Onderstaande tekst is niet 100% betrouwbaar

Chauc. Troil. & Cris. III 1182, that I have do you smette, Foryeve it me.

Ibid. IV 1448, ye me cause so to smerte.

38. In the Blickling Homilies we fin cl the following sentenee: Se man naefre to\on leof ne bi\ his nehmagum & his worldfreondum, ne heora nan hine to ]t£es swijte ne lufa\ [itet hc sona sy]>[>an ne sy onscungend seo|>|tan se lichoma & se gast gedaelde bco[i, & jtinat his neawist lajtliko & unfwger (p. 111) Here jiincit is not accompanied by a dative, or rather, the dative is understood from the preceding he. Similar constructions occur in early M. E.:

Passion of our Lord (O.E. Misc.) 611, 612, Hco hit nyleuede, ]>e more ne | e lesse Ac j>uhte muche wunder of heore gladnesse.

Halj Meidenh. 27/11, Nu jm hauest iseid tus & j>unched ]iat tu segges so\.

Ibid. 43 '18—21, Sone so [m telles te betere [ien an o^er & hauest of eny ouerhoke & jnincheit hofies & hoker of ewt |iat mon sei\ Jie o\er de\ .",ette, I»u marres ti meidenhad.

Vices & Virtues 81/16, 17, I'u miht isien sum wel wis clerec, ite wisliche him naht ne wissed, and piiic/i i\at he hafi\ inoh."on his witte ^e he caun.

/>incj), in the last quotation, may be the representative of O.E. fteticau; the other examples, however, are indisputable, and show that as early as in the beginning of the 13'h century the semi-personal use of /lunchen was not uncommon. In Gen. & Exod., dating from the middle of the 131I1 century, there are two instances that show a still nearer approach to the 'personal' construction; a similar 011e is afforded by the N. E. Legends.

1099, Loth tc'tis wansutn and tlugte long vp to v\e dunes Cve weie hard and strong;

1961, He missed Ioseph and tlhogte swend;

cf. 391, of poradis hem ttinkett swend.

N. E. Leg. 17/575 1'e king it saw and thoght ferli. 3g. Until the end of the 13th century ftunchen was the only type Averb that was thusjoined to a personal verb; this was owing partly to its freVa n der U a a f. Transition. 3