Dative Subjects (was: Re: Genetic Descent)

[Leo A. Connolly]

conerning _I think_ and _methinks_ Douglas G Kilday wrote:

> 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'm repeating myself here, since I just replied in similar vein to
another mesage, but nevertheless:

Yes, they are originally separate constructions and verbs, but OE
_Tencean_ seems to have become extinct, its function being assumed by
_think_ < _Tyncean_.  But I stick with my interpretation nonetheless,
since it parallels the development seen in _me TyrstT_ > _I thirst_, _me
hyngerT_ > _I hunger_, _me liketh_ > _I like_, where there was no
parallel verb with a personal experiencer subject.  As for _meseems_
(which sounds eminently plausible, though I cannot remember encountering
it), it took the other path toward resolving the problem: put the object
in object position and insert a dummy subject _it_ in preverbal
position.  I really can't say that either of these solutions is better
than the other, only that both occurred.

Leo Connolly