# word order of Old English



## ManOfWords

Hi all, nowadays the correct way is (to wish one well) like: I'm wishing her well. But I wonder if older english had a different word order for this, for example: I'm wishing well her. (Due to old english to have different word order)


----------



## velisarius

_I wish her well. _
We don't often need to use the continuous form _I'm wishing her well._ In fact, in the English of today we don't often use the phrase "I wish you/him/her/them well". It seems a little formal or old-fashioned:

_I hear your daughter is moving to London to look for work. I wish her well._

I don't think there was any older version with a different word-order. Why do you think there might be?

Shakespeare used such phrases as these as greetings, but they don't mean "I wish you well":
_Well be with you, gentlemen.
*...*you are well met, Signor Hortensio._


----------



## ManOfWords

I just thought of it, no reason at all. By the way, thanks = )


----------



## Mr.Dent

There are some unusual word orders which can be found in the Pennsylvania Dutch dialect. The well known example is _"Throw the cow over the fence some hay_." instead of "_Throw some hay over the fence_ for the _cow_."


----------



## M Mira

Mr.Dent said:


> There are some unusual word orders which can be found in the Pennsylvania Dutch dialect. The well known example is _"Throw the cow over the fence some hay_." instead of "_Throw some hay over the fence_ for the _cow_."


Is there a reason why "the cow over the fence" can't be an indirect object?


----------



## berndf

M Mira said:


> Is there a reason why "the cow over the fence" can't be an indirect object?


You are thinking of _the cow over the fence _as meaning _the cow that is on the other side of the fence_?

For a dialect that mixes German and English expressions this is not entirely impossible but I wouldn't consider it very likely. _Throw_ with a direct and indirect object required in both languages some sort of a phrasal addition.


----------



## velisarius

berndf said:


> You are thinking of _the cow over the fence _as meaning _the cow that is on the other side of the fence_?


With that meaning, I don't think there's anything remarkable about the sentence, apart from the context sounding slightly odd.

_Give [the horse in the end stable] some hay._


----------



## berndf

velisarius said:


> With that meaning, I don't think there's anything remarkable about the sentence, apart from the context sounding slightly odd.


Do you consider _throw him that_ is a complete sentence?


----------



## velisarius

"Throw him some crumbs" is a complete sentence, isn't it?


----------



## Ihsiin

When I was at school we use to have a teacher from Derby who would say things like: "Give it me bucket". May be of interest.

Anyway, concerning Old English, the word order was generally similar to that of Modern English in normal prose. In poetry things could often get mixed up, but that was hardly normal speech.


----------



## berndf

velisarius said:


> "Throw him some crumbs" is a complete sentence, isn't it?


And how would you understand it? As an indirect object (_throw some bread crumbs to/towards him_) or as a free dative (_do him the favour and throw some bread crumbs_)?


----------



## velisarius

As an indirect object: "Throw some bread crumbs to/towards him", and not "Throw some crumbs on his behalf (for him)".

_Edit: "Throw the cow over the fence some hay_." - I read it as "Throw some hay to the cow (that is)  over the fence. Is that not standard?

The Pennsylvania Dutch reading sounds very odd to me, of course.

RE-edit: With my horse example there is no ambiguity; it's a peculiarity of "throw...over" that it makes the two interpretations possible:
[Throw the cow]... over the fence
Throw (to) the cow over the fence] some hay).


----------



## berndf

Thank you.


----------



## velisarius

I edited my last post for (I hope) clarity.


----------



## Mr.Dent

And then we have the Appalachian English dialect, parts of which are believed by some to be remnants of Elizabethan English. Others dispute this.  Apparently some of the  speech patterns are  also remnants of Colonial American English. Here are a few examples of the unusual order of words found in this dialect (elements of which are found commonly all across the American South).
"I _might could_ go" (instead of "I might be able to go.")
"I like to never went got nothing done."
"That's a mighty fine dress you wearing."


----------



## Stoggler

Mr.Dent said:


> And then we have the Appalachian English dialect, parts of which are believed by some to be remnants of Elizabethan English.



Surely all English varieties (in Britain and the US at least) are remnants of Elizabethan English (in their own unique ways).


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Stoggler said:


> Surely all English varieties (in Britain and the US at least) are remnants of Elizabethan English (in their own unique ways).



It's a heavily disputed topic. I've seen Shakespearian plays done in "Elizabethan English" where the characters all sound Irish.


----------



## berndf

Pedro y La Torre said:


> I've seen Shakespearian plays done in "Elizabethan English" where the characters all sound Irish.


That is about changes in pronunciation which is a different topic than what what we are discussing here.


----------



## berndf

Moderator note: The topic of this thread is specifically word order. Please don't discuss other features of older language.


----------



## Testing1234567

Are you interested in *Old English* (Anglo-Saxon) or old*er* English?


----------



## ManOfWords

Both regarding the order the words were used. I just wanted to know if (I'm wishing well somebody) was possible in the past.


----------

