A history of the English Language

participle 
baken
is more frequent in the Bible than 
baked
.
 Brent
and 
brast
were common 
forms for 
burnt
and 
burst,
while 
wesh
and 
washen
were prevalent as the past tense and 
past participle of 
wash
until the close of the sixteenth century. Because in all these cases 
the forms current today were also in use, it is apparent that in Shakespeare’s day there 
was much more latitude in the inflection of the verb than is permitted today. 
184.
Usage and Idiom.
Language isnotmerely a matter of words andinflections. We should neglect a very 
essential element if we failed to take account of the many conventional features—matters 
of idiom and usage—that often defy explanation or logical classification but are 
nevertheless characteristic of the language at a given time and, like other conventions, 
subject to change. Such a matter as the omission of the article where we customarily use 
it is an illustration in point. Shakespeare says 
creeping like snail, with as big heart as 
thou, in number of our friends, within this mile and half, thy beauty’s form in table of my 
heart,
where modern idiom requires an article in all these cases. On the other hand, where 
we say 
at length, at last,
Shakespeare says 
at the length, at the last
. Again, usage 
permitted a different placing of the negative—before the verb—as in such expressions as 
I not doubt, it not appears to me, she not denies it
. For a long time English permitted the 
use of a double negative. We have now discarded it through a false application of 
mathematical logic to language; but in Elizabethan times it was felt merely as a stronger 
negative, as indeed it is today in the instinct of the uneducated. So Shakespeare could say 
Thou hast spoken no word all this while—nor understood none neither; I know not, nor I 
greatly care not; Nor this is not my nose neither; First he denied you had in him no right; 
My father hath no child but I, nor none is like to have; Nor never none shall mistress be 
of it, save I alone
. It is a pity we have lost so useful an intensive. 
Perhaps nothing illustrates so richly the idiomatic changes in a language from one age 
to another as the uses of prepositions. When Shakespeare says 
I’ll rent the fairest house 
in it after threepence a bay,
we should say 
at;
in 
Our fears in Banquo stick deep,
we 
should say 
about
. The single preposition 
of
shows how many changes in common idioms 
have come about since 1600: 
One that I brought up of
(from) 
a puppy; he came of
(on) 
an 
errand to me; ’Tis pity of 
(about) 
him; your name…. I know not, nor by what wonder you 
do hit of 
(upon) 
mine; And not be seen to wink of
(during) 
all the day; it was well done of
(by) 
you; I wonder of
(at) 
their being here together; I am provided of
(with) 
a torch-
bearer; I have no mind of 
(for) 
feasting forth tonight; I were better to be married of 
(by)
 
him than of another; That did but show thee of
(as) 
a fool
. Many more examples could be 
added. Although matters of idiom and usage generally claim less attention from students 
of the language than do sounds and inflections or additions to the vocabulary, no picture 
of Elizabethan English would be adequate that did not give them a fair measure of 
recognition. 
A history of the english language 232

---