« 上一頁繼續 »
Saints' Lives edited by Assmann, and invariable in the Salomon prose fragment. The only conclusion demonstrable from the prose texts of Old English is that in the period known to us the two forms interchange. But in view of the adverbial use of deah and of its cognates in Old Norse and Old High German, and in view of the obviously connective character of de, we may well infer the evolution: deah adv. > Jeah de > Jeah cj. ; though we cannot detect the process.
In Old English prose, as well as in the poetry, there are a few cases where swa is used in a concessive sense. Although' is included among the meanings of swa by Bosworth-Toller, by Grein (Sprachschatz), by Koch (p. 445) and by Mätzner (3. 501). The clearest case I have found in the poetry is Genesis 391, which is noted by most of these writers:
hafað us god sylfa
he hæfð us beah þæs leohtes bescyrede. This is much like a construction cited by Behaghel (Modi, p. 47) from Heliand: Hel. 2666 so thar was... sie ni weldun ... thoh. As a rule, however, in both prose and verse the Old English construction with swa is somewhat ill-defined, and is rather convertible into a concessive clause than distinctly marked as such. A passage from Andreas cited doubtfully by Reussner (p. 22) illustrates the difficulty: And. 260 ff.
1 The use of the colorless connective that after conjunctions is not unknown in more modern English: F. C. P. V., p. 120 Though that many men held him a perfect liver, yet his doctrine is not approved of Holy Church ; Othello I. i. 71 though that his joy be joy.
him da ondswarode ælmihti God,
þe he þær on waroðe wiðþingode. Here the construction is a sort of weakened resultclause, implying a qualification, but less explicit than the clause with teah.
Similar clauses in the prose may likewise be regarded as weakened result or modal clauses. They are usually accompanied by a negative. Swa must be interpreted in these cases as a rather characterless connective, shading into concession, result, or manner, as the case may be, and, with the negative, corresponding to Modern English without,' ' not being. In the following, as in other passages, the clause is plainly modal ; we should say, 'without seeing’: Mart. 20. 27 ond on fruman he þær wunade, swa he nænigne oderne mon ne geseah. In the following, the emphasis is on the contrast expressed; we should say 'yet': Mart. 208. 21 þa het he hig belucan on byrnendum baðe, on þæm heo wes deg and nyht, swa heo na ne geswette. In Orosius swa appears as a conjunction clearly implying the concessive relation: 0. 206. 3 him his sunu ham onsende, se wæs on his gewealde, swa he nyste hu he him to com. In other passages in the same work the construction is less plain; a contrast such as might be expressed by deah is evident, but it is not clear whether swa is equivalent to 'yet' (with loose coördinate concession) or to although' (with subordinate concessive clause) : 0. 260. 18 þæt þær wæron XXX M ofslagen swa nan mon nyste hwonon sio wroht com; 296. 25 ge hiene ... atugon swa swa ge woldon, 7 ealne his fultum. Þæt wæs ... II CM, swa eower nan ne wearð gewundod.
Finally, we have cases where swa, with a tinge of concessive meaning, translates a Latin word whose application in the original was vague: CP. 301. 25 sume menn onderfoð eaðmodnesse hiw, sume ofermodnesse, sua sua hie nyton (quidam humilitatis decipiuntur specie, quidam vero elationis suae ignoratione falluntur.); Dial. 61. 6 hi beoð full oft geypte swa hi nellað (prodantur inviti).
3. swa Deah.
In a very few instances, and those rather difficult of interpretation, the adversative swa Jeah, with a connecting tæt or de, seems to be used as a concessive conjunction. This use is of especial interest as illustrating the formation of a conjunctive phrase from an adverb. The earliest passage I have noted is from Orosius: 0. 136. 17 ff. Eala, cwæð Orosius, on hu micelre dysignesse men nu sindon on peosan cristendome! Swa þeh þe him lytles hwæt uniede sie, hu earfeðlice hi hit gemænað! The Latin has here been so freely treated as to afford no guidance in interpretation. The swa þeh be clause is undoubtedly concessive, but it is logically equivalent to two clauses: • If anything, no matter how trivial, falls out unpleasantly.' The same double construction appears with deah alone: O. 54. 34 þa, þeh þe hwa wære mid þæm cyningum on hiora gewill yfel donde, þæt hie swa þeah æt ne mehton mid þy nane are findan? In view of such sentences as this, we may well explain swa þeh be as equivalent to the usual deah te.
We find swa teah daet followed by the indicative: HL. 184. 109 Titus and Vespasianus heora geșeaht hæfdon, swa þeah þæt Vespasianus was ærost gefullod. The connection here is loose (as sometimes with teah te) and the construction hovers between subordinate and coördinate.
An interesting parallel in the use of the Gothic svepauh is found in a single instance: 2 Cor. 12. 15 sveþauh ei ufarassau izvis frijonds mins frijoda. Bernhardt is in doubt whether to understand svepauh ei as * jedoch so dass' or as obgleich’; but Heyne defines it without question as obgleich,' which would seem the more natural reading.
Some instances of swa Jeah doet in the Benedictine Rule which look at first sight like ' although’are rather to be understood as retaining the full force of each word in the group: BR. 44. 15 swa þeah þæt = dum omnibus modis ; 70. 14 = ita sane ut; etc.
Swa Jeah without any connecting particle is found as the conjunction of a condensed clause: ÆH. 1. 2. 12 Ic Ælfric munuc and mæssepreost, swa þeah waccre þonne swilcum hadum gebyrige, wearð asend ...
4. hwadere (8)
Another adversative, hwæðere, may perhaps be regarded, in a single passage, as a concessive conjunction: ÆH. 1. 158. 14 Wenst du þæt he nyste hwæt se blinda wolde, seðe hine gehælan mihte? Ac he wolde þæt se blinda bæde; forðon þe he tiht alone swiðe gemaglice to gebedum: ac hwædere he cwyd on oðre stowe, ' Eower heofenlica Fæder wat hwæs ge behofiað, ærðan de ge hine æniges dinges biddan, þeah-hwoedere wile se goda God þæt we hine georne biddon. In view of the context, it is difficult to interpret hwædere in any other way than as a conjunction; it is, moreover, followed by a correlative frequently used after concessive clauses. But there is no sign of the 'transposed' order which Ælfric frequently (not always) employs in subordinate clauses, and the sentence may be simply an example of careless construction.
Less definitely subordinated is the phrase—which may be considered an elliptical clause—interpolated in the following sentence under the influence of an ablative absolute: BH. 52. 28 Swa þonne her fram þære arleasan deode, hwæðere rihte Godes dome, neh ceastra gehwylce 7 land forheregeode wæron (immo disponente iusto Iudice ...).
5. Geah-hwedere (8)
For completeness, I mention teah-hwæðere, which, in the following passage, is translated by Thorpe as though: ÆH. 1. 152. 27 Đyses godspelles anginn hrepode ures Hælendes þrowunge; þeah-hwæðere ne drowade he na on dysne timan: ac he wolde feorran and lange ær cyðan his drowunge his leorningcnihtum. This is evidently another case of negligence; the sentences are contrasted, but all are independent.
6. swa Deah-hwædere (?)
This adversative is once employed, before an elliptical clause, in the sense of Jeah: LS. 2. 20. 284 Ac wite þu man þæt ic eom synful wif, swa þeah-hwæðere utan ymbseald mid þam halgan fulluhte.
B. The Form of the Clause. The expression or omission of the verb, and the position of noun and predicate in the subordinate clause, are matters belonging to the subject of sentenceform in general, not to any specific construction, and have accordingly no significance for us at this point. The position of the concessive conjunction, however, has its importance in the light of Modern English. For in modern prose a not uncommon device is that of giving prominence to a word of the concessive clause by placing it before the conjunction: Scott, Talisman, ch. 24 heathen as he is; Wilson, Noctes Ambrosianae, June, 1826 bordering though it be on