From: fortuna11111
Message: 36385
Date: 2005-02-18
> Just to put it in a historical perspective: in Old English, adverbsforms
> derived from adjectives were, etymologically, just oblique case
> (dative/locative in most instances), and usually differed from thelang 'long
> quotation forms of adjectives only in having a final -e (e.g.
> [adj.]' vs. lange [adv.]). This -e was lost by the 15th century,which
> resulted in complete homophony between adjectives and inheritesadverbs.
> This is what we still have in such words as <high, low, fast, hard,<bloody
> only, early, late, far, near, long, wide> etc., not to mention
> [UK], damned, fucking> and the like.specialised
>
> In the course of Middle English the suffix -ly(che) became
> as an adverb marker. Originally, however, OE -li:c formedadjectives
> (with corresponding adverbs in -li:c-e, e.g. fre:ond-li:c 'friendlyModern
> [adj.]', fre:ond-li:ce 'in a friendly manner'). Note that even in
> English <only, early> may belong to either category and <friendly,adverbs.
> kingly, dastardly, manly> etc. are normally adjectives, not
> <lowly> is an adverb when it means 'in a low degree,insufficiently',
> but only an adjective when it means 'low in rank/social class'.differentiated
>
> For some items, doublets have developed, usually with
> meanings. <slow>, <quick> and <loud>, if used as adverbs (opinionsroughly
> differ as to how "correct" these are in standard English), mean
> the same as <slowly>, <quickly> and <loudly>; but <hardly, shortly,extremely
> lately, widely, highly> and some other such words have specialised
> meanings different from those of the endingless adverbs.
>
> In non-standard varieties of English endingless adverbs are
> common (<love me tender, love me true>). You can also find <scarce,in
> uncommon, wondrous> etc. as archaisms consciously employed as such
> older poetry.
>
> Piotr