Dative Subjects (was: Re: Genetic Descent)

[Douglas G Kilday]

Leo A. Connolly (1 Jul 2001) wrote:

>So that's the reason.  I understand the problem, but I disagree sharply
>with their conclusion: the morphological subject is the *only* subject
>as far as I'm concerned, and the "oblique subjects" that through their
>weight around in these languages are simply the ones which rank highest
>in the hierarchy of "deep cases" i.e. semantic roles -- the ones which
>in some sense "should" be the subject (and in English most typically
>are).  We formerly had such things -- think "methinks" -- an object in
>preverbal position not controlling verb agreement.  We have since solved
>our problem by making _me_ into a true subject _I_ -- with no change in
>meaning!  Spanish might do that too some day, but no sign of its
>happening yet.

Don't these expressions represent distinct verbs and constructions?

  "I think" < OE <ic thence> 'I think; intend' < <thencan>
  "methinks" < OE <me: thincth> 'to me it seems' < <thyncan>

Of course, the two verbs are related, since <thyncan> < PGmc *thunkjan is a
factitive, 'to cause to be thought' = 'to seem'. Dutch has preserved the
vocalic contrast between <denken> and <dunken>; Du. <mij dunkt> =
"methinks".

I wouldn't say that English has made "me" into "I" here. Instead, many
speakers have reinterpreted "methinks" as a pseudo-archaic variant of "I
think", leading to such usages as a comic-book king saying "Methinks I shall
hold a jousting tournament" (incorrect since it expresses intention, not
seeming). This didn't happen with the parallel "meseems", which can't be
reinterpreted as "I seem". Some dictionaries (e.g. the AHD) have purged
"meseems" while retaining "methinks", even though the former was still
productive in late 19th-cent. poetry.

DGK