Talk:geardagum

geardagum
rfd-sense: The adverb sense is SOP or just incorrect depending on how you look at it (at least according to the citation given):


 * 1)  In days of yore; formerly.
 * We Gar-Dena in geardagum, þeodcyninga þrym gefrunon, ... &mdash; Beowulf

Clearly in geardagum is what means in days of yore and not just geardagum. in geardagum is clearly SOP.

--WikiTiki89 (talk) 08:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. A preposition + noun is a prepositional phrase, which may have an adverbial meaning, but isn't an adverb. —Angr 09:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Tend to agree, though I don't speak Old English. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, on the face of it. I'd be interested to know what had in mind when he added this though. Ƿidsiþ 16:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Geardagum by itself is the dative plural of a noun, it's only in geardagum that is adverbial in any sense. Although that may be SoP. 13:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Evaluate, This particular example using the preposition is probably not the best. geardagum can be used adverbially without a preposition (e.g. Hie gesetton ðá Sennar geárdagum - then they occupied Shinar in days of old). I will have to brush up on it, but I believe that OE dative nouns could be used adverbially (compare mǣlum, hwīlum, etc.). Leasnam (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, dative nouns can be used without a preposition, but that's just a usage of the dative case. It doesn't turn the nouns into adverbs. Just like in Romani ite domum ("Romans go home") is still the accusative of a noun, not an adverb. —Angr 15:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see what you're getting at. This is just a function of the dative though, I don't think it needs a separate POS section for every noun. Ƿidsiþ 16:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, I remember this. Other Germanic languages do similar things with their noun cases. But still, is this adverbial meaning of geardagum predictable from the fact that it is a dative? 15:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This is more than just using a dative noun sans preposition. It is a special case of a common adverbial phrase created by what was originally the dative plural of a noun in OE usage. Do we not have such in New English (e.g. at once:, at random:, by heart:, needs:, days:, nights:, weekends:, etc.)? Leasnam (talk) 16:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Or, for that matter, at home, where at least a few of the senses don't seem to introduce meaning not found in the noun. DCDuring TALK 16:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "At once", "at random", and "by heart" are all prepositional phrases, and "needs" is not synchronically a case-form of "need". But "geardagum" is just the dative plural of "geardæg" and the fact that it can be used without a preposition doesn't make it an adverb. —Angr 16:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I see it two ways: 1). geardagum is the dative plural of geardæg. 2). it is an adverb meaning "formerly, in times past", dictated by usage, irrespective of formation. Leasnam (talk) 16:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * But all datives can be read that way – that's why it's called the ‘adverbial dative’. When Alfred is talking about translation, he says it's done hwilum word be word, hwilum andgit of andgit ‘sometimes word for word, sometimes sense for sense’, where hwilum: is just the dative form of ‘while’. In Riddle 26, there is the line about being þy hyge bliþran, ferþe þy frodran ‘happier in mind and wiser in spirit’, where hyge: and ferþe: have adverbial effect. That's just one of the things the dative does. Ƿidsiþ 17:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * True, and were there entries for hyge: and ferþe: I would probably add an Adverb PoS to it, lol. Does everyone know that the dative (instrumental) case can be used adverbially? I'm not sure, which is why we list these out as PoS. It's an either-way situation, I know. Have we ever come to this before? Leasnam (talk) 17:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What is the evidence that "usage dictates" that? What is the evidence that geardagum is an adverb rather than just a (sometimes prepositionless) dative plural noun? —Angr 17:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see why "New English" is relevant. The question here is whether geardagum had a meaning beyond that of what you expect from the dative case of a noun. i.e. were there any coordinate nouns that had coordinate meanings in the dative case? What makes this a special case? --WikiTiki89 (talk) 17:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * New (Modern) English is relevant because the comparison is analogous. If we include days: and nights: where PoS = Adverb, then OE should get the same treatment. But yes, there are other dative nouns which act as Adverbs, two of which I have listed above. I wouldn't say that all dative nouns were used in this fashion, which makes geardagum a special case. Leasnam (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Since Modern English doesn't inflect for case, it isn't analogous. Latin is analogous, and geardagum is no more an adverb than gladio in a sentence like "Vir gladio interfectus est" is one. —Angr 17:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well...again, we might see things differently. I see English as having one case: possessive/genitive (as I do not see 's as a clitic, but as a genitive marker and clitic). Leasnam (talk) 17:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Even if English does have genitives, the forms days, nights, and weekends aren't genitive singulars, so they're still not parallel to the OE case. —Angr 17:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, actually in fact they are. Although they may look like plurals to the modern speaker, their origin is in fact from the OE genitive (nihtes, a feminine noun, was formed by analogy to dæges). Leasnam (talk) 18:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, if we don't do this for Latin, then I supposed maybe we should. Otherwise, I just see it as a handicap to the one looking up the word whose only take-away is knowing that geardagum is the dative/instrumental of geardæg when in fact it is so much more--a more that wouldn't be revealed unless he/she made indept study into the workings of the OE language. Leasnam (talk) 17:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * But it isn't more. It's nothing more. And no one would be looking this word up in the first place unless they were studying Old English. —Angr 18:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Would a Usage note be in order instead then? Because we cannot escape the fact that geardagum also means "formerly, in days gone by", which is not immediately discernable (--there is no mention at ). So, being the dative of geardagas, does geardagum mean "to [the] olden days" ? (--that's what I think of when I think of dative case). It has a additional meaning which is somewhat specific; somewhat opaque. Leasnam (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * When you read "Hie gesetton ðá Sennar geárdagum", since you know geardagas means "days of old", what else can geardagum mean other than "in days of old"? Also, we do know that days, nights, etc. are plurals because they are referring to more than one day or night or whatever else. And if you think the possessive is a case rather than a clitic, then explain this: John Smith's house rather than John's Smith's house and John and Jane's house rather than John's and Jane's house and the guy outside's cat rather than the guy's outside cat. Yes, 's: is descended from the case system but it is no longer a case. The only words in Modern English that still have cases are pronouns. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 18:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree on all but your first point. "in" can be derived by context, but the sense "formerly", which doesn't refer to any "day" or "days" per se, but simply means "in the past" (any past time) leaves it open. Days/Nights is analogous to needs: = by day/by night; != on days/on nights (plural). This is a misunderstanding. I didn't say 's wasn't a clitic, or didn't have clitic use, it does. But it's also possessive (= case), and case comes first in English (it carries historical precedence). As far as explaining, consider this: John Smith's house = John-Smith's (single unit written as two) house. Also consider this to be a result of how we view nouns, not inflectional endings. Maybe in Modern English we have changed how we use nouns (i.e. groups and multiples interpreted as single units, like "me and Jane" [single unit instead of two individual nouns]) Leasnam (talk) 19:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "The guy outside's cat" is a funky example. Let's use "King of England" instead :) the good old "King of England's crown", which can be interpreted to be either "the crown of the King of England" OR "The King of the crown of England". This is a adverse effect caused by how Modern English uses prepositional phrases for nouns, and how we write things, not a change in the way we use 's. We *should* perhaps be writing the first as "the King-of-England's crown" and the second as "the King of England's crown". Written this way it is clear. Even spoken, it is clear because the stress is different. Either way both are genitive. Leasnam (talk) 19:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If by "formerly", you mean that geardagum can refer to something more recent than "days of old" then I think I might agree with you to keep it as an adverb. As for the Modern English case system, you might as well also say that English has definite, indefinite, and collective cases:
 * case, singular, plural
 * def.: the-man, the-men
 * indef.: a-man, men
 * col.: man, -
 * And I can go further beyond that, but I think you should get my point. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, honestly though, Modern English has all cases--we just do not show different forms for them. We still have a Nom, Acc, Dat, Gen, Inst, Abl, etc. but the forms (sans Genitive) are the same for each ;) Leasnam (talk) 19:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I would actually agree with that. We have all the cases just they have all grown to sound the same and be written the same, same goes with conjugations. But the genitive has evolved into the more generally applicable possessive particle 's:. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 08:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

deleted -- Liliana • 20:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)