Old English būtan / Old Frisian būta: From Adverb to Conjunction

Another Anglo-Frisian Parallel?

In: Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik
View More View Less
  • 1

Abstract

It is well established that Old English is more closely related to Old Frisian than to any other West Germanic language. This fact rests especially on phonological, morphological and lexical evidence. Syntactic arguments are few and far between. In this article, the author argues that the Old Frisian conjunction būta ‘but’ and its Old English parallel būtan ‘but’ do not derive their behavioural similarities to an erstwhile Anglo-Frisian pre-stage, but must be explained as having arisen from a similar, but independent, process of grammaticalization.

Abstract

It is well established that Old English is more closely related to Old Frisian than to any other West Germanic language. This fact rests especially on phonological, morphological and lexical evidence. Syntactic arguments are few and far between. In this article, the author argues that the Old Frisian conjunction būta ‘but’ and its Old English parallel būtan ‘but’ do not derive their behavioural similarities to an erstwhile Anglo-Frisian pre-stage, but must be explained as having arisen from a similar, but independent, process of grammaticalization.

1 Introduction

Typical for North Sea Germanic, a number of spatial and temporal adverbs/prepositions compounded with the directive suffix *-ana was prone to being expanded with the prefix be-/bi- < Gmc *bi- ‘around’.1 The purpose of the expansion with *bi- was to emphasize the local aspect of such adverbs. Focusing on Old Frisian, examples include, amongst others, binetha ‘beneath’ (Old English bineoþan, Middle Low German/Middle Dutch beneden) and bifora ‘before’ (OE beforan, OS biforan).2 The vowel of the prefix was often elided when the following lexeme was vowel-initial:

T000001

The Frisian forms have all lost the final -n according to rule (Bremmer 2009, §§68–70). Apparently, no compounding occurred when the adverb did not end in *-ana, as witnessed by the absence of such forms as OFris *būr, OE *bofer (< bi- + ofer) and OFris *bunder, OE *bunder (< bi- + under). The reason for this absence is that the suffix -er (of various IE origin) has no directive meaning. Most of the adverbs/prepositions compounded with bi- could moreover be extended with the prefix ā- (< *on-): for example, ābūta (cf. OE ābūtan), ābuppa (OE not attested), ābinna (OE ābinnan), ābuva (OE ābufan), an extension that would seem to be confined to Old English and Old Frisian. Only one of these adverbs/prepositions developed into an adversative conjunction, to wit OE būtan / OFris būta. Since, to the best of my knowledge, this functional development has not yet been addressed for Old Frisian,3 it is the purpose of this essay to explore the characteristics of the Frisian side of this last pair, since notably Xavier Dekeyser (2012) and Terttu Nevalainen (1990) have already extensively done so for the English word. The conclusion I shall draw is that the parallel should not be explained as the result of English and Frisian stemming from a common pre-stage.

Dekeyser (2012, 297) begins his discussion by pointing out that the move of OE būtan from adverb to conjunction is an instance of grammaticalization, i.e., a “process whereby lexical items and constructions come in certain linguistic contexts to serve grammatical functions, and, once grammaticalized, continue to develop new grammatical functions” (Hopper and Traugott 2003, xv). In the process of grammaticalization, new layers of function are added to the original one and often coexist with it, a phenomenon called layering. Finally, grammaticalization usually exhibits a gradual shifting of the lexeme from one category to another, a characteristic known as a cline or a gradient.

2 The Old Frisian Data

Old Frisian būta consists of three functional layers: (1) adverb, (2) preposition, and (3) conjunction.

2.1

The oldest of these functions is presumably the lexeme’s adverbial role of indicating place, meaning ‘outside’, in the sense of ‘not within a limit or boundary; esp. in the open air’ (oed) or ‘a place or region beyond an enclosure or boundary’ (Merriam-Webster). The following sentences may serve as examples:

T000002

2.2

The most common function was that of a preposition, initially of space:

T000003

The preposition next, in a move away from a concrete to a more abstract meaning, came also to be used in a temporal sense:

T000004

In due time, the preposition acquired abstract or metaphorical meanings, such as ‘without’ (5a), ‘except’ (5b), and ‘beyond’ (5c):

T000005T000005

In most cases, the preposition governs the dative. The reading “riucht” in (5c) without the dative ending -e in the Fivelgo Manuscript (ca. 1440) is confirmed by that of the Second Hunsingo Manuscript, written about a century earlier (Buma and Ebel 1969, xix.19). Consequently, it must be concluded that occasionally būta appears to have governed the accusative case, unless we are dealing here with an early instance of loss of unstressed final -e.

On occasion the preposition seems to govern the genitive:

T000006

In (6b), “butis” is a contraction of the preposition with the article thes (gen. of thet) (buta thes landis; cf. MDu buten slants; see mnw, s.v. buten for more examples of buten + gen.). However, it is also possible, and indeed preferable, to interpret such phrases as binna landes and buta landes as genitival adverbial phrases (cf. Bremmer 2009, §181 [3]; Lasch 1914, §394.iv), a phenomenon which can also be seen in, for example:

T000007

2.3

When the meaning ‘outside’ came to take on connotations of exception, as in (4b, 5b)—exception being conceived as ‘outside-ness’—the ground appeared to be prepared for helping the spatial preposition ‘outside’ to be reanalyzed and recategorized as a connective or clause linker, or conjunction in more traditional terminology.4 It should be noted that this shift in function from spatial preposition to adversative conjunction came about only when the preceding propositional clause contained a negative phrase. Thus, in (7) theoretically speaking, it is at first sight not easy to decide whether “buta” should be interpreted as a preposition or conjunction, linking two clauses.

T000008

If “buta” in (7) were a preposition, then it would have to govern the accusative here, for otherwise the text should have read “Godi”. However, “buta God alena” might just as well, or even better, be interpreted as an elliptical clause: *“buta God alena wet tha stifne” [except God alone knows the voice]. The matter is clinched by the presence of negation in the proposition “net nen manniska” [not-knows no human]. In fact, the presence of a negator in the proposition is obligatory, to which the clause introduced by “buta” serves as a correction. Also in example (8a), it is hard to tell at first sight whether we are dealing with a preposition or a conjunction, but because in (8b) “buta” is followed by a prepositional phrase, it cannot be anything else than an exceptive conjunction. Furthermore, the proposition in both examples contains a negation (“ne ach ma”) to which a correction follows:

T000009

No problem as to interpretation of function rises when buta introduces a clause containing a full (notional) verbal predicate, as in:

T000010

And:

T000011

Moreover, in both (9) and (10) the proposition clause features a negation.

3 Old Frisian and Later

When a lexical item is being grammaticalized, the ‘full’ pronunciation frequently is reduced in the process. Thus OE butan /bu:tan/ > early ME bute /bu:te/ > late ME /bʊt/ and MoE but /bʌt/. The full pronunciation of OE būtan has survived in MoE ’bout /baʊt/ (see oed s.v. bout prep. 2 and adv. 2). Indeed, for late Old Frisian, especially the charters appear to produce a number of instances of bute suggesting a more centralized pronunciation of original -a, if only when occurring in adverbial or prepositional functions. I have found no instances of bute used as a conjunction, for example:

T000012

More remarkable, though, is the rise in the charters of the Dutch/Low German loan form buten, which has eventually, in the modern period, almost completely ousted the native Frisian form. The native word survived in a specialized meaning in MoWFris bût(e) n. ‘cowshed (lit. outside-house)’ and compounds derived from this one, such as bûthús ‘cowshed’ and bûtflier ‘floor of the cowshed’. Also the MoWFris adverb bûte ‘in the cowshed’ (see wft, s.v. bût iii, bûte ii, and bûten I, respectively) is ultimately a descendant of OFris būta.

Unlike in English, however, Old Frisian būta did not develop into a discourse marker, introducing a piece of discourse or linking two or more parts of discourse (as in ‘But what did he say?’; cf. Dekeyser 2012, 302; Nevalainen 1990, 340). What is more, the adversative conjunction būta ‘but, except’ (G sondern) appears to be on its way out even before the end of the Old Frisian period. It is commonest in the older manuscripts, all of these taking their origin from east of the River Lauwers. From manuscripts located to the west of the Lauwers I have found but one instance:

T000013T000013

The passage occurs in a ‘Formulary for Offering the Compensation for Manslaughter’, presumably composed in the thirteenth century, as found in Codex Unia (now lost), but it has also come down to us in another manuscript, to wit Jus Municipale Frisonum. The latter was copied in the 1530s from several older exemplars (Buma and Ebel 1977, 8). Codex Unia, according to the colophon, was copied in 1475, but evidently from (an) older exemplar(s), because its language is generally considered to be rather archaic (Sytsema 2014). For comparative reasons it is interesting for us to see that the same passage in Jus reads as follows:

T000014

For the present purpose it is striking to see that in (13) the conjunction “buta” of (12) was replaced by “mer”. It would seem that the scribe (or an intermediate scribe) was no longer comfortable or familiar with this function of būta and replaced it with a lexeme that was more current in his day.

4 Alternatives for būta

The availability of several alternative conjunctions may have thwarted the continued use of būta. The conjunction mēr ‘but, however’ is one of them:

T000015

The conjunction mēr could be a native word, the result of phonological reduction (assimilation) resulting in univerbation: ne wēre (cf. OE ne wǣre) > nwēr > mēr, literally ‘not were [it]’. This precursor of mēr is exemplified in the following sentence:

T000016

Again, in (15) the proposition is marked negatively (“nebbe … nene … nene”). However, mēr is also found in Middle Low German (Lasch 1914, §§ 229, 265), so the conjunction might be a loanword. Even before the close of the Old Frisian period mēr meets competition with MDu maer /ma:r/ and is eventually replaced by it in view of MoWFris mar ‘but’ (Afr. Hwb., s.v. mēr, mār; wft, s.v. mar ii).5

Another Low German loanword to fill the slot of būta, on either side of the River Lauwers from about 1400 onwards, was men ‘but’ (meaning both G sondern and aber),6 for example:

T000017

Here, too, the proposition clause is negative. It would seem that men ‘but’ survived in West Frisian into the nineteenth century (wft, s.v. men ii, erroneously taken for a Danish loan). In Saterlandic and Wangeroogic, both of them MoEFris varieties, the conjunction lived on as man (see Fort 2015, s.v. man; Ehrentraut 1996, 209, s.v. aber).

5 An Anglo-Frisian Parallel

A last question needs to be posed: should the grammaticalization of both OE būtan and OFris būta be explained as the result of a common Anglo-Frisian ancestor? As is known, English and Frisian are more closely related than with any other Germanic language (cf. Bremmer 2009, §§220–25). Rebecca Colleran (2015) has advocated such an explanation with respect to grammatical parallels between OE āgan and OFris āga. Both verbs bleached from a full (notional) verb, meaning ‘to have, own’, to an auxiliary + + inflected infinitive, meaning ‘to have to, must’, a development which is unparallelled in the other North Sea Germanic languages. According to Colleran, Old Frisian cannot have borrowed the auxiliary function with its concomitant syntactic feature from Old English. Since auxiliation of āga(n) is found neither in Old Low Franconian nor in Old Saxon, it cannot have been an integral part of a North Sea dialect continuum. Consequently, thus Colleran, its presence in both Old English and Old Frisian must be indicative of an Anglo-Frisian node higher up in the genealogical tree. However this may be, I would suggest a different explanation for the Anglo-Frisian parallel of OE būtan and OFris būta.

Let us first consider the development from OE būtan to ModE but, which can conveniently be presented as follows (Dekeyser 2012, 304):

T000018

For Frisian a similar presentation for the development of būta can be outlined, if with one important difference:

T000019

As can be seen, in Frisian būta never made it to stage four; that is, it failed to become the discourse marker ‘but’. So rather than taking the parallel as a case of either borrowing or inheritance, I think we are dealing here with a case of autogenesis. A similar development of adverb > preposition > conjunction took place in Swedish for utan < OSw ūtan (cf. Nevalainen 1990, 339–40), which is of course the cognate adverb/preposition as OE/OFris būtan, albeit without the prefix bi-. Like Old Frisian, Swedish also borrowed LG men (Hellquist 1922, s.v. men, konj.). The conjunction men is used to mark contrast, while utan expresses correction. Some of the examples that Kotcheva (2001, 21) provides illustrate these conjunctions in action:

T000020

Since there is no question of Old Swedish having borrowed ūtan from Old English or of Old Swedish and Old English sharing a higher node in the language tree (with the exclusion of Danish and Norwegian), the conclusion must be that the grammaticalization process of OSw ūtan from adverb to conjunction took place independently. In other words, the grammaticalization of ūtan was semantically driven and this will have been no different for OE būtan and OFris būta. As a matter of fact, comparable developments can be found outside the group of Germanic languages, as is the case with, for example, Spanish fuera (de) < L forās adv. ‘outside’:7

T000021

In Polish, to give another non-Germanic example, the preposition poza, while still being occasionally found in a spatial sense, is most commonly used prepositionally as ‘except for’, and as a part of a conjunction poza tym że (lit. outside that-dempron.loc that-relpron.uninfl), with a meaning approximating ‘apart from’, though with a possible ‘except for’:8

T000022

Indeed, in Dutch too, the cognate buiten was on its way to turn from adverb into conjunction, but never fully made it to the last step (Dekeyser 2012, 305). In order to function as a conjunction, buiten needs support of dat ‘that’:

T000023

In conclusion, then, rather than explaining the grammaticalization process of OE/OFris būta(n) as yet another heirloom of an Anglo-Frisian pre-stage, I would contend that OFris būta independently underwent a semantic and functional change that can also be witnessed in other related and unrelated languages. The word būta progressed from the external and concrete/objective (‘outside’) towards the discourse-driven and the abstract/subjective, acquiring textual meaning (‘except’, ‘but’) (cf. Traugott’s Tendency 2, see Traugott 1989, 34–35). This gradient can conveniently be schematized, by way of conclusion, as follows (cf. Dekeyser 2012, 305):

T000024

Footnotes

* I like to thank the following people who commented on a draft version of this article that I also posted on academia.edu: Roland Brennan, Annet Nieuwhof, Roland Schumann, Michiel de Vaan, Stephen P. B. Dunford, Chris de Wulf, Marcin Krygier, Marcelle Cole, Eric Hoekstra, Karel Gildemacher, Sergio Neri, and Stephen Laker. Stephen Laker also kindly suggested a number of stylistic and presentational improvements.

References

  • Afr. Hwb. = Altfriesisches Handwörterbuch, eds. Dietrich Hofmann and Anne T. Popkema, Heidelberg, 2008.

  • B = Buma, Wybren Jan and Wilhelm Ebel, Das Brokmer Recht, Altfriesische Rechtsquellen 2, Göttingen, 1963.

  • Bremmer 2009: Rolf H. Bremmer Jr, An Introduction to Old Frisian. History, Grammar, Reader, Glossary, Amsterdam.

  • Colleran 2015: Rebecca Colleran, “ ‘To have’ and ‘to have to’: Addressing Old Frisian Inheritance through Auxiliation,” Philologia Frisica anno 2014, Leeuwarden: 4163.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dekeyser 2012: Xavier Dekeyser, “From Old English BUTAN to Present-day BUT: A Textbook Case of Grammaticalization,” in: Explorations in the English Language: Festschrift for Professor Jerzy Welna on the Occasion of His 70th Birthday, eds. Joanna Esquibel and Anna Wojtys, Bern: 297307.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • EWA = Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Althochdeutschen, eds. Albert L. Lloyd, Otto Springer and Rosemarie Lühr. vols. I–, Göttingen, 1988–.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • F = Buma, Wybren Jan and Wilhelm Ebel, Das Fivelgoer Recht, Altfriesische Rechtsquellen 5. Göttingen, 1972.

  • Fort 2015: Marron C. Fort, Saterfriesisches Wörterbuch, 2nd., completely revised and expanded ed., Hamburg.

  • H2 = Buma, Wybren Jan and Wilhelm Ebel, Das Hunsingoer Recht, Altfriesische Rechtsquellen 4, Göttingen, 1969.

  • Hellquist 1922: Elof Hellquist, Svensk etymologisk ordbok, Lund.

  • Hopper and Traugott 2003: Paul J. Hopper and Elizabeth Closs Traugott, Grammaticalization, 2nd ed., Cambridge.

  • J = Buma, Wybren Jan and Wilhelm Ebel, with Marina Tragter-Schubert, Jus Municipale Frisonum, 2 vols. Altfriesische Rechtsquellen 6, Göttingen, 1977.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kluge/Seebold 2012: Friedrich Kluge, Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache, 25th ed., ed. by Elmar Seebold, Berlin.

  • Kotcheva 2001: Kristina Kotcheva, “Om betydelsen av konjunktionerna men, inte … utan, och inte,” in Nordiska språk—insikter och utsikter, eds. Jurij Kusmenko and Sven Lange, Berlin: 1731.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lasch 1914: Agathe Lasch, Mittelniederdeutsche Grammatik, Tübingen.

  • Lehmann 1986: Winfred P. Lehmann, A Gothic Etymological Dictionary, Leiden.

  • Merriam-Webster = Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

  • MNW = Middelnederlandsch Woordenboek, eds. Eelco Verwijs, Jacob Verdam and Frederik A. Stoet, The Hague, 1885–1927.

  • Nevalainen 1990: Terttu Nevalainen, “Modelling Functional Differentiation and Functional Loss: The Case of but”, in: Papers from the 5th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, eds. Sylvia Adamson, Vivien Law, Nigel Vincent and Susan Wright, Amsterdam: 337355.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • O = Sipma, Pieter, Oudfriesche Oorkonden, 3 vols. Oudfries(ch)e Taal- en Rechtsbronnen 1–3, The Hague, 1927–39; vol. 4 ed. by Oebele Vries, Oudfriese Taal- en Rechtsbronnen 14, The Hague, 1977.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • OED = Online Oxford English Dictionary

  • R1 = Buma, Wybren Jan and Wilhelm Ebel, Das Rüstringer Recht, Altfriesische Rechtsquellen 1, Göttingen 1961.

  • Rutten 2012: Gijsbert Rutten, “From Adverb to Conjunction and Back: The (De)gramaticalization of Dutch dan”, Diachronica 29.3: 301325.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sytsema 2014: Johanneke Sytsema, “Codex Unia: Edition and Reconstruction of a Lost Old Frisian Manuscript,” in Directions for Old Frisian Philology, eds. Rolf H. Bremmer Jr, Stephen Laker and Oebele Vries, Amsterdam: 497526 [= Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik 73].

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Temmen 2006: Mareike Temmen, Das ‘Abdinghofer Arzneibuch’. Edition und Untersuchung einer Handschrift mittelniederdeutscher Fachprosa, Cologne.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Traugott 1989: Elizabeth Closs Traugott, “On the Rise of Epistemic Meaning in English: an Example of Subjectification in Semantic Change”, Language 65: 3155.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • U = Sytsema, Johanneke, Diplomatic Edition Codex Unia: <http://tdb.fryske-akademy.eu/tdb/index-unia-en.html> [Fryske Akademy, Leeuwarden 2012].

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • WFT = Wurdboek fan de Fryske Taal / Woordenboek van de Friese Taal, eds. Klaas van der Veen et al. , Leeuwarden, 19842009.

1

For further information on the etymology of Gmc *bi, see, e.g., ewa, ii, s.v. bi or Lehmann 1986, s.v. bi.

2

OHG bifora ‘ere, before’ (rarely attested; G bevor) is for its second element to be separated etymologically from OE beforan and OFris/OS bifora(n), see ewa, iii, s.v. fora 1.

3

Apart from my modest contribution to Dekeyser 2012, 305 and concluding note.

4

For a similar development of MDu dan ‘then, than’, see Rutten 2012, esp. 308.

5

Alternatively, one could think of an indigenous development from -er- > -ar-, as attested in, e.g., OFris mere ‘lake’ > MoWFris mar. Further Old Frisian adversative conjunctions include (hit) ne sē, nēr, and sunder (glossing L autem) / sonder (rare); see Afr. Hwb., s.vv.

6

For the diatopical distribution of MLG mēr and men, see Temmen 2006, 163 and the literature she quotes in note 395. It is also recorded for Eastern MDu, see mnw, s.v. men iii.

7

I owe the Spanish examples to Marcelle Cole.

8

I owe the Polish examples to Marcin Krygier.

  • Afr. Hwb. = Altfriesisches Handwörterbuch, eds. Dietrich Hofmann and Anne T. Popkema, Heidelberg, 2008.

  • B = Buma, Wybren Jan and Wilhelm Ebel, Das Brokmer Recht, Altfriesische Rechtsquellen 2, Göttingen, 1963.

  • Bremmer 2009: Rolf H. Bremmer Jr, An Introduction to Old Frisian. History, Grammar, Reader, Glossary, Amsterdam.

  • Colleran 2015: Rebecca Colleran, “ ‘To have’ and ‘to have to’: Addressing Old Frisian Inheritance through Auxiliation,” Philologia Frisica anno 2014, Leeuwarden: 4163.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dekeyser 2012: Xavier Dekeyser, “From Old English BUTAN to Present-day BUT: A Textbook Case of Grammaticalization,” in: Explorations in the English Language: Festschrift for Professor Jerzy Welna on the Occasion of His 70th Birthday, eds. Joanna Esquibel and Anna Wojtys, Bern: 297307.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • EWA = Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Althochdeutschen, eds. Albert L. Lloyd, Otto Springer and Rosemarie Lühr. vols. I–, Göttingen, 1988–.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • F = Buma, Wybren Jan and Wilhelm Ebel, Das Fivelgoer Recht, Altfriesische Rechtsquellen 5. Göttingen, 1972.

  • Fort 2015: Marron C. Fort, Saterfriesisches Wörterbuch, 2nd., completely revised and expanded ed., Hamburg.

  • H2 = Buma, Wybren Jan and Wilhelm Ebel, Das Hunsingoer Recht, Altfriesische Rechtsquellen 4, Göttingen, 1969.

  • Hellquist 1922: Elof Hellquist, Svensk etymologisk ordbok, Lund.

  • Hopper and Traugott 2003: Paul J. Hopper and Elizabeth Closs Traugott, Grammaticalization, 2nd ed., Cambridge.

  • J = Buma, Wybren Jan and Wilhelm Ebel, with Marina Tragter-Schubert, Jus Municipale Frisonum, 2 vols. Altfriesische Rechtsquellen 6, Göttingen, 1977.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kluge/Seebold 2012: Friedrich Kluge, Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache, 25th ed., ed. by Elmar Seebold, Berlin.

  • Kotcheva 2001: Kristina Kotcheva, “Om betydelsen av konjunktionerna men, inte … utan, och inte,” in Nordiska språk—insikter och utsikter, eds. Jurij Kusmenko and Sven Lange, Berlin: 1731.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lasch 1914: Agathe Lasch, Mittelniederdeutsche Grammatik, Tübingen.

  • Lehmann 1986: Winfred P. Lehmann, A Gothic Etymological Dictionary, Leiden.

  • Merriam-Webster = Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

  • MNW = Middelnederlandsch Woordenboek, eds. Eelco Verwijs, Jacob Verdam and Frederik A. Stoet, The Hague, 1885–1927.

  • Nevalainen 1990: Terttu Nevalainen, “Modelling Functional Differentiation and Functional Loss: The Case of but”, in: Papers from the 5th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, eds. Sylvia Adamson, Vivien Law, Nigel Vincent and Susan Wright, Amsterdam: 337355.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • O = Sipma, Pieter, Oudfriesche Oorkonden, 3 vols. Oudfries(ch)e Taal- en Rechtsbronnen 1–3, The Hague, 1927–39; vol. 4 ed. by Oebele Vries, Oudfriese Taal- en Rechtsbronnen 14, The Hague, 1977.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • OED = Online Oxford English Dictionary

  • R1 = Buma, Wybren Jan and Wilhelm Ebel, Das Rüstringer Recht, Altfriesische Rechtsquellen 1, Göttingen 1961.

  • Rutten 2012: Gijsbert Rutten, “From Adverb to Conjunction and Back: The (De)gramaticalization of Dutch dan”, Diachronica 29.3: 301325.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sytsema 2014: Johanneke Sytsema, “Codex Unia: Edition and Reconstruction of a Lost Old Frisian Manuscript,” in Directions for Old Frisian Philology, eds. Rolf H. Bremmer Jr, Stephen Laker and Oebele Vries, Amsterdam: 497526 [= Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik 73].

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Temmen 2006: Mareike Temmen, Das ‘Abdinghofer Arzneibuch’. Edition und Untersuchung einer Handschrift mittelniederdeutscher Fachprosa, Cologne.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Traugott 1989: Elizabeth Closs Traugott, “On the Rise of Epistemic Meaning in English: an Example of Subjectification in Semantic Change”, Language 65: 3155.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • U = Sytsema, Johanneke, Diplomatic Edition Codex Unia: <http://tdb.fryske-akademy.eu/tdb/index-unia-en.html> [Fryske Akademy, Leeuwarden 2012].

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • WFT = Wurdboek fan de Fryske Taal / Woordenboek van de Friese Taal, eds. Klaas van der Veen et al. , Leeuwarden, 19842009.

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 125 0 0
Full Text Views 349 88 13
PDF Views & Downloads 57 36 0