(i.)Verbs.—(1) In the oldest French texts the Latin pluperfect (with the sense of the perfect) occasionally occurs—avret(habuerat),roveret(rogāverat); it disappears before the 12th century. (2) Theuof the ending of the 1st pers. plur.musdrops in Old French, except in the perfect, where its presence (asǝ) is not yet satisfactorily explained—amoms(amāmus, influenced bysūmus), butamames(amāvimus). In Picard the atonic endingmesis extended to all tenses, givingamomes, &c. (3) In the present indicative, 2nd person plur., the endingezof the first conjugation (Latinatis) extends, even in the earliest documents, to all verbs—avez, recevez, oez(habetis,recipĭtis, auditis) likeamez(amatis); such forms asdites,faites(dicĭtis,facĭtis) being exceptional archaisms. This levelling of the conjugation does not appear at such an early time in the future (formed from the infinitive and fromhabētisreduced toētis); in the Roland both forms occur,portereiz(portare habētis) assonating onrei(roi, rēgem), and the youngerporterezoncitet(cité,cīvitātem), but about the end of the 13th century the older form-eiz,-oiz, is dropped, and-ezbecomes gradually the uniform ending for this 2nd person of the plural in the future tense. (4) In Eastern French the 1st plur., when preceded byi, hase, noto, before the nasal, while Western French hasu(oro), as in the present;posciomes(posseāmus) in the Jonah homily makes it probable that the latter is the older form—Picardaviemes, Burgundianaviens, Normanaviums(habēbāmus). (5) The subjunctive of the first conjugation has at first in the singular no finale, in accordance with the final vowel laws—plur,plurs,plurt(plōrem,plōrēs,plōret). The forms are gradually assimilated to those of the other conjugations, which, deriving from Latinam,as,at, havee,es,e(t); Modern Frenchpleure,pleures,pleure, likeperde,perdes,perde(perdam,perdās,perdat). (6) In Old French the present subjunctive and the 1st sing. pres. ind. generally show the influence of theioreof the Latiniam,eam,iō,eō—Old Frenchmuireormoerge(moriatformoriātur),tiegneortienge(teneat),muirormoerc(moriōformorior),tiengortienc(teneō). By degrees these forms are levelled under the other present forms—Modern Frenchmeureandmeursfollowingmeurt(moritformorītur),tienneandtiensfollowingtient(tenet). A few of the older forms remain—the vowel ofaie(habeam) andai(habeō) contrasting with that ofa(habet). (7) A levelling of which instances occur in the 11th century, but which is not yet complete, is that of the accented and unaccented stem-syllables of verbs. In Old French many verb-stems with shifting accent vary in accordance with phonetic laws—parler(parabolāre),amer(amāre) have in the present indicativeparol(parabolō),paroles(parabolās),parolet(parabolat),parlums(parabolāmus),parlez(parabolātis),parolent(parabolant);aim(amō),aimes(amās),aimet(amat),amums(amāmus),amez(amātis),aiment(amant). In the first case the unaccented, in the second the accented form has prevailed—Modern Frenchparle,parler;aime,aimer. In several verbs, astenir(tenēre), the distinction is retained—tiens,tiens,tient,tenons,tenez,tiennent. (8) In Old French, as stated above,iéinstead oféfromaoccurs after a palatal (which, if a consonant, often split intoiwith a dental); the diphthong thus appears in several forms of many verbs of the 1st conjugation—preier(=prei-ier,precāre),vengier(vindicāre),laissier(laxāre),aidier(adjūtāre). At the close of the Old French period, those verbs in which the stem ends in a dental replaceieby theeof other verbs—Old Frenchlaissier,aidier,laissiez(laxātis),aidiez(adjūtātis); Modern Frenchlaisser,aider,laissez,aidez, by analogy ofaimer,aimez. The older forms generally remain in Picard—laissier,aidier. (9) The addition ofeto the 1st sing. pres. ind. of all verbs of the first conjugation is rare before the 13th century, but is usual in the 15th; it is probably due to the analogy of the third person—Old Frenchchant(cantō),aim(amō); Modern Frenchchante,aime. (10) In the 13th centurysis occasionally added to the 1st pers. sing., except those ending ine(=ǝ) andai, and to the 2nd sing. of imperatives; at the close of the 16th century this becomes the rule, and extends to imperfects and conditionals inoieafter the loss of theire. It appears to be due to the influence of the 2nd pers. sing.—Old Frenchvend(vendōandvende),vendoie(vendēbam),parti(partīvī),ting(tenuī); Modern Frenchvends,vendais,partis,tins; anddonne(dōnā) in certain cases becomesdonnes. (11) The 1st and 2nd plur. of the pres. subj., which in Old French were generally similar to those of the indicative, gradually take anibefore them, which is the rule after the 16th century—Old Frenchperdons(perdāmus),perdez(perdātis); Modern Frenchperdions,perdiez, apparently by analogy of the imp. ind. (12) The loss in Late Old French of finals,t, &c., when preceding another consonant, caused many words to have in reality (though often concealed by orthography) double forms of inflection—one without termination, the other with. Thus in the 16th century the 2nd sing. pres. ind.dors(dormīs) and the 3rddort(dormit) were distinguished asdòrzanddòrtwhen before a vowel, asdòrsanddòrtat the end of a sentence or line of poetry, but ran together asdòrwhen followed by a consonant. Still later, the loss of the final consonant when not followed by a vowel further reduced the cases in which the forms were distinguished, so that the actual French conjugation is considerably simpler than is shown by the customary spellings, except when, in consequence of an immediately following vowel, the old terminations occasionally appear. Even here the antiquity is to a considerable extent artificial or delusive, some of the insertions being due to analogy, and the popular language often omitting the traditional consonant or inserting a different one. (13) The subsequent general loss ofe=ǝin unaccented final syllables has still further reduced the inflections, but not the distinctive forms—perd(perdit) andperde(perdat) being generallydistinguishedaspèrandpèrd, and before a vowel aspèrtandpèrd.(ii.)Substantives.—(1) In Early Old French (as in Provençal) there are two main declensions, the masculine and the feminine; with a few exceptions the formerdistinguishesnominative and accusative in both numbers, the latter in neither. The nom. and acc. sing, and acc. plur. mas. correspond to those of the Latin 2nd or 3rd declension, the nom. plur. to that of the 2nd declension. The sing, fem. corresponds to the nom. and acc. of the Latin 1st declension, or to the acc. of the 3rd; the plur. fem. to the acc. of the 1st declension, or to the nom. and acc. of the 3rd. Thus masc.tors(taurus),lere(latrō);tor(taurum),laron(latrōnem);tor(taurī),laron(latrōnīfor-nēs);tors(taurōs),larons(latrōnēs); but fem. onlyele(ālaandālam),flor(flōrem);eles(ālās),flors(flōrēsnom. and acc.). About the end of the 11th century feminines not ending ine=ǝtake, by analogy of the masculines,sin the nom. sing., thus distinguishing nom.florsfrom acc.flor. A century later, masculines withoutsin the nom. sing. take this consonant by analogy of the other masculines, givingleresas nom. similar totors. In Anglo-Norman the accusative forms very early begin to replace the nominative, and soon supersede them, the language following the tendency of contemporaneous English. In continental French the declension-system was preserved much longer, and did not break up till the 14th century, though acc. forms are occasionally substituted for nom. (rarely nom. for acc.) before that date. It must be noticed, however, that in the current language the reduction of the declension to one case (generally the accusative) per number appears much earlier than in the language of literature proper and poetry; Froissart, for instance,c.1400, in his poetical works is much more careful of the declension than in his Chronicles. In the 15th century the modern system of one case is fully established; the form kept is almost always the accusative (sing. withouts, plural withs), but in a few words, such asfils(fīlius),sœur(soror),pastre(pastor), and in proper names such asGeorges,Gilles, &c., often used as vocative (therefore with the form of nom.); the nom. survives in the sing. Occasionally both forms exist, in different senses—sire(senior) andseigneur(seniōrem),on(homō) andhomme(hominem). (2) Latin neuters are generally masculine in Old French, and inflected according to their analogy, asciels(caelusforcaelumnom.),ciel(caelumacc.),ciel(caelīforcaelanom.),ciels(caelōsforcaelaacc.); but in some cases the form of the Latin neuter is preserved, as incors, nowcorps, Lat.corpus;tens, nowtemps, Lat.tempus. Many neuters lose their singular form and treat the plural as a feminine singular, as in the related languages—merveille (mīrābilia),feuille(folia). But in a few words the neuter plural termination is used, as in Italian, in its primitive sense—carre(carra, which exists as well ascarrī),paire(Lat. paria); Modern Frenchchars,paires. (3) In Old French the inflectionalsoften causes phonetic changes in the stem; thus palatallbeforestakestafter it, and becomes dentall, which afterwards changes touor drops—fil(fīliumandfīlii) with palatall,filz(fīliusandfīliōs), afterwardsfiz, withz=ts(preserved in EnglishFitz), and thenfis, as now (speltfils). Many consonants befores, as thetoffiz, disappear, andlis vocalized—vif(vīvum),mal(malum), nominative sing. and acc. plur.vis,maus(earliermals). These forms of the plural are retained in the 16th century, though often etymologically spelt with the consonant of the singular, as invifs, pronouncedvis; but in Late Modern French many of them disappear,vifs, withfsounded as in the singular, being the plural ofvif,bals(formerlybaux) that ofbal. In many words, aschant(cantūs) andchamps(campōs) with silenttandp(Old Frenchchansin both cases),maux(Old Frenchmals, sing.mal),yeux(oculōs, Old Frenchœlz, sing.œil) the old change in the stem is kept. Sometimes, as incieux(caelōs) andciels, the old traditional and the modern analogical forms coexist, with different meanings. (4) The modern loss of finals(except when kept aszbefore a vowel) has seriously modified the French declension, the singularsfort(fòr) andforte(fòrt) being generally undistinguishable from their pluralsfortsandfortes. The subsequent loss ofǝin finals has not affected the relation between sing. and plur. forms; but with the frequent recoining of the plural forms on the singular present Modern French has very often no distinction between sing. and plur., except before a vowel. Such plurals asmauxhave always been distinct from their singularmal; in those whose singular ends insthere never was any distinction, Old Frenchlaz(now speltlacs) corresponding tolaqveus,laqveum,laqveīandlaqveōs.(iii.)Adjectives.—(1) The terminations of the cases and numbers of adjectives are the same as those of substantives, and are treated in the preceding paragraph. The feminine generally takes noeif the masc. has none, and if there is no distinction in Latin—fem. sing.fort(fortem),grant(grandem), fem. plur.forz(fortēs),granz(grandēs), like the acc. masc. Certain adjectives of this class, and among them all the adjectives formed with the Latin suffix-ensis, take regularly, even in the oldest French, the feminine endinge, inProvençala (courtois, fem.courtoise;commun, fem.commune). To these must not be addeddous(Mod. Fr.dolz,dous), fem.douce, which probably comes from a Low Latindulcius,dulcia. In the 11th century some other feminines, originally withoute, begin in Norman to take this termination—grande(in a feminine assonance in the Alexis), plur.grandes; but other dialects generally preserve the original form till the 14th century. In the 16th century theeis general in the feminine, and is now universal, except in a few expressions—grand’mère(with erroneous apostrophe,grandem,mātrem),lettres royaux(literās rēgālēs), and most adverbs from adjectives in-ant,-ent—couramment(currantefor-ente mente),sciemment(sciente mente). (2) Several adjectives have in Modern French replaced the masc. by the feminine—Old French masc.roit(rigidum), fem.roide(rigidam); Modern Frenchroidefor both genders. (3) In Old French several Latin simple comparatives are preserved—maiur(majōrem), nom.maire(major);graignur(grandiōrem), nom.graindre(grandior); only a few of these now survive—pire(pejor),meilleur(meliōrem), with their adverbial neuterspis(pejus),mieux(melius). The few simple superlatives found in Old French, asmerme(minimum),pesme(pessimus),proisme(proximum),haltisme(altissimum), this last one being clearly a literary word, are now extinct, and, when they existed, had hardly the meaning of a superlative. (4) The modern loss of many final consonants when not before vowels, and the subsequent loss of final ǝ, have greatly affected the distinction between the masc. and fem. of adjectives—fortandforteare still distinguished asfòrandfòrt, butamer(amārum) andamère(amāram), with their pluralsamersandamères, have run together.
(i.)Verbs.—(1) In the oldest French texts the Latin pluperfect (with the sense of the perfect) occasionally occurs—avret(habuerat),roveret(rogāverat); it disappears before the 12th century. (2) Theuof the ending of the 1st pers. plur.musdrops in Old French, except in the perfect, where its presence (asǝ) is not yet satisfactorily explained—amoms(amāmus, influenced bysūmus), butamames(amāvimus). In Picard the atonic endingmesis extended to all tenses, givingamomes, &c. (3) In the present indicative, 2nd person plur., the endingezof the first conjugation (Latinatis) extends, even in the earliest documents, to all verbs—avez, recevez, oez(habetis,recipĭtis, auditis) likeamez(amatis); such forms asdites,faites(dicĭtis,facĭtis) being exceptional archaisms. This levelling of the conjugation does not appear at such an early time in the future (formed from the infinitive and fromhabētisreduced toētis); in the Roland both forms occur,portereiz(portare habētis) assonating onrei(roi, rēgem), and the youngerporterezoncitet(cité,cīvitātem), but about the end of the 13th century the older form-eiz,-oiz, is dropped, and-ezbecomes gradually the uniform ending for this 2nd person of the plural in the future tense. (4) In Eastern French the 1st plur., when preceded byi, hase, noto, before the nasal, while Western French hasu(oro), as in the present;posciomes(posseāmus) in the Jonah homily makes it probable that the latter is the older form—Picardaviemes, Burgundianaviens, Normanaviums(habēbāmus). (5) The subjunctive of the first conjugation has at first in the singular no finale, in accordance with the final vowel laws—plur,plurs,plurt(plōrem,plōrēs,plōret). The forms are gradually assimilated to those of the other conjugations, which, deriving from Latinam,as,at, havee,es,e(t); Modern Frenchpleure,pleures,pleure, likeperde,perdes,perde(perdam,perdās,perdat). (6) In Old French the present subjunctive and the 1st sing. pres. ind. generally show the influence of theioreof the Latiniam,eam,iō,eō—Old Frenchmuireormoerge(moriatformoriātur),tiegneortienge(teneat),muirormoerc(moriōformorior),tiengortienc(teneō). By degrees these forms are levelled under the other present forms—Modern Frenchmeureandmeursfollowingmeurt(moritformorītur),tienneandtiensfollowingtient(tenet). A few of the older forms remain—the vowel ofaie(habeam) andai(habeō) contrasting with that ofa(habet). (7) A levelling of which instances occur in the 11th century, but which is not yet complete, is that of the accented and unaccented stem-syllables of verbs. In Old French many verb-stems with shifting accent vary in accordance with phonetic laws—parler(parabolāre),amer(amāre) have in the present indicativeparol(parabolō),paroles(parabolās),parolet(parabolat),parlums(parabolāmus),parlez(parabolātis),parolent(parabolant);aim(amō),aimes(amās),aimet(amat),amums(amāmus),amez(amātis),aiment(amant). In the first case the unaccented, in the second the accented form has prevailed—Modern Frenchparle,parler;aime,aimer. In several verbs, astenir(tenēre), the distinction is retained—tiens,tiens,tient,tenons,tenez,tiennent. (8) In Old French, as stated above,iéinstead oféfromaoccurs after a palatal (which, if a consonant, often split intoiwith a dental); the diphthong thus appears in several forms of many verbs of the 1st conjugation—preier(=prei-ier,precāre),vengier(vindicāre),laissier(laxāre),aidier(adjūtāre). At the close of the Old French period, those verbs in which the stem ends in a dental replaceieby theeof other verbs—Old Frenchlaissier,aidier,laissiez(laxātis),aidiez(adjūtātis); Modern Frenchlaisser,aider,laissez,aidez, by analogy ofaimer,aimez. The older forms generally remain in Picard—laissier,aidier. (9) The addition ofeto the 1st sing. pres. ind. of all verbs of the first conjugation is rare before the 13th century, but is usual in the 15th; it is probably due to the analogy of the third person—Old Frenchchant(cantō),aim(amō); Modern Frenchchante,aime. (10) In the 13th centurysis occasionally added to the 1st pers. sing., except those ending ine(=ǝ) andai, and to the 2nd sing. of imperatives; at the close of the 16th century this becomes the rule, and extends to imperfects and conditionals inoieafter the loss of theire. It appears to be due to the influence of the 2nd pers. sing.—Old Frenchvend(vendōandvende),vendoie(vendēbam),parti(partīvī),ting(tenuī); Modern Frenchvends,vendais,partis,tins; anddonne(dōnā) in certain cases becomesdonnes. (11) The 1st and 2nd plur. of the pres. subj., which in Old French were generally similar to those of the indicative, gradually take anibefore them, which is the rule after the 16th century—Old Frenchperdons(perdāmus),perdez(perdātis); Modern Frenchperdions,perdiez, apparently by analogy of the imp. ind. (12) The loss in Late Old French of finals,t, &c., when preceding another consonant, caused many words to have in reality (though often concealed by orthography) double forms of inflection—one without termination, the other with. Thus in the 16th century the 2nd sing. pres. ind.dors(dormīs) and the 3rddort(dormit) were distinguished asdòrzanddòrtwhen before a vowel, asdòrsanddòrtat the end of a sentence or line of poetry, but ran together asdòrwhen followed by a consonant. Still later, the loss of the final consonant when not followed by a vowel further reduced the cases in which the forms were distinguished, so that the actual French conjugation is considerably simpler than is shown by the customary spellings, except when, in consequence of an immediately following vowel, the old terminations occasionally appear. Even here the antiquity is to a considerable extent artificial or delusive, some of the insertions being due to analogy, and the popular language often omitting the traditional consonant or inserting a different one. (13) The subsequent general loss ofe=ǝin unaccented final syllables has still further reduced the inflections, but not the distinctive forms—perd(perdit) andperde(perdat) being generallydistinguishedaspèrandpèrd, and before a vowel aspèrtandpèrd.
(ii.)Substantives.—(1) In Early Old French (as in Provençal) there are two main declensions, the masculine and the feminine; with a few exceptions the formerdistinguishesnominative and accusative in both numbers, the latter in neither. The nom. and acc. sing, and acc. plur. mas. correspond to those of the Latin 2nd or 3rd declension, the nom. plur. to that of the 2nd declension. The sing, fem. corresponds to the nom. and acc. of the Latin 1st declension, or to the acc. of the 3rd; the plur. fem. to the acc. of the 1st declension, or to the nom. and acc. of the 3rd. Thus masc.tors(taurus),lere(latrō);tor(taurum),laron(latrōnem);tor(taurī),laron(latrōnīfor-nēs);tors(taurōs),larons(latrōnēs); but fem. onlyele(ālaandālam),flor(flōrem);eles(ālās),flors(flōrēsnom. and acc.). About the end of the 11th century feminines not ending ine=ǝtake, by analogy of the masculines,sin the nom. sing., thus distinguishing nom.florsfrom acc.flor. A century later, masculines withoutsin the nom. sing. take this consonant by analogy of the other masculines, givingleresas nom. similar totors. In Anglo-Norman the accusative forms very early begin to replace the nominative, and soon supersede them, the language following the tendency of contemporaneous English. In continental French the declension-system was preserved much longer, and did not break up till the 14th century, though acc. forms are occasionally substituted for nom. (rarely nom. for acc.) before that date. It must be noticed, however, that in the current language the reduction of the declension to one case (generally the accusative) per number appears much earlier than in the language of literature proper and poetry; Froissart, for instance,c.1400, in his poetical works is much more careful of the declension than in his Chronicles. In the 15th century the modern system of one case is fully established; the form kept is almost always the accusative (sing. withouts, plural withs), but in a few words, such asfils(fīlius),sœur(soror),pastre(pastor), and in proper names such asGeorges,Gilles, &c., often used as vocative (therefore with the form of nom.); the nom. survives in the sing. Occasionally both forms exist, in different senses—sire(senior) andseigneur(seniōrem),on(homō) andhomme(hominem). (2) Latin neuters are generally masculine in Old French, and inflected according to their analogy, asciels(caelusforcaelumnom.),ciel(caelumacc.),ciel(caelīforcaelanom.),ciels(caelōsforcaelaacc.); but in some cases the form of the Latin neuter is preserved, as incors, nowcorps, Lat.corpus;tens, nowtemps, Lat.tempus. Many neuters lose their singular form and treat the plural as a feminine singular, as in the related languages—merveille (mīrābilia),feuille(folia). But in a few words the neuter plural termination is used, as in Italian, in its primitive sense—carre(carra, which exists as well ascarrī),paire(Lat. paria); Modern Frenchchars,paires. (3) In Old French the inflectionalsoften causes phonetic changes in the stem; thus palatallbeforestakestafter it, and becomes dentall, which afterwards changes touor drops—fil(fīliumandfīlii) with palatall,filz(fīliusandfīliōs), afterwardsfiz, withz=ts(preserved in EnglishFitz), and thenfis, as now (speltfils). Many consonants befores, as thetoffiz, disappear, andlis vocalized—vif(vīvum),mal(malum), nominative sing. and acc. plur.vis,maus(earliermals). These forms of the plural are retained in the 16th century, though often etymologically spelt with the consonant of the singular, as invifs, pronouncedvis; but in Late Modern French many of them disappear,vifs, withfsounded as in the singular, being the plural ofvif,bals(formerlybaux) that ofbal. In many words, aschant(cantūs) andchamps(campōs) with silenttandp(Old Frenchchansin both cases),maux(Old Frenchmals, sing.mal),yeux(oculōs, Old Frenchœlz, sing.œil) the old change in the stem is kept. Sometimes, as incieux(caelōs) andciels, the old traditional and the modern analogical forms coexist, with different meanings. (4) The modern loss of finals(except when kept aszbefore a vowel) has seriously modified the French declension, the singularsfort(fòr) andforte(fòrt) being generally undistinguishable from their pluralsfortsandfortes. The subsequent loss ofǝin finals has not affected the relation between sing. and plur. forms; but with the frequent recoining of the plural forms on the singular present Modern French has very often no distinction between sing. and plur., except before a vowel. Such plurals asmauxhave always been distinct from their singularmal; in those whose singular ends insthere never was any distinction, Old Frenchlaz(now speltlacs) corresponding tolaqveus,laqveum,laqveīandlaqveōs.
(iii.)Adjectives.—(1) The terminations of the cases and numbers of adjectives are the same as those of substantives, and are treated in the preceding paragraph. The feminine generally takes noeif the masc. has none, and if there is no distinction in Latin—fem. sing.fort(fortem),grant(grandem), fem. plur.forz(fortēs),granz(grandēs), like the acc. masc. Certain adjectives of this class, and among them all the adjectives formed with the Latin suffix-ensis, take regularly, even in the oldest French, the feminine endinge, inProvençala (courtois, fem.courtoise;commun, fem.commune). To these must not be addeddous(Mod. Fr.dolz,dous), fem.douce, which probably comes from a Low Latindulcius,dulcia. In the 11th century some other feminines, originally withoute, begin in Norman to take this termination—grande(in a feminine assonance in the Alexis), plur.grandes; but other dialects generally preserve the original form till the 14th century. In the 16th century theeis general in the feminine, and is now universal, except in a few expressions—grand’mère(with erroneous apostrophe,grandem,mātrem),lettres royaux(literās rēgālēs), and most adverbs from adjectives in-ant,-ent—couramment(currantefor-ente mente),sciemment(sciente mente). (2) Several adjectives have in Modern French replaced the masc. by the feminine—Old French masc.roit(rigidum), fem.roide(rigidam); Modern Frenchroidefor both genders. (3) In Old French several Latin simple comparatives are preserved—maiur(majōrem), nom.maire(major);graignur(grandiōrem), nom.graindre(grandior); only a few of these now survive—pire(pejor),meilleur(meliōrem), with their adverbial neuterspis(pejus),mieux(melius). The few simple superlatives found in Old French, asmerme(minimum),pesme(pessimus),proisme(proximum),haltisme(altissimum), this last one being clearly a literary word, are now extinct, and, when they existed, had hardly the meaning of a superlative. (4) The modern loss of many final consonants when not before vowels, and the subsequent loss of final ǝ, have greatly affected the distinction between the masc. and fem. of adjectives—fortandforteare still distinguished asfòrandfòrt, butamer(amārum) andamère(amāram), with their pluralsamersandamères, have run together.
(f)Derivation.—Most of the Old French prefixes and suffixes are descendants of Latin ones, but a few are Teutonic (ard = hard), and some are later borrowings from Latin (arie, afterwardsaire, fromārium). In Modern French many old affixes are hardly used for forming new words; the inheritedier(ārium) is yielding to the borrowedaire, the popularcontre(contrā) to the learned anti (Greek), and the nativeée(ātam) to the Italianade. The suffixes of many words have been assimilated to more common ones; thussengler(singulārem) is nowsanglier.
(g)Syntax.—Old French syntax, gradually changing from the 10th to the 14th century, has a character of its own, distinct from that of Modern French; though when compared with Latin syntax it appears decidedly modern.
(1) The general formal distinction between nominative and accusative is the chief feature which causes French syntax to resemble that of Latin and differ from that of the modern language; and as the distinction had to be replaced by a comparatively fixed word-order, a serious loss of freedom ensued. If the forms are modernized while the word-order is kept, the Old Frenchl’archevesque ne puet flechir li reis Henris(Latinarchiepiscopum nōn potest flectere rex Henricus) assumes a totally different meaning—l’archevêque ne peut fléchir le roi Henri. (2) The replacement of the nominative form of nouns by the accusative is itself a syntactical feature, though treated above under inflection. A more modern instance is exhibited by the personal pronouns, which, when not immediately the subject of a verb, occasionally take even in Old French, and regularly in the 16th century, the accusative form; the Old Frenchje qui sui(ego qvī sum) becomesmoi qui suis, though the older usage survives in the legal phraseje soussigné.... (3) The definite article is now required in many cases where Old French dispenses with it—jo cunquis Engleterre, suffrir mort(as Modern Frenchavoir faim); Modern Frenchl’Angleterre, la mort. (4) Old French had distinct pronouns for “this” and “that”—cest(ecce istum) andcel(ecce illium), with their cases. Both exist in the 16th century, but the present language employscetas adjective,celas substantive, in both meanings, marking the old distinction by affixing the adverbsciandlà—cet homme-ci, cet homme-là;celui-ci, celui-là. (5) In Old French, the verbal terminations being clear, the subject pronoun is usually not expressed—si ferai(sīc facere habeō),est durs(dūrus est),que feras(quid facere habēs)?In the 16th century the use of the pronoun is general, and is now universal, except in one or two impersonal phrases, asn’importe, peu s’en faut. (6) The present participle in Old French in its uninflected form coincided with the gerund (amant = amantemandamandō), and in the modern language has been replaced by the latter, except where it has become adjectival; the Old Frenchcomplaingnans leur dolours(Latinplaṇgentēs) is nowplaignant leurs douleurs(Latinplaṇgendō). The now extinct use ofestrewith the participle present for the simple verb is not uncommon in Old French down to the 16th century—sont disanz(sunt dīcentēs) = Modern Frenchils disent(as Englishthey are saying). (7) In present Modern French the preterite participle when used withavoirto form verb-tenses is invariable, except when the object precedes (an exception now vanishing in the conversational language)—j’ai écrit les lettres, les lettres que j’ai écrites. In Old French down to the 16th century, formal concord was more common (though by no means necessary), partly because the object preceded the participle much oftener than now—ad la culur muée(habet colōrem mūtātam),ad faite sa venjance, les turs ad rendues. (8) The sentences just quoted will serve as specimens of the freedom of Old French word-order—the object standing either before verb and participle, between them, or after both. The predicative adjective can stand before or after the verb—halt sunt li pui(Latinpodia),e tenebrus e grant. (9) In Old Frenchne(Early Old Frenchnen, Latinnōn) suffices for the negation withoutpas(passum),point(puṇctum) ormie(mīcam, now obsolete), though these are frequently used—jo ne sui lis sire(je ne suis pas ton seigneur),autre feme nen ara(il n’aura pas autre femme). In principal sentences Modern French usesneby itself only in certain cases—je ne puis marcher, je n’ai rien. The slight weight as a negation usually attached to ne has caused several originally positive words to take a negative meaning—rien(Latinrem) now meaning “nothing” as well as “something.” (10) In Old French interrogation was expressed with substantives as with pronouns by putting them after the verb—est Saul entre les prophètes?In Modern French the pronominal inversion (the substantive being prefixed) or a verbal periphrasis must be used—Saul est-il? or est-ce que Saul est?(h)Summary.—Looking at the internal history of the French language as a whole, there is no such strongly marked division as exists between Old and Middle English, or even between Middle and Modern English. Some of the most important changes are quite modern, and are concealed by the traditional orthography; but, even making allowance for this, the difference between French of the 11th century and that of the 20th is less than that between English of the same dates. The most important change in itself and for its effects is probably that which is usually made the division between Old and Modern French, the loss of the formal distinction between nominative and accusative; next to this are perhaps the gradual loss of many final consonants, the still recent loss of the vowel of unaccented final syllables, and the extension of analogy in conjugation and declension. In its construction Old French is distinguished by a freedom strongly contrasting with the strictness of the modern language, and bears, as might be expected, a much stronger resemblance than the latter to the other Romanic dialects. In many features, indeed, both positive and negative, Modern French forms a class by itself, distinct in character from the other modern representatives of Latin.IV.Bibliography.—The few works which treat of French philology as a whole are now in many respects antiquated, and the important discoveries of recent years, which have revolutionized our ideas of Old French phonology and dialectology, are scattered in various editions, periodicals, and separate treatises. For many things Diez’sGrammatik der romanischen Sprachen(4th edition—a reprint of the 3rd—Bonn, 1876-1877; French translation, Paris, 1872-1875) is still very valuable; Burguy’sGrammaire de la Langue d’Oïl(2nd edition—a reprint of the 1st—Berlin, 1869-1870) is useful only as a collection of examples. Schwan’sGrammatik des Altfranzösischen, as revised by Behrens in the 3rd edition (Leipzig, 1898; French translation, Leipzig and Paris, 1900), is by far the best old French grammar we possess. For the history of French language in general see F. Brunot,Histoire de la langue française des origines à 1900(Paris, 1905, 1906, &c.). For the history of spelling, A. F. Didot,Observations sur l’orthographe ou ortografie française suivies d’une histoire de la réforme orthographique depuis le XVesiècle jusqu’à nos jours(2nd ed., Paris, 1868). For the history of French sounds: Ch. Thurot,De la prononciation française depuis le commencement du XVIesiècle, d’après les témoignages des grammairiens(2 vols., Paris, 1881-1883). For the history of syntax, apart from various grammatical works of a general character, much is to be gathered from Ad. Tobler’sVermischte Beiträge zur französischen Grammatik(3 parts, 1886, 1894, 1899, parts i. and ii. in second editions, 1902, 1906). G. Paris’s edition ofLa Vie de S. Alexis(Paris, 1872) was the pioneer of, and retains an important place among, the recent original works on Old French. Darmesteter and Hatzfeld’sLe Seizième Siècle(Paris, 1878) contains the first good account of Early Modern French. Littré’sDictionnaire de la langue française(4 vols., Paris, 1863-1869, and a Supplement, 1877); and Hatzfeld, Darmesteter and Thomas,Dict. général de la langue française, more condensed (2 vols., Paris, 1888-1900), contain much useful and often original information about the etymology and history of French words. For the etymology of many French (and also Provençal) words, reference must be made to Ant. Thomas’sEssais de philologie française(Paris, 1897) andNouveaux essais de philologie française(Paris, 1904). But there is no French dictionary properly historical. ADictionnaire historique de la langue françaisewas begun by the Académie française (4 vols., 1859-1894), but it was, from the first, antiquated. It contains only one letter (A) and has not been continued. The leading periodicals now in existence are theRomania(Paris), founded (in 1872) and edited by P. Meyer and G. Paris (with Ant. Thomas since the death of G. Paris in 1903), and theZeitschrift für romanische Philologie(Halle), founded (in 1877) and edited by G. Gröber. To these reference should be made for information as to the very numerous articles, treatises and editions by the many and often distinguished scholars who, especially in France and Germany, now prosecute the scientific study of the language. It may be well to mention that, Old French phonology especially being complicated, and as yet incompletely investigated, these publications, the views in which are of various degrees of value, require not mere acquiescent reading, but critical study. The dialects of France in their present state (patois) are now being scientifically investigated. The special works on the subject (dictionaries, grammars, &c.) cannot be fully indicated here; we must limit ourselves to the mention of Behren’sBibliographie des patois gallo-romans(2nd ed., revised Berlin, 1893), and of Gilliéron and Edmont’sAtlas linguistique de la France(1902 et seq.), a huge publication planned to contain about 1800 maps.
(1) The general formal distinction between nominative and accusative is the chief feature which causes French syntax to resemble that of Latin and differ from that of the modern language; and as the distinction had to be replaced by a comparatively fixed word-order, a serious loss of freedom ensued. If the forms are modernized while the word-order is kept, the Old Frenchl’archevesque ne puet flechir li reis Henris(Latinarchiepiscopum nōn potest flectere rex Henricus) assumes a totally different meaning—l’archevêque ne peut fléchir le roi Henri. (2) The replacement of the nominative form of nouns by the accusative is itself a syntactical feature, though treated above under inflection. A more modern instance is exhibited by the personal pronouns, which, when not immediately the subject of a verb, occasionally take even in Old French, and regularly in the 16th century, the accusative form; the Old Frenchje qui sui(ego qvī sum) becomesmoi qui suis, though the older usage survives in the legal phraseje soussigné.... (3) The definite article is now required in many cases where Old French dispenses with it—jo cunquis Engleterre, suffrir mort(as Modern Frenchavoir faim); Modern Frenchl’Angleterre, la mort. (4) Old French had distinct pronouns for “this” and “that”—cest(ecce istum) andcel(ecce illium), with their cases. Both exist in the 16th century, but the present language employscetas adjective,celas substantive, in both meanings, marking the old distinction by affixing the adverbsciandlà—cet homme-ci, cet homme-là;celui-ci, celui-là. (5) In Old French, the verbal terminations being clear, the subject pronoun is usually not expressed—si ferai(sīc facere habeō),est durs(dūrus est),que feras(quid facere habēs)?In the 16th century the use of the pronoun is general, and is now universal, except in one or two impersonal phrases, asn’importe, peu s’en faut. (6) The present participle in Old French in its uninflected form coincided with the gerund (amant = amantemandamandō), and in the modern language has been replaced by the latter, except where it has become adjectival; the Old Frenchcomplaingnans leur dolours(Latinplaṇgentēs) is nowplaignant leurs douleurs(Latinplaṇgendō). The now extinct use ofestrewith the participle present for the simple verb is not uncommon in Old French down to the 16th century—sont disanz(sunt dīcentēs) = Modern Frenchils disent(as Englishthey are saying). (7) In present Modern French the preterite participle when used withavoirto form verb-tenses is invariable, except when the object precedes (an exception now vanishing in the conversational language)—j’ai écrit les lettres, les lettres que j’ai écrites. In Old French down to the 16th century, formal concord was more common (though by no means necessary), partly because the object preceded the participle much oftener than now—ad la culur muée(habet colōrem mūtātam),ad faite sa venjance, les turs ad rendues. (8) The sentences just quoted will serve as specimens of the freedom of Old French word-order—the object standing either before verb and participle, between them, or after both. The predicative adjective can stand before or after the verb—halt sunt li pui(Latinpodia),e tenebrus e grant. (9) In Old Frenchne(Early Old Frenchnen, Latinnōn) suffices for the negation withoutpas(passum),point(puṇctum) ormie(mīcam, now obsolete), though these are frequently used—jo ne sui lis sire(je ne suis pas ton seigneur),autre feme nen ara(il n’aura pas autre femme). In principal sentences Modern French usesneby itself only in certain cases—je ne puis marcher, je n’ai rien. The slight weight as a negation usually attached to ne has caused several originally positive words to take a negative meaning—rien(Latinrem) now meaning “nothing” as well as “something.” (10) In Old French interrogation was expressed with substantives as with pronouns by putting them after the verb—est Saul entre les prophètes?In Modern French the pronominal inversion (the substantive being prefixed) or a verbal periphrasis must be used—Saul est-il? or est-ce que Saul est?
(h)Summary.—Looking at the internal history of the French language as a whole, there is no such strongly marked division as exists between Old and Middle English, or even between Middle and Modern English. Some of the most important changes are quite modern, and are concealed by the traditional orthography; but, even making allowance for this, the difference between French of the 11th century and that of the 20th is less than that between English of the same dates. The most important change in itself and for its effects is probably that which is usually made the division between Old and Modern French, the loss of the formal distinction between nominative and accusative; next to this are perhaps the gradual loss of many final consonants, the still recent loss of the vowel of unaccented final syllables, and the extension of analogy in conjugation and declension. In its construction Old French is distinguished by a freedom strongly contrasting with the strictness of the modern language, and bears, as might be expected, a much stronger resemblance than the latter to the other Romanic dialects. In many features, indeed, both positive and negative, Modern French forms a class by itself, distinct in character from the other modern representatives of Latin.
IV.Bibliography.—The few works which treat of French philology as a whole are now in many respects antiquated, and the important discoveries of recent years, which have revolutionized our ideas of Old French phonology and dialectology, are scattered in various editions, periodicals, and separate treatises. For many things Diez’sGrammatik der romanischen Sprachen(4th edition—a reprint of the 3rd—Bonn, 1876-1877; French translation, Paris, 1872-1875) is still very valuable; Burguy’sGrammaire de la Langue d’Oïl(2nd edition—a reprint of the 1st—Berlin, 1869-1870) is useful only as a collection of examples. Schwan’sGrammatik des Altfranzösischen, as revised by Behrens in the 3rd edition (Leipzig, 1898; French translation, Leipzig and Paris, 1900), is by far the best old French grammar we possess. For the history of French language in general see F. Brunot,Histoire de la langue française des origines à 1900(Paris, 1905, 1906, &c.). For the history of spelling, A. F. Didot,Observations sur l’orthographe ou ortografie française suivies d’une histoire de la réforme orthographique depuis le XVesiècle jusqu’à nos jours(2nd ed., Paris, 1868). For the history of French sounds: Ch. Thurot,De la prononciation française depuis le commencement du XVIesiècle, d’après les témoignages des grammairiens(2 vols., Paris, 1881-1883). For the history of syntax, apart from various grammatical works of a general character, much is to be gathered from Ad. Tobler’sVermischte Beiträge zur französischen Grammatik(3 parts, 1886, 1894, 1899, parts i. and ii. in second editions, 1902, 1906). G. Paris’s edition ofLa Vie de S. Alexis(Paris, 1872) was the pioneer of, and retains an important place among, the recent original works on Old French. Darmesteter and Hatzfeld’sLe Seizième Siècle(Paris, 1878) contains the first good account of Early Modern French. Littré’sDictionnaire de la langue française(4 vols., Paris, 1863-1869, and a Supplement, 1877); and Hatzfeld, Darmesteter and Thomas,Dict. général de la langue française, more condensed (2 vols., Paris, 1888-1900), contain much useful and often original information about the etymology and history of French words. For the etymology of many French (and also Provençal) words, reference must be made to Ant. Thomas’sEssais de philologie française(Paris, 1897) andNouveaux essais de philologie française(Paris, 1904). But there is no French dictionary properly historical. ADictionnaire historique de la langue françaisewas begun by the Académie française (4 vols., 1859-1894), but it was, from the first, antiquated. It contains only one letter (A) and has not been continued. The leading periodicals now in existence are theRomania(Paris), founded (in 1872) and edited by P. Meyer and G. Paris (with Ant. Thomas since the death of G. Paris in 1903), and theZeitschrift für romanische Philologie(Halle), founded (in 1877) and edited by G. Gröber. To these reference should be made for information as to the very numerous articles, treatises and editions by the many and often distinguished scholars who, especially in France and Germany, now prosecute the scientific study of the language. It may be well to mention that, Old French phonology especially being complicated, and as yet incompletely investigated, these publications, the views in which are of various degrees of value, require not mere acquiescent reading, but critical study. The dialects of France in their present state (patois) are now being scientifically investigated. The special works on the subject (dictionaries, grammars, &c.) cannot be fully indicated here; we must limit ourselves to the mention of Behren’sBibliographie des patois gallo-romans(2nd ed., revised Berlin, 1893), and of Gilliéron and Edmont’sAtlas linguistique de la France(1902 et seq.), a huge publication planned to contain about 1800 maps.
(H. N.; P. M.)