Cover not available
Article published In:
The Northumbrian Old English glosses
Edited by Elly van Gelderen
[NOWELE 72:2] 2019
► pp. 245–272

What does āgen mean in the Lindisfarne Gospels?

| University of Florence
Aldred’s interlinear glosses added to the Latin text of the Lindisfarne Gospels have undoubtedly an inestimable value as one of the most substantial representatives of late Old Northumbrian. Therefore, they have been an object of study both as a source of information on this Old English variety and on the typological changes affecting Middle English. Starting from the assumption that glosses have an ancillary function with respect to the Latin text they accompany, I have argued in the present paper that they can make a significant contribution to delineating the history and meaning of a word inasmuch as glossators could have chosen vernacular words according to their core meaning. The particular case of the verbs of possession āgan and the forms derived from it, including the past participle āgen, will be used in the following discussion of the role of glosses: the investigation of their meaning in the Lindisfarne Gospels will help us understand the development of āgen into the PDE attributive intensifier own.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1PDE own as attributive intensifier
  • 2.What āgen is in OE
  • 3.The family of words etymologically related to āgen
  • 4. Āgan and its lexical family in the Lindisfarne Gospels
    • 4.1Verbs for possideo
    • 4.2When and how āgan occurs
    • 4.3The function of āgen
  • 5.What interlinear glosses can add to the grammaticalization hypothesis about the development of own
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 10 December 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/nowele.00029.vez
References (51)
References
Adamson, S. 2000. A lovely little example. In O. Fisher et al. (eds.), Pathways of change, 39–66. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, C. L. 1995. Contrast, discourse prominence, and intensification, with special reference to locally free reflexives in British English. Language 711. 63–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, P. & M. Lapidge. 1995. Byrhtferth’s Manual. EETS s.s. 15. Oxford: Early English Text Society.Google Scholar
Bosworth, J., T. N. Toller & A. Campbell (eds.). 1972. An Anglo-Saxon dictionary: Based on the manuscript collections of Joseph Bosworth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Breban, T. 2010. English adjectives of comparison: Lexical and grammaticalized uses. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Campbell, A. 1959. Old English grammar. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Cantrall, W. R. 1973. Why I would relate own, emphatic reflexives, and intensive pronouns, my own self. Chicago Linguistic Society 91. 57–67.Google Scholar
Cole, M. 2016. Identifying the author(s) of the Lindisfarne Gloss: Linguistic variation as a diagnostic for determining authorship. In J. Fernández Cuesta & S. M. Pons-Sanz (eds.), 169–188.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. 1998. Reference-tracking: Description and explanation. STUF – Language Typology and Universals Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 521. 335–346.Google Scholar
Dumville, D. 1999. A palaeographer’s review: The Insular system of scripts in the early Middle Ages. Kansai: Kansai University Press.Google Scholar
Edmondson, J. A. & F. Plank. 1978. Great expectations: An intensive self analysis. Linguistics and Philosophy 21. 373–413. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Farr, J. M. 1905. Intensives and reflexives in Anglo-Saxon and early Middle-English. Baltimore, MD: Furst.Google Scholar
Feist, S. 1909. Etymologisches Wörterbuch der gotischen Sprache mit Einschluss des sog. Krimgotischen. Halle: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Fernández Cuesta, J. & S. M. Pons-Sanz (eds.). 2016. The Old English gloss to the Lindisfarne Gospels: Language, author and context. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Filipović, L. & J. Hawkins. 2016. English article usage as a window on the meanings of same, identical and similar. English Language and Linguistics 20(2). 295–313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, O. C. M. 2000. The position of the adjective in Old English. In R. Bermúdez-Otero et al. (eds.). Generative theory and corpus studies. Dialogue from 10 ICEHL, 153–181. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006. On the position of adjectives in Middle English. English Language and Linguistics 10(2). 253–288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gameson, R. 2001. Why did Eadfrith write the Lindisfarne Gospels? In R. Gameson & H. Leyser (eds.), Belief and culture in the Middle Ages, 45–58. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Geary, P. 1994. Phantoms of remembrance: Memory and oblivion at the end of the first millennium. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (ed.). 1983. Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holthausen, F. 1917. Die altenglischen Beda-Glossen. Archiv 1361. 290–92.Google Scholar
Huddlestone, R. & G. K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hurford, J. R. 1994. Grammar: A student’s guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ingersoll, S. M. 1978. Intensive and restrictive modification in Old English. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. L. 2002. Explaining the creation of reflexive pronouns in English. In D. Minkova & R. Stockwell. Studies in the history of English: A millennial perspective, 325–355. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
König, E. 2001. Intensifiers and reflexive pronouns. In M. Haspelmath et al. (eds.), Language typology and language universals, 747–760. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
König, E. & V. Gast. 2006. Focused assertion of identity. A typology of intensifiers. Linguistic Typology 101. 223–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
König, E. & L. Vezzosi. 2001. Languages on Mediterranean area. In P. Ramat & T. Stolz (eds.), Mediterranean languages. Papers from the MEDTYP Workshop, Tirrenia, June 2000, 191–208. Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
Lendinara, P. 2016. The unglossed words of the Lindisfarne glosses. In J. Fernández Cuesta & S. Pons-Sanz (eds), 329–360.Google Scholar
Logeman, H. 1888. The Rule of St. Benet. EETS 90. London: Trübner and Co. [repr. 1973]Google Scholar
Lyutikova, E. A. 2000. Reflexives and emphasis in Tsaxur (Nakh-Dagestanian). In Z. Frajzyngier & T. S. Walker-Curl (eds.), Reflexives: Forms and functions, 227–255. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meritt, H. D. 1945. Old English glosses: A collection. MLA General Series 16. New York: Modern Language Association of America. [repr. 1971]Google Scholar
1961. Old English glosses, mostly dry point. Journal of English and German Philology 601. 441–50.Google Scholar
Mitchell, B. 1985. Old English syntax. 21 vols. Oxford: Clarendon. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moyne, J. A. 1971. Reflexive and emphatic. Language 471. 141–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Napier, A. S. 1900. Old English glosses: Chiefly unpublished. Anecdota Oxoniensia, Mediaeval and Modern Series 11. Oxford: Clarendon. [repr. Hildesheim 1969].Google Scholar
Nees, L. 2003. Reading Aldred’s Colophon for the Lindisfarne Gospels. Speculum 78(2). 333–377. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oxford English Dictionary = <[URL]>.
Page, R. 1975. More Aldhelm glosses from CCCC 326. English Studies 561. 481–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pokorny, J. 1959. Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch: Band 1: Text / Band 2: Vorrede des Verfassers, Register, Abkürzungsverzeichnis. Bern: Francke.Google Scholar
Pons-Sanz, S. M. 2004. A sociolinguistic approach to the Norse-derived words in the glosses to the Lindisfarne and Rushworth Gospels. In Ch. Kay et al. (eds.), New perspectives on English historical linguistics: Selected papers from 12 ICEHL, Glasgow, 21–26 August 2002, 177–192. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pons-Sanz, S. 2016. A study of Aldred’s multiple glosses to the Lindisfarne Gospels. In J. Fernández Cuesta & S. Pons-Sanz (eds), 301–328.Google Scholar
Quirk, R. et al. (eds.). 1985. A comprehensive grammar of English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Roberts, J. 2016. Aldred: Glossator and book historian. In J. Fernández Cuesta & S. Pons-Sanz (eds), 37–60.Google Scholar
Schendl, H. 1992. A valency description of Old English possessive verbs. In M. Rissanen et al. (eds.), History of Englishes. New methods and interpretations on historical linguistics, 418–436. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seiler, H. 1983. Possession as an operational dimension of language. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Seppänen, A. 1975. On the Modern English ‘adjective’ own . Anglia 931. 293–306.Google Scholar
Skeat, W. W. 1871–87. The Four Gospels in Anglo-Saxon, Northumbrian, and Old Mercian versions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [repr. Darmstadt 1970].Google Scholar
Tabor, Wh. & E. C. Traugott. 1998. Structural scope expansion and grammaticalization. In A. G. Ramat & P. Hopper (eds.), The limits of grammaticalization, 229–272. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vezzosi, L. 2006. From agen to own . In N. Ritt et al. (eds.), Medieval English and its heritage. Structure, meaning and mechanisms of change, 147–164. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.Google Scholar
Zupitza, J. 1889. Altenglische Glossen. Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum und deutsche Literatur 331. 237–42.Google Scholar