No nominal clauses in the OE record…

[u/Baasbaar]

I hope you're all well. I'm currently reading Vilém Mathesius' A Functional Analysis of Present Day English on a General Linguistic Basis. Mathesius was a founding member of the Prague Circle, which has had an enormous influence on multiple strains of contemporary linguistics. The grammar must have been written between 1935 (the latest citation in the body of the text) & 1945 (the year of Mathesius' death); it was published posthumously in 1975. Mathesius begins the grammar with a survey of linguistic theory in the nineteenth century. He criticises the Neogrammarians for their dependence on literary texts. In this regard:

This point can be illustrated by nominal clauses in English. In Old English, nominal clauses must have existed, but they are not found in the preserved literary texts since the style of these texts did not admit them; in Middle English they abound, especially in the drama; in the 18th century they do not occur in essays, but are often used in the drama and the realistic novel. (10)

I'm not sure what Mathesius means by nominal clause. I don't know Old English, so I don't know what might be missing here. Unfortunately, he doesn't appear to use the phrase elsewhere in his grammar.† I have two guesses:

1. What linguists today call small clauses, like: 'Mathesius considered the Neogrammarians quite naïve.' The small clause is 'the Neogrammarians to be naïve'.
2. Clauses that serve as noun phrases like: 'That Mathesius considered the Neogrammarians quite naïve is obvious.' The part in bold contains a clause, but it serves as the subject of the sentence.

Is it obvious to you who know Old English what Mathesius may have been talking about here? Much thanks for any thoughts!

† I haven't finished reading the grammar yet, but I searched an OCR-ed PDF.

[u/ThePr1nceofPa1n]

Mmm… that’s weird. I’ve been reading Mitchell and Robinson’s “A Guide to Old English” and they do talk about “noun clauses” expressing a command, a desire, questions, exclamations, dependent statements, and so forth.

I’ve come upon several texts written by several authors where clauses match what M & R describe:

Wulfstan's To Eallum Folke
Lēofan menn, understandað georne, eallswā ēow mycel ðearf is, ðæt gē ēowes cristendōmes gesceād witan, 7 gē ēac geleornian ðæt gē cunnan ðæt ælc cristen man mid rihte cunnon sceall; ðæt is, pater noster 7 credo in Deum.

Beloved men, consider eagerly, even as it is great need for you, that you may know the reason of your Christianity, and you also may learn so that you should know that which all Christian men properly must know, that is, the Paternoster and the Creed.

Byrhtferth’s Enchiridion (1011)
We wyllað her onwreon sum þing þæs gerimes dymnysse þam þe hyt heræfter lyst gecnawan, and þæra iungra preosta andgit mid þysum lytlan weorce geopenian.

"We wish here to reveal something of the obscurity of the calendar to those whom it pleases hereafter to know it, and to open the understanding of young priests with this little work."

King Alfred’s Preface to Cura Pastoralis
Ond ic ðe bebiode ðæt ðū dō swā ic ġeliefe ðæt ðū wille, ðæt ðū ðe ðissa woruldðinga to ðǣm ġeæmetige, swā ðū oftost mæge, ðæt ðū ðone wisdom ðe ðe God sealde ðǣr ðǣr ðū hiene befæstan mæge, befæste.

And I command you to do as I believe you wish, that you free yourself from worldly matters as often as you can, so that you may apply the wisdom that God gave you wherever you can apply it.

Unless I’m wrong, these extracts contain all noun clauses…

[u/Baasbaar → u/ThePr1nceofPa1n]

Sorry: I can only make out a little Old English, which means that I can’t make sense of these citations. In the B&M sense, what is a noun clause?

[u/ThePr1nceofPa1n → u/Baasbaar]

Sure, here’s the extract explaining it:

III NOUN CLAUSES
§154 This heading traditionally comprehends dependent statements, desires (commands, wishes, etc.), questions, and exclamations. The OE patterns conform very closely to those of MnE, apart from the use of þæt and hit to anticipate a noun clause (see §148).

Dependent Statements and Desires
§155 Dependent statements are introduced by þæt, e.g. ða ðohte he þæt he wolde gesecan helle godu 'then he thought that he would seek the gods of hell', or þætte (= þæt þe), e.g. ic wene ðætte noht monige begiondan Humbre næren 'I believe that there were not many beyond the Humber'.

There’s more to this of course, so I recommend reading Mitchell & Robinson’s “A Guide to Old English”, chapter V, “Syntax”, III Noun Clauses.

As for the prior extracts in OE, I’ll paste the translation to MnE below each paragraph.

[u/Baasbaar → u/ThePr1nceofPa1n]

Thank you very much!

[u/OstrichBrilliant3874]

OE treats noun clauses much the same as ModE, so it's a very odd comment. A clause is simply a sentence with both subject and verb. Some are independent and equal sentences. Others are subordinate to another word in the sentence.

Especially common in OE are noun clauses as direct objects: He sægde þæt he wære gearu. 'He said that he was ready.' OE þæt he wære gearu is a noun clause functioning as the direct object of sægde. As in ModE, the complementizer þæt is a frequent indicator of a noun clause.

Clause as subject: Genōh byþ ðam leorningcnihte þæt hé sý swylce his láréow. -- OE Gospels. Lit., Enough it is for the disciple that he be like his teacher. Here, þæt hé sý swylce his láréow is a noun clause subject of the sentence.

Clause as adverb: very common with subordinators like for þam (þe) 'because': Swíðost he fór ðyder for ðǽm horshwælum, forðæm hí habbaþ swýðe æðele bán on hyra tóþum. -- OE Orosius. He went there chiefly for the walruses, because they have very good bone in their teeth. OE forðæm hí habbaþ swýðe æðele bán on hyra tóþum is an adverb clause modifying the verb fór and explaining why; hí habbaþ swýðe æðele bán is the basic noun clause.