# Old English: sceaft / gesceaft



## nemurenai

In old english, what is the difference between these two words? In my textbook, it says that the "ge" prefix is used to make nouns from verbs, giving the example of "scippan" and "gesceaft" (create - creation), but the word "sceaft" seems to exist on its own, also meaning creation, so I'm confused. Is there a difference between these two words or not?

Thank you.


----------



## Roy776

The ge- prefix was also used to form the past participle, so if 'scippan' means 'to create', 'gesceaft' or 'gesceafen' could mean 'created'. If it is the participle.

Thinking about it, at least in OHG, the ge- prefix implied a perfective aspect. For example 'denken' (to think) and 'gedenken' (commemorate). If this were the case here, then 'sceaft' could mean 'the process of creation' and gesceaft 'a (finished) creation'.


----------



## berndf

The general meaning is _all-encompassing, complete_. The perfective aspect is derived from that. In nouns it often means the _totality of, collection of, system of_. Example (again from German because the prefix is still active there): _Berg = mountain_; _Gebirge = mountain range_. Hence, _gesceaft _(German cognate _Geschäft; _original meaning_ what has been done/made_; modern meaning:_ shop, business, trade, contract_) can be interpreted as _all that has been created_ or _the thing(s) the creation of which has been completed _(the latter is the perfective aspect Roy mentioned). With verbs it is often just an intensifier, e.g. _etwas nießen_ (now obsolete) = _to profit from someting_; _etwas genießen _= _to enjoy something_.


----------



## nemurenai

Ok. Thank you both! This makes a lot of sense to me. (The textbook didn't really explain it well, it seems)


----------



## nemurenai

I actually have another question that's kind of related to this issue:

this textbook also says that the prefix can be attached to the preterite for a sense of completion. It gave examples like niman - genam. I thought that ge- was only affixed to the past participle, so... is this correct? I know it can be attached to a verb, so you could have something like seon as well as geseon, which could yield a preterite like geseah, but I don't think this is what the textbook meant. It specifically gave the example of just attaching it to the preterite. So how could you draw a "perfective" difference between nam and genam?


----------



## berndf

Doesn't past (=preterite) also have a certain notion of completeness? He_ took_ it, so the_ taking_ is completed.


----------



## nemurenai

Well, I had thought that it was the past participle that would convey the notion of completeness, which is why the prefix's use with the preterite seems somewhat strange.


----------



## berndf

You have to remember that the distinction between _perfect _and _perfective _aspect is alien to Germanic languages. Germanic languages just distinguished between _past _and _non-past_, _indicative_ and_ subjunctive_. Subtler distinctions like _he took_ and _he has taken_ or _he takes_ and he _will take_ are all medieval imports of Latin grammar.


----------



## nemurenai

In that case, what is the difference between the two types of past in old english?


----------



## berndf

"He has taken" is not a native verb form. It is an invention to copy Vulgar Latin constructs. The native use of the ppl. is as an adjective, as in "the born child".


----------



## nemurenai

I mean - you have e.g. niman (take); nam and (ge)numen. What is the difference between those two?


----------



## berndf

"Nam" is a finite verb form, "genumen" is an adjective.


----------



## nemurenai

Aah. Ok. Thank you  (That actually clears up the whole issue for me )


----------

