> Constructions with <habban>/<be:on> + pp. were of course slowly
evolving
> towards a conventionalised perfect construction already in Old
English.
> But, in OE terms, you can't claim that <notian> is gramatically the
main
> verb here. It's a past participle form, still inflected like an
adjective.
Shouldn't we analyze a sentence's structure on the basis of how it
meant and was used at that particular stage, rather than on the basis
of how it used to mean in an earlier stage?
Since a reanalysis had taken place and 'genotudne' carried the
meaning of a main verb(as opposed to an auxiliary), why not claim it
is a main verb in the sentence? The speaker who uttered(or wrote)
that sentence probably treated it as a main verb.
I know it is inflected as an adjective due to the presence of mete,
but that's where I think the problem lies: The participle-form verb,
formerly an adjective, now agrees with the object only.
> > However, something about this sentence deserves our attention:
the
> > suffix is attached to the verb 'genotudn-.' That is, the main
verb
> > now agrees with the object 'mete' only!
>
> No. Semantics aside, the main verb is formally <hæfdon>, and it
governs
> both the noun <mete> (acc. <mete>) and the pp. <genotod> (acc.
<genotodne>):
I think the same argumentation can be used reversly:
Morphology aside. The main veb is semantically 'genotudne' and it
governs and agrees only with the noun 'mete'.
(A side question: I don't know whether the verb 'genotod' takes an
accusative-case noun or nouns in other cases such as dative.)
It seems a matter of preference to treat the case whether as a
counterexample against the implicational universal or not, since we
may base our reasoning either on form or on meaning and then derive
different arguments.
What do you think?
Ray
> But they had then [their food-ACC used-up-ACC].
>
> The meaning is already perfect-like, but the syntax lags behind.
>
> Piotr