The main thing about Early Modern English is that it was an early version of Modern English and is

accessible to all of us. The differences between the two are mainly the loss or change in meaning in
Modern English of some words that were common in Early Modern English.

ORIGINAL TEXT
For shame deny that thou bear'st love to any,
Who for thyse lf art so unprovident.
Grant if thou wilt, thou art belov’d of many,
But that thou none lov'st is most evident;
For thou art so possessed with murd'rous hate
That ‘gainst thyself thou stick’st not to conspire,
Seeking that beauteous roof to ruinate
Which to repair should be thy chief desire.
O change thy thought, that I may change my mind.
Shall hate be fairer lodged than gentle love?
Be as thy presence is, gracious and kind,
Or to thyself at least kind-hearted prove.
Make thee another self for love of me,
That beauty still may live in thine or thee.

MODERN TEXT
If you have any sense of shame, admit that you
dont have any love in your heart for anyone, since
youre so unwilling to care about yourself. I'll admit,
if you like, that many people love you, but it's also
obvious that you love no one. For you are so
possessed with murderous hatred that you have
no problem plotting against yourself, seeking to
destroy the house that you should want to repair.
Oh, change your way of thinking, so I can change
my mind about you. Should hate have a more
beautiful home than love? Be gracious and kind,
like your appearance—or at least be kind-hearted
to yourself. Have a child out of love for me, so your
beauty will live on in your children, if not in you.

Early Modern English

Spelling: general principles
At the start of the sixteenth century the main systematic differences in spelling from present-day English were
as follows. (Examples are taken from the Ordynarye of crystyanyte or of crysten men, printed by Wynkyn de
Worde, 1502.)
i). u and v were graphic variants of a single letter. The form v was used at the beginning of a word and u in all
other positions, irrespective of whether the sound was a vowel or a consonant.
And we defende the that thou be not so hardy for euer to do vyolence vnto the holy token of the crosse the
whiche we put in his forhede.
ii). Similarly, j was only an extended form of i. i was generally used for both the vowel and for the consonant
sound (as in jam) in most positions in a word: its capital form, which resembles J, was beginning to be used in
initial position for the consonant sound.
>by the whiche they ben Justely adiuged
iii). The final ‘silent’ –e was much more commonly found, not only as a marker of a ‘long’ vowel in the
preceding syllable (as in take), but with no phonetic function, and sometimes after an unnecessarily doubled
final consonant.
Also it is to be noted that this crosse made & gyuen vnto the newe crysten man is the seuenth crosse &
the laste that is sette on his body.
iv). The letter y was commonly used for the vowel i, especially in the vicinity of ranging or ‘minim’ letters such
as m, n, and u.
And man ought to byleue that the fayth of this artycle is deed that bereth not here the fruyte of this werke.
v). Double e (ee) or e..e was used for two different long front vowels: the ‘close’ vowel of meet and the
formerly ‘mid’ vowel of meat, mete (the significance of this is now obscured since in most words the two
sounds have become identical). The spelling e..e was gradually restricted to the latter while additionally ea was
beginning to be introduced as an alternative spelling.
By the the fruyte that procedeth of the tree menynge the boode or the floure and the leef.
vi). Similarly o (oo) or o..e were often used for two different long back vowels: the ‘close’ vowel of moot and
the ‘mid’ vowel of moat, mote. o..e was gradually restricted to the latter and, during the 16th century, oa was
introduced on the analogy of ea.
>bytwene the more goodnes and the lesse goodnes / and bytwene the more ylle and the lesse or
the moost lytell.
vii). Instead of t in the ending now usually spelt –tion the letter c was frequently used.
He is very lorde by creacyon by redempcyon & for ye resurreccyon.
Numerous abbreviations used in manuscript were carried over into print. A short line above a vowel was often
used to replace m or n. The forms yt and ye were used to abbreviate that and the.

The vocabulary of English expanded greatly during the early modern period. Writers were well aware of
this and argued about it. Some were in favour of loanwords to express new concepts, especially from
Latin. Others advocated the use of existing English words, or new compounds of them, for this purpose.
Others advocated the revival of obsolete words and the adoption of regional dialect.
Whereas words of foreign origins enriched the English vocabulary to a great extent, the inner factors -that
is, various ways of word building were also very actively used. New words appeared in the language built
by all traditional word building process – derivation, compounding, semantic word building and a new,
specifically English way of making new words arose – zero-derivation, or conversion.
Derivation can be observed in all parts of speech. The most productive suffixes of the period were: noun-
suffixes: -er trader, explorer;
During this period the former suffix -our (French in origin) acquired the same form -er or turned into -or.
Interpretour – interpreter robbour – robber auditour – auditor
The suffix – ster ( from femenine -estre webbstre, spinnestre, beggestre) acquired negative connotations
and no longer is indicating the gender
gamester, trickster, gangster
Adjective suffixes of that were used at the times were of native origin as well as borrowed. The native
suffixes are:
-y stumpy, wavy, haughty, saucy ,racy ,brassy ,
-ful bashful ,beautiful, delightful ,grateful.
In Shakespeare’s time the productivity of this suffix is great; the words with it include such as equalness,
loathness, tameness, freeness, solemness, valiantness, rawness etc. which, though still registered in
dictionaries are no longer in active use and are prevalently used either with other derivational morphemes,
or without suffix at all. The morpheme -man, formerly a part of numerous compounds turns into a semi-
suffix, which until recently was not marked with a pronounced gender meaning, probably because all the
marked professions were men’s, and the question of women in profession did not arise. Boatman
spokesman
The prefixes out-, over- and under- known in the language from the oldest times give a great number of
new coinages out- is used to form many transitive verbs denoting a going beyond, surpassing, or outdoing
in the particular action indicated: outrow 1520-30 outbid 1580-90 outbrave 1580-90 outbreak 1595-1605
while -age of the same origin may be used in either combination: luggage 1590-1600 shortage 1865-70
leakage 1480-90 rampage 1705-15
Suffix -able/- ible came into the English language in Middle English as a part of a great number of French
adjectives (amyable, agreable, charitable, mesurable, honurable e tc .), but was hardly used with the stems
of native English origin). In Early New English it is equally productive with stems of either origin:
answerable 1540-50 approachable 1565-75 arguable 1605-15 bearable 1540-50 capable 1555-65
Words belonging to various parts of speech are found here. Some preserved Latin grammatical
morphemes which are no longer felt as such the word belongs to any part of speech irrespective of the
part of speech suffix. Here are some examples of the borrowings of the period:
+Nouns: amplitude 1540-50 applause 1590-1600 class As far as verbs are concerned, some distinctive
morphemes are to be mentioned here. A considerable number of verbs had the suffix -ate (that was the
suffix of Participle II of the verbs of the 1st conjugation) - in English it has nothing to do with the non-
finite forms of the verbs marker, and is generally perceived as the verbal suffix: accommodate accumulate
agitate
Grammar
       descriptive: the language as it’s really used
o      e.g. some speakers use seen as a past tense: “I seen it.”
o      C18th speakers used written, wrote, and writ as past participle forms of the irregular
verb write (OED entry gives different forms/dates)
      prescriptive: the language as people think it should be used (“proper”, “right”)
o      e.g. the rules for standard English do not permit seen as a past tense
o      C18th grammarians promoted written as the past participle, and tended to
§       rationalize their choice on such grounds as etymology (OE gewriten),
politeness, rationality
·       privileged literary authors’ language (conventional)
·       promoted one-form one-function, and to ignore or to proscribe the
others
 
Grammar or “morphosyntax”
·       morphology: word endings (English doesn’t have many), word forms
o      e.g. She love-s cat-s
§       inflexions for 3rd person singular present tense verb, plural nouns
o      e.g. she, her
§       different forms of the 3rd person singular feminine pronoun
·       syntax: word order
o      e.g. She loves cats
§       in English, unmarked sentence order is “SVO”: subject-verb-object
o      e.g. on the mat
§       in English, prepositions precede the nouns they govern
o      e.g. Can you believe it?
§       in English, questions are formed by inverting the subject you and the
finite/auxiliary verb can
 
Grammar terms and concepts
§       A. G. Rigg, Traditional Grammatical Terminology

Early Modern English Morphology

 
Inflectional suffixes as in Modern English, but with a bit more variation:
·       noun plural –s
o      imposed on most loanwords, e.g. Gk->Lat heros  -> English hero
o      replaced some older native plural inflections
§       e.g. shoen ‘shoes’ (mad Ophelia), i3en ‘eyes’
·       survives in oxen
o      but not always
§       e.g. fishes later becomes fish (by analogy with sheep, deer, etc.)
 
·       possessive –s
o      from OE –es in many nouns, generalized to others
o      not from reduction of his to is to s, despite widespread C16th /17th “the King his foole”
(and Juno hir bed &c.)
o      apostrophe a later development
 
·       regular verb past ending –ed
o      imposed on loanwords: Lat. aestimare ‘estimate’ conjugated regular as estimated (and
see determined below)
o      eventually imposed on some previously irregular verbs (but not yet here):
 §       “Three times today I holpe him to his horse” (now helped); “by strong
hand wrokne” (wreaked)
 
Foreign inflexions
·       some learned nouns
o      seraphim, antennae, cacti
o      sometimes generalized to other learned nouns, e.g. octopi (Gk. octopodes)
 
·       fewer learned verbs – forms now obsolete
o      My bonds in thee are all determinate [‘determined’]
§       -ate adaptation of Latin past participle -atus

Pronouns

Loss of one pronoun

·       e.g. 2nd person singular pronoun (and verb -(e)st)
o      thou
§       in ME, thou marked status (more fixed): lower
§       in EmodE, it marked attitude (more unstable): intimacy, condescension
o      kept by Quakers
o      compensation for its loss:
§       c18th: you was alongside you were
§       PDE dialectal youse, yiz, y’all, you(se) guys, yins
 
Levelling of some pronoun cases (though pronouns are more conservative than nouns in retaining case
distinctions)
·       object form you replaces subject ye:
o      “ye schulden not ete” -> “you should not eat”
o      “Hear ye! Hear ye!”: in earlier English, the subject of the imperative could be expressed
·       in Quaker usage, object form thee replaces subject form thou
o      cf. earlier “I commanded thee / thou shalt eat”
 
“Reflexive” pronoun in –self/-selves develops
§       subject and object refer to the same thing, e.g. “They made loincloths for themselves [older
texts: them ‘themselves’]”
 
Different/variable forms of irregular verbs (e.g. speak, spoke, spoken)
·       e.g. in past tense “Jesus spake” -> spoke
·       tendency to level the vowel in the past and participle (like regular verbs)
o      in speak, (spake->) spoke, spoken
§       e.g. stand, stood, stood
§       e.g. hold, held, held
o      originally strong verb participles ended in –en
o      still around in spoken, written, etc.
 
Some now-familiar verb forms had moved down from the north
·       are (replaces be, etc.)
·       verb present 3 sg. –(e)s replaces –(e)th
o      variation might be regional, social, stylistic
o      Nevailainen & Raumolin-Brunberg: using “Corpus of Early English Correspondence” to
identify and interpret variation
 
Syntax
 
Early Modern English
·       OE had been more “synthetic”, relying on inflexions to indicate a word’s function in a sentence
 ·       subsequently English has become more “analytic”, relying on word order
o      tendency for single words in older English to correspond to phrases in more recent
English
 
Variation between synthetic (word endings) and newer analytic (word order) strategies, e.g.
·       noun ‘possession’: ‘s vs of 
o      the ‘s is more likely with higher animates & subjective function:
§       the boy’s arrival
§       John’s painting (vs. the painting of John)
o      more exceptions to this tendency in earlier texts, e.g.
§       Syracusa’s sack ‘the sack of Syracuse’
 
·       adjective comparison: -er/-est vs more and most
o      nothing certainer, feller
·       different strategies from PDE?
o      “most unkindest cut of all”
·       both strategies at once?
 
·       for ‘contrary-to-fact’, inflected subjunctive vs other strategies
o      inflection: If it be thou
o      modal periphrasis (if it could, might, be …)
o      word order: had it been …
o      semantics of the subordinating conjunction (if it is…)
 
Continuing proliferation of phrases
·       multi-word prepositions and conjunctions like on account of
·       not evident in these examples:
o      “They called us, for our fierceness, English dogges”
o      “Let’s assist them, for our case is as theirs”
 
·       noun adjuncts:
o      Hackney coach, native village, university professor
o      MAD COW FEED SCARE, JELLIED EEL HEALTH ALERT
§       prominent in newspapers where space is an issue!
 
·       ‘group-verbs’, ‘multi-word lexical item with verbal function’ (Denison/Beal)
o      Look up (= behold)
o      Go back (= return)
o      Sit down (= recline)
§       earlier formations tend to be semantically transparent: out means
‘out’, up means ‘up’
§       often correspond to a single Latinate word of higher register
o      Wise up! Don’t mess it up! Deal with it! You can’t get away with this!
o      Luck out: good or bad?
§       meanings can be very idiomatic / nontransparent
 
·       some verb phrases indicating ‘aspect’ become grammaticalized
o      progressive or continuous aspect (=ongoing action): I am lecturing
§       That thus he suffers for ‘that he is therefore suffering for’
§       What do you read my Lord? ‘What are you reading?’
·       in earlier English, you’ll find simple forms (suffers rather than is
suffering)
o      progressive passive becomes possible: the students are being oppressed
§       the grammar is printing ‘is being printed’
§       Now showing at a theatre near you!
§       early occurrence in Southey’s private letter of 1795 describing dental pain: like
a fellow whose uttermost upper grinder is being torn out by the roots
  
·       auxiliary DO becomes obligatory in negation and in questions
o      negation: I do not smoke (DO NOT + V)
§       earlier strategy for negation (V + not):
·       : “She doubted not”
o      questions: Do you believe her? (AUX + S + V)
§       earlier strategy for questions (VS):
·       “Why commanded God…”
o      by analogy with modal constructions?
§       I will not work -> She did not work
§       Will they do their homework? -> Did they do their homework?
·       other functions
o      now obsolete: optional “dummy” auxiliary, no meaning, useful for adding an extra
syllable in metrical texts
§       “What we do determine, oft we break”
o      for emphasis:
§       I do believe in fairies, I do, I do!
 
·       auxiliary be with intransitive verbs -> have
o      “whanne the eventide was come” -> “when evening had come on”
§       intransitive verbs don’t take direct objects
o      during the change, variants could be selected to stress state (be) or action (have)
(cf. Are you finished? Have you finished?)
 
§       ‘Grammaticalization’ of modal verbs: from ‘lexical’ to ‘attitudinal’
§       lexical: e.g. OE willan ‘to want’
§       attitudinal: e.g. “That will be the doctor”
·       tension in EmodE between the two
·       Hamlet: “I would I had been there”
·       (lexical: desire)  
·       Horatio: “It would have much amaz’d you”
·       (attitudinal: hypothetical prediction)
 
Lots of variation generally (from PDE perspective!)
·       e.g. irregular verb forms OE wrītan, wrāt, writon, gewriten
o      I wrote, I writ
o      I have written, I have writ, I have wrote
·       e.g. adverbs without and with –ly
o      “She will speake most bitterly and strange”
o      “Excellent, excellent well”
o      “to knocke you indifferently well”
·       e.g. emphatic/redundant negation
o      “This was no Damosell neyther”
·       e.g. emphatic/redundant comparison of adjectives
o      “This was the most unkindest cut of all”
·       ‘codification’ of English grammar began later
·       ‘control’ of variation in the C18th: stay tuned …
 
Are there any patterns? Adamson has synthesized some of the changes
·       development of possessive its (in OE it was his)
o      connected with replacement of ‘grammatical’ with ‘biological’ gender in English
·       specialization of other pronouns: who for persons, which for ‘non-persons’
o      blurry areas include infants, pets, personification …
·       “the senseless windes … who in contempt shalle hisse at thee again”
·       “John Mortimer, which now is dead, …”
o      interrogative: who vs what
·       decline of certain impersonals: it dislikes me -> I dislike it, it yerns me not
 ·       specialization of prepositions by and with
o      ‘He was torne to pieces with a Beare”
o      “I saw him put down the other day, with an ordinary foole