbe; fi?
gura, hiw; species, hiw; littera, stcef.lz
The Latin present participle is in general ren-
dered by the English present participle in -end:
consonans, samod swegend; deponens [verbum],
alecgend [word].
Latin forms incorporating the adjectival end?
ing -ivus14 are, in large numbers, translated by
the English present participle in -end with Eng?
lish -lie added: indicativus, gebicniendlic;16
nominativus, nemniendlic;lb passivum, firowi-
gendlic; adiectiva, togeicendlice; and so on.
(Lists at the end of this study show how fre?
quently this is the case.) Evidence in dictionaries
suggests that ^Elfric was here utilizing and de-
veloping an older tradition. Many forms in
-endlic appear, a few of which were used in the
Alfredian translations.16
The same method, with not so great consist?
ency, appears in translations of Latin words in?
corporating the adjectival suffixes -abilis and
-alis: indeclinabilis ungebigendlic and unde-
clinigendlic; vocalis clypiendlic, semivocalis
healfclypiendlic. generalia, pluralis, incor-
poralia are, on the other hand, gemcenelice,
menigfeald, unlichamlice, respectively; other vari?
ations in the general method might be cited.
The Latin past participle and Latin nouns in
-io, formed often on the stern of the past parti?
ciple, are rendered by English past participle
with noun suffix (-nys usually): coniunctio,
gedeodnys (but also feging); praepositio, fore-
setnys; etc. In this group occur, together with
some of his very useful and clear terms, also some
of the heaviest, often noted by critics of his vo?
cabulary: interiectio, betwuxaworpennys and
betwuxalecgednys; and so on.
The English suffixes -ung and -ing are also used
in the translation of Latin forms in -io, consti-
12 Such terms, of which leorningcniht for Lat. discipulus is
a classic example, together with the compounds, etc, men?
tioned in the next section, represent the additions to the
vocabulary known as "loan-translations." On this topic see
in particular Shook, "A Technical Construction in Old Eng?
lish,'* p. 253, and H. W. G. Gneuss, Lehnbildungen und Lehn-
bedeutung im Altenglischen (Berlin, 1955).
13 See p. 456 of this article.
14 See Shook, "A Technical Construction in Old English."
18 Note also the names of all other moods and cases.
16 John C. Pope has called to my attention, in this connec?
tion, unasecgendlic and other examples. See Bosworth-
Toller, Anglo-Saxon Dictionary, the un- combinations in par?
ticular.
 Edna
tuting a group of some of the more useful of
iElfric's terms (when judged by frequency of
occurrence, both numerically and in proportion
to their Latin counterparts): significatio, getac-
nung; terminatio, geendung; declinatio, de-
clinung, for example.
Though it is not complete, the high degree of
consistency in iElfric's practice in these matters
makes obvious to the student of his terms his
awareness of the exact nature of the Latin terms
with which he was working.
The single-word translations and the com-
pounds and translations into two words are in
many cases literal, but show in some instances a
greater freedom from adherence to the Latin.
English agen nama replaces Latin proprium no-
men in the Grammar; dcedlic (word) proved as
usable a term as activum (verbum) ; andwerd and
towerd for praesens and euturum were easily
available and unambiguous English words, as
were anfeald and menigfeald for singularis and
pluralis. Werlic and wiflic and other words
formed by the addition of English -lie to English
nouns and adjectives?gemcenelic (generalis),
tidlice (temporalia) , stowlice (localia), fader-
lice naman (patronomica) , for example?seem
to have the flexibility and naturalness of entirely
native terms, adapted though they are here to
new uses. The terms naman speliend for pro-
nomen and wordes gefera for adverbium are
among the freest of all iElfric's renderings of
Latin terms.
It is these simpler and freer terms, in particu?
lar, together with a few others drawn from the
translations already noted, that have occasioned
the statements regarding iElfric's outstanding
contribution to Old English scientific terminol?
ogy. They are, in varying degree, simple, clear,
accurate, satisfactory substitutes for the Latin
terms they translate; either original with him or
already available in the schools, they proved use?
ful to JElhic and became well known through the
dissemination of knowledge of his Grammar and
multiplied copies of it; they were in many in?
stances well-established words in the English vo?
cabulary. Why, then, did they not hold their
place in English and continue to be used as
knowledge of grammatical science increased and
became part of the English literary tradition?
The general reasons given by writers on the
subject are valid and perhaps suffice to explain
their failure to survive. "Had it not been for the
Conquest," the literary tradition in the modern
vernacular, started in England at a far earlier
time than in neighboring countries and firmly es?
tablished by the work of Alfred, ^Elfric, and
This content downloaded from 132.239.1.231 on Sun, 17 Apr 2016 04:37:58 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
R. Williams 459
others, would have continued.17 Instead, French
and Latin assumed the importance they long held
in England in all areas of scholarship and litera?
ture in general. This argument seems still more
cogent when we note the survival in the general
English vocabulary of many of the words con?
cerned, words which as particularized terms in
literature and grammatical science were lost:
OE tid, though narrowed in distribution, is in its
modern form tide a familiar part of the vocabu?
lary today; OE had, even more restricted in all its
senses, is Modern English -hood; OE hiw became
hue; OE nama, word, stcef, cynn, and many which
might be added, are all living parts of the pres-
ent-day English vocabulary, but are no longer
used in the grammatical senses that ^Elfric
attributed to them. The literary tradition was,
beyond argument, disturbed by the change in the
relative positions of Latin, French, and English
at the time of the Conquest and afterward; no?
where is this more noticeable than in the study
and writing of grammar and grammars in Eng?
land in later times. Though it is possible that no
other reasons need be sought to explain the loss
of ^Elfric's grammatical terminology in particu?
lar, it is worth noting that certain other factors
too may have operated to weaken its status in
the language.
In iElfric's vocabulary itself the predominance
of Latin in rendering specific terms, demon-
strated above in connection with names for
moods and cases, would perhaps strengthen the
hold of the Latin term in other instances.
Also certain flaws in iElfric's total pattern (see
Vocadlo, p. 75) probably lessened the usability
of some of his terms. Hiw, for example, represents
both species and eigura;18 gefieodnys, more fre?
quent as the synonym of coniugatio, also ren-
ders coniunctio; had is used for persona fre?
quently enough to be counted a substitute for
that Latin word, but in several places also ren-
ders genus 'gender.'19 Anfeald refers both to
numerus and to eigura?'singular number' and
'simple formation.'20 Declinung is to be under?
stood as 'declension' in most instances; it also
means 'conjugation* and even specifically 'case.'21
17 See R. M. Wilson, Introduction to Sawles Warde (n. 6
above).
18 It also translates Lat. forma at least once: "six hoc
satis de sex casualibus tormis beo bis Sus genoh be barn
syx gebigendlicum hiwum gesaed" (91:7-8).
l9Zupitza, 108:5-6; 112:10; 146:10-12 (umiratus sum ic
wundrode to werlicum hade, mirata sum to wiflicum hade,
miratum to naftrum cynne").
*?Zupitza, 108:16; 217:11; 105:21.
?Zupitza, 130:6, 136:14, 94:15. Note also 78:15, where
declinung renders hic casus,
 460 Mlfric's Grammatical Terminology
These are faults in the system of nomenclature
and might well have caused ambiguity, even mis?
understanding.
Factors operating in individual instances may
have militated against other terms and their sur-
vival. OE nama and word may be said to have
replaced in ^Elfric's work their respective Latin
synonyms nomen and verbum. Both were
words already fully established in the language,
a native part of it, and both served their purpose
well in the Grammar. But there was a difficulty
which may have operated against their con?
tinued use as specifically grammatical terms, a
conflict between homonyms meaning 'noun' and
'name' in one instance, 'verb' and 'word' in the
other.22 That this particular difficulty was not a
pronounced one is indicated in the long history
in Latin works of nomen in both its senses23 and
of verbum in two senses. The peculiar advantage
derived by the English language from its cosmo-
politan nature, even in this early period, shows
here in the fact that there was a natural and
easy choice of terms. The language had need,
however slight, of different words in these in?
stances, as subsequent developments have dem-
onstrated. Even in the Grammar there is evi?
dence of the confusion that might be caused when
one term represented both meanings. Nama is, in
most contexts, clearly to be understood in the
sense of 'noun'; but in several places it must be
translated 'name' and in a few instances is am?
biguous.24 It is altogether likely that the incon
venience resulting from the possible interference
of one with the other, nama meaning 'name' and
nama meaning 'noun,' would cause writers and
speakers to favor the easily available Latin
term which so clearly differentiated the two;
there was a place in the language for Latin no?
men, and later for its derivative noun.
The same was true of word in its two senses,
the general and familiar meaning 'word' and the
particularized meaning of 'verb' given it in the
Grammar. The difficulty arising was, if anything,
greater than that arising from the use of nama
in two senses. Both 'word' and 'verb' are integral
parts of the grammatical vocabulary, in frequent
use. The precision and accuracy of the subject
made desirable a differentiation of the two mean?
ings. In the Grammar, here as in the use of nama,
there is evidence of the possibility of confusion;
in general one may be fairly sure of the sense;
occasionally there is genuine ambiguity.25
Thus it seems possible that the conflict of
homonyms, to be understood here as one word
used in two conflicting senses, played at least a
minor part in the permanent introduction of
This content downloaded from 132.239.1.231 on Sun, 17 Apr 2016 04:37:58 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Latin words into the grammatical vocabulary of
English, noun in one instance, verb in the other.26
^lfric's grammatical terminology, as it has
been preserved in the manuscripts of the century
or two after the Grammar was written, offers
some evidence of the complete assimilation into
English of Latin words. English dcel is more fre?
quent in the Grammar than the Latin pars (part-
em) which it translates (see Table). But there is
clear evidence that the Latin word was, even
then, in process of being absorbed into the Eng?
lish vocabulary;27 it appears in its correct Latin
forms; it also appears with English inflectional
endings, as the following quotations show:
to sumum casum Jnses partes [i.e., pronounl (107:4)
anfeald getel byt5 on olsum parte (108:17)
We ne magon Jrisne part fullice trahtnian on englis-
cum gereorde . . . (240:16-17)
participium est pars orationis partem capiens
nominis partemque verbi. J?es part maeg beon ge-
haten daelnimend . . . (242:10-12)
>es part otSoe J>es dael (244:16-17)
The same is true of Latin casus. It occurs fre?
quently in the Grammar, in a significant number
of instances with English inflectional endings:28
22 The term homonym here must be understood to include
reference to one word with multiple meanings, as well as to
etymologically different words.
23 Latin offered a choice of two words in this instance,
nomen and vocabulxjm, the latter occurring frequently.
24 Nama 'noun' is frequent. In the following passages nama
is to be interpreted 'name': 5:4-6; 5:11-13; 25:19; 29:16; and
possibly in 8:13-9:2. Occasionally there is ambiguity: 5:15;
14:22; 33:1; 30:11; etc.
25 Cf., for example, the following passages: 96:3-5; 11:1-2;
125:9-12; 6:12-13; 5:11-13; 18:19; 135:18.
26 The general meanings of the other English words that
iElfric used in preference to their Lat. counterparts, notably
cynn, getet, tid, dal, had (Lat. genus, numerus, tempus,
pars, persona, respectively) did not interfere with the gram?
matical senses to any extent. A reader might hesitate at
times over tid and the occasionally introduced tima: Are both
used to mean 'tense* in a technical sense or are they used
to differentiate between 'time' and 'tense? The difficulty
is slight. Getel may have shared in the historical development
of its related verb tellan, which lost its meaning 'to count' in
the extension of the meaning 'to relate, to narrate.'
27 Both the OED (s.v. Part, sb.2.a, Pars, sb.) and Bosworth-
Toller note the occurrence in Old English of the forms cited
here, with reference in each dictionary to iEIfric's Grammar
only. The word appears in ByrhtferZ\s Handboc (c. 1050) in
the sense of 'portion.' Its next appearance recorded in the
OED is that in the 13th century as an adoption of French
part, pl. pars.
28 In Bosworth-Toller this word appears in the forms
casus, casu, casum, case, with reference to iElfric's Grammar;
it appears, in the form casus only, in Clark Hall (A Concise
Anglo-Saxon Dictionary, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1931).
The OED does not make note of its appearance in Old Eng?
lish, giving 1225 as the date of its first appearance in the
language (in the sense 'event,' 'occurrence') and 1393 as the
time of its first appearance in a grammatical sense.
 Edna R. Williams 461

tSa syx casus (10:2, 91:2, etc. In 91:2 the word I. Table of Grammatical Terminology:
Latin and English
appears as casas in MS. O.)29
mid Sam casu (22:10, etc. In MS. J the word here is
case).
on Sam forman case (60:3. See also 88:9.)
to aelcum cynne and to aelcum case (74:11. MS. U
reads casum.)
sine casu: butan case (119:9)
fram case to case (130:3-4)
fif ungelice casas (90:14. This appears as casen in
MS. W.)
nys tSaer na ma mislicra casa (90:2-3)
na ma casa (108:13; 108:14. Casu in MS. T and
casen in Worcester MS., in both instances.)
on eallum casum (36:14 and many times)
The word is clearly assuming a place as a natural-
ized Latin loanword, even sharing in the late Old
English shift into the weak forms of the Worces?
ter manuscript.
One other Latin word is firmly established in
iElfric's grammatical vocabulary, both as simple
infinitive and in derived verbal forms. The form
declinian, from Latin declinare, appears (for
example, 88:6). Declinung is used as the transla?
tion of declinatio (as well as of casus) and ap?
pears very frequently. Declinigendlic, undeclini-
gendlic (for in/declinabile) , declinod (100:6) give
added evidence of its status as an English word.30
^Elfric's Grammar is an important document
in the history of education in England and of the
English vocabulary. Its grammatical terminology
is only one part of a great store of English words,
most of them appearing with their Latin syno?
nyms, that it makes available to the student of
Old English. Whether one grants or contests the
importance of his immediate contribution to
English scientific nomenclature, in this instance
grammatical terminology, it remains true that
in the Grammar, a clear and simple presentation
of material that was not always uncomplicated,
the student of his writings may observe iElfric at
work and see clearly his precision and carefulness
as a scholar and teacher, his command of Latin
and of processes of word formation in English, his
skill in adapting native English words to new
concepts. The simple English words adapted suc-
cessfully in the Grammar to broad concepts of Classification of Verbs under signifi-
grammatical science might have survived in the catio

new senses had the historical development of
English as a literary medium not been disturbed;
the new formations in English successfully in-
terpreted for the benefit of English students even
the particular terms of Latin grammar, but it
seems less likely, on the whole, that these would
have maintained a permanent status in the lan?
guage, resisting the infiltration of available and
easily assimilated Latin terms.
activum (verbum): daedlic (word)
29 The initials referring to individual MSS are those used!
by Zupitza.
30 Clark Hall gives declinian, un/declinigendlic (with ref?
erence to iElfric), and declinung. Bosworth-Toller also gives
the word. The OED gives no citation of the verb used in the
grammatical sense before 1387. M. Braunschweiger (Flexion
des Verbwms in Alfrics Grammatik, Marburg diss., 1890)
notes ^Elfric's use of various forms of the verb.

This content downloaded from 132.239.1.231 on Sun, 17 Apr 2016 04:37:58 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
462 Mlfrids Grammatical Terminology
* Included in this group are the 3 subdivisions of the
praeteritum: praeteritum mPERFECTUM unfulfremed
fortSgewiten, praeteritum perfectum fortSgewiten ful-
fremed, praeteritum plusquamperfectum fortSgewiten
mare J?onne fulfremed, f orban Se hit waes gefyrn gedon.
II. Classes of Nouns
absoltjtivae ungebundene; accidentia gelimplice; ad
aliqtjid DiCTA da synd gecwedene to sumum pinge and
ne magon beon gecwedene buton 15am dinge; adiectiva
da de beod geihte to odrum namum and getacniad odde
herunge odde tal, also (later) togeicendlice; appellativa
gemmnelice; collectiva pa getacniad on anfealdum
getele mycele meniu; comparativa widmetenlice; de-
nominativtjm eat poet of naman cymd; oimintjtiva
waniendlice; dirivativa da de cumad of odrum
This content downloaded from 132.239.1.231 on Sun, 17 Apr 2016 04:37:58 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
namum; dividua 15a getacniad todal mid edlesendre
sprmce; facticia pa synd geworhte mfter gelicnysse
agenes sweges; generalia gemmnelice; gentilia da
getacniad, hwylcere peode he sig; incorporalia un-
lichamlice; interrogativa axiendlice; localia stow-
lice; numeralia pa geswuteliad getel; omonima, id
sunt univoca da getacniad ma pinga mid anre cly-
punge; ordinalia Pa geswuteliad endbyrdnysse;
patriae da geswuteliad pms mannes epel; patronomica
fmderlice naman; positivus se forma stmpe; posses-
siva geagnigendlice; primitiva pcet synd frumcennede
odde fyrmyste; propria nomina agene naman; sino-
nima, id sunt plurivoca da getacniad an ding mid
menigfealdre clypunge; specialia synderlice, pa de
beod todmlede fram pam gemmnelicum; superlativa
oferstigendlice; temporalia tidlice. Elsewhere, monop-
tota anre gebigednysse; diptota da habbad twegen
mislice casus; triptota, tetraptota, pentaptota,
exaptota da de habbad (respectively) pry, feower, fif,
syx casus.
Each of the 36 terms listed here appears from 1 to
3 times with Latin and English in collocation. In 7
instances in the list of 36, the Latin term alone is
repeated in subsequent entries. In one instance both
Latin and English appear; appellativa gemaenelice
(1), appellativa only (1), gemmnelice (3). In 3 in?
stances, after the initial appearance of Latin with
English, the English alone appears, in 1 case a signi?
ficant number of times: propria nomina agene naman
(3), agene naman alone (28 times); generalia
gemmnelice (1), gemmnelice (3); specialia synderlice
... (1), synderlice (2).
III. Classes or Adverbs
abnegativa widsacendlice; ad- or confirmativa
fmstnigende or sedende; comparativa widmetenlice;
congregativa godrigendlice; demonstrativa mteowi-
gendlice; deortativa forbeodendlice or mistihtendlice;
dimintjtiva wanigendlice; discretiva syndrigendlice;
dubitativa twynigendlice; infinitiva ungeendigend-
lice; intentiva geornfullice; interrogativa axigend-
lice; iurativa swerigendlice; localia stowlice; numer?
alia da de getacniad getel; optativa gewiscendlice;
ordinalia endebyrdlice; ortativa tihtendlice; quau-
tatis, da getacniad hwylcnysse, hu hit gedon sy;
quantitatis, da getacniad mycelnysse or lytelnesse;
relativa edlesendlice, pmt is, ongeancyrrendlice;
remissiva aslacigendlice; similitudinis da getacniad
gelicnysse; superlativa oferstigendlice; temporalia
da de tida getacniad.
Smith College
Northampton, Mass,