This article has multiple issues. Please help talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)or discuss these issues on the
The grammar of Old English is quite different from that of Modern English, predominantly by being much more inflected. As an old Germanic language, Old English has a morphological system that is similar to that of the Proto-Germanic reconstruction, retaining many of the inflections thought to have been common in Proto-Indo-European and also including constructions characteristic of the Germanic daughter languages such as the umlaut.
Among living languages, Old English morphology most closely resembles that of modern Icelandic, which is among the most conservative of the Germanic languages. To a lesser extent, it resembles modern German.
Nouns, pronouns, adjectives and determiners were fully inflected, with four grammatical cases (nominative, accusative, genitive, dative), and a vestigial instrumental, two grammatical numbers (singular and plural) and three grammatical genders (masculine, feminine, and neuter). First- and second-person personal pronouns also had dual forms for referring to groups of two people, in addition to the usual singular and plural forms. The instrumental case was somewhat rare and occurred only in the masculine and neuter singular. It was often replaced by the dative. Adjectives, pronouns and (sometimes) participles agreed with their corresponding nouns in case, number and gender. Finite verbs agreed with their subjects in person and number.
Nouns came in numerous declensions (with many parallels in Latin, Ancient Greek and Sanskrit). Verbs came in nine main conjugations (seven strong and three weak),[numbers don't agree] all with numerous subtypes, as well as a few additional smaller conjugations and a handful of irregular verbs. The main difference from other ancient Indo-European languages, such as Latin, is that verbs could be conjugated in only two tenses (compared to the six "tenses", really tense/aspect combinations, of Latin), and the absence of a synthetic passive voice, which still existed in Gothic.
Old English still had all three genders of Proto-Indo-European: masculine, feminine, and neuter.
Each noun belongs to one of the three genders, while adjectives and determiners take different forms depending on the gender of the noun they describe. The word for "the" or "that" is s? with a masculine noun, s?o with a feminine noun, and þæt with a neuter noun. Adjectives change endings: for instance, since hring ("ring") is masculine and cuppe ("cup") is feminine, a golden ring is gylden hring, while a golden cup is gyldenu cuppe.
Perhaps the strangest aspect for modern speakers is that the words for "he" (h?) and "she" (h?o) also mean "it." H? refers back to masculine nouns, h?o to feminine nouns, reserving the neuter pronoun hit for nouns that are grammatically neuter. That means even inanimate objects are frequently called "he" or "she." See the following sentence, with the masculine noun sn?w:
|Old English||M? l?caþ s? sn?w for þon þe h? d?þ þ? burg stille.|
|Literal gloss||Me pleases the snow because he does the city quiet.|
|Translation||I like the snow because it makes the city quiet.|
Compare this parallel sentence, where the neuter noun f?r is referred to with hit:
|Old English||M? l?caþ þæt f?r for þon þe hit d?þ þ? burg hl?de.|
|Translation||I like the fire because it makes the city loud.|
Only a few nouns referring to people have a grammatical gender that does not match their natural gender, as in the neuter word mæ?den ("girl"). In such cases, adjectives and determiners follow grammatical gender, but pronouns follow natural gender: Þæt mæ?den s?o þ?r stent, canst þ? h?e? ("The girl who [feminine] is standing there, do you know her?").
When two nouns have different genders, adjectives and determiners that refer to them together are inflected neuter: Hl?sa and sp?d b?oþ twieu ("Fame [masculine] and success [feminine] are double-edged [neuter plural]").
Nouns referring primarily to one sex, such as fæder ("father") and m?dor ("mother"), usually have the same gender as what they describe. Hence cyning ("king") is masculine and cw?n ("queen") is feminine, munuc ("monk") is masculine and nunne ("nun") is feminine, etc. The three major exceptions are w?f ("woman") and mæ?den ("girl"), which are neuter, and w?fmann ("woman"), which is masculine.
If a noun referred to both males and females, it was usually masculine. Hence fr?ond ("friend") and f?ond ("enemy") were masculine, along with many other examples such as lufiend ("lover"), bæcere ("baker"), h?lga ("saint"), s?op ("poet"), cuma ("guest"), m ("relative"), cristen ("Christian"), h?ðen ("pagan"), ?ngen?a ("loner"), d?nsittend ("mountaineer"), self?ta ("cannibal"), hl?apere ("dancer"), and sangere ("singer"). The main exceptions are the two words for "child," ?ild and bearn, which are both neuter.
However, nouns referring to things weren't so predictable. They could be any gender, almost regardless of their meaning. For example, seax ("knife") is neuter, gafol ("fork") is feminine, and cucler ("spoon") is masculine. Even nouns which mean the same thing often have different genders: beorg ("mountain") is masculine while d?n is feminine, steorra ("star") is masculine while tungol is neuter, ?agþ?rel ("window") is neuter while ?agduru is feminine, tr?o ("tree") is neuter while b?am is masculine, s?ieldweall ("shield wall") is masculine while s?ieldburg is feminine, etc.
That said, there are still ways to guess the gender even of nouns referring to things:
Old English has two nouns for many types of people: a general term which can refer to both males and females, like Modern English "waiter," and a separate term which refers only to females, like Modern English "waitress." Several different suffixes are used to specify females:
Sometimes the female equivalent is a totally separate word, as in l?r?ow ("teacher") ~ l?restre ("female teacher," as if the general term were *l?rere), le ("doctor") ~ l?cnestre ("female doctor," as if the general term were *l?cnere), and hl?ford ("master," literally "bread guardian") ~ hl?fdi?e ("mistress," literally "bread kneader").
Not all nouns take the same endings to inflect for number and case. Instead, each noun belongs to one of eight different classes, and each class has a different set of endings (sometimes several, depending on subtype).
In Proto-Germanic, one could tell which class a noun was by its ending in the nominative singular. But by the Old English period, most of these endings had disappeared or merged with other endings, so this was no longer possible.
A-stem nouns are by far the largest class, totaling 60% of all nouns. Some are masculine, some are neuter. They're called a-stems because in Proto-Germanic times, they ended in -az (if masculine) or -? (if neuter). However, in Old English, both these endings have vanished, and masculines only differ from neuters in the nominative/accusative plural.
Masculine a-stems are almost all inflected the same, as in hund ("dog") below. The neuter a-stems, however, are split in two: some of them end in -u in the nominative/accusative plural, while others have no ending there at all. This was caused by a sound change called high vowel apocope, which occurred in the prehistory of Old English. Short -i and -u disappeared at the ends of words after a heavy syllable--that is, a syllable containing a long vowel or long diphthong or ending in two or more consonants--and after two light syllables. Nouns which kept short -i/-u are called light, while nouns which lost them are called heavy.
So, the a-stems actually come in three separate declensions: one for masculine nouns, one for "heavy" neuter nouns, and one for "light" neuter nouns. They are exemplified by hund ("dog"), s?ip ("boat"), and h?s ("house"):
hund « dog »
s?ip « boat »
h?s « house »
The ?-stems are by far the largest class after a-stems. They include the vast majority of feminine nouns, and zero nouns of any other gender.
They're called ?-stems because they ended in -? in Proto-Germanic, but in Old English that ending has changed to -u or vanished. In the nominative singular, "light" ?-stems end in -u while "heavy" ?-stems have no ending, just like neuter a-stems in the nominative/accusative plural.
?iefu « gift »
r?d « ride »
|Accusative||?iefe||?iefa, -e||r?de||r?da, -e|
N-stems can be any gender, though there are only a few neuters: ?age ("eye"), ?are ("ear"), wange ("cheek"), and compounds ending in them, such as þunwange ("temple [of the head]"). N-stems are also called "weak nouns," because they are "weakly" inflected; i.e., most of their inflections have the same ending, -an. All other nouns are called "strong nouns."
Masculine and feminine n-stems are inflected the same except in the nominative singular, where masculines end in -a, feminines in -e:
m?na « moon »
sunne « sun »
The few neuter n-stems are declined the same as feminines, except they also have -e in the accusative singular:
?age « eye »
The i-stems are so called because they ended in -iz in Proto-Germanic, but in Old English that ending has either become -e (in light i-stems) or vanished (in heavy i-stems). These nouns come in every gender, though neuter i-stems are rare.
By the earliest Old English prose, this class has already largely merged with other classes: masculine and neuter i-stems have taken on the same declension as a-stems, and feminine i-stems have almost the same declension as ?-stems. So, they're really only called i-stems because of their history, not because of how they inflect.
Their only distinct inflection survives in the accusative singular of feminine heavy i-stems, which fluctuates between -e (the ?-stem ending) and no ending (the inherited ending):
t?d « time »
|Accusative||t?d, t?de||t?da, -e|
The exceptions are a few nouns that only come in the plural, namely l?ode ("people") and various names of nationalities, such as Engle ("the English") and Dene ("the Danes"). These nouns kept the nominative/accusative plural -e that they inherited through regular sound change.
Engle « the English »
The u-stems are all masculine or feminine. They're all declined the same way, regardless of gender:
sunu « son »
hand « hand »
Pure u-stem nouns aren't very many, but some are very common: duru ("door"), medu ("mead"), wudu ("wood"). Most historical u-stems have been transferred over to the a-stems. Some nouns follow the a-stem inflection overall, but have a few leftover u-stem forms in their inflection. These forms may exist alongside regular a-stem forms:
Root nouns are a small class of nouns which, in Proto-Germanic, had ended in a consonant without any intervening vowel.
These nouns undergo i-umlaut in the dative singular and the nominative/accusative plural. This is the source of nouns in Modern English which form their plural by changing a vowel, as in man ~ men, foot ~ feet, tooth ~ teeth, mouse ~ mice, goose ~ geese, and louse ~ lice. In Old English, there were many more such words, including b?c ("book"), c? ("cow"), g?t ("goat"), ?c ("oak"), hnutu ("nut"), burg ("city"), and sulh ("plow").
All root nouns are either masculine or feminine. Masculine root nouns are all heavy, but among feminines there is a contrast between light nouns and heavy nouns: light nouns end in -e where they have umlaut of the root vowel, while heavy nouns have no ending. The typical declension is this:
mann « person »
hnutu « nut »
g?s « goose »
Nd-stems are nouns formed with the suffix -end, which creates agent nouns from verbs: ?gan ("to own") -> ?gend ("owner"). All are masculine.
Single-syllable nd-stems are only possible when the stem ends in a vowel, which is rare; hence, only three are attested: fr?ond ("friend") fr?o?an ("to love"), f?ond ("enemy") f?o?an ("to hate"), and t?ond ("accuser") t?on ("to accuse"). They're declined just like masculine root nouns:
fr?ond « friend »
The multi-syllable nd-stems are declined very differently. Their stem vowel never undergoes i-umlaut, and in fact, they're inflected just like a-stems in the singular. Moreover, their plural forms are truly unique: the genitive plural always ends in -ra, which is normally used for adjectives, and the nominative/accusative plural varies between no ending, the adjective ending -e, and the a-stem ending -as. The adjectival endings are a relic of the nd-stems' origin as present participles.
ymbstandend « bystander »
|Nominative-Accusative||ymbstandend||ymbstandend, -e, -as|
The r-stems comprise only five nouns: fæder, m?dor, br?ðor, sweostor, and dohtor.
Br?ðor, m?dor, and dohtor are all inflected the same, with i-umlaut in the dative singular. Sweostor is inflected the same except without i-umlaut. Fæder is indeclinable in the singular like sweostor, but has taken its nominative/accusative plural from the a-stems. In addition, br?ðor and sweostor often take the prefix ?e- in the plural, while the rest never do.
|Nominative-Accusative||fæder||fæderas||m?dor||m?dru, -a||br?ðor||(?e)br?ðor, -ru, -ra||sweostor||(?e)sweostor, -ru, -ra||dohtor||dohtor, -ru, -ra|
Z-stems are the name given to four neuter nouns which inflect like light a-stems, except the plural endings begin with -r-. These nouns are ?ild ("child"), ("egg"), lamb ("lamb"), and ?ealf ("calf").
The above only mentions the most common ways each noun class is inflected. There are many variations even within classes, some of which include:
sh « shoe »
fearh « piglet »
s?eadu « shadow »
m?d « meadow »
|Accusative||s?eadwe||s?eadwa, -e||m?dwe||m?dwa, -e|
Adjectives take different endings depending on the case, gender, and number of the noun they describe. The adjective cwic ("alive"), for example, comes in eleven different forms: cwic, cwicu, cwicne, cwice, cwices, cwicre, cwicum, cwica, cwicra, cwican, and cwicena.
There are two separate sets of inflections, traditionally called the "strong declension" and the "weak declension." Together, both declensions contain many different inflections, though just ten or eleven unique forms typically cover all of them. The usual endings are exhibited by cwic ("alive") among many other adjectives:
In general, the weak declension is used after the words for "the/that" and "this," nouns in the genitive case, and possessive determiners such as "my," "your," and "his," while the strong declension is used the rest of the time. Hence "a live scorpion" is cwic þr?wend, while "the live scorpion" is s? cwica þr?wend. Further details:
Adjectives once came in many different classes just like nouns, but by Old English times, all adjectives have basically the same endings as cwic above. However, there are still a good number of differences and irregularities:
Old English never uses the equivalents of "more" and "most" to form comparative or superlative adjectives. Instead, the equivalents of "-er" and "-est" are used (-ra and -ost, for some words -est). "More beautiful" is fæ?erra, literally "beautiful-er," and "most beautiful" is fæ?rost, literally "beautiful-est." [a] Other examples include beorht ("bright") -> beorhtra ("brighter"), beorhtost ("brightest"); bearn?acen ("pregnant") -> bearn?acenra ("more pregnant"), bearn?acnost ("most pregnant"); and cnihtl ("boyish") -> cnihtl?cra ("more boyish"), cnihtl?cost ("most boyish").
A handful of words form the comparative and superlative with i-umlaut, namely eald ("old") -> ieldra, ieldest; ?eong ("young") -> ?ingra, ?in?est; strang ("strong") -> strengra, stren?est; lang ("long") -> lengra, len?est; s?ort ("short") -> s?yrtra, s?yrtest; and h?ah ("high") -> h?era, h?ehst.
A few more become totally different words: g?d ("good") -> betera, betst; yfel ("bad") -> wiersa, wierrest; mi?el ("much/a lot/big") -> m?ra ("more/bigger"), m?st ("most/biggest"); l?tel ("little") -> l?ssa ("less/smaller"), l?sest ("least/smallest").
|Old English||?s is l?ofre þæt w? hæbben healtne cyning þonne healt re.|
|Literal gloss||Us is dearer that we have crippled king than crippled kingdom.|
|Translation||We'd rather have a crippled king than a crippled kingdom.|
The word "the" was used very much like in Modern English. The main difference is that it was used somewhat more sparingly, due to numerous groups of nouns which usually went without it. These include:
Note that those words still occur with "the" when they refer to a specific iteration, as in "the future that I want," "the woods behind my house," or "the law they just passed."
Old English has two main demonstratives: s? ("that") and þ?s ("this"). S? is also the word for "the"; for its declension, see above.
There is also the distal demonstrative ?eon, the source of Modern English "yon." It means "that over there" and refers to things far away. ?eon is declined like a regular adjective, that is like cwic above.
Hw? ("who") and hwæt ("what") follow natural gender, not grammatical gender: as in Modern English, hw? is used with people, hwæt with things. However, that distinction only matters in the nominative and accusative cases, because in every other case they're identical:
Hwel? ("which" or "what kind of") is inflected like an adjective. Same with hwæðer, which also means "which" but is only used between two alternatives:
|Old English||Hwæðer w?nst þ? is m?re, þ? þ?n sweord þ? m?n?|
|Translation||Which one do you think is bigger, your sword or mine?|
The first- and second-person pronouns are the same for all genders. They also have special dual forms, which are only used for groups of two things, as in "we both" and "you two." The dual forms are common, but the ordinary plural forms can always be used instead when the meaning is clear.
|Case||1st person||2nd person||3rd person|
Many of the forms above bear a strong resemblance to the Modern English words they eventually became. For instance, in the genitive case, ?ower became "your", ?re became "our", and m?n became "my". However, in stressed positions, the plural third-person personal pronouns were all replaced with Old Norse forms during the Middle English period, yielding "they", "them" and "their". (The Old English dative pronoun is retained as unstressed 'em.)
Strong verbs use a Germanic form of conjugation known as ablaut. They form the past tense by changing their stem vowel. These verbs still exist in modern English, where they're often called "irregular verbs": for example sing, sang, sung is a strong verb, as are swim, swam, swum and break, broke, broken.
Strong verbs have been growing less and less common over the centuries, because their conjugations are more complicated than weak verbs and harder to predict. That means many verbs that were strong in Old English times are now weak. These include walk, sleep, help, laugh, step, sneeze, chew, wash, shine, climb, let, bake, lock, read, drag, bark, sweep, float, bow, row, fart, creep, flow, starve, weep, grip, leap, mow, slay, shove, carve, gnaw, braid, flee, fare, ban, wreak, quell, delve, abide, yield, spurn, thresh, swell, milk, suck, burst, load, melt, and swallow. Two of these even became weak during the Old English period: sleep (sl?pan) and read (r?dan).
Also, by Old English times, people had long since stopped coining new strong verbs. Even today, almost every strong verb in the modern language dates back to before Old English, even to before Proto-Germanic.
Most strong verbs are not considered irregular in Old English, because each belongs to one of seven major classes, each with its own pattern of stem changes. Learning these is often a challenge for students of the language, though English speakers may see connections between the old verb classes and their modern forms.
The classes had the following distinguishing features to their infinitive stems, each corresponding to particular stem changes within their strong-conjugating paradigms:
|Verb class||Stem vowel|
|Class||Root weight||Non-past||First past||Second past||Past participle|
|e (+lC), eo (+rC/ hC)||ea|
|7||heavy||various||? or ?o||same as infinitive|
The first past stem is used in the past, for the first- and third-person singular. The second past stem is used for second-person singular, and all persons in the plural (as well as the preterite subjunctive). Strong verbs also exhibit i-mutation of the stem in the second- and third-person singular in the present tense.
The third class went through so many sound changes that it was barely recognisable as a single class. The first was a process called 'breaking'. Before ⟨h⟩, and ⟨r⟩ + another consonant, ⟨æ⟩ turned into ⟨ea⟩, and ⟨e⟩ to ⟨eo⟩. Also, before ⟨l⟩ + another consonant, the same happened to ⟨æ⟩, but ⟨e⟩ remained unchanged (except before combination ⟨lh⟩).
A second sound change turned ⟨e⟩ to ⟨i⟩, ⟨æ⟩ to ⟨a⟩, and ⟨o⟩ to ⟨u⟩ before nasals.
Altogether, this split the third class into four sub-classes:
Regular strong verbs were all conjugated roughly the same, with the main differences being in the stem vowel. Thus stelan "to steal" represents the strong verb conjugation paradigm.
|Strong verb conjugation||Stelan "to steal"|
|t? stelanne||t? -anne|
Weak verbs form the past tense by adding endings with -d- in them (sometimes -t-) to the stem. In Modern English, these endings have merged as -ed, forming the past tense for most verbs, such as love, loved and look, looked.
Weak verbs already make up the vast majority of verbs in Old English. There are two major types: class I and class II. A class III also existed, but contained only four verbs.
By the Old English period, new class I weak verbs had stopped being produced, but so many had been coined in Proto-Germanic that they were still by far the most common kind of verb in Old English. These verbs are often recognizable because they feature i-umlaut of the word they were derived from, as in d?man ("to judge") from d?m ("judgment"), blan ("to bleach") from bl?c ("pale"), tellan ("to count") from tæl ("number"), and r?man ("to make room") from r?m ("room"). They are also the source of alterations in Modern English such as feed ~ food, fill ~ full, and breed ~ brood.
Class I weak verbs are not all conjugated the same. Their exact endings depend on a complex combination of factors, mostly involving the length of the stem vowel and which consonants the stem ends in, and sometimes also the history of the word. But the largest number are conjugated the same as d?lan ("to share"):
Many verbs ending in a double consonant are conjugated like temman ("to tame"), with the same endings and the same alternation between single and double consonants:
Class I weak verbs that end in -rian are conjugated like styrian ("to move"):
Class II weak verbs are easily recognized by the fact that nearly all of them end in -ian: hopian ("to hope"), wincian ("to wink"), wandrian ("to wander").
Unlike weak class I, they never cause i-umlaut, so their stems are usually identical to the stem of the word they were derived from: lufu ("love") -> lufian ("to love"), mynet ("coin") -> mynetian ("to coin"), hwelp ("puppy") -> hwelpian ("[of animals] to give birth").
Their conjugation is also much simpler than all other verb classes. Almost all weak class II verbs have precisely the same endings, completely unaffected by the makeup of the stem or the history of the word. A typical example is lufian ("to love"):
Though it was once much larger, containing many verbs which later became class II, only four verbs still belonged to this group by the period of written texts: habban ("to have"), libban ("to live") sean ("to say"), and hyan "to think." Each of these verbs is distinctly irregular, though they share some commonalities.
|Class 3 weak verbs||Suffixes||Habban "to have"||Libban "to live"||Sean "to say"||Hyan "to think"|
|t? -enne||t? hæbbenne||t? libbenne||t? seenne||t? hyenne|
The preterite-presents are verbs whose present tenses look like the past tenses of strong verbs. This resemblance isn't an accident: they descend from old Proto-Indo-European stative verbs, which normally developed into the past tense of the Germanic languages. The preterite-present verbs are an exception to this development, remaining as independent verbs. For example, the first-person present of witan ("to know") originally meant "I have seen", referring to the state of having seen, and by implication "I know". At some point well before Old English, these verbs were given their own past tenses by tacking on weak past endings, but without an intervening vowel. This lack of an intervening vowel then led to alternations in the consonants, and sometimes vowels as well.
There are only a dozen preterite-presents, but most are among the most frequent verbs in the language. They are magan ("can"), s?ulan ("should/must/to owe"), m?tan ("may"), þurfan ("to need"), witan ("to know"), cunnan ("to know/know how"), ?emunan ("to remember"), durran ("to dare"), ?gan ("to own"), dugan ("to be useful"), ?enugan ("to suffice"), and unnan ("to grant").
In spite of heavy irregularities, these can be grouped into four groups of similarly conjugated verbs:
|1||?gan "to own"||?gende||(?e)?gen||?h-||?g-||?ht-||?g-||?ht-||?ge||?gaþ|
|Durran "to dare"||durrende||(?e)dorren||dearr-||durr-||dorst-||dyrr-||dyrst-||dyrre||durraþ|
|M?tan "may, to be allowed to"||m?tende||(?e)m?ten||m?t-||m?st||m?t-||m?st-||m?te||m?taþ|
|Witan "to know (a fact)"||witende||(?e)witen||w?t-||wit-||wist-||wit-||wist-||wite||witaþ|
|2||Cunnan "to know (how to)"||cunnende||(?e)cunnen, (?e)c?þ||cann-||cunn-||c?þ-||cunn-||c?þ-||cunne||cunnaþ|
|3||Dugan "work with, avail"||dugende||(?e)dugen||deah-||dug-||doht-||dug-||doht-||?eduge||?edugaþ|
|?enugan "to enjoy, use"||?enugende||?enugen||?eneah-||?enug-||?enoht-||?enug-||?enoht-||?enuge||?enugaþ|
|Magan "can, be able to"||mæ?ende||(?e)mæ?en||mæg-||mag-||meaht-||mæg-||miht-||mæge||magaþ|
|4||S?ulan "should, must"||s?uldende||(?e)s?ulen||s?eal-||s?ul-||s?old-||s?yl-||s?yld-||s?yle||s?ulaþ|
|Þurfan "to need"||þurfende||(?e)þurfen||þearf-||þurf-||þorft-||þyrf-||þyrft-||þyrfe||þurfaþ|
Additionally, there is a further group of four verbs which are anomalous: "want", "do", "go" and "be". These four have their own conjugation schemes which differ significantly from all the other classes of verb. This is not especially unusual: "want", "do", "go", and "be" are the most commonly used verbs in the language, and are very important to the meaning of the sentences in which they are used. Idiosyncratic patterns of inflection are much more common with important items of vocabulary than with rarely used ones.
D?n 'to do' and g?n 'to go' are conjugated alike; willan 'to want' is similar outside of the present tense.
The verb 'to be' is actually composed of three different stems: one beginning with w-, one beginning with b-, and one beginning with s-. These are traditionally thought of as forming two separate words: wesan, comprising the forms beginning with w- and s-, and b?on, comprising the forms beginning with b-.
In the present tense, wesan and b?on carried a difference in meaning. Wesan was used in most circumstances, whereas b?on was used for the future and for certain kinds of general statements.
|Anomalous verbs||B?on, "to be"||Wesan, "to be"||D?n, "to do"||G?n, "to go"||Willan "to want"|
|t? b?onne||to wesanne||t? d?nne||t? g?nne||t? willenne|
Prepositions (like Modern English words by, for, and with) sometimes follow the word which they govern (especially pronouns), in which case they are called postpositions.
|æfter||after||Related to Frisian efter, Dutch achter ("behind"), Icelandic eftir. Ancestor of modern after.|
|?r||before||Related to German eher and Icelandic áður. Ancestor of modern ere.|
|æt||at||Related to Icelandic að ("to, towards"), and more distantly Latin ad and its descendants in the Romance languages. Ancestor of modern at.|
|andlang||along||Related to German entlang. Ancestor of modern along. Governs the genitive.|
|bæftan||behind||Ancestor of modern (nautical) abaft.|
|be, b?||by, about||Related to West Frisian by, Low German bi, Dutch bij, German bei. Ancestor of modern by.|
|beforan||before||Related to German bevor. Ancestor of modern before.|
|be?eondan||beyond||Ancestor of modern beyond|
|behindan||behind||Ancestor of modern behind. Related to German hinter.|
|binnan||in, within||Related to German and Dutch binnen|
|ben?oðan||beneath||Ancestor of modern beneath.|
|betw?onum||between||Ancestor of modern between|
|bufan||above||Ancestor of modern above through compound form onbufan|
|b?tan||without, except||Related to Dutch buiten. Ancestor of modern but.|
|?ac||also||Related to Frisian ek, Low German ook, Dutch ook, and German auch. Ancestor of modern (archaic) eke|
|for||for, because of, instead of||Ancestor of modern for, related to modern German für|
|fram||from, by||Ancestor of modern from|
|?eond||through||Ancestor of modern yonder through comparative form ?eondra. Related to Dutch ginds and (archaic) ginder|
|in||in||Ancestor of modern in, related to German and Latin in|
|innan||within||Related to modern German innen|
|int?||into||Ancestor of modern into|
|mid||with||Related to modern German mit|
|n?ah||near||Ancestor of modern nigh. German nah|
|of||from, out of||Ancestor of modern of and off|
|ofer||over||Ancestor of modern over|
|on||on, in||Ancestor of modern on|
|onb?tan||around||Ancestor of modern about|
|onan||opposite, against; towards; in reply to||Ancestor of modern again. Related to German entgegen|
|samod||together||Related to German samt|
|t?||to||Ancestor of modern to, related to German zu|
|t?e?can||in addition to, besides|
|t?foran||before||Related to Dutch tevoren, German zuvor|
|t?geagnes||towards, against||Related to Dutch tegen|
|t?weard||toward||Ancestor of modern toward|
|þurh||through||Ancestor of modern through. Related to German durch.|
|under||under||Ancestor of modern under, related to German unter|
|undern?oðan||underneath||Ancestor of modern underneath|
|uppon||upon, on||Not the ancestor of modern upon, which came from "up on".|
|?tan||without, outside of||Related to modern Swedish utan, German außen. The adverbial form ?t is the ancestor of modern out.|
|wiþ||against||Ancestor of modern with|
|wiþinnan||within||Ancestor of modern within|
|wiþ?tan||outside of||Ancestor of modern without|
|ymb||around||Related to modern German um and Latin ambi|
Old English syntax was similar in many ways to that of Modern English. However, there were some important differences. Some were simply consequences of the greater level of nominal and verbal inflection, and word order was generally freer. There are also differences in the default word order and in the construction of negation, questions, relative clauses and subordinate clauses.
There was some flexibility in word order of Old English since the heavily inflected nature of nouns, adjectives, and verbs often indicated the relationships between clause arguments. Scrambling of constituents was common. Even sometimes scrambling within a constituent occurred, as in Beowulf line 708 wr?þum on andan:
|hostile (Dative Singular)||on/with||malice (Dative Singular)|
|"with hostile malice"|
Something similar occurs in line 713 in sele þ?m h?an "in the high hall" (lit. "in hall the high").
The words ond westseaxna wiotan "and the West Saxon counselors" (lit. "and (the) counselors of (the) West Saxons") have been extraposed from (moved out of) the compound subject they belong in, in a way that would be impossible in modern English. In Old English, case inflection preserves the meaning: the verb beniman "to deprive" (appearing in this sentence in the form benam, "[he] deprived") needs a word in the genitive case to show what someone or something is deprived of, which in this sentence is r?ces "of kingdom" (nominative r?ce, "kingdom"), whereas wiotan "counselors" is in the nominative case and therefore serves a different role entirely (the genitive of it would be wiotana, "of counselors"); for this reason the interpretation that Cynewulf deprived Sigebryht of the West Saxon counselors was not possible for speakers of Old English. The Old English sentence still isn't in theory perfectly unambiguous, as it contains one more word in the genitive: westseaxna ("of West Saxons", nominative westseaxan "West Saxons"), and the form wiotan "counselors" may also represent the accusative case in addition to the nominative, thus for example creating the grammatical possibility of the interpretation that Cynewulf also took the West Saxons away from the counselors, but this would have been difficult to conceive.
Main clauses in Old English tend to have a verb-second (V2) order, where the finite verb is the second constituent in a sentence, regardless of what comes first. There are echoes of this in modern English: "Hardly did he arrive when ...", "Never can it be said that ...", "Over went the boat", "Ever onward marched the weary soldiers ...", "Then came a loud sound from the sky above". In Old English, however, it was much more extensive, like the word order in modern Germanic languages other than modern English. If the subject appears first, there is an SVO order, but it can also yield orders such as OVS and others. In questions VSO was common, see below.
In subordinate clauses, however, the word order is markedly different, with verb-final constructions the norm, again as in Dutch and German. Furthermore, in poetry, all the rules were frequently broken. In Beowulf, for example, main clauses frequently have verb-initial or verb-final order, and subordinate clauses often have verb-second order. (However, in clauses introduced by þ?, which can mean either "when" or "then", and where word order is crucial for telling the difference, the normal word order is nearly always followed.)
Those linguists who work within the Chomskyan transformational grammar paradigm often believe that it is more accurate to describe Old English (and other Germanic languages with the same word-order patterns like modern German) as having underlying subject-object-verb (SOV) ordering. According to this theory, all sentences are initially generated using this order, but in main clauses, the verb is moved back to the V2 position (technically, the verb undergoes V-to-T raising). That is said to explain the fact that Old English allows inversion of subject and verb as a general strategy for forming questions, while modern English uses this strategy almost only with auxiliary verbs and the main verb "to be", requiring do-support in other cases.
Most of the time the word order of Old English changed when asking a question, from SVO to VSO. While many purport that Old English had free word order, this is not quite true, as there were conventions for the positioning of subject, object and verb in clause.
Old English did not use forms equivalent to "who, when, where" in relative clauses (as in "The man whom I saw") or subordinate clauses ("When I got home, I went to sleep").
Instead, relative clauses used one of the following:
Subordinate clauses tended to use correlative conjunctions, e.g.
The word order usually distinguished the subordinate clause (with verb-final order) from the main clause (with verb-second word order).
Besides þ? ... þ? ..., other correlative conjunctions occurred, often in pairs of identical words, e.g.:
The phonology of Old English is necessarily somewhat speculative, since it is preserved purely as a written language. Nevertheless, there is a very large corpus of Old English, and the written language apparently indicates phonological alternations quite faithfully, so it is not difficult to draw certain conclusions about the nature of Old English phonology.