David Crystal,
The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language (2nd ed.)
EARLY MODERN ENGLISH GRAMMAR
The major shifts in English grammatical structure were over by the time of the Renaissance (p. 44); but even a casual glance at texts from the period shows that many important changes were continuing to take place, although of a more limited kind. For example,
several features of verb use show differences from today:
'My life is run his compass', says Cassius (
Julius Caesar, V.iii.25), where today we should say
has run - and this sentence also illustrates one of the pronoun uses typical of the time. Constructions involving a double negative (
I cannot go no further) were
commonplace; there are still signs of impersonal verbs (
me thinks he did); and during the period a number of verb inflections (e.g.
pleaseth, know'st, spake) fell out of standard use (for other examples, see pp. 63,65).
There were also significant stylistic developments in sentence structure (p.214). In Caxton and Malory the sentences tend to be loose and linear, with repeated
and or
then coordination, and a limited amount of subordination, mostly introduced by
which or
that. Here is a typical sentence, taken from Caxton's prologue to the
Golden Legend (for other extracts, see pp.57-8).
And I shal praye for them vnto Almyghty God that he of his benygne grace rewarde them etc., and that it prouffyte to alle them that shal rede or here it redde, and rnay encreace in them vertue and expelle vyce and synne that by the ensaumple of the holy sayntes amende theyr lyuyng here in thys shorte lyf that by their merytes they and I may come to everlastyng lyf and blysse in heuen.
The influence of Latin syntactic style on English became marked in the 16th century. Cicero in particular was much imitated. There is a more complex use of subordination, and a search for rhetorical contrast and balance, as is shown by this extract from William Camden's
Remaines Concerning Britain (1605):
As for the Monosyllables so rife in our tongue which were not so originally, although they are vnfitting for verses and measures, yet are they most fit for expressing briefly the first conceipts of the minde, or Intentionalia as they call them in schooles: so that we can set downe more matter in fewer lines, than any other language.
The awkwardness or uncertainty which a modern reader often feels in reading early Renaissance prose is chiefly a consequence of the way writers were beginning to explore the potential of the language for complex sentence construcion (p.226).
There was conscious experimentation with new grammatical patterns, supported by an increasingly standardized punctuation system (p.68).
New conjunctions emerged:
because, for example, first appears in Chaucer, but
for (that) remained the normal way of expressing cause until the early 17th century. Participial constructions became extremely common, and added greatly to the length of sentences which, in the more complex writers, might run to 20 lines or more. In the early period, such sentences often appear incomplete or ill-formed
to modern eyes (failing in concord, for example, or displaying an unattached subordinate clause); but it is important to appreciate that at the time such variability was normal. By the 17th century, however, highly sophisticated and carefully crafted sentences, following a variety of Latin models, were commonplace, as can be seen in the writing of John Lyly Philip Sidney, and John Milton.
SAY YOU SO? I DO
One of the most important syntactic developments of this period concerned the use of
do as an auxiliary verb (p. 212). The differences from modern usage can be seen in such interrogative and negative sentences as
Says she so? and
Believe him not where today we would introduce a
do-form (
Does she say so?,
Do not believe him). By Shakespeare's time, it was possible to use
do in these sentences, but it was not obligatory. Also,
do could be used in a declarative affirmative sentence without conveying any extra emphasis, again unlike today, as in 'they do offend our sight' (
Henry V, IV.vi.56), which means no more than 'they offend our sight'.
During the period, it became increasingly usual to insert
do-forms into negative and interrogative sentences, and to omit them from
declarative affirmative ones (except in cases of emphasis). In one study of this topic, only c. 20 per cent of interrogative sentences used
do-forms in 1500, whereas over 90 per cent did so by 1700. The graph below shows the steady growth of
do-forms in one of these contexts: affirmative questions (such as
Do they know?). (After A. Ellegård,1953.)
И далее.
