Chapter V: H. B (19)

(i.) _Verbs._--(1) In the oldest French texts the Latin pluperfect
(with the sense of the perfect) occasionally occurs--_avret_
(_habuerat_), _roveret_ (_rogaverat_); it disappears before the 12th
century. (2) The _u_ of the ending of the 1st pers. plur. _mus_ drops
in Old French, except in the perfect, where its presence (as
_[schwa]_) is not yet satisfactorily explained--_amoms_ (_amamus_,
influenced by _sumus_), but _amames_ (_amavimus_). In Picard the
atonic ending _mes_ is extended to all tenses, giving _amomes_, &c.
(3) In the present indicative, 2nd person plur., the ending _ez_ of
the first conjugation (Latin _atis_) extends, even in the earliest
documents, to all verbs--_avez, recevez, oez_ (_habetis_, _recipitis,
auditis_) like _amez_ (_amatis_); such forms as _dites_, _faites_
(_dicitis_, _facitis_) being exceptional archaisms. This levelling of
the conjugation does not appear at such an early time in the future
(formed from the infinitive and from _habetis_ reduced to _etis_); in
the Roland both forms occur, _portereiz_ (_portare habetis_)
assonating on _rei_ (_roi, regem_), and the younger _porterez_ on
_citet_ (_cite_, _civitatem_), but about the end of the 13th century
the older form _-eiz_, _-oiz_, is dropped, and _-ez_ becomes gradually
the uniform ending for this 2nd person of the plural in the future
tense. (4) In Eastern French the 1st plur., when preceded by _i_, has
_e_, not _o_, before the nasal, while Western French has _u_ (or _o_),
as in the present; _posciomes_ (_posseamus_) in the Jonah homily makes
it probable that the latter is the older form--Picard _aviemes_,
Burgundian _aviens_, Norman _aviums_ (_habebamus_). (5) The
subjunctive of the first conjugation has at first in the singular no
final _e_, in accordance with the final vowel laws--_plur_, _plurs_,
_plurt_ (_plorem_, _plores_, _ploret_). The forms are gradually
assimilated to those of the other conjugations, which, deriving from
Latin _am_, _as_, _at_, have _e_, _es_, _e_(_t_); Modern French
_pleure_, _pleures_, _pleure_, like _perde_, _perdes_, _perde_
(_perdam_, _perdas_, _perdat_). (6) In Old French the present
subjunctive and the 1st sing. pres. ind. generally show the influence
of the _i_ or _e_ of the Latin _iam_, _eam_, _io_, _eo_--Old French
_muire_ or _moerge_ (_moriat_ for _moriatur_), _tiegne_ or _tienge_
(_teneat_), _muir_ or _moerc_ (_morio_ for _morior_), _tieng_ or
_tienc_ (_teneo_). By degrees these forms are levelled under the other
present forms--Modern French _meure_ and _meurs_ following _meurt_
(_morit_ for _moritur_), _tienne_ and _tiens_ following _tient_
(_tenet_). A few of the older forms remain--the vowel of _aie_
(_habeam_) and _ai_ (_habeo_) contrasting with that of _a_ (_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_ (_parabolare_),
_amer_ (_amare_) have in the present indicative _parol_ (_parabolo_),
_paroles_ (_parabolas_), _parolet_ (_parabolat_), _parlums_
(_parabolamus_), _parlez_ (_parabolatis_), _parolent_ (_parabolant_);
_aim_ (_amo_), _aimes_ (_amas_), _aimet_ (_amat_), _amums_ (_amamus_),
_amez_ (_amatis_), _aiment_ (_amant_). In the first case the
unaccented, in the second the accented form has prevailed--Modern
French _parle_, _parler_; _aime_, _aimer_. In several verbs, as
_tenir_ (_tenere_), the distinction is retained--_tiens_, _tiens_,
_tient_, _tenons_, _tenez_, _tiennent_. (8) In Old French, as stated
above, _ie_ instead of _e_ from _a_ occurs after a palatal (which, if
a consonant, often split into _i_ with a dental); the diphthong thus
appears in several forms of many verbs of the 1st
conjugation--_preier_ (= _prei-ier_, _precare_), _vengier_
(_vindicare_), _laissier_ (_laxare_), _aidier_ (_adjutare_). At the
close of the Old French period, those verbs in which the stem ends in
a dental replace _ie_ by the _e_ of other verbs--Old French
_laissier_, _aidier_, _laissiez_ (_laxatis_), _aidiez_ (adjutatis);
Modern French _laisser_, _aider_, _laissez_, _aidez_, by analogy of
_aimer_, _aimez_. The older forms generally remain in
Picard--_laissier_, _aidier_. (9) The addition of _e_ to 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 French _chant_ (_canto_), _aim_
(_amo_); Modern French _chante_, _aime_. (10) In the 13th century _s_
is occasionally added to the 1st pers. sing., except those ending in
_e_ (= _[schwa]_) and _ai_, and to the 2nd sing. of imperatives; at the
close of the 16th century this becomes the rule, and extends to
imperfects and conditionals in _oie_ after the loss of their _e_. It
appears to be due to the influence of the 2nd pers. sing.--Old French
_vend_ (_vendo_ and _vende_), _vendoie_ (_vendebam_), _parti_
(_partivi_), _ting_ (_tenui_); Modern French _vends_, _vendais_,
_partis_, _tins_; and _donne_ (_dona_) in certain cases becomes
_donnes_. (11) The 1st and 2nd plur. of the pres. subj., which in Old
French were generally similar to those of the indicative, gradually
take an _i_ before them, which is the rule after the 16th century--Old
French _perdons_ (_perdamus_), _perdez_ (_perdatis_); Modern French
_perdions_, _perdiez_, apparently by analogy of the imp. ind. (12) The
loss in Late Old French of final _s_, _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_ (_dormis_) and the 3rd _dort_ (_dormit_) were
distinguished as _dorz_ and _dort_ when before a vowel, as _dors_ and
_dort_ at the end of a sentence or line of poetry, but ran together as
_dor_ when 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 of _e_ = _[schwa]_ in unaccented final
syllables has still further reduced the inflections, but not the
distinctive forms--_perd_ (_perdit_) and _perde_ (_perdat_) being
generally distinguished as _per_ and _perd_, and before a vowel as
_pert_ and _perd_.

(ii.) _Substantives._--(1) In Early Old French (as in Provencal) there
are two main declensions, the masculine and the feminine; with a few
exceptions the former distinguishes nominative 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_ (_latro_); _tor_
(_taurum_), _laron_ (_latronem_); _tor_ (_tauri_), _laron_ (_latroni_
for _-nes_); _tors_ (_tauros_), _larons_ (_latrones_); but fem. only
_ele_ (_ala_ and _alam_), _flor_ (_florem_); _eles_ (_alas_), _flors_
(_flores_ nom. and acc.). About the end of the 11th century feminines
not ending in _e_ = _[schwa]_ take, by analogy of the masculines, _s_
in the nom. sing., thus distinguishing nom. _flors_ from acc. _flor_.
A century later, masculines without _s_ in the nom. sing. take this
consonant by analogy of the other masculines, giving _leres_ as nom.
similar to _tors_. 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. without _s_, plural with _s_), but
in a few words, such as _fils_ (_filius_), _soeur_ (_soror_), _pastre_
(_pastor_), and in proper names such as _Georges_, _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_) and _seigneur_ (_seniorem_), _on_ (_homo_)
and _homme_ (_hominem_). (2) Latin neuters are generally masculine in
Old French, and inflected according to their analogy, as _ciels_
(_caelus_ for _caelum_ nom.), _ciel_ (_caelum_ acc.), _ciel_ (_caeli_
for _caela_ nom.), _ciels_ (_caelos_ for _caela_ acc.); but in some
cases the form of the Latin neuter is preserved, as in _cors_, now
_corps_, Lat. _corpus_; _tens_, now _temps_, Lat. _tempus_. Many
neuters lose their singular form and treat the plural as a feminine
singular, as in the related languages--_merveille_ (_mirabilia_),
_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 as _carri_), _paire_ (_Lat. paria_); Modern
French _chars_, _paires_. (3) In Old French the inflectional _s_ often
causes phonetic changes in the stem; thus palatal _l_ before _s_ takes
_t_ after it, and becomes dental _l_, which afterwards changes to _u_
or drops--_fil_ (_filium_ and _filii_) with palatal _l_, _filz_
(_filius_ and _filios_), afterwards _fiz_, with _z_ = _ts_ (preserved
in English _Fitz_), and then _fis_, as now (spelt _fils_). Many
consonants before _s_, as the _t_ of _fiz_, disappear, and _l_ is
vocalized--_vif_ (_vivum_), _mal_ (_malum_), nominative sing. and acc.
plur. _vis_, _maus_ (earlier _mals_). These forms of the plural are
retained in the 16th century, though often etymologically spelt with
the consonant of the singular, as in _vifs_, pronounced _vis_; but in
Late Modern French many of them disappear, _vifs_, with _f_ sounded as
in the singular, being the plural of _vif_, _bals_ (formerly _baux_)
that of _bal_. In many words, as _chant_ (_cantus_) and _champs_
(_campos_) with silent _t_ and _p_ (Old French _chans_ in both cases),
_maux_ (Old French _mals_, sing. _mal_), _yeux_ (_oculos_, Old French
_oelz_, sing. _oeil_) the old change in the stem is kept. Sometimes,
as in _cieux_ (_caelos_) and _ciels_, the old traditional and the
modern analogical forms coexist, with different meanings. (4) The
modern loss of final _s_ (except when kept as _z_ before a vowel) has
seriously modified the French declension, the singulars _fort_ (_for_)
and _forte_ (_fort_) being generally undistinguishable from their
plurals _forts_ and _fortes_. The subsequent loss of _[schwa]_ in
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 as _maux_ have always been
distinct from their singular _mal_; in those whose singular ends in
_s_ there never was any distinction, Old French _laz_ (now spelt
_lacs_) corresponding to _laqveus_, _laqveum_, _laqvei_ and _laqveos_.

(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 no _e_ if the
masc. has none, and if there is no distinction in Latin--fem. sing.
_fort_ (_fortem_), _grant_ (_grandem_), fem. plur. _forz_ (_fortes_),
_granz_ (_grandes_), 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
ending _e_, in _Provencal_ a (_courtois_, fem. _courtoise_; _commun_,
fem. _commune_). To these must not be added _dous_ (Mod. Fr. _dolz_,
_dous_), fem. _douce_, which probably comes from a Low Latin
_dulcius_, _dulcia_. In the 11th century some other feminines,
originally without _e_, 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 the _e_ is general in the
feminine, and is now universal, except in a few
expressions--_grand'mere_ (with erroneous apostrophe, _grandem_,
_matrem_), _lettres royaux_ (_literas regales_), and most adverbs from
adjectives in _-ant_, _-ent_--_couramment_ (_currante_ for _-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 French _roide_
for both genders. (3) In Old French several Latin simple comparatives
are preserved--_maiur_ (_majorem_), nom. _maire_ (_major_); _graignur_
(_grandiorem_), nom. _graindre_ (_grandior_); only a few of these now
survive--_pire_ (_pejor_), _meilleur_ (_meliorem_), with their
adverbial neuters _pis_ (_pejus_), _mieux_ (_melius_). The few simple
superlatives found in Old French, as _merme_ (_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 _[schwa]_, have greatly affected the
distinction between the masc. and fem. of adjectives--_fort_ and
_forte_ are still distinguished as _for_ and _fort_, but _amer_
(_amarum_) and _amere_ (_amaram_), with their plurals _amers_ and
_ameres_, 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_, afterwards _aire_, from _arium_). In Modern French many old affixes are hardly used for forming new words; the inherited _ier_ (_arium_) is yielding to the borrowed _aire_, the popular _contre_ (_contra_) to the learned anti (Greek), and the native _ee_ (_atam_) to the Italian _ade_. The suffixes of many words have been assimilated to more common ones; thus _sengler_ (_singularem_) is now _sanglier_.

(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 French _l'archevesque ne puet flechir li
reis Henris_ (Latin _archiepiscopum non potest flectere rex Henricus_)
assumes a totally different meaning--_l'archeveque ne peut flechir 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 French _je qui sui_ (_ego qvi
sum_) becomes _moi qui suis_, though the older usage survives in the
legal phrase _je soussigne_.... (3) The definite article is now
required in many cases where Old French dispenses with it--_jo cunquis
Engleterre, suffrir mort_ (as Modern French _avoir faim_); Modern
French _l'Angleterre, la mort_. (4) Old French had distinct pronouns
for "this" and "that"--_cest_ (_ecce istum_) and _cel_ (_ecce
illium_), with their cases. Both exist in the 16th century, but the
present language employs _cet_ as adjective, _cel_ as substantive, in
both meanings, marking the old distinction by affixing the adverbs
_ci_ and _la_--_cet homme-ci, cet homme-la_; _celui-ci, celui-la_. (5)
In Old French, the verbal terminations being clear, the subject
pronoun is usually not expressed--_si ferai_ (_sic facere habeo_),
_est durs_ (_durus est_), _que feras_ (_quid facere habes_)? In the
16th century the use of the pronoun is general, and is now universal,
except in one or two impersonal phrases, as _n'importe, peu s'en
faut_. (6) The present participle in Old French in its uninflected
form coincided with the gerund (_amant = amantem_ and _amando_), and
in the modern language has been replaced by the latter, except where
it has become adjectival; the Old French _complaingnans leur dolours_
(Latin _plangentes_) is now _plaignant leurs douleurs_ (Latin
_plangendo_). The now extinct use of _estre_ with the participle
present for the simple verb is not uncommon in Old French down to the
16th century--_sont disanz_ (_sunt dicentes_) = Modern French _ils
disent_ (as English _they are saying_). (7) In present Modern French
the preterite participle when used with _avoir_ to form verb-tenses is
invariable, except when the object precedes (an exception now
vanishing in the conversational language)--_j'ai ecrit les lettres,
les lettres que j'ai ecrites_. 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 muee_ (_habet colorem mutatam_), _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_ (Latin _podia_), _e tenebrus e grant_. (9) In Old French _ne_
(Early Old French _nen_, Latin _non_) suffices for the negation
without _pas_ (_passum_), _point_ (_punctum_) or _mie_ (_micam_, 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 uses _ne_ by 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_ (Latin
_rem_) 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 prophetes?_ 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.