Introduction

Cardinal numerals are not missing in any grammar or textbook of Old English
nor in numerous other contributions to the study of the language. Yet, the
relevant sections in the handbooks are all short and, it seems, numerals and
their system have rarely been examined with closer scrutiny. In this respect, a
reference grammar of Old English does not differ much from one of any other
language. The scarce attention these expressions seem to receive from gram-
marians or linguists does not correspond with their frequency in the every-day
use of a language.
This discrepancy can perhaps be accounted for by the fact that the seman-
tics of cardinal numerals seem quite plain and their use rather natural. As
speakers, we probably count or quantify things several times a day without
thinking about the mechanisms underlying these activities. Also, from a cross-
linguistic perspective, no other class of lexemes is semantically as uniform as
that of cardinal numerals. The notion of ‘number’ is independent of the cul-
tural diversity amongst language communities and hence universal. In contrast
to any other class of expressions, even to kinship or colour terms, a cardinal
numeral always has a one-to-one equivalent in another language. The meaning
of a cardinal numeral does not require much explanation in second language
teaching and the skills of translators are hardly ever challenged by it. Perhaps
the perception of the numerals and the numeral system of one’s own language
as an every-day phenomenon, along with the intuition that the semantics of
numerals are quite evident, make it appear rather trivial to the (historical)
grammarian to take a closer look at the numeral system of a language.
Knowing how to count is a capacity which is obviously located on a differ-
ent level of human comprehension than understanding a Case system or a
Tense system. But just as a Case system cannot be reduced to the distinction
of agent and patient or a Tense system to the notions ‘past’ and ‘present’, we
may well ask for a precise definition of the relation between every-day activi-
ties or processes like counting or employing numbers and their linguistic in-
stantiations. This in turn leads us to the question of whether there is a connec-
tion between some of the grammatical properties particular to cardinal numer-
als and the domain of counting and calculating.
In the same way as many linguists try to account for linguistic phenomena
by (alleged or proven) patterns of human cognition, we may well ask whether
a non-linguistic phenomenon (or rather, a model about it) contributes to ap-
proaching a linguistic phenomenon. So, if numerals obviously have to do with

Brought to you by | Centro de Investigacion y Docencia Econo

Authenticated | 187.113.74.136
Download Date | 5/5/13 6:45 PM
2 Introduction

numbers, a very basic question can be employed as a plausible way of entering

into the study of numerals: what is (a) number? Being faced with this ques-
tion, we see that employing a concept ubiquitous in our every-day lives does
not necessarily mean that we can explain the concept right away. A possible
approach to defining ‘number’ – one of which I think it is most beneficial for
studying linguistic numerals – will be presented in § I.2 and will provide a
basis for most issues discussed in this study. Several follow-up questions im-
mediately arise from the question about the status of ‘numbers’. What is the
relation between ‘numbers’ and ‘numerals’? We will see that numerals are
best explained as instantiations of numbers, that is, as a set of tools that we
employ if we wish to use numbers for specifying the size of a set. We will see,
furthermore, that numerals can only be used in this function if they are ele-
ments of a numeral system. That is, one single numeral can only perform its
function if it is organised around a larger set of other numerals. The expres-
sion four could not denote the property of ‘containing four elements’ if the
same language did not also provide neighbouring expressions like three or
five; cf. § I.2.2). Thus numerals necessarily constitute a numeral system. But
how exactly do we define a numeral system? We know that the notion of a
‘decimal system’ has something to do with the fact that, in many numeral sys-
tems, ‘10’ marks something like a turning point. Intuitively, we might say that
‘10’ is the first number to employ two digits and its first power, ‘100’, the first
to employ three. This is true only for our written numerals, the Hindu-Arabic
symbols that we use for writing numbers, but it is not true for any linguistic
numeral system: in English, the expression ten follows nine, but both expres-
sions consist of only one symbol (or of only one morpheme, for that matter).
When speaking, we do not say something like one-zero. Likewise, and differ-
ing from the written symbol 〈100〉, the expression hundred is a morphologi-
cally simple expression and does not contain several digits. Thus linguistic
numeral systems are different in some respect and yet they are used for the
very same purpose as, say, the Hindu-Arabic notation. (Cf. particularly
§ I.3.4.3, where this point will be discussed.)
Of course, it is not the task of a linguist or a grammarian to explain num-
bers or mathematics. Yet, if we wish to approach this class of expressions as a
linguistic phenomenon, the question of what exactly the relation between a
‘(cardinal) numeral’, a ‘number’ and the size of a set (‘cardinality’) is will
have to be raised. This is irrespective of the fact that, as speakers, we use nu-
merals with ease and quite successfully yet never reflect on what exactly we
are doing when we quantify a set and, moreover, how we are doing this or by
means of which method. This complex of questions will be addressed in Chap-
ter I. It will be shown that clarifying some basics about the status of ‘numbers’

Brought to you by | Centro de Investigacion y Docencia Econo

Authenticated | 187.113.74.136
Download Date | 5/5/13 6:45 PM
 Introduction 3

will bring about a promising basis for understanding many features of numer-
als – features which have so far led linguists to conceive of numerals as a hy-
brid class that can be defined semantically but not morphosyntactically. Ad-
dressing fundamental questions about quantification by numbers will enable
us to define a numeral system as a particular subsystem of a language (with, as
we may view it, an internal grammar) and to describe the fundamental charac-
teristics of numeral systems of natural languages. Understanding some general
features of linguistic numeral systems will, in turn, help us to account for lan-
guage-specific peculiarities of numerals.

Whereas numerals seem to be approachable more easily with respect to their

semantics, difficulties seem to arise if we try to examine cardinal numerals in
other domains of linguistic description. With respect to their inflection and
their syntactic behaviour, cardinal numerals seem to display the most hetero-
geneous features. For instance, not only from a cross-linguistic point of view
but even within a particular language, some cardinal numerals often follow
different inflectional patterns than others; cf. e.g. GREENBERG (2000). With
respect to their syntactic properties, cardinal numerals are similarly held to
behave inconsistently both across languages and within a given language.
They seem to be inscrutable to linguists at times, for instance when it comes to
assigning them to a particular word class. The statement that higher valued
numerals universally show more noun-like properties than lower valued nu-
merals (CORBETT 1978a, 1978b; cf. § V.2.3) is one of the most frequently
quoted generalisations on numerals. But a closer look will reveal that this im-
plicational statement expresses a mere chance coincidence between the nu-
merical value and the morphosyntactic features of an expression. Given that
languages, and hence numeral systems of genetically unrelated languages,
develop independently, I believe that formulating the implication as such
should only be the first step. It should be equally essential to take the conse-
quential second step, which is to find the reason for the apparent connection
between the numerical value and the presence or absence of noun-like mor-
phosyntactic features in the use of the respective numeral expression.
Accordingly, one question we will have to raise is that of why higher val-
ued numerals seem more noun-like than other numerals. The explanations I
will propose (particularly in Chapter V) will be based on the assumption that
the more noun-like appearance of higher numerals can be accounted for by
properties that are inherently characteristic of numerals (rather than of nouns).
I will argue that significant clues to get to the bottom of the problem may be
found in the natural way in which numeral systems emerge and, subsequently,
develop into a more complex system (cf. §§ II.7 and V.2.5.1). The fact that

Brought to you by | Centro de Investigacion y Docencia Econo

Authenticated | 187.113.74.136
Download Date | 5/5/13 6:45 PM
4 Introduction

this development, to a considerable extent, runs parallel among genetically

unrelated languages – and, accordingly, the resulting properties of numerals
show parallels across languages – is, in turn, due to the universally uniform
semantic content of cardinal numerals. Thus one general claim of this study is
that the difficulties with respect to the morphosyntactic properties of numerals
and, as a related question, to the word class character of numerals can be over-
come.
Hence, the study of the processes that lead to such correlations is equally
significant to finding implicational generalisations on numerals in natural lan-
guages. And, if we want to learn more about the attested (or reconstructable)
long-term changes of numeral systems, cross-linguistic breadth and historical
depth will be equally important. While deliberately taking both the dimensions
of typology and history into consideration, this study is based on and focuses
on historical data of one particular language. One of the advantages of this
approach is that both a language-specific description (Old English) can be
carried out and, on this basis, a long-term perspective (from proto-Indo-
European via Old English to Present-day English) can at least be sketched to a
sufficient degree. In addition to contributing to the study of the Old English
language, a comprehensive language-specific description of a numeral system
also serves the purpose of assessing the theoretical model set up in Chapter I.
Long-term diachronic considerations – here with a necessary bias towards
Indo-European and Germanic – provide evidence for the individual steps in
the emergence and the growth of numeral systems (outlined in §§ II.7 and
V.2.5.1; cf. also VON MENGDEN 2008), which in turn explains not only the
variation in the morphosyntactic properties of numerals (see above), but also
the general structure of numeral systems and the existence of such morphemes
like -teen and -ty in Present-day English (cf. §§ I.5.3.2, II.4.3, II.7.2, and
Chapter V).
The Old English language is, in various respects, a perfect candidate for the
task of describing a numeral system so that more general, cross-linguistic im-
plications can be made. Generally, Old English is a typical representative of
both European and Indo-European languages. Its grammar reflects an inter-
mediate stage between the inflecting Indo-European proto-language and the
analytic character of Present-day English. Moreover, of any Early Medieval
language of Europe – with the exception of Medieval Latin – Old English has
by far the greatest corpus of preserved text documents comprising various
genres over a period of several centuries. Finally, and most importantly with
respect to numerals, the numeral system of Old English is basically similar to
that of other European and Indo-European languages but at the same time
shows a number of features which significantly deviate from what we are fa-

Brought to you by | Centro de Investigacion y Docencia Econo

Authenticated | 187.113.74.136
Download Date | 5/5/13 6:45 PM
 Introduction 5

miliar with from the perspective of today’s English. It is surprising, therefore,

that Old English numerals have been neglected in the general linguistic litera-
ture on numerals and, likewise, that numerals are a rather neglected category
in the study of Old English.
To give an example of a typologically highly unusual feature of the Old
English numeral system: the Anglo-Saxons have an expression for ‘100’ in
their language just like any other European language. When counting above
‘100’, however, they do not use it in the first place, but continue to count with
multiples of ‘10’, as if we said, ‘eighty’, ‘ninety’, ‘ten-ty’, ‘eleven-ty’,
‘twelve-ty’. Only from ‘130’ onwards do they employ the base ‘100’ and con-
tinue with ‘hundred and thirty’, ‘hundred and forty’ and so on (cf. § II.4.3.3).
This phenomenon of overrunning a numerical base has been mentioned in
some typological studies on numerals with reference to other languages
(GREENBERG 1978: 271, referring to Keres; COMRIE 1999: 732, mentioning
Polabian), but the same phenomenon in Old English, although stable and well-
attested, has gone completely unnoticed in studies on numerals and numeral
systems with a cross-linguistic approach.
On the other hand, scholars interested in the study of the ancient Germanic
languages have made numerous attempts to explain the etymologies of the
respective expressions used for counting up to ‘120’ (cf., e.g.,
SZEMERÉNYI 1960; BAMMESBERGER 1986), but there has never been any
attempt to discuss the phenomenon of the Germanic languages in a more gen-
eral, cross-linguistic context. Indeed, language-specific contributions con-
cerned with these Germanic numerals seem to have completely ignored what
typologists say about similar phenomena in other languages. The peculiar way
in which the counting-sequence of the Anglo-Saxons is structured between
‘99’ and ‘129’ may serve as one example out of several for the way in which
researchers of Germanic or Old English and general linguists have analysed
corresponding phenomena completely independently of each other.
The grammatical description of Old English has freed itself from tradi-
tional approaches influenced by the description of the classical languages only
rather recently with the emergence of electronic corpora. Yet much of what we
find on numerals of either Old English or the ancient Germanic languages
draws, to a large degree, on the framework of classical grammar. Neo-
grammarian studies on cardinal numerals have, in the tradition of their time,
always focused on their phonology and morphology and on the history of par-
ticular numerals. Linguists from that earlier period examined the etymologies
of numerals (e.g. VAN HELTEN 1905/06) or they provided lists of instances of
particular forms and uses of numerals (e.g. FRICKE 1886). But even more re-
cent studies hardly went any further. The very comprehensive contribution by

Brought to you by | Centro de Investigacion y Docencia Econo

Authenticated | 187.113.74.136
Download Date | 5/5/13 6:45 PM
6 Introduction

ROSS/BERNS (1992) provides a useful overview of the developments of all

diatopic and diachronic varieties of the Germanic branch of Indo-European,
but their study still focuses primarily on etymological problems, whereas they
treat other linguistic aspects, the use of inflection or syntactic constructions for
instance, only in the context of the history of particular numeral forms.
Yet if we set such a language-specific analysis into a cross-linguistic con-
text, i.e. if, in our description of the numerals of one particular language, we
take into account the possible strategies which can be employed for the forma-
tion of numeral expressions, we will not only operate on a safer theoretical
basis, but we will also be able to gain valuable insights for the reconstruction
of pre-historic stages of languages and their respective numeral systems. In
my view, this context has been widely ignored in diachronic studies on nu-
merals. I would argue, however, that an understanding of cross-linguistic fea-
tures of both numeral expressions and numeral systems is in many respects a
prerequisite for the historical study of numerals. Eugenio LUJÁN – one of the
few historical linguists working on numerals who includes both system and
reconstruction (or both typology and history) as equally important – writes
(LUJÁN 1999: 203):

Traditionally, etymological work on Indo-European numerals lacked

general scope, in the sense that it used to deal with each numeral sepa-
rately, without taking into account what happens to be the most impor-
tant characteristic of numeral systems: the fact that “the value of each
cardinal number corresponds to its order in counting”, as Stampe
(1977: 596) stated it. In other words, in order to account for a numeral
system we have to bear in mind that the concept of “series” (or “se-
quence”, as Hurford (1987: 86 ff.), prefers to refer to it) is basic. It is in
this sense that most of the work done on Indo-European numerals is in-
sufficient. When concentrating on just one numeral, a given etymology
may seem to be possible and the reasoning that has led to it, convincing.
The problem is that, when we try to bring together the etymologies pro-
posed for different numerals, in most cases we have to accept that the
Indo-Europeans amused themselves by inventing a numeral system
with no consistency at all, or else – which is more likely – we begin to
suspect that the etymologies are not so convincing as we thought.

While arguing that the study of the history and pre-history of a given language
requires the study of what is typologically possible and what is unlikely, I do
not intend to say that the study of diachronic developments in language (or in

Brought to you by | Centro de Investigacion y Docencia Econo

Authenticated | 187.113.74.136
Download Date | 5/5/13 6:45 PM
 Introduction 7

a particular language) is secondary. In fact, the benefit will certainly be mu-

tual.
Especially in the context of numerals and numeral systems, quite a number
of substantial contributions have already been made on the origins and the
evolution of the number concept in human culture and its representation in
language; cf., e.g., IFRAH (1981). It is assumed that human counting was
originally carried out by means of gestures. Particular points on the human
body, to which somebody pointed when counting, served to refer to particular
cardinalities. Originally, the expression for that body part accompanied the
gesture until, at a next stage, the linguistic expression became the primary
numerical tool (cf. § I.2.2) and, eventually, the accompanying gesture was no
longer felt necessary. Not necessary does, however, not mean extinct: whether
unconsciously or not, we still often show the relevant number of fingers as an
accompanying gesture when we specify numbers.
Also, a number of studies have approached numerals from the perspective
of the cognitive foundations of number concepts and of numeral systems; cf.
e.g. HURFORD (1987), WIESE (2003). Central questions raised in these contri-
butions have been how an individual perceives cardinalities or how an infant
acquires the capability of operating with numbers. There are a number of phe-
nomena particular to the word class numeral for which the area of human cog-
nition seems to be the most promising source for explanations, such as for
instance the special status that the lowest numeral expressions have in many
languages (§ V.2.4; cf. HURFORD 2001) or the sequential ordering of numerals
in virtually all languages (§§ I.2.2 and I.4.2).
In the times when transformational grammar was most successful, a num-
ber of formal models for the description of numeral systems have been sug-
gested; cf. e.g. HURFORD (1975) or the contributions in BRANDT CORSTIUS
(1968). Likewise, universal properties of numerals and numeral systems have
been identified on the basis of large language samples – most of all by Joseph
GREENBERG who provided a list of 54 empirically founded generalisations
about numerals (GREENBERG 1978).
The present study will try to integrate these approaches – linguistic typol-
ogy, the connection between human cognition and language, and language
history – into one framework for the study of numerals. Each of these areas of
study has its value for explaining phenomena related with numerals. Thus in
order to understand cardinal numerals in their entirety, all these areas need to
be looked at and the ways in which these areas complement each other should
be examined and defined.

Brought to you by | Centro de Investigacion y Docencia Econo

Authenticated | 187.113.74.136
Download Date | 5/5/13 6:45 PM
8 Introduction

In light of the points raised above, the aim of the present study is, first of all,
to contribute to the grammatical description of the Old English language by
providing a detailed analysis of the Old English numeral system and of the
properties of the respective expressions. However, the analyses of this study
are at the same time intended to contribute to the linguistic study of numerals
in a more general, cross-linguistic context.
As a preliminary step, universal features of numeral systems will be dis-
cussed in view of the extent to which they are relevant for an analysis of the
numeral system of Old English. Chapter I will also provide a definition of
what constitutes a numeral system and, hence, what a numeral is. This seems
necessary since there are a number of expressions which are classed undisput-
edly as ‘numerals’, while there are also expressions which sometimes have
been treated under the label ‘numeral’ even though this categorisation cannot
be maintained once we define ‘cardinal numeral’ in a precise way. For in-
stance, in most grammars or handbooks of Old English, the expression BA
‘both’ has been categorised as a numeral without distinguishing it from the
cardinal TWA ‘2’. The two expressions, however, have quite a different distri-
bution. Moreover, while the primary use of a numeral ‘2’ is to specify the
cardinality of a set (containing two elements), the use of an expression like
‘both’ requires that the cardinality ‘2’ is a given piece of information in the
discourse, i.e. that the cardinality ‘2’ has already been specified. Or, in other
studies, not necessarily those concerned with Old English, expressions like
dozen are treated in the same way as twelve without any further distinction.
GREENBERG (2000: 771) has pointed out that a difference needs to be drawn
between genuine numerals and other expressions which specify the cardinality
of a set in a likewise unambiguous way. However, a clear definition of this
difference, and hence a clear definition of how to draw a line between cardinal
numerals and other number expressions, has, to my knowledge, not been pro-
vided so far (cf. especially § I.4).
The framework thus developed will then allow us to commence the lan-
guage-specific description of the numeral system of Old English (especially
Chapters II and III). In Chapter II, we will discuss the characteristic features of
the Old English numeral system and of the morphological (and syntactic)
strategies employed to generate numeral expressions in Old English. Chap-
ter III will discuss more detailed phenomena particularly concerning complex
numeral expressions in Old English. At the same time, the issues raised in
Chapter III will contribute further to the understanding of numeral systems of
natural languages.
In Chapter IV, we will then examine the morphosyntactic properties of
cardinal numerals of Old English. The focus will be on the constructions in

Brought to you by | Centro de Investigacion y Docencia Econo

Authenticated | 187.113.74.136
Download Date | 5/5/13 6:45 PM
 Introduction 9

which cardinal numerals may occur and on the respective functions which
they may exhibit in the particular constructions. The underlying assumption is
that the key function of numerals is quantification, which, in the context of the
morphosyntactic interaction between numeral and noun, I take to be the nu-
merically-specific modification of the extensional reference of the noun
phrase. The main point which will be shown in this context is that this func-
tion, quantification, can be performed in different types of constructions and
that the choice of the relevant construction follows particular, well-identifiable
constraints on several linguistic levels. But secondary functions may well arise
from this main purpose of numerals as for instance that of anaphoric reference
(cf. §§ IV.4.3.2–4).
Chapter V will set the results of our analysis into a cross-linguistic context.
As already alluded to above, I will basically argue in Chapter V that cardinal
numerals can be considered an independent lexical class not only because of
their cross-linguistically uniform semantics, but also because their morphosyn-
tactic properties (i.e. inflectional behaviour, syntactic distribution and the un-
derlying constraints) follow relatively consistent patterns within and across
languages. The main argument supporting this claim will be that variation in
the morphosyntactic properties of numerals should not be viewed as a sign of
the hybridity of numerals, but that this variation can be accounted for by the
way numeral systems are structured and, as already mentioned, by the way
these structures develop.
In line with the above assumption – that the study of numerals of an an-
cient language needs to take cross-linguistic patterns into account – Chapters I
and V, but also a few parts of Chapter III – will contain more general discus-
sions on numerals in which Old English does not play a central role. The lan-
guage-specific description will be in the focus of Chapters II to IV. Another
division, although necessarily not a clear-cut one, can be made between the
study of the numeral system and the study of the grammatical properties of
numerals: Chapters I to III will deal with the numeral system, Chapters IV and
V with morphosyntactic properties of numerals. Thus, Chapters I and V corre-
spond largely to what GIL (2001: 1275a) refers to, respectively, as the ‘inter-
nal’ and ‘external’ typology of quantification. They will be of particular inter-
est also for those readers whose key interest is not the Old English language
but who wish to study numerals from a more general perspective.

I have employed a few formal conventions, which I would like to explain

briefly. One results from a terminological conflict: the term number may refer
to two completely different concepts, both of which are crucial for the study of
numerals. It may refer to the number in the sense of a measure for the size of a

Brought to you by | Centro de Investigacion y Docencia Econo

Authenticated | 187.113.74.136
Download Date | 5/5/13 6:45 PM
10 Introduction

set (cf. § I.2.4), but it may also refer to an inflectional category of many lan-
guages, which in Old English comprises the values ‘singular’, ‘dual’, and ‘plu-
ral’. As there are no reasonable alternative terms for either concept, they will
be distinguished by the capitalisation of grammatical categories. Hence,
“number” will refer to the former concept and “Number” to the latter. Accord-
ingly, I generally capitalise the labels for grammatical categories but not for
their values. Thus notions like Gender or Case are capitalised, while their val-
ues – e.g. nominative or neuter – are not. Generally, this is probably not a
necessary practice, but as we need to distinguish the grammatical category
‘Number’ by capitalisation, equivalent categories should, for the sake of con-
sistency, be capitalised too.
When discussing Old English expressions, I also distinguish throughout be-
tween general types of expressions, i.e. irrespective of variant forms, on the
one hand (printed in italicised small caps), and individual attestations (plain
italics) on the other. A form such as OE TWEN- in TWEN-TIG ‘20’ (which I ana-
lyse as an allomorph of TWA ‘2’; cf. § II.2.2) will be printed in italicised caps
whenever the exact spelling or phonetic form of an individual instance is ir-
relevant. Only their individual realisations are indicated by plain italics, e.g.
tuen- or twæn- as different instances of the type TWEN-. Occasionally, it
seemed appropriate to explicitly distinguish between the phonological and the
graphemic shape of a particular form. The general principle which I have en-
deavoured to follow is this: where such a distinction seems unnecessary or not
helpful, the linguistic expressions are usually rendered in (plain or capitalised)
italics. The phonological form is, as is customary, represented by IPA-symbols
within slashes. I have marked the graphemic representation of an expression
with pointed brackets. However, I do not distinguish between insular 〈h〉 and
Carolingian 〈g〉, rendering both as 〈g〉. Likewise, the runic wynn 〈w〉 is ren-
dered as 〈w〉. Moreover, except in particular cases, I generally ignore variant
forms and use the most common Classical West Saxon form as the default
lexeme for a numeral.
As a reference system to the Old English texts, I have used the short titles
employed by the Dictionary of Old English.1 Moreover, in the numbered ex-
amples I decided to quote an expression together with the immediate context
in which it is attested. At these occasions, I have also referred to the most re-
cent (or best) printed edition of the relevant text. When occasionally only short
phrases are quoted outside the numbered examples without context, no refer-

1 For a key to the references see DOE or HEALEY (2000). A printed list is available in
HEALEY/VENEZKY (1980), which, however, does not contain later modifications to the sys-
tem of abbreviations.

Brought to you by | Centro de Investigacion y Docencia Econo

Authenticated | 187.113.74.136
Download Date | 5/5/13 6:45 PM
 Introduction 11

ence to a printed source is given. Yet, whenever it seemed necessary, I have

consulted the latest relevant editions as specified in the various publications of
the DOE-project.
This study is, for the most part, based on the data provided by the Diction-
ary of Old English Corpus (OEC), the Dictionary of Old English (DOE) and
in HEALEY (2000). The OEC basically covers one version of any preserved
Old English text. Since many Old English texts are recorded in more than one
version, the database does not come close to representing all of the extant lin-
guistic data of the Old English language. If it seemed valuable, I have tried to
include deviating readings of analogous texts not captured by the electronic
corpus. However, even if one were to scrutinise every accessible text edition
in order to gain as much of the material as possible, some part of what is actu-
ally preserved of the Old English language would still remain unnoticed as
quite a number of extant manuscripts containing parallel versions have never
been collated or edited. Therefore, the present study is to some extent based on
the choice of base manuscripts selected by the OEC. Moreover, it is also lim-
ited by the way in which the linguistic data from those versions not included
in the OEC are treated by the respective editors. Bearing these constraints in
mind, the results discussed here may, in particular instances, be subject to the
disparate ways in which the relevant sources are accessible. On the other hand,
the material at my disposal has been rich and varied enough to give a suffi-
cient and representative impression of what may have been the Old English
language.

Brought to you by | Centro de Investigacion y Docencia Econo

Authenticated | 187.113.74.136
Download Date | 5/5/13 6:45 PM