1

Faculteit Letteren & Wijsbegeerte

Eline Laperre

The Locative Possessive in English

and West-Flemish

A diachronic study

Masterproef voorgelegd tot het behalen van de graad van

Master in de Taal- en Letterkunde Engels-Duits

2012-2013

2

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Anne Breitbarth and my co-supervisor, Prof. Dr.

Liliane Haegeman, for their help and support in writing this thesis. Furthermore, I am very

grateful to Prof. Dr. Luc de Grauwe, and Prof. Emeritus Magda Devos, fort heir help in

analysing the Middle Dutch results of this study. Finally, I also thank Janne Vandriessche for

giving me the inspiration to write this thesis.

3

Table of contents

4

1. Introduction

It is generally known that in English, locative possessive constructions of the type to John’s,

where a head noun meaning home is omitted, occur relatively frequently. However, it may be

a lesser known fact that such constructions exist in the West-Flemish dialect of Dutch as well.

It may, then, be interesting to compare the locative possessives in these two languages, and to

find out how they developed. However, scholarly literature regarding the locative possessive

is remarkably scarce. Thus, I have conducted this study in order to investigate how the

locative possessive developed in English and West-Flemish, how it is used in these languages

today, and whether the constructions in both languages originated as Ingvaeonisms or a

parallel independent development.

For this construction, I have used the term ‘locative possessive’, because it is a possessive

construction which is used to express location. Some authors (Grafmiller, forthcoming; Allen

2004) refer to the locative possessive as an ‘elliptical’ possessive; however, this term may

cause confusion, as not all elliptical possessives are locatives. For instance, constructions such

as this is my book and that is Mary’s also contain an elliptical possessive: Mary’s. In this case,

the elided head noun, book, can be derived from the context, and the meaning of this

construction is, of course, not locative. To avoid such confusion, I have chosen to refer to the

construction that I will investigate as a locative construction. Another problematic aspect of

the terminology is that many authors refer to possessives as genitives. While it is important

for my study to distinguish between the genitive case and other possessive markers, I have

chosen to solely use the term ‘genitive’ when I am referring to the genitive case. Otherwise, I

will always use the term ‘possessive’. Thus, the type of possessive that this study focuses on

will always be referred to as the locative possessive.

The framework of the present study is cognitive grammar and the prototype theory. Cognitive

grammar considers two participants to be the basis of each clause or phrase: the landmark,

which is the primary constituent in every clause or phrase, and the trajector, which is the

secondary constituent. In possessive phrases, the possessor, i.e. the head noun, is considered

to be the trajector, whilst the possessee is labelled the landmark (Langacker 1995;Taylor

1996). The locative possessive will furthermore be investigated by means of the prototype

theory (Heine 1997), and this framework will be used to explain how locative possessives

5

most likely originated in English and West-Flemish. Specifically, I will argue that the locative

possessive is one of the most prototypical possessive constructions in English and West-

Flemish, and that consequently, the interpretation of locative possessives, even if they have

omitted the trajector, is relatively easy.

As it was my aim to discuss the diachronic development of the locative possessive in English

and West-Flemish, corpus research was conducted in order to map this development. For

West-Flemish, a number of Middle Dutch corpora were examined. Unfortunately, corpora of

modern dialects are not yet available, so no corpus research regarding the West-Flemish

possessive could be done on corpora containing modern texts. As the locative possessive is

used in the entire English language area, corpora of modern English could be examined.

However, I have restricted these English corpora to British English corpora only, for reasons

of space and time. For West-Flemish, the research was conducted by running the concordance

program AntConc on the Middle Dutch corpora. AntConc only allows string searches with

regular expressions, rather than on syntactic structures, like the CorpusSearch program that

was used for the English research. In other words, the methodologies for English and Dutch

differ significantly. This of course carries the consequence that the Dutch and English results

of the research cannot unconditionally be compared to one another. Both may be used to

investigate diachronic developments, but the frequency of occurrences in one language may

not be comparable to that of the other language. However, such a comparison is not the

purpose of this study; rather, it aims to map the development of the locative possessive in both

languages separately, and then to investigate why it developed in these particular languages.

Chapter 2 in this study will deal with the question whether the locative possessive should be

considered an old Ingvaeonism, or whether the development of these constructions in English

and West-Flemish should be considered a parallel independent development. Chapter 3 will

focus on the English possessive: first, the English possessive marker and its origin will be

discussed, then, the locative possessive in English will be discussed, and finally, the third

chapter of this thesis will address the corpus research that was done in order to map the

development of the English locative possessive. Chapter 4, then, will focus on the West-

Flemish possessive. First, it will also discuss the Modern Standard Dutch possessive and its

diachronic development, then, it will address the locative possessive in West-Flemish and

finally, the corpus research that maps the diachronic development of the locative possessive in

6

Dutch will be discussed. Chapter 5 will contain a discussion of the results in both languages,

and will interpret these results in a cognitive framework, and by means of the prototype theory.

7

2. Ingvaeonisms and Ingvaeonic features in Germanic languages

The following chaper will focus on the question whether the locative possessive can be

considered to be an Ingvaeonism. In section 2.1, I will first discuss what Ingvaeonisms and

Ingvaeonic languages are, before turning to the discussion of the locative possessive with

relation to Ingvaeonisms in section 2.2.

2.1 Ingvaeonisms and Ingvaeonic languages

According to Van Keymeulen (2003: 394), “the term Ingvaeonism is used for a wide variety

of phenomena which do not fit into the ‘normal’ development of Low Franconian, but which

are paralleled by phenomena in English and / or Frisian.” Today, ingvaeonic features occur in

a series of coastal dialects reaching from West-Frisia to Cape Gris Nez in present-day France.

One example is the absence of the dental n before s and th in, for instance, the English words

other (Old Saxon oþar) and us (Old Saxon ûs), where Dutch has ander and ons (van Bath

1949). Ingvaeonisms are not, however, purely dialectal features, as Weijnen (1999) seems to

argue; some Ingvaeonisms occur in Modern Standard Dutch as well. One example is the

absence of n in vijf ‘five’: the cognate forms in English and Frisian are five and fiif

respectively, whereas German has the form fünf, with n. The Modern Standard Dutch personal

pronouns starting in h (such as hij or hem) can also be argued to be Ingvaeonisms, as the

English and Frisian pronouns (he and hy respectively) start in h as well. Furthermore,

Ingvaeonisms are not strictly confined to dialects in the coastal areas, either. Weijnen (1999),

for instance, notes some Ingvaeonisms in a few Brabantine dialects, and Van Keymeulen

(2003: 395) also argues that the occurrences of Ingvaeonisms in present-day Dutch dialects

“increase towards the western coast”, indicating that these features are not all confined to the

coastal dialects.

Interestingly, Van Keymeulen (2003) puts forth the hypothesis that Ingvaeonisms occur in

some Dutch dialects, which are usually considered to be Franconian dialects, because an

ancient population, which spoke an Ingvaeonic language, lived in the coastal areas of present-

day Flanders and the western Netherlands before these areas were ruled by the Franks. From

the early Middle Ages onwards, Franconian tribes gradually started migrating to more western

areas, and by the 7th

century, they had come into contact with the Ingvaeonic tribes living in

8

present-day Flanders and the Netherlands. During the 7th

century, the Franconian tribes

gradually established dominance over the Ingvaeonic tribes, and their language was

accordingly influenced by the Franconian dialects. Arguably, the reason why some

Ingvaeonisms have survived in the present-day dialects might be the fact that “in a situation

where the source language is dominant, namely Ingvaeonic, the stable components of the

source language […] are transferred to the receiving language, namely Franconian” (Van

Keymeulen 2003: 398). During the early Middle Ages, the Frisian Kingdom was gradually

gaining power as well, and from the late 7th

century onwards, the Frisian language was able to

influence Old English and the Franconian dialects through language contact (Van Keymeulen

2003; Weijnen 1999). Interestingly, Weijnen (1999) argues that Ingvaeonisms did not enter

the English language because of the Saxon tribes that migrated to Britain in the 5th

century,

and consequently brought their language with them; rather, Ingvaeonisms first appeared in

English only after the Anglo-Saxon migrations had taken place. Thus, these Ingvaeonisms

must have been transferred from another language into English: in all likelihood, they were

introduced into English because of language contact with the Frisian Kingdom. Importantly,

from this notion, it may be inferred that Ingvaeonisms did not yet exist in the 5th

century in

the Saxon dialect; otherwise, they would have entered the language with the Anglo-Saxon

migrations to Britain.

2.2 The locative possessive as an Ingvaeonic feature?

In this chapter, I will discuss the possibility that the locative possessive may be an Ingvaeonic

feature. An argument in favour of such an interpretation may be that the locative possessive

occurs in most languages or dialects which happen to be Ingvaeonic. First of all, the

construction occurs in English (Biber et al. 2002, Allen 2004); a few examples are at John’s,

to the baker’s, at my father’s, and so on. Secondly, as Devos (2005) shows, West-Flemish has

the locative possessive in constructions such as bi Annies, to pepes (‘at granddad’s’), to min

moeders (‘at my mother’s’). Furthermore, the locative possessive can be found in French-

Flemish, in for example toe de bakkers (‘at the baker’s’), toe me zusters (‘at my sister’s’) or

no de meres (‘to the mayor’s’). Finally, the construction also occurs in West-Frisian, in for

instance by masters (‘at the schoolmaster’s’), by domeneys (‘at the pastor’s’), or by de bakkers

(‘at the baker’s’) (Sipma 1913), and in North-Frisian, in constructions such as äät präästers

(‘at the pastor’s’), äät ualaatjen (‘at grandfather’s’), äät Wöögens (‘at Wöögen’s’) (Fering-

Öömrang Wurdenbuk 2002).

9

However, one argument against the interpretation of locative possessives as Ingvaeonic

phenomena may be the fact that, according to Van der Horst (2008), the locative possessive

was used in the entire Dutch language area, and not just the coastal areas. However, as we

have seen, other Ingvaeonisms do exist in some Brabantine dialects, and even in the Modern

Dutch Standard language. This notion alone can therefore not disprove the Ingvaeonic

interpretation of the locative possessive.

A more important argument against an Ingvaeonic interpretation might be related to the time

period in which the construction originated. Ingvaeonisms are rather old phenomena. As

indicated before, they probably did not exist yet in the Saxon dialect during the 5th

century,

and they must have been part of the Dutch coastal dialects and the Frisian language before the

7th

century. Heeroms (1972) argues that Ingvaeonisms first occurred around 400 AD, and that

some Ingvaeonic dialects existed until after the High Middle Ages. He divides this

‘Ingvaeonic period’ into thee subperiods: ‘early’ Ingvaeonic, which is dated from 400 to 800,

‘later’ Ingvaeonic, dated from 800 until 1200, and ‘latest’ Ingvaeonic, which is date after

1200. He argues that, in the inland parts of the Dutch and Low Dutch language areas, only

Ingvaeonisms from the first period have survived, which means that the Ingvaeonisms from

these areas are quite old. The ‘lasest’ Ingvaeonic was, according to Heeroms (1972) only

spoken in Frisia during the High Middle Ages. Thus, in order to interpret the locative

possessive as an Ingvaeonism, the construction would have to be very old. However, Allen

(2004) and Van der Horst (2008) claim that the locative possessive only arose in Middle

English and Middle Dutch, respectively, making the locative possessive a rather recent

phenomenon. In order to determine with more certainty whether the locative possessive is an

Ingvaeonism or not, more research needs to be done on this construction in the Ingvaeonic

languages. In the following chapters, such research will be presented, although only with

respect to English and West-Flemish.

10

3. English

The third chapter of this thesis will address the locative possessive construction in English.

Chapter 3.1 will first provide a theoretical discussion of the English possessive, and will then

narrow down the discussion to the locative possessive. As it was my aim to map the

diachronic development of the locative possessive, the English possessive marker was also

discussed from a diachronic viewpoint. In order to achieve this aim, corpus research was

conducted on the occurrence of the locative possessive in earlier stages of English. This

corpus research and its results will be addressed in chapter 3.2.

3.1 Possessives in English

The following chapter will discuss the English possessive marker, and more specifically, the

locative possessive in English. Section 3.1.1 will address the nature of the possessive

morpheme in English, and in section 3.1.2, the development of the possessive marker from a

genitive case affix to a phrasal affix will be discussed. Section 3.1.3 will deal with the

separated possessive in English, and finally, section 3.1.4 will address the locative possessor

and its occurrence in present-day English.

3.1.1 The Modern English possessive

Before focussing on the locative possessive, it may be useful to discuss the nature of the

English possessive, both as it exists in present-day English, and how it developed

diachronically. There is general consensus among scholars that the possessive marker in

present-day English should no longer be considered a true inflectional affix. The reason for

this notion is that in English, the possessive marker can not only attach to the head noun, but

it can also appear “at the right edge of a noun phrase containing postmodification” (Börjars et

al. 2013: 125) , or “syntactic groups” (Allen 2008: 43), as in, for example, [the man with the

red jumper]’s keys, where the possessive relation affects the entire noun phrase. This

construction is most commonly referred to as a group genitive, although, according to Börjars

et al. (2013), the term phrasal genitive appears as well. Little agreement, however, can be

found in the literature about what Börjars et al. (2013: 125) call the “theoretical status of ‘s”.

While the possessive morpheme arguably still has characteristics of an affix, it also behaves

like a clitic in some respects.

11

Before we, however, turn to the discussion of the status of the possessive morpheme, it may

be useful to briefly summarize the core differences between clitics and affixes: (Zwicky &

Pullum 1983)

1. “Clitics can exhibit a low degree of selection with respect to their hosts, while affixes

exhibit a high degree of selection with respect to their stems“ (Zwicky & Pullum

1983: 503).

2. “Arbitrary gaps in the set of combinations are more characteristic of affixed words

than of clitic groups” (Zwicky & Pullum 1983: 504).

3. “Morphophonological idiosyncrasies are more characteristic of affixed words than of

clitic groups.” (Zwicky & Pullum 1983: 504).

4. “Semantic idiosyncrasies are more characteristic of affixed words than of clitic

groups” (Zwicky & Pullum 1983: 504).

According to these criteria, the English possessive seems more clitic-like than affix like. First,

it shows a somewhat lower degree of selection with respect to its host than affixes: as noted

above, the English possessive can attach to the right edge of noun phrases, even when the

word at the right edge of the syntactic group is not a noun (Börjars et al. 2013). However, as

Allen (2008: 45) argues, “if it is to be called a clitic, it is one which exhibits the affix-like

characteristic of sensitivity to the morphological nature of its host.” In other words, while the

possessive marker can attach to noun phrases that contain postmodifiers, it does of course still

select its host on the basis of morphology.

Secondly, as far as I am aware, arbitrary gaps do not usually occur with respect to the

possessive marker: it can attach to most types of nouns, and when the ‘s possessive cannot be

used due to syntactic or morphological restrictions, these restrictions are usually of a

systematic, rather than arbitrary, nature. Furthermore, the English possessive can take

idiosyncratic forms, as is the case for the pronouns my, you, her, their, and our (Nevis 2000).

Finally, Nevis (2000) presents another reason why the English ‘s possessive marker cannot be

considered a ‘pure’ clitic: while clitics can be interpreted as derived bound words, the English

possessive cannot. Like independent words, clitics are assigned word classes, and they can

function as inflectable stems, just as words can be inflected. The English possessive marker,

by contrast, can still be analysed morphologically; in other words, as part of a word. A first

argument that Nevis (2000: 394) provides to support this statement, is the fact that “the

possessive marker exhibits haplology when combined with the homophonous plural marker:”

possessive plural nouns do not repeat the s of the possessive, as, for instance, the plural

possessive noun cats’ indicates (see example (1).

12

(1) (a) the eyes of the cats

(b) the cat’s eyes

(c) the cats’ eyes

(d) * the cats’s eyes

Secondly, the English possessive can take idiosyncratic forms, as is the case for the pronouns

my, you, her, their, and our (Nevis 2000). Thus, it can be argued that the English possessive

marker cannot be analysed as a pure clitic, nor as a pure affix.

Several alternative interpretations of the theoretical nature of the possessive marker have been

suggested. Zwicky (1977) proposes three types of clitics: simple clitics, special clitics, and

bound words. Simple clitics are defined by Zwicky (1977: 3) as “cases where an unaccented

bound form acts as a variant of a stressed free form with the same cognitive meaning and with

similar phonological make-up.” Examples of simple clitics are the French conjunct pronouns

me ‘me’, and le ‘him’, as opposed to the corresponding ‘full’ forms, the disjunct pronouns

moi ‘me’ and lui ‘him’ (Zwicky 1977). Special clitics, then, are “cases where a free

morpheme, when unaccented, may be phonologically reduced, the resultant form being

phonologically subordinated to a neighboring word” (Zwicky 1977: 5). The use of these

clitics is generally dependent on register or style: in English, some pronouns can, in informal

registers, be realised as reduced forms, as in he sees ‘er (her), or she met ‘im (him) (Zwicky

1977). Finally, bound words are “cases where a morpheme that is always bound and always

unaccented show considerable syntactic freedom, in the sense that they can be associated with

words of a variety of morphosyntactic categories” (Zwicky 1977: 6). These clitics are always

located at the margins of constituents. The English possessive morpheme is, according to

Zwicky (1977), an example of a bound word. Nevis (2000), however, has argued that the

division between special clitics and bound words can be discarded, due to considerable

overlap between the two categories. Hence, a two-way division between simple and special

clitics has been adopted, and the English ‘s possessive has, in this view, been analysed as a

special clitic (Nevis 2000).

A second widely adopted interpretation is that of the possessive marker ‘s as a phrasal affix

(Anderson 1992). In this view, the possessive marker is considered to have all the

characteristics of a regular inflectional affix, except for the fact that it attaches phrasally

13

(Nevis 2000). As indicated above, the possessive marker shows sensitivity to the morphology

of its host (Allen 2008), and cannot be considered a bound word, due to the haplology it

exhibits when attached to plural nouns, and its morphological idiosyncrasies (Nevis 2000).

These affixal qualities, combined with the phrasal attachment of the possessive marker, have

prompted an analysis of the possessive as a phrasal affix. This study will adopt this analysis as

well.

3.1.2 The origin and development of the English possessive

While the possessive marker in Modern English is analysed as a phrasal affix, this is not the

case in Old English; rather, in Old English, a possessive relation was expressed by means of

the genitive case (see example 2). An overview of the genitive case inflections in Old English

can be found in table (1).

(2) ðæs cyninges gerefa

the:M.GEN.SG king:(M)GEN.SG reeve:(M)NOM.SG.

‘the king’s reeve’

(cochronA-5, ChronA_[Plummer]:1001.18.1434) (ASC(A) 1001.21), as cited

in Allen 2008: 76, her (3-13)

Strong Weak

u-

stem

Athematic Masc. Neut. Fem. Masc. Neut. Fem.

Short Long Short Long

Sg. stānes scipes þinges giefe sorge naman ēagan tungan suna mannes

Pl. stāna scipa þinga giefa sorga namena ēagena tungena suna manna

Table (1): Old English genitive inflections, from The Magic Sheet of Old English inflections

(http://faculty.virginia.edu)

In what follows, I will discuss the development of the English possessive marker, from its Old

English realisation as an inflectional affix to its present-day status as a phrasal affix.

During the Middle English period, the genitive case marker underwent several significant

changes in morphology and distribution. First of all, already near the end of the Old English

period, there was a “statistically highly significant trend towards favouring the prenominal

position for structurally assigned genitive case” (Allen 2008: 118). In other words, the

14

postnominal genitive gradually began to disappear, and this development was completed by

the end of the Early Middle English period (c. 1300). The postnominal genitive (see example

(3) was then, gradually, replaced by of- possessive (see example 4) constructions (Allen,

2008).

(3) Old English postnominal genitive:

of ðære foresædan cyrcan þæs

of the:F.DAT.SG aforesaid church:(F)DAT.SG the:M.GEN.SG

eadigan Stephanes

blessed:M.SG Stephen:(M)GEN.SG

‘from the aforementioned church of the blessed Stephen’

(COCATHOM2,ÆCHom_II,_2:12.14.263), as cited in Allen 2008: 83, her (3-

21a)

(4) Middle English of-possessive:

for þære deorewurðnysse of þære forme

for the:F.DAT.SG preciousness:(F)DAT.SG of the:F.DAT.SG first

dohter.

daughter(F)

‘because of the preciousness of the first daughter’

(CMKENTHO,139.153) (Festis 242), as cited in Allen 2008: 160, her (4-28)

Koike (2006) links the Old English postnominal position of genitives to the relation of the

genitive nominal phrase to the head noun. Genitive nouns expressing a Patient or a Cause

relation, which are normally nonhuman nouns, are usually postposed. The partitive (see

example (5)) genitive is also postposed in most cases, except when it is a pronoun (see

example 6); in that case, it occurs before the head noun. Preposed genitives are, according to

Koike (2006) usually those expressing an interpersonal relation, a possessive relation, or

Agentive or Experiencer relations. Importantly, as the postnominal genitive disappeared, the

distribution of the genitive case marker was reduced both syntactically and semantically, as it

could no longer be used in postnominal genitive positions, in combination with nouns

expressing Patient, Cause or partitive relations (Allen 2008; Koike 2006).

15

(5) Behealdað þæt ge ne forseon ænne þyssera lytlinga

Watch out that you:NOM.SG not.neglect one these:GEN.PL little

ones:GEN.PL

‘Watch out that you do not neglect one of these little ones’

(CH 34, 153), as cited in Koike 2006: 52, her (e-10)

(6) Gif ure ænigum sum ungelimp becume

If 1PL:GEN any:DAT.PL some mishap comes

‘If a mishap befalls any of us’

(cocathom2, ÆCHom_II,_35:267.234.6022), as cited in Allen2008: 85, her (3-

24)

Some authors (see e.g. Taylor 1996; Lightfoot 1999) have suggested that the loss of the

postnominal genitive in English was caused by the loss of the genitive as a case in Early

Middle English. Lightfoot (1999), for instance suggests an Early Reanalysis Hypothesis. This

theory assumes that children growing up in, and acquiring the language of dialect areas where

the language had already lost (part of) its case system, could no longer recognise –es as a case

inflection, precisely because those children did not acquire cases anymore. According to this

hypothesis, the possessive marker already had the status of a phrasal affix in Early Middle

English (Allen 2008). However, Allen (2008) rejects the Early Reanalysis Hypothesis, on the

basis of evidence for the retention of the genitive case beyond the Early Middle English

period. This evidence will discussed in what follows.

A second significant change regarding the English genitive case marker, is the loss of

agreement inflection. According to Allen (2008), in an initial stage of the development, near

the end of the 12th

century, inflectional agreement within nominal phrases had become

optional. In other words, articles or adjectives no longer needed to be inflected according to

the case of the nominal. By the 14th

century, near the end of the Middle English period, the -es

possessive marker was no longer a genitive case marker that was exclusively used with

masculine and neuter singular nouns, but a possessive marker that could be used with all

nouns, regardless of gender and number (Allen 2008) (see example (7) below).

16

(7) þese anticristis disciplis

these Antichrist:POSS disciples

‘these disciples of the Antichrist’

(CMWYCSER, 398.3106), as cited in Allen 2008: 146, her (4-16)

Importantly, as Allen (2008) points out, the loss of agreement inflection does not imply the

loss of the case system in English. In fact, the genitive case remains in existence throughout

the Middle English period, even though agreement no longer occurred in the nominal phrase.

Gradually, the genitive case inflections ceased to be used and were replaced by a possessive

marker –es, but instances of the genitive can still be found until the end of the Middle English

period (Allen 2008). The evidence which Allen (2008: 146) presents for the retention of the

genitive case is first of all that “invariant –es did not become the only genitive inflection for

nouns until after the end of the ME period.” Secondly, even texts which normally do not

display much inflection, contain some cases of agreement within the NP (see example 8). In

other words, the genitive case still appears in some texts that can be considered inflection-

poor texts, indicating that the genitive case was not immediately lost after the Old English

period (Allen 2008).

(8) Inn aness were heowe

In a:GEN man:GEN hue

‘in the likeness of a man’

(Orm 11602), as cited in Allen 2008:146, her (4-17b)

Furthermore, the retention of a dative/accusative distinction in English may, arguably, also

support the idea that the genitive case still exists as well. A final piece of evidence is related

to the morphophonemic alternation between [f] and [v] in words like wife/wives. In Old

English, [f] and [v] were allophones: [f] appeared in word-final position, and [v] in

intervocalic position. Thus, when followed by a plural or genitive case marker, the voiced

allophone was selected. However, the spelling remained <f>. In Middle English, then, these

allophones had become two phonemes, with different spellings. The phonological process,

which caused the <f> in intervocalic position to become voiced, disappeared. However, <v>

or <u> spellings, representing [v]-pronunciation, can be found both in the plural and the

possessive forms of words normally ending in [f] (see example (9)).

17

(9) in his wyues heritage

‘in his wife’s heritage’

(CMCAPCHR,128.2957), as cited in Allen 2008: 148, her (4-18)

This could mean that, although the phonological process that had demanded the [v]-

pronunciation had disappeared, the plural and possessive markers still interacted on a

morphological level with their host. These four points may serve as evidence of the fact that

in Middle English, the genitive case was still present in the language, and that the possessive

marker was thus still a genitive (inflectional) suffix (Allen 2008).

Allen (2008) notes, however, that due to the aforementioned optionality of agreement, the

genitive inflection was often characterised by once-only marking (see example (10) below.

(10) þt ter walde wakenin of wif. & weres somnunge; richesce. &

That there would arise of wife and man:POSS union wealth and

orldes weole

world:POSS prosperity

‘that of man and woman’s union, there would arise wealth and worldly

prosperity’

(CMHALI,150.322), as cited in Allen 2008: 149, her (4-19)

Because the head of the NP was usually located at the right edge of the NP, it is not always

possible to determine whether head marking (i.e. only the head NP is marked) or edge

marking (i.e. the entire NP is marked, at the right edge) took place (Allen 2008). Another

issue regarding edge marking, is that the –es inflection had started to spread beyond

masculine and neuter nouns of the majority of the nouns within the –a stem class; for

instance, once-only marking gradually spread to appositives and conjoined possessors. This

spread of –es to inflectional classes where it normally did not appear in Old English could

have facilitated the reanalysis of the genitive suffix as an edge inflection. A further catalyst in

the reanalysis of the English genitive to a phrasal affix was in all likelihood the origin of the

group genitive. As explained in section 3.1.1, group genitives are constructions to which a

possessive marker is attached on a phrasal level: the possessive marker attaches to the whole

NP, and not just the head noun. This should not be confused with once-only marking: in

18

phrases which show once-only marking, the possessive marker still attaches to the noun itself,

and the possessive relation does not, as is the case for the group genitive, refer to the phrase as

a whole (Allen 2008). In conclusion, Allen (2008: 151) argues that “it was the optionality of

agreement morphology combined with the spread of -es into noun classes where it had not

been found earlier that made possible the reanalysis of this suffix as something rather

different from the masculine and neuter singular genitive marker of OE.”

3.1.3 The separated genitive or his genitive

In addition to the –es possessive marker, the so-called his genitive or separated genitive

appeared in Middle English as well (Allen 2008). This type of possessive marker will briefly

be discussed in the following section, in order to give a complete account of the development

of the English ‘s possessive marker. Even though the construction is often referred to as a

‘genitive’, in this study I will not refer to possessive markers as genitives, unless they are

actually genitive case markers. Therefore, the construction will henceforth be referred to as

the his possessive or the separated possessive. The his possessive is construction which is

formed by means of a (separated) possessive pronoun, rather than an attached possessive

marker, and was mainly used between 1400 and 1750 (Allen 2008). One example can be

found below:

(11) Of seth, ðe was adam is sune

Of seth, who was adam POSS son

‘Of Seth, who was Adam’s son’

(Gen&Ex (A) 493), as cited in Allen 2008: 223, her (6-1)

The his possessive can take several different spellings: his, ys and is (Allen 2008). Some

authors (e.g. Taylor 1996) have suggested that the possessive marker of present-day English

did not develop from the genitive inflection, but originated as a separated possessive. These

views are supported by the claim that the apostrophe of the present-day possessive marker is

an indication of contraction; therefore, it is argued that the possessive marker cannot have

derived from an inflectional affix, but rather from his (Taylor 1996). This study will,

however, reject this view, as the Modern English possessive quite clearly has its origins in the

genitive case, and adopt the idea that past confusion between the attached and separated

possessives, due to ambiguous spelling, caused the apostrophe to be retained as part of the

possessive marker in present-day English (Baugh and Cable 2002). As Allen (2008) notes,

19

the apostrophe was originally used to indicate elisions of vowels, and thus, the apostrophe

might represent the elision of –e in the possessive affix –es, resulting in the present-day

possessive marker ‘s. However, in Early Modern English, the apostrophe also began to be

used in contractions. Thus, the presence of the apostrophe was often misinterpreted as being a

sign of a contraction of his, and following this idea, the origin of the English possessive

marker was often mistakenly assumed to be related to his (Allen 2008).

3.1.4 The locative possessive

3.1.4.1 Theoretical discussion

In the final subsection of this chapter, I will focus on the theoretical nature of the locative

possessive, and its occurrence in present-day English. Unfortunately, not much literature

regarding this particular type of possessive is available. In what follows, I will discuss two

different approaches to locative possessives in comparison to other elliptical constructions.

On the one hand, Biber et al. (2002) analyse locative possessives as independent possessives

with a null head noun, and consider elliptical possessives to be constructions where the head

noun can be recovered from the immediate context. Allen (2004), on the other hand, analyses

locative possessives in a similar way, but describes elliptical possessives differently.

Biber et al. (2002) discuss the English locative possessive with relation to the so-called

independent genitives. Independent possessives are defined as “genitive phrases standing

alone as a noun phrase” and Biber et al. (2002) go on to say that “[u]nlike other genitives,

they are not part of another (main) noun phrase” (Biber et al. 2002: 81). They divide

independent possessives into two subtypes: the first are constructions which have become

conventional, and therefore no longer need a head noun to support the meaning of the phrase.

Below are a few examples:

(12) She’s going to a friend’s. (Biber et al. 2002: 81)

(13) The vast main concourse had the combined appearance of a football

scrimmage and Christmas Eve at Macy’s. (Biber et al. 2002: 81)

(14) An open bottle of Jack Daniel’s is on the candle table. (Biber et al. 2002: 81)

20

The possessive construction a friend’s in example (x1) refers to someone’s home, the

possessive Macy’s in (x2) is used to refer to a shop, and the possessive in (3x) refers to a kind

of whisky. Thus independent possessives can be seen to be used to people’s homes, to places

of business or to clubs as well as to commercial products or firms (Biber et al. 2002). The first

two examples illustrate the pattern that is of interest to this study, and that I have referred to as

locative possessives. Thus, in Biber et al.’s (2002) view, the locative possessive is a subtype

of conventional possessive constructions, which in their turn are types of independent

genitives. Importantly, the possessives in this first subtype are, according to Biber et al.

(2002) not to be considered elliptical constructions, as the omitted noun is no longer necessary

in the context: these constructions can be understood without requiring the presence of a head

noun. In order words, they assume a null head noun for the English locative possessive

construction. Structurally, then, such possessives are nominal constituents whose head is the

possessive noun.

Unlike the conventional independent possessives discussed above, other independent

possessives are considered fully fledged nominal constituents in which the possessive

modifies a head noun which is elided (Biber et al. 2002). While independent genitives are

characterised by omission of the head noun, these constructions are considered as elliptical

because the relevant head noun can be recovered from the context. If this were not possible,

the construction would not make sense semantically. A few examples of the elliptical

possessive, as Biber et al. (2002) define it, can be found below.

(15) This isn’t my handwriting, it’s Selina’s. (Biber et al. 2002: 81)

All the Turner girls preferred girls’ toys to boys’. (Biber et al. 2002: 81)

The elided head nouns, handwriting and toys respectively, are present in the context, and

thereby allow the full interpretation of the elliptic genitive.

The second analysis of locative possessives that will be addressed here is the one suggested

by Allen (2004). She analyses the locative possessive in a similar way as Biber et al. (2002),

but her analysis of elliptical possessives differs. Three types of possessives are discussed in

her study:

(16) We’ll meet at Mary’s. (Allen 2004: 351, her (1a))

21

(17) This is Mary’s. (Allen 2004: 351, her (1a))

(18) Mary’s is red. (Allen 2004: 351, her (1a))

Type (16) is a locative possessive, in which the head noun is omitted. Allen (2004) thus

proposes a null head noun for the locative possessive construction in English. Type (17)

expresses ownership: the omitted noun is interpreted as the possessum, while the possessive

noun is the possessor. Such constructions are also regarded as having a null head noun by

Allen (2004), whilst Biber er al. (2002) consider constructions of the type (17) to be elliptical,

and argue that the head noun needs to be recovered from the immediate context. According to

Allen (2004), however, in both (16) and (17), the meaning of the head noun can apparently be

recovered without there being a need for an antecedent in the context. The possessive

construction in type (18) is analysed by Allen as elliptical, which means that in such phrases,

the head noun is not entirely omitted; rather, in order to make sense of the meaning of the

construction, the head noun needs to be recovered from the immediate context.

According to Allen (2004), examples of the types (17) and (18) are found from the Old

English period onwards, whereas locative possessives (type (16)) have, so far, not been

discovered in Old English. An Old English example of the second type, which expresses

ownership, is the following:

(19) hit is eal Godes

It is all God’s

(Blickling 51.1), as cited in Allen 2004: 351

An Old English example of the third type, which needs an antecedent head noun in the

context, is provided in (20):

(20) na þurh his agene mihte, ah þurh godes

Not through his own power, but through God’s’

(ÆCHIXI.184, as cited in Allen 2004: 351

According to Allen, 2004, the first example of a locative possessive dates form c.1280:

22

(21) he was at seint poules

he was at Saint Paul’s

(c. 1280 South Eng. Leg. 109.91), as cited in Allen 2004: 351

It should be noted that nor Biber et al. (2002), nor Allen (2004) discuss restrictions on the

nature of the possessive in the locative, independent or elliptical patterns. For instance, one

may wonder whether pronouns can take the place of the possessor noun. Huddleston &

Pullum (2002) indicate that personal pronouns cannot he used in the locative possessive

pattern, but do not elaborate on the question whether, for instance, indefinite or relative

pronouns are grammatical in such constructions. In order to answer this question, a small

survey was conducted in order to establish the grammaticality of pronouns in particular

locative and elliptical constructions. These constructions can be found below:

(i) a. I don't remember at whose I met Jane.

b. I first met Mary at Sylvia's house but I don't remember at whose I met Jane.

(ii) a. You don't find air conditioning at everybody's.

b. You find air conditioning at some people's homes but not at everybody's.

(iii) a. You don't find air conditioning at his.

b. You find air conditioning at some students' homes but not at his.

c. You find air conditioning at some students' homes but not at mine.

(iv) a. This is the student at whose I first met my present wife.

b. This is the student at whose house I first met my present wife.

The (a) types are all locative constructions, whereas the (b) and (c) types are elliptical. Three

native speakers were questioned, and asked to evaluate the sentences above in terms of

grammaticality. All (a) constructions were considered ungrammatical, and most (b) and (c)

constructions were labelled as grammatical. Two out of the three native speakers considered

type (1a) to be less grammatical than the other (b) types, but more so than the (a) types. From

these findings it can be inferred that pronouns are most likely ungrammatical in locative

possessive constructions, and that most pronouns, except relative ones, can be considered

grammatical in elliptical possessive constructions. However, this survey was very restricted in

23

nature, as only three native speakers were interrogated. In order to adequately describe the

grammaticality of pronouns in locative or elliptical constructions, more extensive research

needs to be done.

3.1.4.2 Corpus research: the locative possessive in present-day English

Since the locative possessive itself is not extensively described in the literature, I have

conducted a small corpus investigation, in order to examine whether locative possessive is

indeed common in English, and to find out which nouns are used as possessor nouns in the

locative construction. To carry out this study, I first created a list of phrases was created.

These phrases were divided into four categories: the first consisted of proper nouns (e.g. to

John’s, at Mary’s), the second of nouns denoting kinship (e.g. at my sister’s, at my

granddad’s), the third of nouns denoting professions (e.g. at the hairdresser’s, at the baker’s)

and the fourth of complex noun phrases (e.g. to my older brother’s, at John’s mother’s). I

then examined the distribution of these constructions in the British National Corpus (BNC).

The results of this investigation will be discussed below, and the full list of phrases and the

results can be found in appendix X.

It is important to note that this corpus research wa of a rather restricted nature. First of all, the

‘simple search’ function of the BNC was used, which can only produce a limited amount of

results. Secondly, the research was done by searching for particular lexical items, rather than

syntactic structures. As a consequence, there may very well be many more locative

possessives in the corpus that were not detected by means of this research. The goal of this

research, however, was not to find all locative possessives in the BNC; rather, it was merely

meant to show if the locative possessive existed in combination with certain types of nouns or

noun phrases. The full list of phrases and the results can be found in appendix X.

As indicated before, the locative possessive phrases that were researched with the BNC can be

divided into four categories: proper nouns, kinship nouns, professional nouns and complex

noun phrases. The first category of nouns that was researched, was that of proper nouns. The

results of the corpus search clearly show that proper nouns can, indeed, be used as the

independent possessor in the locative pattern. A few examples are to/at John’s, to Mary’s, and

at Ann’s. Secondly, kinship terminology was entered into the corpus, and in most cases, a

locative possessive was found: to/at my brother’s, to/at my sister’s, at my mother’s, at my

nan’s, at granddad’s, to/at my cousin’s and to my aunt’s. While not strictly a kinship noun,

24

the phrase to/at my friend’s was also searched for, and found, within this category, since the

relationship a person has with a friend can, arguably, be considered to be on a similar level as

the relationship with kin. Surprisingly, no locative possessive was found with the noun uncle.

To conclude from this that the locative possessive is not compatible with uncle would be

somewhat rash, since it does exist with aunt and all other kinship terms that were researched.

A more likely explanation could, arguably, be that the corpus did not contain any instances, or

that the search did not find any due to the restricted nature of the corpus. It can be noted that

this sort of problem illustrated the problems of basing one’s research solely on corpora.

The third category of locative possessives that were researched consisted of nouns denoting

professions. Instances were found of to/at the hairdresser’s, to/at the butcher’s, to/at the

baker’s, to/at the dentist’s and to/at the doctor’s. The following phrases did not yield any

results: to/at the vicar’s, to/at the nurse’s, to/at the officer’s, to/at the farmer’s, and to/at the

teacher’s. Interestingly, the professional nouns which did appear in locative possessive

constructions all have in common that, when combined with a locative possessive, they

usually refer to the shop or office where the relevant profession is practiced. For example, at

the baker’s refers to the bakery, and at the dentist’s refers to the dentist’s office. In contrast, if

the second set of profession nouns were found in locative possessive constructions, they

would naturally not refer to the place where the profession is practiced, but rather to the home

or residence of the person practicing the profession. In other words, at the vicar’s would refer

to the vicar’s house, not to the church, and at the officer’s would refer to the officer’s home,

not to the police office. It may then perhaps be argued that a prerequisite for professional

nouns to be used in locative possessives could be that the construction must denote the shop

or office where the profession is practiced. Such an interpretation may, however, be

somewhat problematic for at the farmer’s. A farmer practices his profession on his farm, so

one might argue that the locative possessive should be possible as well. However, the farm is

also the farmer’s residence, and does not exclusively refer to the location of his profession.

This ambiguity may then be the reason why it does not appear in locative possessive

constructions. Thus, it can be further argued that the locative possessive containing

professional nouns should not simply refer to the shop or office where the profession is

practiced, but that it should solely and unambiguously refer to this location. Of course, one

must exercise caution in making such arguments, as this particular research was rather

restricted: more extensive research could show instances of the constructions which I have

now considered to be non-existent.

25

The fourth category of possessives that were examined were complex noun phrases. The

phrases that were researched were to/at my eldest cousin’s, to/at my little sister’s, to/at my

older brother’s, to/at my late grandfather’s, to/at the tall baker’s, to/at the old vicar’s, to/at

John’s mother’s, to/at my friend’s sister’s and to/at my French teacher’s. No results were

found in this category.

In conclusion, it can be argued with relative certainty that the locative possessive in present-

day English can be used with proper nouns and (most) nouns denoting kinship. Locative

possessives containing professional nouns usually seem to refer to the shop of office where

the profession is practiced. Importantly, however, it should be noted that this is not the case

when professional nouns are used in non-locative elliptical constructions, of the type where

the head noun can be recovered from the immediate context. As example (22) shows, in these

cases, the elliptical construction does refer to the home or residence of the person in question.

(22) Jenny’s house is nice but the doctor’s is much nicer.

Furthermore, ambiguity can arise in constructions of the type exemplified in (23)

(23) The dentist’s practice is always full but there is never anyone at the doctor’s.

In this case, two interpretation of the doctor’s are possible: firstly, the doctor’s can be a

locative possessive, but secondly, it can also be an elliptical possessive, with practice as the

elided head noun. Thus, one should take care to analyse locative or elliptical possessives

containing professional nouns adequately, and bear in mind that these constructions can

sometimes be ambiguous. Finally, complex nouns phrases were not found to appear within

locative possessives. However, the rather restricted nature of this small research must be kept

in mind, as more extensive research may change these results.

26

3.2 Corpus Research

In the following section, I will attempt to map the development of the locative possessive

construction in English. Corpus research was conducted in order to accomplish this: several

corpora containing material ranging from Middle English (ME) to Modern British English

(MBE) were used in this study, and were searched for locative possessives. Section 3.2.1

discusses the individual corpora that were used, and the data that were examined. In section

3.2.2, I will present and discuss the results of my research.

A few preliminary notes should be made regarding this study. First of all, Old English corpora

were not included in my research, since, according to Allen, this type of possessive was

unknown in Old English. As she notes, the first example that has been found so far is “he was

at seint poules (c.1280 South Eng. Leg. 109.91)” (Allen 351). Secondly, it should, of course,

also be noted that all results from this research reflect written language. Thus, it is quite

probable that the development of the locative possessive in spoken language use was different

from what this study may show. However, as no spoken records of language use existed

before the 20th

century, we must rely on written material in order to conduct historical

linguistic research. It was moreover outside the scope of this study to analyse the spoken

material that does exist.

3.2.1 Corpus and data

In order to map the development of the locative possessive in English, four corpora were

consulted: the Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English 2 (PPCME2), the Penn-

Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Early Modern English (PPCEME), the Penn-Helsinki Parsed

Corpus of Modern British English (PPCMBE) and the Parsed Corpus of Early English

Correspondence (PCEEC).

Due to time restrictions and the extended nature of the corpus, it was not possible to examine

all corpora entirely, and therefore, I have attempted to create a representative sample of texts

from the corpora, by carefully selecting a number of texts per corpus. The selection made for

this research was based on two factors: text genre and time period. Regarding the first factor,

text genre, I have chosen two texts per chosen time period, one reflecting a more literary,

narrative genre and one reflecting a more non-literary, administrative genre. If found, a

difference in usage of the locative possessive between genres could indicate that its usage was

perhaps genre- or register-dependent. As for the second factor, the time period, I have taken

texts from two points in each century: one from around the ’25 year mark and one from

around the ’75 year mark for each genre, with a margin of ten years before or after said year

mark. Thus, my selection consists of four texts per century. I have not regarded geographical

variation as a criterion, as it was my intention to focus more on the diachronic development of

the locative possessor, rather than its geographical distribution. It would, of course, be

interesting to examine geographical factors in the diachronic development of the locative

possessor; this was, however, not within the scope of this research. Importantly, the somewhat

restricted nature of this study necessarily implies that it can only yield preliminary results. A

27

more thorough examination of the corpora could, perhaps, change these results; however, as

indicated before, the text sample was selected in order to represent the corpora as a whole,

and therefore, this research could be expected to yield relatively accurate results.

3.2.1.1. PPCME2

The first corpus that was examined, the PPCME2, splits the ME period up into four main

subperiods: M1, M2, M3 and M4 (see table X). It should be noted that the PPCME2 uses two

sets of dates: composition dates and manuscript dates. When these dates differ for one text, a

more specific period designation code is used. These are all listed in table X below.

(copied from PPCME2 web

info)

The Middle English texts which I have selected can be found in table X. This selection

contains texts from the four main periods, M1-M4, only; in other words, their composition

dates and manuscript dates do not differ in any relevant way. In doing this, I have tried to

ensure that all selected texts clearly represent one time period only.

Text Date Genre

Kentish Homilies. 1125-1150 Homily

Peterborough Chronicle. 1150 History

Lambeth Homilies. 1225 Homily

Vices and Virtues. 1200-1225 Religious Treatise

Kentish Sermons. 1275 Homily

Earliest Prose Psalter. 1350 Bible

The New Testament.

(Wycliffe)

1388 Bible

John of Trevisa’s

Polychronicon.

1387 History

Mandeville’s Travels. 1425 Travelogue

The Cloud of Unknowing. 1400-1425 Religious Treatise

Malory’s Morte Darthur. 1470 Romance

Gregory’s Chronicle. 1475 History

Period

designation

Composition date Manuscript date

MX1 unknown 1150-1250

M1 1150-1250 1150-1250

M2 1250-1350 1250-1350

M23 1250-1350 1350-1420

M24 1250-1350 1420-1500

M3 1350-1420 1350-1420

M34 1350-1420 1420-1500

MX4 Unknown 1420-1500

M4 1420-1500 1420-1500

28

As the Kentish Homilies and the Peterborough Chronicle are the only texts in the corpus from

the 12th

century, these were both selected in order to represent the century, even though the

Peterborough Chronicle is not from around the ’25 or the ’75 year mark. However, the texts

do each represent a different genre. The corpus contained only one text from around 1275: the

Kentish Sermons. Therefore, only this one text was examined. A similar problem occurred for

the ’25 year mark of the 14th

century: the only appropriate text from around this time was the

Earliest Prose Psalter, and therefore I have included it, even though it was written c. 1350. I

did not consider the Ayenbite of Inwyt (1340) an appropriate text, as the information on the

PPCME2 webpage states that “the language may be representative of the late 13th

century”

(PPCME2 info). As no texts within ten years of the ’75 year mark of the 14th

century were

available, John of Trevisa’s Polychronicon (1387) and Wycliffe’s New Testament (1388)

were selected.

3.2.1.2 PPCEME

The second corpus that was examined for this study was the PPCEME. In this corpus, the

Early Modern English period is divided into three 70-year time periods, which are listed in

table X below. The text sample can be found in table X. Letters were not included in the Early

Modern English selection, in order to avoid overlap with the PCEEC, which consists solely of

letters.

(from PPCEME web info)

Author Title Date Genre

/ A Hundred Merry Tales. 1526 Fiction

Elyot, Thomas The Boke named the Gouernour. 1531 Educational Treatise

Madox, Richard The Diary of Richard Madox. 1582 Diary (Private)

/ The Statutes of the Realm. (1570) 1571-

1572

Law

Taylor, John All the works of John Taylor. 1630 Travelogue

Brinsley, John Ludus literarius or The Grammar

Schoole.

1627 Educational Treatise

Fox, George The journal of George Fox. 1673-

1674

Autobiography

Locke, John Directions concerning education. 1685 Educational Treatise

3.2.1.3 PPCMBE

The third corpus, the PPCMBE, divides the Modern British English period into three periods

of 70 years each: 1700-1769, 1770-1839 and 1840-1914. Unlike the previously discussed

corpora, these periods are not given a name or code. The texts that were selected for this

research are listed in table X.

Period designation Date

E1 1500-1569

E2 1570-1639

E3 1640-1710

29

The PPCMBE contains three texts from the 20th

century, the youngest of which is from 1913

(Weahers’ Commercial Gardening). Despite the fact that these texts are not from around the

’25 year mark, two were included in the sample, in order to give an indication of the usage of

the locative possessive in the early 20th

century. Two texts by Benson were selected, rather

than Weathers’ text, as it was my opinion that Benson’s texts fit the genre categories better.

3.2.1.4 PCEEC

The final English corpus under investigation was the PCEEC. This corpus contains letters

with composition dates ranging from c.1410 to 1695. Thus, it partly covers Middle English,

partly Early Modern English language use. As noted before, overlap with the PPCEME was

avoided by not selecting letters for the Early Modern English sample. A further issue with this

corpus could not be avoided: as all texts are letters, is was not possible to distinguish genres.

Hence, only time was considered as a factor in making a selection. I still chose to select two

sets of letters per ‘25/’75 year mark, as this provided two different writing styles per time

mark to compare. However, as these sets of letters often covered several years’ writing, it was

in some cases not possible to select texts solely from within a 10-year margin after the ’25 and

’75 year marks, as I have attempted to do with the previously discussed corpora. The sets of

letters chosen are listed in table X.

Author Title Date Genre

Ryder, Sir

Dudley

The Diary of Dudley Ryder. 1716 Diary

/ The Statutes at Large. (171x) 1715-1716 Law

Boswell, James Boswell in Extremes. 1776 Diary

Chapman,

George

A Treatise on Education with a Sketch

of the Author’s Method.

1774 Educational

Treatise

O’Keeffe, John Recollections of the life of John

O’Keeffe.

1826 Autobiography

/ The Statutes of the United Kingdom of

Great Britain and Ireland. (1835)

1835 Law

Thring, Edward Edward Thring, headmaster of

Uppingham School. Life, diary, and

letters

1870-1872 Diary

Bain, Alexander Education as a science. 1878 Educational

Treatise

Benson, Arthur

C.

The Diary of Arthur Christopher

Benson.

1905-1906 Diary

Benson, Arthur

C.

The Schoolmaster. A commentary

upon the aims and methods of an

assistant-master in a public school.

1908 Educational

Treatise

Collection Date

Marchall 1440?-1476

30

3.2.2 Methodology

The program used to conduct this research was CorpusSearch2 (reference). The query that

was written to run the program searched first of all for possessive NPs, secondly, for NPs in

the genitive case and thirdly, for PPs containing an NP which in its turn could contain a

possessive noun, a possessive marker or a genitive case marker. This third part of the query

was repeated four times, with four different prepositions: “at”, “to”, “by” and “in”. The query

was run on all corpora included in this study, and the results of the selected texts were

manually extracted and reviewed. Not only elliptical, but also non-elliptical locative

possessive constructions were extracted from these results, in order to establish whether the

frequency of one construction varied in relation to the other. If, for instance, the number of

elliptical locative possessives is larger than the number of non-elliptical constructions at one

particular point in time, this could mean that the elliptical construction was used more often

than the non-elliptical one, and vice versa.

3.2.3 Results and discussion

In what follows, the results of my research regarding the locative possessive in English will

be presented. A complete chronological overview of the results can be found in appendix 1,

along with and all results per corpus.

Before the results can be presented, however, a few remarks must be discussed. Firstly, as

mentioned before, it is important to note that this research can only yield preliminary results

due to the restricted nature of the data. Secondy, the results of this study will be addressed

chronologically, rather than per corpus, as the PCEEC covers Late Middle English to Early

Modern English language use. Thus, the corpora will be merged where necessary, and all data

will be presented in chronological order. Thirdly, the spelling of the possessive morpheme

was not considered a distinguishing factor for this study. Several different spellings were

encountered in the data: both attached (-s, -es, -ys) and separated (‘s, ys, his) spellings. All

constructions containing any of these were included in the results of this study.

Cely 1474-1488

Elyot 1528-1536

Brereton 1520?-1539?

Harvey 1573

Parkhurst 1569-1575

Barrington 1628-1632

Pory 1610-1632

Haddock 1657-1673

Essex 1675-1677

31

3.2.3.1 Middle English

The first occurrence of an elliptical locative possessive in Middle English was found in

Malory’s Morte Darthur, from 1470: at Saynt Albons (PPCME2: Malory, Morte Darthur).

Gregory’s Chronicle (1475) contained twenty more instances of locative possessors, all which

were most likely names of churches, cathedrals, monasteries or similar religious institutions.

Two hits do not contain any form of “Saint”: to Powlys and at Powlys (PPCME2, Gregory’s

Chronicle); However, from the context, it can be inferred that St. Paul’s cathedral in London

is meant. A further source from this time, Cely’s letters (1474-1488) also included ten

locative possessors. Only three of these were names of religious institutions, however; six

personal names were found, and one NP denoting a person, at Bornellys wyedows (PCEEC,

Cely). From these results, it could, arguably, be inferred that the locative possessive was

mainly used to denote religious institutions in Late Middle English. One might then consider

the possibility that this construction may have originated as a way of shortening names of

religious institutions. It could be argued that, since the names of these institutions were in all

likelihood unique in the area, there could be no doubt what was meant when one shortened the

name.

Interestingly, no locative possessives were found in the corpora before 1470, although Allen

places the first occurrence of the locative possessor at 1280 (351). This lack of results before

1470 may, however, be attributed to the selective nature of this research, and it is likely that

the construction is attested in other sources, which were not included in my text sample. A

second noteworthy aspect of the results is the fact that in the 1475 and the 1474-1488 texts,

the number of instances is quite high. This seems strange, compared to the complete lack of

results before 1470. It could have been expected that the number of occurrences started rather

low, and grew higher with time, as it can be assumed that the integration of this construction

in language use developed gradually. Instead, the locative possessive appears suddenly, and in

a relatively large number. Furthermore, both Gregory (PPCME2) and Cely (PCEEC) use the

elliptical form significantly more often than the non-elliptical form, which indicates that the

construction was, in all likelihood, already established as a normality in their language use.

The frequency of the locative possessive also remains high in later texts, and therefore, it

cannot be attributed to idiosyncratic language use. However, we must again exercise caution

and bear in mind that this research examined a limited number of texts; some instances of

locative possessives may occur in other corpus texts from before 1470. In order to map the

early usage of the locative possessive, more exhaustive research would need to be conducted,

which was outside the scope of this study.

3.2.3.2 Early Modern English

In Early Modern English, usage of the locative possessive becomes quite frequent. The results

now contain a relatively great number of proper names denoting persons, rather than almost

solely names of religious institutions. Names of such institutions are, naturally, still found

rather frequently as well. Furthermore, two instances of nouns denoting professions were

32

found in locative possessive constructions: at the stacioner’s (PCEEC: Barrington, 1628-

1632) and at my lord Treasurers (PCEEC: Pory, 1610-1632).

However, no instances of locative possessives were found in A Hundred Merry Tales

(PPCEME), Elyot’s The Boke named the Gouernour (PPCEME), or Elyot’s letters (PCEEC),

however. A Hundred Merry Tales (PPCEME) did contain a number of instances with a non-

elliptical construction, which could arguably mean that this is the preferred construction in

this work. Neither elliptical, nor non-elliptical locative possessives were found in The Boke

named the Gouernour (PPCEME), or in Elyot’s letters1. Hence, we cannot make claims about

whether Elyot uses the elliptical form or not, and whether he has a preference for one

construction. A few further sets of letters did not contain any locative possessives either:

Brereton and Haddock’s2 letters (PCEEC) did not contain locative possessors, neither

elliptical, nor non-elliptical constructions, at all; Harvey’s letters provide two non-elliptical

possessives, to Sir Thomas Smyths hous and in kings college (PCEEC: Harvey, 1573), yet no

elliptical forms.

Strikingly, texts written in non-literary or administrative genres did not yield any results.

Elyot’s 1531, Brinsley’s 1627 and Locke’s 16853 educational treatises, and the 1571 Statutes,

all lacked instances of locative possessives, both elliptical and non-elliptical forms. Hence, the

use of the locative possessive could, arguably, be considered genre-dependent. One could

argue that it is the register of the language use in the non-literary or administrative genres may

be more formal, and that the (elliptical) locative possessive was perhaps considered a more

informal form. However, this suggestion may be rejected, as these genres not only lack

elliptical forms, but non-elliptical ones as well. A more plausible explanation could be that

these genres simply do not easily lend themselves to expressions of location or direction. It

seems obvious that locative possessives appear in literary or more narrative genres, which tell

stories, and these stories could easily describe persons going from one location to another, or

locations where other persons live. Non-literary genres, however, do not often allow for such

a topic. Hence, such constructions probably appear less often.

3.2.3.3 Modern British English

Modern British English language use in the examined corpus texts contained a large amount

of locative possessives. Importantly, the number of elliptical constructions is significantly

higher than the number of non-elliptical forms. No instances of non-elliptical locative

possessives were found before 1826, and in total, only six occurred in Modern British

English.

1 One instance of a PP containing a possessive pronoun, rather than a noun, was found: at his house (PPCEME:

Elyot, 1531). Though it indicates location, the head noun cannot be elided. Thus, this was not considered a

locative possessive. 2 Haddock’s text provides a PP containing a possessive pronoun: at his howse (PCEEC: Haddock, 1657-1673).

3 Two instances of possessive PPs without ellipsis were found, yet the possessive noun was indefinite: into a

Cutlers shop and at a friends house (PPCEME: Locke, 1685). As the head noun cannot be ellided in these cases,

these constructions were not considered locative possessives.

33

The locative possessives in the PPCMBE were predominantly proper names and nouns

denoting kinship (e.g. to brother’s: PPCMBE: Ryder, 1716). One noun denoting a profession

was found, although it also contained a proper noun: at Mr. Donaldson the bookseller’s

(PPCMBE: Boswell, 1776).

However, as in Early Modern English, the locative possessives appear almost solely in literary

or narrative genres. The same reason for its lack in non-literary or administrative genres is

assumed for Modern British English: the topics discussed in these texts usually do not contain

many descriptions of persons going to a location where another person resides. Nevertheless,

one locative possessive did appear in the 1715-1716 Statutes: at St. Albans (PPCMBE).

In conclusion, it can be argued that this research shows a rather clear development from little

use of the locative possessive in Middle English, to the predominant use of the construction.

The first instances of English locative possessives that were found in this study were from the

1470s, and were used to denote names of religious institutions. After this time, the

construction gradually became increasingly frequent, and came to be used for proper nouns

denoting persons, nouns denoting profession and nouns denoting kinship. By the early 18th

century, the elliptical forms of the locative possessive were used significantly more frequently

than the non-elliptical forms.

34

4. Dutch and West-Flemish

In this fourth chapter of this study, I will focus on the locative possessive construction in

Standard Dutch and West-Flemish. Chapter 4.1 will first of all provide a theoretical

discussion of the English and West-Flemish possessive constructions, and will then focus on

the locative possessive in West-Flemish. As was the case for the English possessive, the

Dutch and West-Flemish possessive constructions will be discussed from a diachronic

viewpoint as well. Chapter 4.2 will focus on the corpus research that was conducted in order

to map the diachronic development of the West-Flemish locative possessive.

4.1 Possessives in Dutch and West-Flemish

The present chapter will address the Dutch and the West-Flemish possessive constructions

and the locative possessive in West-Flemish. While this research specifically investigates

West-Flemish, a discussion of the Standard Dutch -s possessive and its diachronic

development has been included, as this study will argue that the possessive marker used in

the West-Flemish locative possessive is, in fact, of the same type as the Dutch -s possessive

marker. The usual West-Flemish possessive markers, by contrast, are, as we shall see, of a

different kind. Section 4.1.1 of this study will focus on the theoretical status of the Standard

Dutch -s possessive marker, and section 4.1.2 on its diachronic development from a genitive

case to a suffix as part of a determiner. In section 4.1.3, the standard possessive markers of

West-Flemish will be discussed, and finally, section 4.1.4 will focus on the locative

possessive and its occurrence in present-day West-Flemish.

4.1.1 The Modern Standard Dutch -s possessive

In Modern Standard Dutch, possessive meaning is, in most cases, expressed by means of the

preposition van (Weerman & de Wit 1999). The -s possessive, which is the focus of this

chapter, is still used in some particular contexts, however. According to Booij (2005), the

only nouns that can take the -s possessive are proper nouns, nouns which can be used as forms

of address (such as mother ’moeder’, vader ‘father’, buurman ‘neighbour’, etc.) and

quantifying personal nouns (e.g. iemand (somebody), which are, as Booij (2002: 45)

indicates, “words functioning as proper names with an inherent referential value.” Two

35

further restrictions apply to the Modern Standard Dutch -s possessive: first of all, nouns

preceded by articles cannot take the -s possessive. For instance, *de buurmans huis ‘the

neighbour’s house’ is ungrammatical. Only possessive pronouns can precede -s possessors, as

in e.g. mijn moeders huis ‘my mother’s house’. A second restriction is that the -s possessive

can only be used in prenominal position: *Dit huis is Jans ‘This house is John’s’ is

ungrammatical as well (Booij, 2002).

It is generally agreed upon that the Standard Modern Dutch -s possessive is no longer a case

marker, as Dutch no longer has morphological case (Allen 2008; Booij 2005; Weerman & de

Wit 1999). Arguably, Dutch does still show signs of the remnants of a genitive case in phrases

like de ontwikkeling der hemellichamen ‘the development of the stars’ (Weerman & de Wit

1999: 1184, their (58)c.). However, this kind of genitive usually occurs in written language

only, and is not part of the core system of the language (Weerman & de Wit 1999). In fact,

according to Weerman & de Wit (1999), this type of genitive is different from the ‘original’

Old Dutch genitive case. First of all, it is acquired relatively late, and learned as a way of

converting the normal possessive pattern (with the preposition van) into a different phrase, not

as part of a “full genitive paradigm” (Weerman & de Wit 1999: 1184). Secondly, the genitive

in such constructions is more restricted in terms of morphology and syntax than in Middle

Dutch: most forms use the determiner der followed by a plural noun (Weerman & de Wit

1999), as exemplified in (x1), though not always, as indicated in example (x2). According to

Weerman & de Wit (1999), the form using des with a singular masculine noun only appears in

idiomatic expressions (see example (x3)). This type of genitive is thus not as productive as the

Old and Middle English genitive was.

(x1) het beleid der Nederlandse universiteiten

The policy the-GEN Dutch universities (Weerman & de Wit 1999: 1184, their

(58)b.)

(x2) het Dictee der Nederlandse Taal

The dictation the-GEN Dutch Language

(x3) de heer des huizes

The man the-GEN house-GEN (Weerman & de Wit 1999: 1185, their (59)b.)

A third restriction in comparison with the ‘original’ genitive is that the forms with der cannot

occur in prenominal positions (Weerman & de Wit 1999), as indicated in example (x4) below.

36

(x4) *der Nederlands universiteiten beleid

The-GEN Dutch universities policy (Weerman & de Wit 1999: 1185, their

(62)b.)

A somewhat more productive form of the des genitive is the reduced form of des, ‘s, which

can appear in prenominal position, as exemplified in (x5)

(x5) ‘s rijks schatkist

‘s government-S treasure (Weerman & de Wit 1999: 1185, their (61)a.)

Finally, the form des is restricted in the sense that it is often used in academic, formal style,

where it is used to describe a certain characteristic or behaviour. This type of construction is

used with des only, even, strangely, with feminine nouns, as shown in example (x7).

(x6) Zo’n optreden is des ministers

Such behaviour is the-GEN minister-GEN (Weerman & de Wit 1999: 1185,

their (63)a.)

(x7) Dat is nu eenmaal des vrouws

That is now once the-GEN:MASC woman-GEN:MASC (Weerman & de Wit

1999: 1186, their (63)c.)

Thus, what is left of the genitive in Modern Standard Dutch is hardly productive, and of a

very restricted nature, both on a morphological and a syntactic level.

Turning back to the -s possessive in Modern Standard Dutch, it should be noted that the Dutch

-s possessive cannot be analysed as a phrasal affix, as we have done for the English ‘s

possessive. The reason for this is that, unlike the English ‘s possessive, the Dutch -s

possessive is, as has been indicated before, quite restricted in its attachment to nouns (Booij

2002). The English possessive, by contrast, can attach to most types of nouns and even

phrases. It can furthermore be argued that the Dutch -s possessive does not quite fit the

description of a clitic, either. The main criteria for clitics, as suggested by Zwicky and Pullum

(1983: 504-505) were the following:

37

(1) The degree of selection between the clitics and words preceding them is low.

(2) There are no arbitrary gaps in the set of host-clitic combinations.

(3) No morphophonological idiosyncrasies exist within clitic groups.

(4) There are no semantic idiosyncrasies for clitic groups.

The Dutch -s possessive shows a high degree of selection towards its host. This selection is,

as we have seen, not purely morphological or phonological, but also semantic: not only are

possessive pronouns the only elements that are allowed in prenominal position (as in mijn

moeders huis ‘my mother’s house’), but the nouns need to have the quality that they can be

used in address (which include proper names, and nouns like vader ‘father’ and dominee

‘reverend’) (Booij 2002). Arbitrary gaps with relation to the Dutch -s possessive can be found

as well, as not all forms that can be used as an address can take the -s possessive. For

instance, the noun agent ‘policeman’ can be used as a form of address, but a phrase like

agents fiets ‘policeman’s bike’ is nevertheless ungrammatical (Booij, 2005).

Morphophonological and semantic idiosyncrasies within the possessive NP were not found;

rather, it might perhaps be argued that, because of the morphophonological and semantic

restrictions to the -s possessive, this construction in itself is a morphophonological and

semantic idiosyncrasy within the system of possessives in Modern Standard Dutch. In sum,

the Dutch -s possessive does not carry the characteristics of a clitic to a significant extent.

Thus, an analysis of the -s possessive as an affix seems more appropriate. However, as Dutch

no longer inflects for case, the possessive marker cannot be analysed as a case marker.

An analysis which has often been suggested for this type of possessive, is that the possessive

NP functions as a determiner (Allen 2008, Booij 2002, de Wit 1999). Specifically, it is the

construction [(possessive pronoun) + proper name + s] which can be considered a determiner

(Booij 2002), or, as Weerman & de Wit (1999: 1172) argue, this construction is “a

morphological complex that occurs in D and -s is a bound definite suffix that binds the

nominal predicate in syntax. This view also provides an explanation for the fact that no

determiner (other than a possessive pronoun) can precede the possessor noun, as exemplified

in (x8).

(x8) a. *de jongens boek

The boy-S book

b. *iedere jongens boek

every boy-S book

38

c. *de man met die gekke brils caravan

the man with those funny glasses-S caravan (Weerman & de Wit 1999:1171,

their (38))

Since the possessive NP is, in this view, interpreted as a determiner, prenominal possessors

which already have a determiner, such as de jongen ‘the boy’ in (X8a.), cannot take -s in

addition to their first determiner (Weerman & de Wit 1999).

4.1.2 Development of Modern Standard Dutch -s possessive

The present chapter will focus on the development of the Dutch possessive from a genitive

case marker to a suffix which is part of a determiner. It should be noted that only the main

types of genitives or -s possessives will be discussed, which contributed to my aim of

discussing the development of the possessive marker. Some idiomatic genitive constructions,

or remnants of such constructions, which are, for instance, visible in the Dutch word steeds,

tevens, ‘s namiddags, or constructions like ten zevenen, ten achten will not be addressed. Old

and early Middle Dutch still had a case system, which means that a possessive meaning was

still expressed through the genitive case. Van Der Horst (2008) distinguishes six types of Old

Dutch genitives:

(1) Genitive objects

(x1) lasteris beida herta min (WP4 68, 21) (Van der Horst 2008: 148)

Disgrace-GEN expects heart my

My heart expects disgrace

(2) Pronominal genitives, which refer to subclauses

(x2) ande begunde ine thes flen, that se then thufel nedorfte gesen (CF5 460) (Van der

Horst 2008: 149)

And began him this-GEN to beg, that she the devil not-be allowed to see

And began to beg this of him, that she might not be allowed to see the devil

(3) Gentives dependent on adjectives

(x3) Ik thes uurdig ni bium (HE6 2104) (Van der Horst 2008: 149)

I this-GEN worthy not am

4 Wachtendonckse Psalmen

5 Mittelfränkische Reimbibel (Central Franconian Rhyming Bible)

6 Heliand

39

I am not worthy of this

(4) Genitives dependent on a substantive

(x4) fan uuambun muodir minro (WP 70,6) (Van der Horst 2008: 149)

from womb mother-GEN my-GEN

from my mother’s womb

(5) Partitive genitives

(x5) thu bist scona an thinen werchen, wanda thu niet scandliches neduost (LW7 54,

3-4) (Van der Horst 2008: 149)

You are beautiful in your works, because you nothing shameful-GEN not-do

You are beautiful in you works, because you do nothing shameful.

(6) Genitives as predicate nouns

(x6) sithor siu mannes uuarth (Van der Horst 2008: 149)

Since she man-GEN became

Since she became of a man: i.e. since she got married

In early Middle Dutch (1200-1350), the genitive case is used in more or less the same fashion,

but some changes have occurred. Van Der Horst (2008) once again distinguishes six types of

genitives:

(1) Genitive object

(x7) Uwes goet raets hebbet danc (R8 547) (Van der Horst 2008: 352)

Your-GEN good-GEN council-GEN have thanks

Have thanks for your good council

(2) Genitives in impersonal constructions

(x8) sijns ontfarmede hem gereet (Maerlant, Franc. 260) (Van der Horst 2008:

353)

It-GEN overcame him readily

It overcame him readily

(3) Genitives dependent on adjectives

(x9) ghi en wert niet zijnre hulpen vro (BR9 693) (Van der Horst 2008: 353))

7 Leiden Willeram

8 Van den vos Reynaerde

9 De reis van Sint Brandaan

40

You not will not his-GEN help-GEN cheerful

You will not be cheerful of his help

(4) Genitives dependent on substantives or pronouns

(x10) onser alre oorsprong (RU10

51) (Van der Horst 2008: 353)

us-GEN all-GEN origin

the origin of us all

(5) Partitive genitives

(x11) ende vele quader gheeste die ut uoeren (LD11

62,23) (Van der Horst 2008:

353)

And many evil-GEN spirits-GEN who out drive

Any many evil spirits who drive out

(6) Adverbial genitives

(x12) Des ander daghes voer de zone up ganc (R 2927) (Van der Horst 2008:

353)

The-GEN other-GEN day-GEN before the sun up went

The other day, before the sun came up

Van der Horst (2008) further notes that genitive forms with the -s suffix, instead of the true

genitive inflection, also appear already:

(x13) in keyser Vrederijx tiden (SI12

25) (Van der Horst 2008: 354)

In emperor Vrederik-S times

In emperor Vrederik’s times

The genitive in the late Middle Dutch period (1350-1500) can still be used in the same ways

as in the early Middle Dutch period:

(1) Genitive objects

(x14) Maer zal my alleine verboden zijn mijns rechts te ghenietene? (GB13

204, 368)

(Van der Horst 2008: 574)

10

Ruusbroec de Wonderbare 11

Het Luikse Diatesseron 12

Het boek van Sidrac in de Nederlanden 13

Gentse Boethius

41

But will to me alone forbidden be my-GEN right-GEN to enjoy?

But will I alone be forbidden to enjoy my right?

(2) Genitives in impersonal constructions

(x15) soe mach hem sarbeits wel verdrieten (HI14

193, 23) (Van der Horst 2008: 574)

So makes him work-GEN quite sadden

So does work quite sadden him.

(3) Genitives dependent on adjectives

(x16) des seker sijt (HI 30, 15) (Van der Horst 2008: 574)

It-GEN sure is

Is sure of it

(4) Genitives dependent on substantives

(x17) (hij) was op dese tyt op des bisscops hoff (BD15

84) (Van der Horst 2008: 575)

(he) was on this time on the bishop-GEN court

(he) was on this time on the bishop’s court

(5) Partitive genitives

(x18) want hi en hadde niet veel volcks by hem (BD 77) (Van der Horst 2008: 575)

Because he NEG had not many people-GEN with him

Because he did not have many people with him

(6) Adverbial genitives

(x19) Endi si ginghen des Manendaghes savonts omtrent vier uren van den toern

(BD 79) (Van der Horst 2008: 575)

And they went Monday-GEN evening-GEN around four hours from the tower

And they went Monday evening around four o’clock from the tower

Van der Horst (2008) indicates that, during this period, the -s possessive is increasingly often

used, and presents the following example:

(x20) (ze) hebben Jan de Coninck Godertssen […] in her Dirck van Zulens stede

geset (BD 84) (Van der Horst 2008: 577)

(they) have Jan de Coninck Godertssen [] in Lord Dirck van Zulen-S stead put

They put Jan de Coninck Godertssen in Lord Dirk van Zulen’s place

14

Gedichten van Willem van Hildegaersberch 15

Bisschop David van Bourgondië en zijn stad

42

Weerman & de Wit (1999) furthermore argue that from the 13th

century onwards, the genitive

was gradually replaced by a van-construction: by the end of the 13th

century, there is,

according to them, an almost 50/50 distribution between the uses of the genitive and the van-

construction. Van der Horst demonstrates this as well, as he finds constructions like the

following:

(x21) dien tijd van haerre baringhen (CH 941, 38) (Van der Horst 2008: 574)

this time OF her bearing

This time of her bearing

During the fourteenth century, the use of van increases rather drastically, so that the

distribution of the genitive versus the prepositional possessive is more or less 16% and 84%,

respectively. By the end of the fifteenth century, the difference has increased even further, and

the genitive is only used 4% of the time, whereas the van-construction is used in 96% of

cases. In sum, during the Middle Dutch period, the genitive is gradually replaced by van

(Weerman & de Wit 1999), whilst a possessive using the -s suffix also arises (Van der Horst

2008).

One possible explanation for the rise of -s as a possessive marker, is provided by Weerman &

de Wit (1999). The paradigm of Middle Dutch genitives (copied from Weerman & de Wit

1999: 1165, their (23)) shows that the phonemes /s/, /r/ and /n/ played an important role for

the genitive case formation.

Form Genitive Nominative Translation

singular, masculine, strong dies wormes die worm the worm

singular, masculine, weak dies cnapen die cnape the boy

singular, feminine, strong dier gifte die gift the gift

singular, feminine, weak dier sielen die siele the soul

singular, neuter, strong dies brodes dat broot the bread

singular, neuter, weak dies beelden dat beelde the statue

plural, strong dier worme die worme the worms

plural, weak Dier cnapen die cnapen the boys

43

The /s/ phoneme gradually became more typical of the genitive case due to two phonological

processes. First of all, the difference between the weak and the strong paradigm became

gradually less clear, because of the phonological process of schwa deletion in word-final

position. When the schwa on the nominative weak forms, such as cnape or beelde

disappeared, the nouns cnap or beeld could be reinterpreted as strong forms. These strong

forms require an /s/-ending in the genitive, as can be seen in the paradigm. Weerman & de

Wit (1999: 1165) argue that “a reinterpretation of this kind, triggered by the process of schwa

deletion, occurred quite frequently.” Thus, more nouns received an -s ending in the genitive.

A second phonological process that was going on during the Middle Dutch period, was the

deletion of /n/ at the end of nouns. This process is, according to Weerman & de Wit (1999)

comparable to the Modern Dutch /n/-deletion in some dialects: for example, the plural noun

boeken ‘books’ is often pronounced /bukə/ ‘boeke’. Because the /r/ was also used to form the

dative, it logically follows that the /s/ gradually became the most characteristic sound for a

genitive.

During the 16th

century, the deflexion that was started in Middle Dutch continues, and the

genitive case is used less and less. The same genitive constructions as in the Middle Dutch

period still exist: genitive objects, genitives in impersonal constructions, genitives dependent

on adjectives and genitives dependent on substantives, partitive genitives and finally,

adverbial uses of the genitive (Van der Horst 2008). The use of the -s possessive, however,

increases, and examples such as the following are more frequently found:

(x22) ende hy roemden hem oock seer van des keysers ende coninck van Spaengiens

gewelt ende rijckdom (HC16

143) (Van der Horst 2008: 798)

And he praised to him very much as well of the emperor and king of Spain’s power

and richness

The 17th

century shows even less use of the genitive case. Genitive objects are still used

sometimes, along with genitives depending on substantives and adjectives. Genitives as

predicate nouns occur sometimes as well. Partitive genitives, however, are still used relatively

frequently (Van der Horst 2008). The use of -s possessives increases, and sometimes already

occurs with feminine nouns, as in:

16

De historie van Christoffel Wagenaer discipel van D. Johannes Faustus

44

(x23) indien men op haar moeders komste wacht (V17

409b) (Van der Horst 2008:

1076)

If one for her mother-S coming would wait

If one would wait for her mother’s coming

In the 18th

century, the use of the genitive has declined significantly since the 17th

century.

Genitive objects are quite rare by this point, and are generally used in fixed expressions only.

Genitives dependent on adjectives are rather rare as well, but genitives dependent on

substantives do still occur sometimes. Remarkably, partitive constructions still maintain a

relative high frequency; they are formed with either substantives (x24a), infinitives (x24b) or

nominalised adjectives (x24c) in the genitive case (Van der Horst 2008).

(x24a) dat zulke hoofden vol waans zijn (B18

25) (Van der Horst 2008: 1357)

That such heads full delusion-GEN are

That such heads are full of delusion

(x24b) Na nog wat pratens ging Marten Neef heen (WD19

542) (Van der Horst 2008:

1357)

After more some talking-GEN went Marten Neef away

After some more talking, Marten Neef left

(x24c) Ik heb u wat nieuws te zeggen (WL20

7) (Van der Horst 2008: 1357)

I have you something new-GEN to say

I have something new to say

As can be expected, -s possessives are used more often, including with feminine nouns, as

Van der Horst (2008) indicates (see example x25).

(x25) myn broeder heeft zyn vaders goedaartigheid (WD 765) (Van der Horst 2008:

1356)

My brother has his father-S kindness

My bother has his father’s kindness

17

Vondel, VW 18

Verjaard Briefgeheim. Brieven aan B. Huydecoper 19

Historie van mejuffrouw Sara Burgerhart 20

Historie van de heer Willem Leevend

45

Finally, by the 19th

and 20th

century, the genitive case has, as Van der Horst (2008) argues,

almost entirely disappeared from the language. As in the 18th

century, partitive genitives are

still widely used in the 19th

century, with substantives (x27a), infinitives (x27b) and

nominalised adjectives (x27c) in the genitive case.

(x27a) een prachtig stuk werks (MM21

45) (Van der Horst 2008: 1623)

A beautiful piece work-GEN

A beautiful piece of work

(x27b) na twee uren gaans (L 100) (Van der Horst 2008: 1623)

After two hours walking-GEN

After two hours of walking

(x27c) alleen was er iets kouds in zijn blik (MM 68) (Van der Horst 2008: 1623)

Only was there something cold-GEN in his look

Only there was something cold in his look

The -s possessive is, of course, used as well, in constructions such as (x28), but according to

Van der Horst (2008), this type of construction may have been considered somewhat

informal.

(x28) met haar hoofd tegen heur zusters schouder (L. Couperus, Extaze 1892; 1994,

36) (Van der Horst 2008: 1622)

With her head against her sister-S shoulder

With her head against her sister’s shoulder

Now that the diachronic development of the genitive and the -s possessive in Modern

Standard Dutch has been presented, it may be useful to consider what caused the change from

possessive meaning being expressed through the genitive case, to it being expressed by means

of an -s possessive marker, which we have analysed as part of a determiner. As noted before,

the -s possessive marker most likely developed out of the genitive -s case marker. According

to Weerman & de Wit (1999), the genitive –s case marker was probably reanalysed at the

time another language change was already taking place in many Germanic language: the “rise

of the determiner system” (Weerman & de Wit 1999: 1169). In older stages of the Germanic

languages, they argue, the D slot could remain empty, and Middle Dutch texts show that, at

this time, the determiner system had not developed entirely either, since the article die could

21

Multatuli, Max Havelaar

46

not, in those texts, clearly be distinguished from the demonstrative die. The demonstrative

article die developed into the definite article de when the determiner system had developed,

and the D position needed to be filled by a lexical item. The development of the possessive

marker -s is analysed in a similar fashion: the genitive -s was reanalysed as a determiner -s, as

it needed to fill the D position. Weerman & de Wit (1999) argue that the reason why the

determiner system developed is that the case system disappeared. Cases coded semantic

distinctions syntactically, so when the cases disappeared, the semantic distinctions needed to

be coded in another way: the determiner system codes them functionally.

To conclude, since the early Middle Dutch period, cases have started to disappear, and as a

result, a determiner system developed for Dutch. The genitive case, consequently, also

disappeared, except in some partitive constructions and some fixed expressions. The -s

genitive case marker was gradually reanalysed as a suffix, which is part of the determiner.

4.1.3 Two prenominal possessors in West-Flemish

In West-Flemish, possessive relations are usually expressed differently than in Modern

Standard Dutch. The West-Flemish possessive system will only be discussed rather briefly,

as I will argue that the locative possessive is, in fact, similar to the Modern Standard Dutch -s

possessive. While in Modern Standard Dutch the van construction and the -s possessive

marker are the standard means of expressing possession, in West-Flemish, this is done by

means of two constructions: the possessive pronoun zenen (x1) and the possessive marker sen

(x2) (Haegeman, 2013).

(x1) Valère zenen oto (Haegeman 2013: 219)

Valère his car

(x2) Valère sen oto (Haegeman 2013: 219)

Valère se cat

The first construction, using the possessive pronoun zenen is considered a “doubling

construction” (Haegeman 2013: 220), as the possessive pronoun effectively doubles the

possessor NP. The pronoun agrees in person and number with the possessor, and in number

and gender with the possessum. The second construction is labelled by Haegeman (2013: 220)

as the “sen construction”. It is important to note that, synchronically, sen is not analysed as

47

the phonologically reduced form of zenen, as sen can also be used with feminine nouns

(Haegeman 2013), as in (x3)

(x3) Marie sen hoed (Haegeman 2013: 220, her (1)e)

Marie sen hat

Marie’s hat

The three main differences between the doubling construction and the sen construction,

according to Haegeman (2013), are first of all that zenen can occur with both plural and

singular possessor nouns, while sen can only take a singular noun. Secondly, sen requires

adjacency to the possessor noun, whereas zenen does not. Finally, sen can be realised with the

reciprocal possessor mekaar, whereas zenen cannot (Haegeman 2013).

An appealing historical analysis for the existence of the two possessive construction is

perhaps that sen has derived from the possessive pronoun zijn through grammaticalisation

processes, as a consequence of which a historically agreeing possessive pronoun was no

longer capable of indicating the gender of number of the possessor. However, Allen (2008)

rejects this claim, as zijn was originally a reflexive possessive pronoun, and was not specified

for gender or number. In some Middle Dutch texts, zijn is, in fact, used both with singular and

plural, and masculine and feminine nouns. Sen, then, has been argued to have developed, not

“from a specifically masculine third person form to an invariant form, but rather from a form

which was never specified for gender or number, but only for person” (Allen 2008: 201). In

this view, the sen construction may easily have been a doubling construction, which

originated when the zijn form did not yet specify for gender (Allen 2008).

4.1.4 The locative possessive in West-Flemish

The following section will focus on the locative possessive in West-Flemish. The theoretical

nature of this possessive construction has been addressed in section 3.1.4.1 of chapter 3;

hence, the present discussion will only briefly repeat the core characteristics of the locative

possessive. I will furthermore provide an outline of the occurrence of the locative possessive

in present-day West-Flemish. Finally, I will argue that the West-Flemish locative possessive

is rather similar to the Modern Standard Dutch -s possessive, and thus differs from the usual

West-Flemish possessive constructions.

The locative possessive is a type of possessive construction which expresses a meaning of

location, which is headed by a preposition and characterised by ellipsis of the head noun of

48

the possessive construction. This elided head noun usually carries the meaning of house or

place, and in some cases the elided noun can refer to shops or businesses, or other places

where a profession is being carried out. Examples (x1) and (x2) present two instances of

locative possessives, with elision of the head noun of the possessive construction (indicated

by means of square brackets).

a. I’m going to John’s [house] b. I’m at the butcher’s [shop]

Such constructions exist in West-Flemish as well, and in order to establish how exactly these

were used, a small survey was conducted with speakers of West-Flemish. Eleven speakers,

who all used the locative possessive to some extent, were presented with a number of possible

locative possessive constructions, and were asked to indicate which of these constructions

were acceptable in their dialect, and which were not. The survey included proper nouns,

nouns referring to kinship, nouns denoting professions, complex PPs and pronouns. For every

instance, a few different prepositions or types of constructions in which the locative

possessive might appear were suggested in order to investigate whether, for instance, the

choice of preposition influences the grammaticality of the locative possessive. Four different

prepositions in different constructions were included in the survey:

a. K ga naar Rogers

I go to Roger-S

I am going to Roger’s

b. K ben bi Rogers

I am at Roger-S

I am at Roger’s

49

c. K ben22

to Rogers

I am at Roger-S

I am at Roger’s

d. Ie woont daar an Rogers

He lives there near Roger-S

He lives there near Roger’s

One further type of construction that was included uses the prepositions to or bi (I have

chosen to include to only):

e. K è t to Rogers gehoord

I have it at Roger-S heard

I have heard it at Roger’s

Not all constructions were combined with each noun in the survey; for instance, construction

e. was only investigated in combination with nouns denoting professions, as it was expected

that all users who used constructions a. to d. with proper nouns, would also combine

construction e. with proper nouns. Nouns denoting professions, however, were expected to

combine not as easily with the locative possessive. The full survey and its results can be found

in attachment 3. Note that this survey was of a rather restricted nature, and thus no definite

conclusions can be drawn regarding the usage of the locative possessive in West-Flemish.

However, the survey can give an indication as to what constructions are most likely

grammatical, and what constructions are not.

A first category which was investigated was that of proper nouns, i.e. names of persons. All

speakers considered locative possessives with proper names as grammatical, although one

speaker did not use the preposition to. This preposition was not part of her dialect, and thus,

she did not use it in locative possessive constructions. This does not mean that it was the

locative possessive, which she considered ungrammatical, but rather the preposition itself.

Secondly, kinship nouns (such as zuster ‘sister’, meme ‘nan’, or cozijn ‘cousin’) within

locative possessives were regarded as grammatical by the majority of speakers, though not by

22

Some speakers use the verb zin (‘am’) instead.

50

all. Especially the word broer ‘brother’ was not always used in combination with locative

possessives: merely half the speakers considered locative possessives containing broer as

grammatical. The most likely explanation for this is that in West-Flemish, ‘brother’ is often

realised as broere, and not just as broer. It can be argued that the -s possessive marker cannot

easily attach to broere, for phonological reasons. Interestingly, a parallel can be observed

between this phonological restriction and the phonological process of schwa-deletion in

Middle Dutch: nouns ending in schwa could not take the genitive, but as soon as the schwa

was dropped, these words were capable of taking an -s ending (see 4.1.2). Thus, broere can,

arguably, not take the -s possessive because it ends in schwa, and since broere is, to many

West-Flemish speakers, the most commonly used form, it could not be used in a locative

possessive construction.

A third type of nouns that was investigated was nouns denoting professions. Such nouns were

only rarely used in constructions of the a., b. and c. types. However, professional nouns in

constructions of the e. type were considered grammatical by some, depending on the lexeme.

For instance, k è t bi den doktoors gehoord (‘I heard it at the doctor’s’) and k è t to den

bakkers gehoord (‘I heard it at the baker’s) were considered grammatical by four and three

speakers respectively. Construction d. in combination with professional nouns was considered

to be grammatical more often: examples (x1-x5) were all considered to be grammatical:

(x1) Hij woont daar aan den coiffeurs

He lives there near the (male) hairdresser’s

(x2) Hij woont daar aan de coiffeuzes

He lives there near the (female) hairdresser’s

(x3) Hij woont daar aan den kosters

He lives there near the sexton’s

(x4) Hij woont daar aan den pasters

He lives there near the priest’s

(x5) Hij woont daar aan den beenhouwers

He lives there near the butcher’s

This may perhaps be explained by the fact that, in these particular constructions, the reference

to a location is very overt, because the verb ‘to live’ clearly requires a complement that refers

51

to a location. Naturally, the construction without a possessive marker (hij woont daar aan den

beenhouwer, ‘he lives there near the butcher’) is still grammatically correct, but a location is

nonetheless implied rather strongly. By contrast, constructions such as bi den beenhouwer

(‘with the butcher’) do not so much indicate a clear location: the example above does not

indicate that the speaker is in the butcher’s shop, but rather, that the speaker is in the presence

of the butcher, which is also illustrated by the different English translation of the preposition.

With relation to nouns indicating professions, a parallel can be drawn to Modern Standard

Dutch: the -s possessive in Modern Standard Dutch can only be used with proper nouns or

nouns of address (see 4.1.1), and it seems that this may be the case for the West-Flemish -s

possessive in locative constructions as well.

A fourth category which was investigated was that of noun phrases containing adjectives.

These were usually considered ungrammatical within locative possessive constructions.

Nouns denoting kinship in combination with adjectives were considered grammatical only by

a few speakers in locative possessives, but noun phrases containing a professional noun and

an adjective were not. Other complex noun phrases, which constitute the fifth category, were

only rarely used in a locative possessive construction as well. One construction, k ben bi

Rogers moeders (I’m at Roger’s mother’s), was considered grammatical by three speakers,

but the construction using the doubling possessive instead of -s for the first possessive, as in k

ben bi Roger zen moeders (‘I’m at Roger his mother’s’), was considered more grammatical

than the former. Thus, the locative possessive is considered grammatical in combination with

some complex phrases, all of which are formed by means of proper nouns or kinship nouns.

In Modern Standard Dutch, however, this is not the case: the -s possessive cannot attach to

complex noun phrases (see 4.1.1).

Furthermore, the construction k ben bi min zusters in Gent (‘I’m at my sister’s in Ghent’) was

considered grammatical by the majority of speakers, whereas k ben bi min zuster in Gents

(‘I’m at my sister in Ghent’s’) was considered ungrammatical by all. In the former cases, the

possessive marker attaches to the head noun, and the postmodifier is not marked as a

possessive. Thus, it can be inferred that in West-Flemish, the -s possessive marker must attach

to the head noun, and, as opposed to the English possessive marker, cannot be used phrasally,

The Modern Standard Dutch possessive -s is similar to the West-Flemish -s possessive in this

respect: the Modern Standard Dutch -s cannot be used phrasally either.

52

Finally, the locative possessive in West-Flemish can also be formed with pronouns, as

indicated in examples (x6-x8), and most speakers do use this construction. Note however that

only plural pronouns can be used in combination with locative possessives: to t mines (‘at

mine’), to t jonnes (‘at yours’), to de zins (‘at his’) are ungrammatical.

(x6) Hij komt naar toezens (he comes to ours)

Hij is toezens (he is at ours)

Hij is to toezens (he is at ours)

Hij is bi toezens (he is at ours)

(x7) K ga naar tjunders / tjulders / tulders (I am going to yours)

K ben tjunders / tjulders / tulders (I am at yours)

K ben to tjunders / tjulders / tulders (I am at yours)

K ben bi tjunders / tjulders / tulders (I am at yours)

(x8) K ga naar tunders (I am going to theirs)

K ben tunders (I am at theirs)

K ben to tunders (I am at theirs)

K ben bi tunders (I am at theirs)

Interestingly, the West-Flemish pronouns as they appear in locative possessive constructions

do not only take an -s possessive marker, but usually also a t- in word-initial position. What is

further remarkable is that this type of pronoun does not necessarily need a preposition in order

to express a locative meaning. Perhaps one could argue, then, that the t- represents a remnant

of a preposition, possibly to, and that the t-pronouns are a contracted form of the preposition

to and the pronouns oes, ulder, under. This could then be the reason why the pronoun can

stand on its own whilst still carrying a locative meaning. However, these remarks are purely

speculative, and more research would need to be done in order to establish the true origin of

these t-pronouns.

In conclusion, the locative possessive marker in West-Flemish shows a number of significant

similarities with the -s possessive of Modern Standard Dutch: first of all, it is realised by -s,

whilst the usual possessive markers in West-Flemish are the doubling construction or the sen

construction, as shown by Haegeman (2013). Secondly, the phonological constraint on the use

53

of the -s possessive in Modern Standard Dutch appears to hold true for the West-Flemish

locative possessive marker as well. Furthermore, the Modern Standard Dutch -s possessive

can only occur with proper nouns and nouns that can be used in an address, which is the case

as well for the West-Flemish -s possessive marker. Finally, the West-Flemish -s possessive

marker cannot be used phrasally, like the Modern Standard Dutch -s possessive marker. One

difference between the -s possessives in Modern Standard Dutch and West-Flemish is that, in

a few cases, the West-Flemish -s possessive marker can attach to complex noun phrases,

while the -s possessive marker in Modern Standard Dutch cannot. Finally, this study has

found that in West-Flemish, pronouns can obtain a possessive marker, and be used in locative

possessive constructions instead of a possessor noun. Further research regarding these

pronouns may be necessary in order to determine when they were first used in the locative

possessive construction, how they developed in this particular usage, and how their

remarkable composition originated.

4.2 Corpus Research

In what follows, the locative possessive in Dutch and its development will be examined

through diachronic corpus research. As indicated before, the locative possessive no longer

exists in Modern Standard Dutch, yet Van Der Horst (2008) indicates that it did occur, though

not very frequently, in Middle Dutch. In the modern West-Flemish dialect, however, the

construction is used relatively often. Thus, while the locative possessive was lost in most

Dutch dialects, it was retained in West-Flemish.

With regard to this corpus research, it should first of all be noted that Old Dutch texts were

not examined for two reasons: not many Old Dutch texts survive to this day, and Van Der

Horst does not mention the existence of a locative possessive in Old Dutch. A second remark

regarding this study is again that, naturally, these texts do not represent spoken language, but

rather, written language. It is quite likely that the development of the locative possessive from

Dutch to West-Flemish will not be easily mapped, as it is a dialectal feature in West-Flemish,

and dialects are usually spoken, not written. Furthermore, no corpus of West-Flemish written

or spoken language exists today, which also hinders to some extent the accurate description of

the locative possessive from a diachronic perspective. However, it may still be possible to

draw some conclusions from this research with regard to the development of the locative

possessive.

54

Section 4.2.1 will discuss the copora and data used in this research, and section 4.2.2 will

present and discuss the results of this study.

4.2.1 Corpora and Data

Two corpora were examined for this study: the Corpus Van Reenen-Mulder (CRM14), which

contains 14th

-century chancery documents, and the Compliatiecorpus Historisch Nederlands

(CHN), which was compiled by Evie Coussé. The CHN is divided into two subcorpora: the

Compliatiecorpus Historisch Nederlands: ambachtelijke teksten 1250-1800 (CHNa) and the

Compliatiecorpus Historisch Nederlands: narratieve teksten 1575-2000 (CHNn). The CHN is

a compliation corpus, i.e. it is made up of parts of several corpora. The CHNa contains parts

of the Corpus Gysseling, containing Middle Dutch texts from 1250 to 1299, the Corpus Van

Reenen-Mulder, and a corpus of judicial texts (Geschiedkundige rechtsbronnen), containing

sources from 1400 to 1799. Of all these corpora, a representative sample was selected, and

complied into one corpus, the CHNa. The CHNn consists of a compilation of narrative texts,

taken from the Digital Library of Dutch Literature (Digitale Bibliotheek voor de Nederlandse

Letteren). As the CHN also contains part of the CRM14, overlap of the results is possible.

When this was the case, both corpora were indicated as sources.

In contrast to the English corpora, no selection was made from the CRM14 and the CHN.

The CHN already is a representative sample of several corpora, and therefore, I did not

consider it necessary to make another selection from this sample. Furthermore, if it is the case

that the locative possessive was not very frequent during the Middle Dutch period, and was

only less used in later times, as Van Der Horst (354) claims, making a selection from the data

would only lessen the chance that an instance of the locative possessive is found through

corpus research.

4.2.2 Methodology

This research was conducted by running the concordance program AntConc on all corpora. I

have chosen to enter prepositions in the program, rather than nouns and/or possessive

markers. If nouns had been entered, the program would have yielded too many irrelevant

results. The locative possessive is usually formed with the possessive marker –s, and since

this is a single letter, entering this into the program would also have yielded too many

55

irrelevant results. Full locative possessive constructions, by contrast, would have yielded too

few results, as there would be a significant chance that other constructions, with different

words, would not be found in the corpus. Thus, a number of prepositions were selected, and

run through the program. These were tot (cf. English to), bi (cf. English by, at), naar (cf.

English to) and tussen (cf. English between). All prepositions were, of course, entered in their

different spellings. The results were then manually reviewed, and all locative possessives,

both elliptical and non-elliptical, were extracted.

4.2.3 Results and Discussion

A number of locative possessives were encountered in this research.

One issue with the locative possessive in Middle Dutch is the fact that it is not always easy to

distinguish between locative possessive markers and patronymic markers. Patronyms end in ‘-

soen/-zoen’ (meaning ‘son’), which is sometimes abbreviated to <z> (as in Jan Heermansz,

CHNa: Leiden, 1439). This ‘z’ can often be elided, so that the possessive of the patronym is

kept, as in henrics wouters (CHNa: Kuringen, 1393). In these cases, it is often unclear

whether the name purely represents a patronym, or whether there is a locative possessive

element attached to it as well. Nonetheless, a few types of patronyms which were clearly

locative possessives were found in the results. A first type was a construction where the ‘-

soen/-zoen’ had not been elided, and the locative possessive marker was placed at the end of

the patronym, as e.g. in bi pieter jans zoens (CRM14: s-Gravenzande, 1353). A second type

that was considered a clear locative possessive, was when the first proper noun in the NP had

a possessive marker, while the patronym was only clearly marked as such. For instance, in

hannekins henox, the <x>, which is simply the spelling of /k/ - /s/, does not clearly represent a

locative possessive marker. It could be argued that it does, if one presupposes that two

possessive markers will not be spelled separately, but rather, that only one <s> will be used

to represent two. However, this example remains a clear instance of the locative possessive, as

the first name carries the locative possessive marker. Furthermore, there is a type of locative

possessives, which was rather prominent in the results, which are not patronyms, although

they might look like they are. The first proper noun in this kind of constructions carries a

possessive marker, and the second proper noun is a family name. An example is lodewijx van

den boemghaerde (CHNa: Oudenaarde, 1370). The possessive marker of the first proper noun

can hardly be considered a patronymic marker, as these are not usually attached to first

56

names, and the second proper noun is not a patronym, but a family name. Thus, such

constructions were considered locative possessives.

It may be noted that many locative possessives in these results appear with the preposition

tussen (between). Semantically, this preposition presupposes a binary structure: it always

heads two elements. Hence, many instances of locative possessives within these results, which

at first sight are not headed by a preposition (such as ende jans van den bossche, CHNa:

Oudenaarde, 1370), are actually headed by tussen. A further remark, regarding tussen, is that

the results of this research also included partly elliptical locative possessive constructions, in

which one NP was elliptical, and the other non-elliptical. A few examples are tusschen jan

boysts huus ende erue ende pieters van oeten (CRM14: Aalst, 1370) and tusschen lant

wouters van den vynne ende wouters mersmans (CRM14: Donk, 1381). Constructions with

tussen and two non-elliptical NPs were found as well, such as tusschen Dirc janszoens erue

ende Claes peter clenerts zoens erue (CHNa: Amsterdam, 1410). It could be argued that the

partly elliptical construction with tussen may represent an intermediate stage between the

non-elliptical and elliptical locative possessive. The head noun of one of the possessive

constructions can be elided, as it is present in the other, and therefore to a certain extent

redundant: it can be left out without causing a change in meaning. It might therefore be

considered a stage in between no ellipsis and full ellipsis, where the next step would be to

elide the head noun in both constructions. However, the results do not indicate that the partly

elliptical construction with tussen is, in fact, an intermediate stage at a diachronic level. Both

possessive constructions with and without ellipsis appear to be used simultaneously

throughout the Middle Dutch period; however, the non-elliptical locative possessive was

found more frequently. Thus, while the partly elliptical possessive may be considered an

intermediate stage on a synchronic level, this claim does not appear to hold true for the

diachronic level. It must however be noted once more that this research uses a limited amount

of data, and therefore, these results may vary to a certain extent, once a greater amount of data

has been studied more comprehensively.

As opposed to the English results, locative possessives deriving from names of saints, and

being used to denote religious institutions, are not very frequent in Middle Dutch.

Furthermore, these constructions do not appear to be used previous to locative possessives

with personal names; in fact, the first locative possessive indicating a religious institution is

bij sente godelen (CHNa: Brussel, 1312), which still contains a genitive inflection (-en).

57

Hence, the idea that the Middle Dutch locative possessive could have originated from such

names of religious institutions does not appear plausible. [Thus, if this is the case, it could be

argued that English and Middle Dutch/West-Flemish do not have the same kind of

development. This will be addressed in the “general discussion”]

Finally, the results show that the locative possessive was used in Middle Dutch for about a

hundred years, from the late 13th

century to the late 14th

century. The first instance of the non-

elliptical construction is from the mid-13th

century, and it occurs regularly in the corpus until

the late 15th

century. One isolated instance from 1866 was found: naar t huis des Heeren

(CHNn: Holland, 1866). Importantly, the results do not show any kind of preference of the

use of the locative possessive per region, in West-Flemish, for instance. Only a few locative

possessives were actually found in Flemish texts: Brabantine texts and northern Dutch texts

contained several instances as well. Yet it is striking that, even though the construction still

exists in West-Flemish today, it was not found in the corpora after 1378. For Middle Dutch,

Van Der Horst (2008) provides a few examples from Van den vos Reynaerde and Jacob van

Maerlant’s Rijmbijbel. The following examples were taken from the text of Van den vos

Reynaerde that can be found in the Comburg Manuscript (Lulofs, 2001):

“Al sprekende quam dus gheloepen / Reynaert met sinen gheselle Brune / tote

Lamfroits bi den tune (R 646)” (Van Der Horst, 2008: 354)

“Hi hadde en vet hoen ghevaen / bi Lamfroyts an der heyden (R 879)” (Van Der

Horst, 2008: 354)

“Sint leedickene up eenen dach / tote des papen van Bloys (R 1509)” (Van Der

Horst, 2008: 354)

Van Der Horst (2008) classifies these examples under the early Middle Dutch period, from

1200 to 1350. However, Lulofs (2001) states that the Reynaert manuscript in his edition,

which is also the edition Van Der Horst (2008) references, was most likely written around

1400. A further example, according to Van Der Horst (2008), can be found in Maerlant’s

Rijmbijbel, as it was written c. 1285, in the ms.15001 (van Dalen-Oskam, 1997):

“Ende voer te sijns hoems ward (MR2415)” (Van Der Horst, 2008: 354)

58

These examples are, however, from the same time period as the results of this study; hence,

they cannot shed much further light on the development of the construction. Interestingly,

Van Der Horst (2008) does refer to one more example of the locative possessive from the late

17th

century, i.e. almost three centuries after its last occurrence c.1400.

“Ick sal eer corten tijdt u weer to vaeyers vinden” (De Swaen, Gecroonde Leerse 35)”

(Van Der Horst, 2008: 1077)

This particular instance was found in De Swaen’s play De Gecroonde Leersse, which was

first performed in 1688. The language of the play was French-Flemish; as was noted in

chapter 2 [during the discussion of locative possessives in different languages], the locative

possessive does exist in the French-Flemish dialect today, while it is no longer used in

Standard Dutch. Hence, the construction may have undergone a more or less similar

development as West-Flemish. This cannot be determined with any kind of certainty yet,

however, as French-Flemish was not considered for this corpus research.

Turning back to the locative possessive in Middle Dutch, we have noted two remarkable

issues with these corpus results. First of all, it would be expected that, while the construction

gradually ceases to be used in most dialects of Middle Dutch, a preference for West-Flemish

would be apparent, as it does survive in this dialect. This is however not the case, the later

results are not necessarily West-Flemish ones. Secondly, except for the one instance in

French-Flemish, the locative is absent from the corpora from 1400 onwards. Since the

construction does exist in West-Flemish, however, it would be expected that results from

West-Flanders would keep appearing in the corpora. Nonetheless, a tentative explanation

could be provided for these remarkable results. Notably, van den Toorn et al. (2007) reject

the claim that every writer always wrote in his own dialect. From the early Middle Dutch

period onwards, writers adhered to a set of spelling conventions in most cases, which,

arguably, made the text look more distinguished, and ascertained that the text was understood

by those who spoke a different dialect (van den Toorn et al., 2007). For obvious reasons, this

may have been of great importance for official chancery documents, and, since corpora that

were used for this research mainly contain chancery texts, it may be of importance to this

study as well. Note however that these spelling conventions do not necessarily mean that

Dutch was in the process of being standardised; true standardisation only took place from the

16th

century onwards (van den Toorn et al., 2007). Another factor may, arguably, be related to

59

the gradual gain in prestige of Brabant from the middle of the 14th

century onwards. A

consequence of this prestige was that writers often adapted their spelling, vocabulary and

grammar to the Brabantine writing conventions (van den Toorn et al., 2007). A further factor

lies in the fact that the CHNn was compiled in such a way, that only texts from Holland were

incorporated (Evie Coussé reference). Hence, it was not possible for the corpus to generate

West-Flemish results in a more narrative context, in which it is, arguably, less necessary to

write in a distinguished and formal matter, as is the case for official documents. In a more

informal context, dialectal features from West-Flemish might have been more prominent.

These three factors may to a certain extent account for both the fact that no results were found

after 1400, and the fact that no preference was found for West-Flemish. Naturally, if no

Flemish texts were incorporated into the CHNn, this corpus search could not yield any results.

Furthermore, if the construction was no longer used in other Dutch dialects, Brabantine was

more prestigious than West-Flemish, and writers often adapted their language to make it more

intelligible, it would come as no surprise that later constructions in West-Flemish were

remarkably absent. Their presence from the late 13th

until the late 14th

century onwards may

be explained by the fact that the construction was widely used in that time, or, perhaps more

interestingly, the fact that it was West-Flemish which had the prestige up until the early 14th

century (van den Toorn et al., 2007). Hence, writers may very well have adapted their writing

to West-Flemish conventions, and temporarily taken over the locative possessive until West-

Flemish lost its prestige. Naturally, these remarks are purely speculative. Due to a lack of

results from the corpus material, this research cannot show with much certainty when and

how exactly the construction was, and remained to be, used in West-Flemish. In order to

answer this question, more extensive research would need to be done.

60

5. Discussion

In this final chapter of my thesis, I will first compare the results of the English and West-

Flemish corpus research within a cognitive framework (section 5.1). Then in section 5.2, an

answer will be formulated to the question whether the locative possessive is an Ingvaeonic

phenomenon, or whether its occurrence in Modern English and West-Flemish originated

through a parallel independent development.

5.1 Discussion of corpus results

The first Dutch instances of the locative possessive that this study generated were from the

late 13th

century. According to the results, the construction was in use for about a hundred

years, until it disappeared again in the late 14th

century. However, we know that the locative

possessive is still used today in West-Flemish. The lack of results after the 14th

century and

the fact that the results do not show any kind of preference towards the West-Flemish use of

the construction, was explained with reference to the onset of language standardisation. A

combination of new spelling conventions and prestige of the Brabantine dialect (Van den

Toorn et al. 2007) made it less likely that West-Flemish instances would keep appearing in

official documents, and thus in our results. The first English results occurred a century after

the disappearance of the West-Flemish construction, in the late 15th

century. In contrast to the

Dutch results, the English locative possessive was used more and more frequently from the

late Middle English period onwards, and by the Modern British English period, it appears to

have become the default option to express location by means of a possessive, as opposed to

the non-elliptical construction. Thus, while the locative possessive in Dutch was gradually

restricted to West-Flemish only, the English locative possessive rapidly developed into a

widely and often used construction.

The question may then be asked how the locative possessive originated in these languages,

and why it was possible to omit the head noun of a possessive construction and still have a

clear and easily understood construction. This question will be discussed within a cognitive

framework, and the prototype theory. According to Langacker’s (1995) theory of cognitive

grammar, two main participants are distinguished. The trajector is the primary participant

within the profiled relationship, and the secondary participant is termed the landmark. In

61

possessive constructions, the possessor noun is analysed as the landmark, whilst the

possessum is the trajector (Langacker 1995). In order to explain why it is possible to omit the

head noun, or the trajectory, the prototype theory might be a useful tool. Heine (1997: 39) lists

five prototypical properties of possession:

I. The possessor is a human being.

II. The possessee is a concrete item.

III. The possessor has the right to make use of the possessee.

IV. Possessor and possessee are in spatial proximity.

V. Possession has no conceivable temporal limit.

Remarkably, all these properties seem to be characteristic of the locative possessive. First of

all, the possessor is always a human being, as the construction refers to a person’s home or

the place where he practices his profession. Secondly, the possessee is indeed a concrete item:

a house, a doctor’s practice, a shop, etc. The locative possessive generally refers to a building

which is owned by a person to live or practice his profession in. The third property is also

rather straightforward: since the locative possessive refers to places where people live or

work, the possessor has the right to make use of the possessee. The possessor and possesee

are also usually in spatial proximity: as the possessor either lives or works in the referenced

building, they are usually rather close to each other. However, it is possible to use the locative

possessive to refer to a place when the possessor is not actually present in said location. For

instance, it is possible to say I’m going to John’s when John is not home. However the

possessive relation between a person and his home or the workplace that he owns does imply

that he is there most of the time. Finally, possession has no conceivable temporal limit with

reference to the locative possessive. A home or workplace is usually a rather permanent

possession.

Heine (1997: 40) suggests the following schematic representation of possessive notions in a

prototype framework:

PERM PHYS

Ss

INAL

TEMP IN/I IN/A

Figure 1: A prototype

characterisation of possessive

notions. From: Heine 1997: 97, his

Figure 1.1

62

According to this characterisation, permanent possessives are thus indeed the most

prototypical kind of possessive constructions. Temporary, physical and inalienable possession

(in which the possesee is inseperable from the possessor, e.g. a body part) are somewhat less

prototypical, and inalienable animate, inalienable inanimate and abstract possession is the

least prototypical (Heine 1997). In this view, the possessive relation between a person and his

residence or owned workplace is, arguably, most prototypical. This notion might provide an

explanation for why the trajector can simply be omitted, without having a significant impact

on the semantics of the construction. It may be argued that, because the trajector noun with a

meaning of ‘home’ or ‘owned workplace’ is so prototypical in locative constructions, that,

when omitted, the hearer or reader of the construction will automatically supplement the most

prototypical kind of noun in order to make sense of the meaning of the construction. In other

words, when a person hears the construction I’m going to John’s, he will try to make sense of

its meaning, and will think of the most prototypical noun in the first place: house. When this

noun is successfully identified as the omitted trajector, the hearer can interpret this

construction, and similar constructions without much difficulty. Since it is, arguably,

relatively easy to interpret the omitted trajector correctly in locative possessive constructions,

explicitly including the trajector in these constructions may be considered redundant, and

consequently, the locative possessive construction without the trajector noun may become

conventionally accepted and used. It may, then, be argued that the locative possessive with

omission of the trajector originated in this fashion.

5.2 Ingvaeonism or parallel independent development

In chapter 2 of this thesis, I have presented the hypothesis that the locative possessive might

be an Ingvaeonism. The argument in favour of this interpretation was that the locative

possessive appears in most ingvaeonic languages and dialects. However, the use of the

locative possessive was spread more widely than merely within the Ingvaeonic dialect areas:

even during the Middle Dutch period, it was used in the entire Dutch language area. A second

counterargument was that the locative possessive was in all likelihood too recent a

construction to be considered an ingvaeonism.

My research has shown that the locative possessive does indeed only occur from the Middle

Dutch and late Middle English periods onwards; in order to be an Ingvaeonism, the

construction would have had to be much older. Furthermore, the West-Flemish construction

63

was first used two hundred years before the English locative possessive was, making it highly

unlikely that the locative possessive in these languages originated out of the same ancient

Ingvaeonic language. The fact that the locative possessive occurred in the entire Dutch

language area before being restricted to West-Flemish can also indicate that it may not have

been an Ingvaeonism. While Ingvaeonisms do exist in Dutch today, it would still be expected

that the construction originated in West-Flemish, or another Ingvaeonic dialect, and then

spread to the rest of the Dutch language area. However, this is not what the results show. The

instances of locative possessives that were found in this study did not show any kind of

preference towards West-Flemish, nor in the beginning, nor at the end of the century in which

it occurred. Thus, it is my view that the locative possessive was a construction that was

originally spoken across the entire Dutch language area, but was then restricted to West-

Flanders (and French-Flanders) alone.

In other words, the development of the locative possessive in English and West-Flemish can

be characterised as a parallel independent development, which means that it developed

separately in both languages. As I have argued, the development of this construction may

have been facilitated by the fact that it is such a prototypical construction, and that therefore

the trajector noun can be easily elided. Furthermore, the fact that possessives are syntactically,

morphologically and phonologically similar (though not identical) in most Germanic

languages may also be considered as a factor which aided the development of locative

possessives in English, West-Flemish, Frisian and French-Flemish: it seems likely that the

prototypical characteristics of possessives are similar in most Germanic languages, and that

the trajector noun is of a similar nature as the English and West-Flemish ones. This could

perhaps have served as a catalyst in the development of the locative possessive in English,

West-Flemish, Frisian and French-Flemish. That the locative possessive developed in these

particular language may thus have been coincidental to a certain extent, rather than a

consequence of the Ingvaeonic background of these languages. However, there is a second

factor which might have facilitated the rise of the locative possessive: language contact. As

was mentioned before, the Frisian Kingdom was rather powerful during the Middle Ages.

Thus, the locative possessive may have been a Frisian phenomenon, which was spread across

the Dutch and English language areas due to a significant amount of contact with these

languages. In sum, the locative possessive might have been transferred from Frisian to

English and Dutch during the Middle Ages due to language contact, and this transfer may

have been facilitated by the nature of the possessive in these languages.

64

However, it is still unclear why the locative possessive remained in use in West-Flemish and

French-Flemish, whilst it disappeared in the other Dutch dialects. In order to answer this

question, more extensive research would need to be done.

65

6. Conclusion

In conclusion, this study has mapped the diachronic development of the locative possessive

constructions in English and West-Flemish, and has argued that they are not Ingvaeonisms,

but rather independent parallel developments. While the locative possessive does appear in

most Ingvaeonic languages and dialects, the construction has arisen too recently to be

considered an Ingvaeonism, and, in the Dutch language area, it was initially used as a general

Dutch phenomenon, and its use became restricted to West-Flemish, the Ingvaeonic dialect,

afterwards. The possessive constructions in English, Modern Standard Dutch and West-

Flemish have been discussed both synchronically and diachronically. The English ‘s

possessive was analysed as a phrasal affix, and originated out of the genitive case. However,

as case inflections were lost in English during the Middle English period, the ‘s possessive

was no longer considered an inflectional affix. The Modern Standard Dutch possessive

morpheme was considered as a suffix that was part of a determiner phrase, and this possessive

marker developed out of the genitive case marker as well. However, it no longer is an

inflectional affix either. The West-Flemish doubling possessive and the sen possessive were

briefly examined as well, but I have argued that the -s possessive of the West-Flemish

locative construction was similar to the Modern Standard Dutch possessive instead.

The diachronic development of the locative possessive in West-Flemish and English was then

examined by means of corpus research. The results of this research has shown that the English

locative possessive originated in the late 15th

century, and was increasingly often used until it

was more or less the default option to express location by means of possessives. The West-

Flemish locative possessive, however, originated in the late 13th

century and was originally

used in the entire Dutch language area. However, the construction disappeared in Dutch after

the 14th

century, and is only used in West-Flanders and French-Flanders today. The prototype

theory was used to interpret these results, and I have argued that the locative possessive is one

of the most prototypical possessive constructions in both English and West-Flemish. This

may have been a catalyst in its development: if the trajector noun, which is omitted in locative

possessive constructions, is of the most prototypical nature, then its omission does not pose

significant problems for the interpretation of this construction, and thus, the trajector noun

may, in time, have been considered redundant. I have also noted that the possessive

constructions in most Germanic languages seem similar in syntax, morphology and

66

phonology, which may have aided the development of the locative possessive in English,

West-Flemish, French-Flemish and Frisian. Another factor may have been language contact

due to the powerful position of the Kingdom of Frisia.

Further research on this topic may include an investigation of the locative possessive of

Frisian and French-Flemish, both from a synchronic and a diachronic perspective. A further

aspect of the locative possessive which still needs to be examined in more detail is the

occurrence of pronouns as possessors.

67

References

Allen, Cynthia L. 2004. “A Note on ‘Ellipical’, ‘Absolute’, and ‘Independent’ Genitives in

Earlier English.” English Language and Linguistics 8:2. 351-354.

Allen, Cynthia L. 2008. Genitives in Early English: Typology and Evidence. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Baugh, Albert C. & Thomas Cable. 2002. A history of the English language. Oxon:

Routledge.

Biber, Douglas, Susan Conrad & Geoffrey Leech. 2002. Student Grammar of Spoken and

Written English. Harlow: Longman, Pearson Education Limited

Booij, Geert. 2002. The Morphology of Dutch. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Booij, Geert. 2005. “Construction-dependent morphology” Lingue E Linguaggio 2. 1-16.

Börjars, Kersti, David Denison, Grzegorz Krajewski & Alan Scott. 2013. “Expression of

Possession in English: The Significance of the Right Edge.” Morphosyntactic Categories and

the Expression of Possession. (=Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 199.) ed. by Kersti

Börjars, David Denison & Alan Sott, 123-148. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Devos, Magda & Reinhild Vandekerckhove. 2005. West-Vlaams. Tielt: Lannoo

Fering-Öömrang Wurdenbuk. 2002. Kiel: Nordfriesische Wörterbuchstelle

Grafmiller, Jason. forthcoming. “Variation in English Genitives Across Modality and Genre”

Haegeman, Liliane. 2013. “Two prenominal possessors in West-Flemish” Morphosyntactic

Categories and the Expression of Possession. (= linguistics today 199) ed. by Kersti Börjars,

David Denison and Alan Scott. 219-251.

Heeroms, Klaas. 1972. “Zur Raumgeschichte des Inwgäonischen” Zeitschrift für

DIalektologie und Linguistik 3. 267-283.

Heine, Bernd. 1997. Possession. Cognitive sources, forces and grammaticalization.

Cambridge: Cambridge university press.

Langacker, Ronald W. 1995. “Possession and possessive constructions” Language and the

Cognitive Construal of the World (=Studies and Monographs 82) ed. by John R. Taylor &

Robert E. MacLaury. 51-80. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gryuter

68

Nevis, Joel A. 2000. “Clitics.” Morphology: An International Handbook on Inflection and

Word-Formation. (= HSK 17.1) ed. By Geert E. Booij, Christian Lehmann & Joachim

Mugdan, Vol. 1., 388-404. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.

Parsed Corpus of Early English Correspondence, Parsed Version (2006). Annotated by Ann

Taylor, Arja Nurmi, Anthony Warner, Susan Pintzuk and Terttu Nevalainen. Compiled by the

CEEC Project Team. York: University of York and Helsinki: University of Helsinki.

Sipma, P. 1913. Phonology & Grammar of Modern West Frisian. With phonetic texts and

glossary. (= Publications of the Philological Society 2). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Taylor, John R. 1996. Possessives in English. An exploration in Cognitive Grammar. Oxford:

Clarendon Press.

The British National Corpus, version 3 (BNC XML Edition) (2007). Distributed by Oxford

University Computing Services on behalf of the BNC Consortium.

The Magic sheet of Old English Inflections.

http://faculty.virginia.edu/OldEnglish/courses/handouts/magic.pdf

The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Early Modern English (2000). Anthony Kroch and Ann

Taylor, compilers. Philadelphia: Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania.

The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English 2 (2000). Anthony Kroch and Ann

Taylor, compilers. Philadelphia: Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania.

The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Modern British English (2000). Anthony Kroch and

Ann Taylor, compilers. Philadelphia: Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania.

Van Bath, B.H. Slicher. 1949. “Dutch Tribal Problems”. Speculum 24:3. 319-338.

Van der Horst, J.M. 2008. Geschiedenis van de Nederlands Syntaxis. Leuven: Universitaire

Pers Leuven.

Van den Toorn, M.C., W. Pijnenburg, J.A. van Leunvensteijn en J.M. Van der Horst. 2007.

Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse Taal. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Van Keymeulen, Jan. 2003. “Geographical differentiation in the Dutch Language Area.” The

Dawn of the Written Vernacular in Western Europe. ed by Michèle Goyens and Werner

Verbeke. Leuven: Leuven University Press.

Weerman, Fred & Petra de Wit. 1999. “The Decline of the Genitive in Dutch” Linguistics

37:6. 1155-1192.

69

Weijnen, A.A. 1999. Oude Woordlagen in de Zuidelijk-centrale dialecten. Amsterdam:

Meertens Instituut.

Zwicky, Arnold M. 1997. On Clitics. Ohio: Ohio State University

Zwicky, Arnold M. & Geoffrey K. Pulllum. 1983. “Cliticization vs. Inflection: English N’T”

Language 59:3. 502-513

70

APPENDIX 1

RESULTS CORPUS RESEARCH: ENGLISH

TABLE 1: All results elliptical locative possessive

Date Genre Result Corpus File

1470 ROMANCE at Saynt Albons CMMALORY,6.164

1474-1488 LETTER at B. Pasmars CELY,17.013.197

1474-1488 LETTER at Bornellys wyedows CELY,26.022.426

1474-1488 LETTER to Dankortys CELY,41.034.723

1474-1488 LETTER by Thomas Kesteyns CELY,41.035.733

1474-1488 LETTER at Sente Johnys CELY,73.057.1225

1474-1488 LETTER to Sent Tomers CELY,98.077.1658

1474-1488 LETTER at Sent Tomors CELY,137.111.2436

1474-1488 LETTER at Twyssulltons CELY,143.114.2501

1474-1488 LETTER at Robard Torneys CELY,191.136.2992

1474-1488 LETTER at Thomas Clarkys CELY,191.136.2993

1475 HISTORY at Synt Mary Overeys CMGREGOR,104.185

1475 HISTORY be syde Syn Jonys CMGREGOR,108.299

1475 HISTORY at Syn Johnys CMGREGOR,157.676

1475 HISTORY at Synt Mary Overes CMGREGOR,157.682

1475 HISTORY at Synt Albonys CMGREGOR,160.755

1475 HISTORY to Syn Gorgys CMGREGOR,164.845

1475 HISTORY at Syn Poulys CMGREGOR,176.1113

1475 HISTORY at Syn Poulys CMGREGOR,180.1229

1475 HISTORY to Powlys CMGREGOR,184.1308

1475 HISTORY to Synt Mychellys CMGREGOR,184.1308

1475 HISTORY at Syn Donstonys CMGREGOR,188.1391

1475 HISTORY at Syn Albonys CMGREGOR,188.1397

1475 HISTORY at Syn Kateryns CMGREGOR,188.1404

1475 HISTORY from Syn Johnys CMGREGOR,191.1447

1475 HISTORY at Synt Albonys CMGREGOR,198.1576

1475 HISTORY at Synt Albonys CMGREGOR,203.1701

1475 HISTORY at Synt Mary Overeyes CMGREGOR,211.1901

1475 HISTORY to Synt Albonys CMGREGOR,211.1921

1475 HISTORY to Synt Albonys CMGREGOR,212.1923

1475 HISTORY at Poulys CMGREGOR,230.2390

1569-1575 LETTER at St. Symon's PARKHUR,161.029.519

1569-1575 LETTER (betwene Mr. Downes his howse)

and one Tilneye 's

PARKHUR,177.040.682

71

1569-1575 LETTER at St. Andrew's PARKHUR,216.061.1133

1582 DIARY at Besse Jenyns MADOX-E2-H,83.59

1582 DIARY at Robert Cavies MADOX-E2-H,86.95

1582 DIARY at M. Creswels MADOX-E2-H,132.241

1582 DIARY at M. Fownds MADOX-E2-P1,92.61

1582 DIARY at M. Fownds MADOX-E2-P1,94.103

1582 DIARY at sherif Martens MADOX-E2-P1,95.110

1582 DIARY at Mrs Lucars MADOX-E2-P1,95.116

1582 DIARY at M. sherif Martons MADOX-E2-P1,95.121

1582 DIARY at his brother Hudsons MADOX-E2-P1,96.130

1582 DIARY at my cosyn Thomas MADOX-E2-P1,98.164

1582 DIARY at Mrs Lucars MADOX-E2-P1,98.170

1582 DIARY at M. Carleyls MADOX-E2-P1,98.179

1582 DIARY at my cosyn Nycholas MADOX-E2-P1,98.187

1582 DIARY at M. Huntleys MADOX-E2-P1,99.196

1582 DIARY at M. Gilburns MADOX-E2-P1,101.255

1582 DIARY at Alderman Barns MADOX-E2-P1,101.258

1582 DIARY at M. Hankins MADOX-E2-P1,104.313

1582 DIARY at M. Greenes MADOX-E2-P1,107.363

1582 DIARY to M. Burdens MADOX-E2-P1,111.430

1582 DIARY to St. Ellyns MADOX-E2-P1,112.443

1582 DIARY to St. Crosses MADOX-E2-P2,117.38

1582 DIARY at M. Owtreads MADOX-E2-P2,117.45

1582 DIARY at M. Onleys MADOX-E2-P2,160.460

1582 DIARY at M. Dees MADOX-E2-P2,118.60

1582 DIARY at M. Owtreds MADOX-E2-P2,118.73

1610-1632 LETTER to the lordes PORY,69.002.58

1610-1632 LETTER at Sir Edward Parhams PORY,71.002.82

1610-1632 LETTER at my lord Treasurers PORY,128.004.186

1628-1632 LETTER at Nurse Bedle's BARRING,54.012.233

1628-1632 LETTER Sir Thomas Barrington's BARRING,56.014.277

1628-1632 LETTER at Sir Gilbert Garrard's BARRING,73.025.556

1628-1632 LETTER at my brother Lytton's BARRING,88.040.758

1628-1632 LETTER at Sir Gilbert Gerrard's BARRING,97.049.915

1628-1632 LETTER at Sir Gilbert Gerrard's BARRING,101.055.1009

1628-1632 LETTER to my brother Masham's BARRING,110.064.1170

1628-1632 LETTER in Saint Gyles BARRING,113.066.1191

1628-1632 LETTER at Sir Gilberd Garretts BARRING,113.066.1193

1628-1632 LETTER at Sir Richard Evered's BARRING,114.066.1211

1628-1632 LETTER at Sir Gilberte Garrett's BARRING,114.066.1214

1628-1632 LETTER in St Giles BARRING,120.072.1313

1628-1632 LETTER at Mr Martin's BARRING,127.080.1407

1628-1632 LETTER at St Mary Overyes BARRING,132.084.1496

1628-1632 LETTER at Sir Gilbert Gerrard's BARRING,135.086.1527

1628-1632 LETTER From Mr Okelie's BARRING,145.096.1652

72

1628-1632 LETTER at the stacioner's BARRING,151.101.1724

1628-1632 LETTER at Sir Gilbert Garrard's BARRING,152.102.1741

1628-1632 LETTER at nurse Birde's BARRING,162.111.1852

1628-1632 LETTER at St James BARRING,191.129.2226

1628-1632 LETTER from my Lord of Bedford's BARRING,200.136.2341

1628-1632 LETTER at Mr Goodyer's BARRING,206.145.2465

1628-1632 LETTER From Mr Charneck's BARRING,207.145.2468

1628-1632 LETTER at Mrs Necton's BARRING,209.148.2508

1628-1632 LETTER from his master's BARRING,230.172.2954

1628-1632 LETTER unto theire master's BARRING,240.181.3150

1630 TRAVEL at one Master Iohn Archibalds JOTAYLOR-E2-H,1,134.C1.168

1630 TRAVEL to the Lord Marquesse of

Huntleys

JOTAYLOR-E2-H,1,137.C2.261

1630 TRAVEL at Sir William Sydleyes JOTAYLOR-E2-P2,1,144.C2.89

1630 TRAVEL at the Lord Woetons JOTAYLOR-E2-P2,1,145.C1.96

1672 BIOGRAPHY to Rich: Johnsons FOX-E3-H,151.181

1672 BIOGRAPHY to ye Lord maiors FOX-E3-H,156.298

1672 BIOGRAPHY to Grace Barwickes FOX-E3-P2,107.82

1672 BIOGRAPHY to Tho: Taylors FOX-E3-P2,108.118

1672 BIOGRAPHY to Jane Milners FOX-E3-P2,114.259

1672 BIOGRAPHY at Charles ffloydes FOX-E3-P2,114.262

1672 BIOGRAPHY at James Merrickes FOX-E3-P2,116.343

1675-1677 LETTER at Mr Neal's a Cooper ESSEX,68.013.351

1675-1677 LETTER at one Corporall Gaskins ESSEX,68.013.352

1715-1716 LAW at St. Albans STATUTES-171X,5,51.41

1716 DIARY to brother's RYDER-1716,161.10

1716 DIARY at Mr. Henry's RYDER-1716,163.71

1716 DIARY to brother's RYDER-1716,165.131

1716 DIARY Came to brother's RYDER-1716,165.151

1716 DIARY to brother's RYDER-1716,166.164

1716 DIARY at brother's RYDER-1716,166.166

1716 DIARY to brother's RYDER-1716,166.180

1716 DIARY at Aunt Bickley's RYDER-1716,170.285

1716 DIARY to brother's RYDER-1716,171.328

1716 DIARY to Lord Molyneux's RYDER-1716,175.421

1716 DIARY at Bunkley's RYDER-1716,177.465

1716 DIARY to brother's RYDER-1716,177.471

1716 DIARY to brother's RYDER-1716,178.486

1716 DIARY to Mr. Bailey's RYDER-1716,178.489

1716 DIARY to brother's RYDER-1716,178.517

1716 DIARY to Mr. Whatley's RYDER-1716,181.575

1716 DIARY at Sue's RYDER-1716,182.598

1776 DIARY at his mother's BOSWELL-1776,39.115

1776 DIARY at John Dykes's BOSWELL-1776,47.369

1776 DIARY at Swan's BOSWELL-1776,47.369

73

1776 DIARY at Sir George's BOSWELL-1776,48.443

1776 DIARY at Mrs. Graham's BOSWELL-1776,49.480

1776 DIARY at Dr. Webster's BOSWELL-1776,50.514

1776 DIARY to Lady Colville's BOSWELL-1776,50.527

1776 DIARY at Sir George's BOSWELL-1776,51.572

1776 DIARY at Mr. Baron Maule's BOSWELL-1776,52.601

1776 DIARY at Sir George's BOSWELL-1776,52.629

1776 DIARY at Sir George's BOSWELL-1776,53.648

1776 DIARY at my father's BOSWELL-1776,53.670

1776 DIARY at Sir George's BOSWELL-1776,54.680

1776 DIARY at Sir George's BOSWELL-1776,54.698

1776 DIARY at my father's BOSWELL-1776,54.702

1776 DIARY at my father's BOSWELL-1776,55.755

1776 DIARY at Mrs. Boswell of Balmuto's BOSWELL-1776,55.756

1776 DIARY at my father's BOSWELL-1776,56.799

1776 DIARY at Mr. Donaldson the bookseller's BOSWELL-1776,56.805

1776 DIARY at Macqueen's BOSWELL-1776,56.812

1776 DIARY at my father's BOSWELL-1776,56.814

1826 BIOGRAPHY at Mr. West's OKEEFFE-1826,1,2.35

1826 BIOGRAPHY At Lord Trimlestown's OKEEFFE-1826,1,5.71

1826 BIOGRAPHY At Mr. Stewart's OKEEFFE-1826,1,32.339

1826 BIOGRAPHY opposite this Captain Debrisay's OKEEFFE-1826,1,35.365

TABLE 2: All results non-elliptical locative possessive

Date Genre Result Corpus File

1150 HISTORY to Sancte Berhtines minstre (CMPETERB,50.253)

1225 RELIGIOUS

TREATISE

ut of dines fader huse (CMVICES1,109.1317)

1225 RELIGIOUS

TREATISE

vt of tines fader huse (CMVICES1,111.1328)

1350 BIBLE in te halles of our Goddes hous (CMEARLPS,163.7241)

1387 HISTORY in erle Hunbaldus his hous (CMPOLYCH,VI,65.452)

1387 HISTORY out of tat lost and corsede manis

hous

(CMPOLYCH,69.481)

1387 HISTORY in erl Hunbald his hous (CMPOLYCH,VI,71.491)

1387 HISTORY to Seynt Romayn his chirche (CMPOLYCH,VI,145.1022)

1387 HISTORY in Seint Peteris chirche (CMPOLYCH,VI,155.1117)

1387 HISTORY in Seynt Iohn his chirche (CMPOLYCH,VI,181.1296)

1387 HISTORY to Seynt Mary Chirche (CMPOLYCH,VI,259.1883)

1387 HISTORY at Seint Marye chirche (CMPOLYCH,VI,327.2389)

74

1387 HISTORY in Seint Clement his cherche (CMPOLYCH,VI,337.2467)

1387 HISTORY in his fader hous (CMPOLYCH,VI,337.2470)

1387 HISTORY to Seynt Gueroun his chirche (CMPOLYCH,VI,359.2616)

1387 HISTORY to Seint German his chirche (CMPOLYCH,VI,387.2840)

1387 HISTORY to Seynt Peter his cherche (CMPOLYCH,VI,409.2998)

1387 HISTORY in Seynt Peter his cherche (CMPOLYCH,VI,419.3068)

1387 HISTORY out of Seynt Martyns abbay (CMPOLYCH,VIII,93.3616)

1425 TRAVEL in hire faderes hows (CMMANDEV,61.1520)

1440-1476 LETTER in Seynt Bartholomewys Spytyll MARCHAL,F263.004.102

1440-1476 LETTER at Seynt Bartolmews Spytyll MARCHAL,F73.008.182

1440-1476 LETTER in my lordes plase MARCHAL,F49.011.248

1470 ROMANCE at his faders lodgyng (CMMALORY,8.214)

1470 ROMANCE within kynge Uriens londe (CMMALORY,31.997)

1470 ROMANCE in kynge Pescheors house (CMMALORY,653.4404)

1474-1488 LETTER in the Dvke of Borgans londys CELY,23.018.357

1474-1488 LETTER to my masterys plasse CELY,54.046.1001

1474-1488 LETTER at his faders place CELY,131.104.2324

1474-1488 LETTER be the Est Wache Howsse CELY,167.126.2811

1474-1488 LETTER be Sent Nycolas Chyrche CELY,167.126.2811

1475 HISTORY in John Roetis Place (CMGREGOR,96.20)

1475 HISTORY in the byschoppys place of

Durham.

(CMGREGOR,96.40)

1475 HISTORY in Synt Petrys chyrche (CMGREGOR,128.554)

1475 HISTORY in the byschoppe ys place of

London

(CMGREGOR,158.713)

1475 HISTORY in Saynt Mary chyrche (CMGREGOR,161.783)

1475 HISTORY at Synt Edmondys Bury (CMGREGOR,188.1392)

1475 HISTORY unto a marchaunte ys place (CMGREGOR,191.1462)

1475 HISTORY be-syde Clopton ys Place (CMGREGOR,192.1481)

1475 HISTORY in Wycham ys college (CMGREGOR,203.1707)

1475 HISTORY in hys fadyrs place (CMGREGOR,204.1737)

1475 HISTORY to the Kynges paly (CMGREGOR,218.2079)

1475 HISTORY with yn the kyngys palys (CMGREGOR,221.2168)

1526 FICTION to the gentylmannys place MERRYTAL-E1-P1,8.101

1526 FICTION to her faders house MERRYTAL-E1-P1,48.360

1526 FICTION out of her faders house MERRYTAL-E1-P1,49.379

1526 FICTION to a prestes house MERRYTAL-E1-P2,141.488

1526 FICTION to a prestys house MERRYTAL-E1-P2,144.515

1569-1575 LETTER at one Mr. Frauncis Downes his

house of Tuddenham

PARKHUR,177.040.682

1569-1575 LETTER betwene Mr. Downes his howse

(and one Tilneye 's)

PARKHUR,177.040.682

1569-1575 LETTER in Christe 's Church PARKHUR,215.061.1127

1573 LETTER to Sir Thomas Smyths house HARVEY,20.001.306

1582 DIARY at M. secretaries lodging MADOX-E2-P1,96.128

1582 DIARY in my Lord chanselors lodging MADOX-E2-P1,101.238

75

1582 DIARY St. Swythens Abbey MADOX-E2-P2,116.23

1582 DIARY at M. Deas howse MADOX-E2-P2,118.55

1582 DIARY M. Georg Powlets howse MADOX-E2-P2,128.126

1628-1632 LETTER to his mother house BARRING,37.002.27

1628-1632 LETTER neere Lincolns Inne BARRING,42.005.67

1628-1632 LETTER at your worthie sonne his

lodgeing

BARRING,56.014.277

1628-1632 LETTER at Sir Gilbert Gerard's house BARRING,83.033.678

1628-1632 LETTER att Sir Gilberd Garrett's howse BARRING,85.035.705

1628-1632 LETTER at Sir Gilbert Garrett his howse BARRING,90.041.785

1628-1632 LETTER at Sir Gilbert Gerrard's house BARRING,131.083.1479

1628-1632 LETTER at Sir Gilbert Gerrard's house BARRING,151.101.1727

1628-1632 LETTER in Mrs Scott 's house BARRING,199.135.2328

1628-1632 LETTER at Mr Necton 's house BARRING,220.158.2752

1628-1632 LETTER unto my brother William's house BARRING,230.172.2954

1628-1632 LETTER to Mr Pickering's house BARRING,252.191.3423

1630 TRAVEL to the Kings Palace JOTAYLOR-E2-H,1,130.C1.62

1630 TRAVEL at his Maiestis Palace JOTAYLOR-E2-H,1,130.C1.71

1630 TRAVEL at Master Iohn Gibb his house JOTAYLOR-E2-H,1,132.C1.138

1630 TRAVEL to the Bishop of Murray his house JOTAYLOR-E2-H,1,137.C2.259

1630 TRAVEL at one Master Iohn Stuarts house JOTAYLOR-E2-H,1,138.C1.277

1630 TRAVEL to Master Iohn Acmootye his

house

JOTAYLOR-E2-H,1,138.C2.286

1630 TRAVEL at Master Iames Baylies house JOTAYLOR-E2-H,1,138.C2.294

1630 TRAVEL at Master Nicholas Tempests

house

JOTAYLOR-E2-H,1,139.C2.324

1630 TRAVEL at his father in lawes (…) Sir

Robert Swifts house

JOTAYLOR-E2-H,1,140.C1.327

1630 TRAVEL at the Post-masters house JOTAYLOR-E2-H,1,140.C1.332

1630 TRAVEL In S. Iacobs and in Saint

Katherines Churches

JOTAYLOR-E2-P1,3,84.C1.226

1630 TRAVEL at Sir Warrham Saint Leigers

house

JOTAYLOR-E2-P2,1,144.C2.89

1672 BIOGRAPHY to Will Barnes his house FOX-E3-H,151.182

1672 BIOGRAPHY to other frendes houses FOX-E3-H,151.192

1672 BIOGRAPHY ye goalers house FOX-E3-P1,92.72

1672 BIOGRAPHY Into Gerard Roberts house FOX-E3-P1,161.346

1672 BIOGRAPHY by ye preists house FOX-E3-P1,164.415

1672 BIOGRAPHY att Peter Hodgesons house FOX-E3-P2,106.62

1672 BIOGRAPHY to ye Lady Mountagues house FOX-E3-P2,107.97

1672 BIOGRAPHY at one George Watkinsons house FOX-E3-P2,108.115

1672 BIOGRAPHY att Henry Gybbs his house FOX-E3-P2,114.270

1672 BIOGRAPHY att Justice Crispes house FOX-E3-P2,116.344

1675-1677 LETTER at Ran's house ESSEX,103.025.652

1826 BIOGRAPHY in St. James's church-yard (OKEEFFE-1826,1,22.230)

1826 BIOGRAPHY in R. B. Sheridan's "Camp" (OKEEFFE-1826,1,36.371)

1826 BIOGRAPHY of my cousin Kavanagh's house (OKEEFFE-1826,1,38.418)

76

1826 BIOGRAPHY in his mother's house (OKEEFFE-1826,1,44.478)

187x DIARY in Bishop Selwyn's palace (THRING-187X,237.677)

190x DIARY to the Master's Lodge (BENSON-190X,128.722)

TABLE 3: Results PPCME elliptical locative possessive

Date Genre Result Corpus File

1470 ROMANCE at Saynt Albons CMMALORY,6.164

1475 HISTORY at Synt Mary Overeys CMGREGOR,104.185

1475 HISTORY be syde Syn Jonys CMGREGOR,108.299

1475 HISTORY at Syn Johnys CMGREGOR,157.676

1475 HISTORY at Synt Mary Overes CMGREGOR,157.682

1475 HISTORY at Synt Albonys CMGREGOR,160.755

1475 HISTORY to Syn Gorgys CMGREGOR,164.845

1475 HISTORY at Syn Poulys CMGREGOR,176.1113

1475 HISTORY at Syn Poulys CMGREGOR,180.1229

1475 HISTORY to Powlys CMGREGOR,184.1308

1475 HISTORY to Synt Mychellys CMGREGOR,184.1308

1475 HISTORY at Syn Donstonys CMGREGOR,188.1391

1475 HISTORY at Syn Albonys CMGREGOR,188.1397

1475 HISTORY at Syn Kateryns CMGREGOR,188.1404

1475 HISTORY from Syn Johnys CMGREGOR,191.1447

1475 HISTORY at Synt Albonys CMGREGOR,198.1576

1475 HISTORY at Synt Albonys CMGREGOR,203.1701

1475 HISTORY at Synt Mary Overeyes CMGREGOR,211.1901

1475 HISTORY to Synt Albonys CMGREGOR,211.1921

1475 HISTORY to Synt Albonys CMGREGOR,212.1923

1475 HISTORY at Poulys CMGREGOR,230.2390

TABLE 4: Results PPCME non-elliptical locative possessive

Date Genre Result Corpus File

1150 HISTORY to Sancte Berhtines minstre (CMPETERB,50.253)

1225 RELIGIOUS

TREATISE

ut of dines fader huse (CMVICES1,109.1317)

1225 RELIGIOUS

TREATISE

vt of tines fader huse (CMVICES1,111.1328)

77

1350 BIBLE in te halles of our Goddes hous (CMEARLPS,163.7241)

1387 HISTORY in erle Hunbaldus his hous (CMPOLYCH,VI,65.452)

1387 HISTORY out of tat lost and corsede manis

hous

(CMPOLYCH,69.481)

1387 HISTORY in erl Hunbald his hous (CMPOLYCH,VI,71.491)

1387 HISTORY to Seynt Romayn his chirche (CMPOLYCH,VI,145.1022)

1387 HISTORY in Seint Peteris chirche (CMPOLYCH,VI,155.1117)

1387 HISTORY in Seynt Iohn his chirche (CMPOLYCH,VI,181.1296)

1387 HISTORY to Seynt Mary Chirche (CMPOLYCH,VI,259.1883)

1387 HISTORY at Seint Marye chirche (CMPOLYCH,VI,327.2389)

1387 HISTORY in Seint Clement his cherche (CMPOLYCH,VI,337.2467)

1387 HISTORY in his fader hous (CMPOLYCH,VI,337.2470)

1387 HISTORY to Seynt Gueroun his chirche (CMPOLYCH,VI,359.2616)

1387 HISTORY to Seint German his chirche (CMPOLYCH,VI,387.2840)

1387 HISTORY to Seynt Peter his cherche (CMPOLYCH,VI,409.2998)

1387 HISTORY in Seynt Peter his cherche (CMPOLYCH,VI,419.3068)

1387 HISTORY out of Seynt Martyns abbay (CMPOLYCH,VIII,93.3616)

1425 TRAVEL in hire faderes hows (CMMANDEV,61.1520)

1470 ROMANCE at his faders lodgyng (CMMALORY,8.214)

1470 ROMANCE within kynge Uriens londe (CMMALORY,31.997)

1470 ROMANCE in kynge Pescheors house (CMMALORY,653.4404)

1475 HISTORY in John Roetis Place (CMGREGOR,96.20)

1475 HISTORY in the byschoppys place of

Durham.

(CMGREGOR,96.40)

1475 HISTORY in Synt Petrys chyrche (CMGREGOR,128.554)

1475 HISTORY in the byschoppe ys place of

London

(CMGREGOR,158.713)

1475 HISTORY in Saynt Mary chyrche (CMGREGOR,161.783)

1475 HISTORY at Synt Edmondys Bury (CMGREGOR,188.1392)

1475 HISTORY unto a marchaunte ys place (CMGREGOR,191.1462)

1475 HISTORY be-syde Clopton ys Place (CMGREGOR,192.1481)

1475 HISTORY in Wycham ys college (CMGREGOR,203.1707)

1475 HISTORY in hys fadyrs place (CMGREGOR,204.1737)

1475 HISTORY to the Kynges paly (CMGREGOR,218.2079)

1475 HISTORY with yn the kyngys palys (CMGREGOR,221.2168)

TABLE 5: Results PCEEC elliptical locative possessive

Date Genre Result Corpus File

1474-1488 LETTER at B. Pasmars CELY,17.013.197

1474-1488 LETTER at Bornellys wyedows CELY,26.022.426

78

1474-1488 LETTER to Dankortys CELY,41.034.723

1474-1488 LETTER by Thomas Kesteyns CELY,41.035.733

1474-1488 LETTER at Sente Johnys CELY,73.057.1225

1474-1488 LETTER to Sent Tomers CELY,98.077.1658

1474-1488 LETTER at Sent Tomors CELY,137.111.2436

1474-1488 LETTER at Twyssulltons CELY,143.114.2501

1474-1488 LETTER at Robard Torneys CELY,191.136.2992

1474-1488 LETTER at Thomas Clarkys CELY,191.136.2993

1569-1575 LETTER at St. Symon's PARKHUR,161.029.519

1569-1575 LETTER (betwene Mr. Downes his howse)

and one Tilneye 's

PARKHUR,177.040.682

1569-1575 LETTER at St. Andrew's PARKHUR,216.061.1133

1610-1632 LETTER to the lordes PORY,69.002.58

1610-1632 LETTER at Sir Edward Parhams PORY,71.002.82

1610-1632 LETTER at my lord Treasurers PORY,128.004.186

1628-1632 LETTER at Nurse Bedle's BARRING,54.012.233

1628-1632 LETTER Sir Thomas Barrington's BARRING,56.014.277

1628-1632 LETTER at Sir Gilbert Garrard's BARRING,73.025.556

1628-1632 LETTER at my brother Lytton's BARRING,88.040.758

1628-1632 LETTER at Sir Gilbert Gerrard's BARRING,97.049.915

1628-1632 LETTER at Sir Gilbert Gerrard's BARRING,101.055.1009

1628-1632 LETTER to my brother Masham's BARRING,110.064.1170

1628-1632 LETTER in Saint Gyles BARRING,113.066.1191

1628-1632 LETTER at Sir Gilberd Garretts BARRING,113.066.1193

1628-1632 LETTER at Sir Richard Evered's BARRING,114.066.1211

1628-1632 LETTER at Sir Gilberte Garrett's BARRING,114.066.1214

1628-1632 LETTER in St Giles BARRING,120.072.1313

1628-1632 LETTER at Mr Martin's BARRING,127.080.1407

1628-1632 LETTER at St Mary Overyes BARRING,132.084.1496

1628-1632 LETTER at Sir Gilbert Gerrard's BARRING,135.086.1527

1628-1632 LETTER From Mr Okelie's BARRING,145.096.1652

1628-1632 LETTER at the stacioner's BARRING,151.101.1724

1628-1632 LETTER at Sir Gilbert Garrard's BARRING,152.102.1741

1628-1632 LETTER at nurse Birde's BARRING,162.111.1852

1628-1632 LETTER at St James BARRING,191.129.2226

1628-1632 LETTER from my Lord of Bedford's BARRING,200.136.2341

1628-1632 LETTER at Mr Goodyer's BARRING,206.145.2465

1628-1632 LETTER From Mr Charneck's BARRING,207.145.2468

1628-1632 LETTER at Mrs Necton's BARRING,209.148.2508

1628-1632 LETTER from his master's BARRING,230.172.2954

1628-1632 LETTER unto theire master's BARRING,240.181.3150

1675-1677 LETTER at Mr Neal's a Cooper ESSEX,68.013.351

1675-1677 LETTER at one Corporall Gaskins ESSEX,68.013.352

79

TABLE 6: Results PCEEC non-elliptical locative possessive

Date Genre Result Corpus File

1440-1476 LETTER in Seynt Bartholomewys Spytyll MARCHAL,F263.004.102

1440-1476 LETTER at Seynt Bartolmews Spytyll MARCHAL,F73.008.182

1440-1476 LETTER in my lordes plase MARCHAL,F49.011.248

1474-1488 LETTER in the Dvke of Borgans londys CELY,23.018.357

1474-1488 LETTER to my masterys plasse CELY,54.046.1001

1474-1488 LETTER at his faders place CELY,131.104.2324

1474-1488 LETTER be the Est Wache Howsse CELY,167.126.2811

1474-1488 LETTER be Sent Nycolas Chyrche CELY,167.126.2811

1573 LETTER to Sir Thomas Smyths house HARVEY,20.001.306

1569-1575 LETTER at one Mr. Frauncis Downes his

house of Tuddenham

PARKHUR,177.040.682

1569-1575 LETTER betwene Mr. Downes his howse

(and one Tilneye 's)

PARKHUR,177.040.682

1569-1575 LETTER in Christe 's Church PARKHUR,215.061.1127

1628-1632 LETTER to his mother house BARRING,37.002.27

1628-1632 LETTER neere Lincolns Inne BARRING,42.005.67

1628-1632 LETTER at your worthie sonne his

lodgeing

BARRING,56.014.277

1628-1632 LETTER at Sir Gilbert Gerard's house BARRING,83.033.678

1628-1632 LETTER att Sir Gilberd Garrett's howse BARRING,85.035.705

1628-1632 LETTER at Sir Gilbert Garrett his howse BARRING,90.041.785

1628-1632 LETTER at Sir Gilbert Gerrard's house BARRING,131.083.1479

1628-1632 LETTER at Sir Gilbert Gerrard's house BARRING,151.101.1727

1628-1632 LETTER in Mrs Scott 's house BARRING,199.135.2328

1628-1632 LETTER at Mr Necton 's house BARRING,220.158.2752

1628-1632 LETTER unto my brother William's house BARRING,230.172.2954

1628-1632 LETTER to Mr Pickering's house BARRING,252.191.3423

1675-1677 LETTER at Ran's house ESSEX,103.025.652

TABLE 7: Results PPCEME elliptical locative possessive

Date Genre Result Corpus File

1582 DIARY at Besse Jenyns MADOX-E2-H,83.59

1582 DIARY at Robert Cavies MADOX-E2-H,86.95

1582 DIARY at M. Creswels MADOX-E2-H,132.241

80

1582 DIARY at M. Fownds MADOX-E2-P1,92.61

1582 DIARY at M. Fownds MADOX-E2-P1,94.103

1582 DIARY at sherif Martens MADOX-E2-P1,95.110

1582 DIARY at Mrs Lucars MADOX-E2-P1,95.116

1582 DIARY at M. sherif Martons MADOX-E2-P1,95.121

1582 DIARY at his brother Hudsons MADOX-E2-P1,96.130

1582 DIARY at my cosyn Thomas MADOX-E2-P1,98.164

1582 DIARY at Mrs Lucars MADOX-E2-P1,98.170

1582 DIARY at M. Carleyls MADOX-E2-P1,98.179

1582 DIARY at my cosyn Nycholas MADOX-E2-P1,98.187

1582 DIARY at M. Huntleys MADOX-E2-P1,99.196

1582 DIARY at M. Gilburns MADOX-E2-P1,101.255

1582 DIARY at Alderman Barns MADOX-E2-P1,101.258

1582 DIARY at M. Hankins MADOX-E2-P1,104.313

1582 DIARY at M. Greenes MADOX-E2-P1,107.363

1582 DIARY to M. Burdens MADOX-E2-P1,111.430

1582 DIARY to St. Ellyns MADOX-E2-P1,112.443

1582 DIARY to St. Crosses MADOX-E2-P2,117.38

1582 DIARY at M. Owtreads MADOX-E2-P2,117.45

1582 DIARY at M. Dees MADOX-E2-P2,118.60

1582 DIARY at M. Owtreds MADOX-E2-P2,118.73

1582 DIARY at M. Onleys MADOX-E2-P2,160.460

1630 TRAVEL at one Master Iohn Archibalds JOTAYLOR-E2-H,1,134.C1.168

1630 TRAVEL to the Lord Marquesse of

Huntleys

JOTAYLOR-E2-H,1,137.C2.261

1630 TRAVEL at Sir William Sydleyes JOTAYLOR-E2-P2,1,144.C2.89

1630 TRAVEL at the Lord Woetons JOTAYLOR-E2-P2,1,145.C1.96

1672 BIOGRAPHY to Rich: Johnsons FOX-E3-H,151.181

1672 BIOGRAPHY to ye Lord maiors FOX-E3-H,156.298

1672 BIOGRAPHY to Grace Barwickes FOX-E3-P2,107.82

1672 BIOGRAPHY to Tho: Taylors FOX-E3-P2,108.118

1672 BIOGRAPHY to Jane Milners FOX-E3-P2,114.259

1672 BIOGRAPHY at Charles ffloydes FOX-E3-P2,114.262

1672 BIOGRAPHY at James Merrickes FOX-E3-P2,116.343

TABLE 8: Results PPCEME non-elliptical locative possessive

Date Genre Result Corpus File

1526 FICTION to the gentylmannys place MERRYTAL-E1-P1,8.101

1526 FICTION to her faders house MERRYTAL-E1-P1,48.360

1526 FICTION out of her faders house MERRYTAL-E1-P1,49.379

81

1526 FICTION to a prestes house MERRYTAL-E1-P2,141.488

1526 FICTION to a prestys house MERRYTAL-E1-P2,144.515

1582 DIARY at M. secretaries lodging MADOX-E2-P1,96.128

1582 DIARY in my Lord chanselors lodging MADOX-E2-P1,101.238

1582 DIARY St. Swythens Abbey MADOX-E2-P2,116.23

1582 DIARY at M. Deas howse MADOX-E2-P2,118.55

1582 DIARY M. Georg Powlets howse MADOX-E2-P2,128.126

1630 TRAVEL to the Kings Palace JOTAYLOR-E2-H,1,130.C1.62

1630 TRAVEL at his Maiestis Palace JOTAYLOR-E2-H,1,130.C1.71

1630 TRAVEL at Master Iohn Gibb his house JOTAYLOR-E2-H,1,132.C1.138

1630 TRAVEL to the Bishop of Murray his house JOTAYLOR-E2-H,1,137.C2.259

1630 TRAVEL at one Master Iohn Stuarts house JOTAYLOR-E2-H,1,138.C1.277

1630 TRAVEL to Master Iohn Acmootye his

house

JOTAYLOR-E2-H,1,138.C2.286

1630 TRAVEL at Master Iames Baylies house JOTAYLOR-E2-H,1,138.C2.294

1630 TRAVEL at Master Nicholas Tempests

house

JOTAYLOR-E2-H,1,139.C2.324

1630 TRAVEL at his father in lawes (…) Sir

Robert Swifts house

JOTAYLOR-E2-H,1,140.C1.327

1630 TRAVEL at the Post-masters house JOTAYLOR-E2-H,1,140.C1.332

1630 TRAVEL In S. Iacobs and in Saint

Katherines Churches

JOTAYLOR-E2-P1,3,84.C1.226

1630 TRAVEL at Sir Warrham Saint Leigers

house

JOTAYLOR-E2-P2,1,144.C2.89

1672 BIOGRAPHY to Will Barnes his house FOX-E3-H,151.182

1672 BIOGRAPHY to other frendes houses FOX-E3-H,151.192

1672 BIOGRAPHY ye goalers house FOX-E3-P1,92.72

1672 BIOGRAPHY Into Gerard Roberts house FOX-E3-P1,161.346

1672 BIOGRAPHY by ye preists house FOX-E3-P1,164.415

1672 BIOGRAPHY att Peter Hodgesons house FOX-E3-P2,106.62

1672 BIOGRAPHY to ye Lady Mountagues house FOX-E3-P2,107.97

1672 BIOGRAPHY at one George Watkinsons house FOX-E3-P2,108.115

1672 BIOGRAPHY att Henry Gybbs his house FOX-E3-P2,114.270

1672 BIOGRAPHY att Justice Crispes house FOX-E3-P2,116.344

TABLE 9: Results PPCMBE elliptical locative possessive

Date Genre Result Corpus File

1715-1716 LAW at St. Albans STATUTES-171X,5,51.41

1716 DIARY to brother's RYDER-1716,161.10

1716 DIARY at Mr. Henry's RYDER-1716,163.71

1716 DIARY to brother's RYDER-1716,165.131

82

1716 DIARY Came to brother's RYDER-1716,165.151

1716 DIARY to brother's RYDER-1716,166.164

1716 DIARY at brother's RYDER-1716,166.166

1716 DIARY to brother's RYDER-1716,166.180

1716 DIARY at Aunt Bickley's RYDER-1716,170.285

1716 DIARY to brother's RYDER-1716,171.328

1716 DIARY to Lord Molyneux's RYDER-1716,175.421

1716 DIARY at Bunkley's RYDER-1716,177.465

1716 DIARY to brother's RYDER-1716,177.471

1716 DIARY to brother's RYDER-1716,178.486

1716 DIARY to Mr. Bailey's RYDER-1716,178.489

1716 DIARY to brother's RYDER-1716,178.517

1716 DIARY to Mr. Whatley's RYDER-1716,181.575

1716 DIARY at Sue's RYDER-1716,182.598

1776 DIARY at his mother's BOSWELL-1776,39.115

1776 DIARY at John Dykes's BOSWELL-1776,47.369

1776 DIARY at Swan's BOSWELL-1776,47.369

1776 DIARY at Sir George's BOSWELL-1776,48.443

1776 DIARY at Mrs. Graham's BOSWELL-1776,49.480

1776 DIARY at Dr. Webster's BOSWELL-1776,50.514

1776 DIARY to Lady Colville's BOSWELL-1776,50.527

1776 DIARY at Sir George's BOSWELL-1776,51.572

1776 DIARY at Mr. Baron Maule's BOSWELL-1776,52.601

1776 DIARY at Sir George's BOSWELL-1776,52.629

1776 DIARY at Sir George's BOSWELL-1776,53.648

1776 DIARY at my father's BOSWELL-1776,53.670

1776 DIARY at Sir George's BOSWELL-1776,54.680

1776 DIARY at Sir George's BOSWELL-1776,54.698

1776 DIARY at my father's BOSWELL-1776,54.702

1776 DIARY at my father's BOSWELL-1776,55.755

1776 DIARY at Mrs. Boswell of Balmuto's BOSWELL-1776,55.756

1776 DIARY at my father's BOSWELL-1776,56.799

1776 DIARY at Mr. Donaldson the bookseller's BOSWELL-1776,56.805

1776 DIARY at Macqueen's BOSWELL-1776,56.812

1776 DIARY at my father's BOSWELL-1776,56.814

1826 BIOGRAPHY at Mr. West's OKEEFFE-1826,1,2.35

1826 BIOGRAPHY At Lord Trimlestown's OKEEFFE-1826,1,5.71

1826 BIOGRAPHY At Mr. Stewart's OKEEFFE-1826,1,32.339

1826 BIOGRAPHY opposite this Captain Debrisay's OKEEFFE-1826,1,35.365

83

TABLE 10: Results PPCMBE non-elliptical locative possessive

Date Genre Result Corpus File

1826 BIOGRAPHY in St. James's church-yard (OKEEFFE-1826,1,22.230)

1826 BIOGRAPHY in R. B. Sheridan's "Camp" (OKEEFFE-1826,1,36.371)

1826 BIOGRAPHY of my cousin Kavanagh's house (OKEEFFE-1826,1,38.418)

1826 BIOGRAPHY in his mother's house (OKEEFFE-1826,1,44.478)

187x DIARY in Bishop Selwyn's palace (THRING-187X,237.677)

190x DIARY to the Master's Lodge (BENSON-190X,128.722)

84

APPENDIX 2

RESULTS CORPUS RESEARCH: WEST-FLEMISH

TABLE 1: All results elliptical locative possessive

Date Genre Result Corpus File

1273 OFFICIAL bi hannekins henox CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: brugge_1273_3

1290 OFFICIAL tusschen wouters van ombeke

ende wouters van reumste

CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: mechelen_1290_4

1291 OFFICIAL tusschen reiners witleders (ende

ten straetkine)

CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: mechelen_1291_3

1295 OFFICIAL tusschen pieter sagis ende wouters

van den houte

CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: mechelen_1295_4

1297 OFFICIAL achter wouters soelslagers CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: mechelen_1297_3

1307 OFFICIAL tusschen peters van der leyen

ende claus van hackendonc

CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: antwerpen_1307_1

1310 OFFICIAL tusschen meester wouter

bouwelings ende tusschen lams

van maldeghems

CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: dordrecht_1310_3

1310 OFFICIAL tusschen meester wouter

bouwelings ende tusschen lams

van maldeghems

CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: dordrecht_1310_6

1312 OFFICIAL

(CHARTER)

bij sente godelen CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: brussel_1312_1

and CRM14: Oorkonde P065p31201

Brussel, 1312

1312 OFFICIAL

(CHARTER)

tusschen willem tays ende hughes

van Coudenberghe

CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: brussel_1312_1

and

CRM14: Oorkonde P065p31201

Brussel, 1312

1312 CHARTER te sente gorex CRM14: Oorkonde O738r31201

Sint-Kwintens-Lennik of

omgeving, 1312

1334 CHARTER bi Claus Mynschards CRM14: Oorkonde P541r33401

Diest of omgeving, 1334

1338 OFFICIAL

(CHARTER)

tuschen coppins schilts ende

willems kusers

CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: gouda_1338_1

and

CRM14: Oorkonde E209p33801

Gouda, 1338

1348 CHARTER tuschen jan leins […] en_ jan caps CRM14: Oorkonde O245p34801

Sint-Martens-Lennik, 1348

85

1352 CHARTER tot sente guerx CRM14: Oorkonde P065p35201

Brussel, 1352

1362 OFFICIAL bij sinte saluators CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: brugge_1362_1

1370 OFFICIAL tusschen lodewijx van den

boemghaerde ende jans van den

bossche

CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: oudenaarde_1370_1

1370 CHARTER by Ecberte vor-howens CRM14: Oorkonde C108p37001

Groningen, 1370

TABLE 2: All results non-elliptical locative possessive

Date Genre Result Corpus File

1266 OFFICIAL bi smeiers huse CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: gent_1266_1

1266 OFFICIAL bi smeiers lande CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: gent_1266_1

1269 OFFICIAL bi heinekins longhe speis CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: brugge_1269_14

1271 OFFICIAL tusschen hughe arlebouds lande

ende ghiselins kinder lande van

boyderwaen

CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: brugge_1271_2

1279 OFFICIAL tusschen heinrix waldax lant CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: brugge_1279_2

1281 OFFICIAL tusschen Masins f basekins

wedewe lant ende gillis buys lant

CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: brugge_1281_26

1281 OFFICIAL [ove]r gherarts f gherarts kindre

lant

CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: brugge_1281_26

1290 OFFICIAL tusschen hughe bekelins lande

ende vermabelien dancards lande

CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: brugge_1290_12

1290 OFFICIAL tuschen pieter malins wedewe

lande ende […] tuschen den hus

lande van sinte marien

magdalenen

CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: brugge_1290_15

1290 OFFICIAL tusschen hannins f ghuters kindere

land

CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: brugge_1290_8

1290 OFFICIAL tusschen lysebetten warregarens

hofstede ende tusschen margrieten

jans witten dochter hofstede

CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: brugge_1290_9

1290 OFFICIAL tusschen erenbouds guters

hofstede ende ghyselins kindre

vanden moere hofstede

CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: brugge_1290_9

1293 OFFICIAL tusschen [hen]ric gheilincs Ende

den vorseiden erue

CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: dordrecht_1293_4

1293 OFFICIAL tusscen Gocens erue ende wouters

stoppers erue

CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: mechelen_1293_2

1296 OFFICIAL up de hofstede dar ydier pots huus CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: gent_1296_2

86

1296 OFFICIAL naer dar jans vos cousemakers

huus

CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: gent_1296_2

1296 OFFICIAL tusscen gherarts erue van welline

ende maes erue van comene

CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: mechelen_1296_1

1296 OFFICIAL tuschen ians huuse van ypre (ende

den huus daer arnout martin nu in

woent)

CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: gent_1296_1

1297 OFFICIAL tusscen wouters zacdragers erue

(ende daer dese vornomde ian de

weent woent )

CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: mechelen_1297_3

1299 OFFICIAL bi heinriics woninge CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: mechelen_1299_2

1299 OFFICIAL bi willems moure van den sveerde CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: mechelen_1299_4

1299 OFFICIAL den moure symoens van arterike CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: mechelen_1299_4

1306 CHARTER tuschen jacobs hofstede vern

mersende sone en_ tuschen hare_

jacobs hofstede van lichtenberch

CRM14: Oorkonde E192p30601

Utrecht, 1306

1307 OFFICIAL tusschen peters huus vander leve

claus van ackendonc behouden

CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: antwerpen_1307_3

1317 CHARTER bi willams ? huse CRM14: Oorkonde E543r31702

Egmond-Binnen of omgeving,

1317

1317 CHARTER bi willams des ? huus CRM14: Oorkonde E543r31701

Egmond-Binnen of omgeving,

1317

1317 CHARTER tuschen mergrieten swreeden

ghelaghe ende ameloten huise

CRM14: Oorkonde O152p31701

Ninove, 1317

1318 CHARTER tuschen hofstede richaerds verren

oghen erfname […] (en_ tuschen

de Smede~steghe)

CRM14: Oorkonde E192p31801

Utrecht, 1318

1324 CHARTER tuschen hofstede belen die

pelegrims wiif […] en_ tuschen

hofstede peters van + den putte

CRM14: Oorkonde E192p32401

Utrecht, 1324

1328 OFFICIAL tusscen gherards lande van assche

ende machtelden lande ians honts

wedue

CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: dordrecht_1328_1

1328 CHARTER tuschen hofstede tideman

herboerds soens en_ amelijs siins

broeders

CRM14: Oorkonde E192p32801

Utrecht, 1328

1328 CHARTER tuschen hofstede ioncvrouwe

ermegaerden van damasche […]

en_ ionghe wouters van

voerscoten onderdeel

CRM14: Oorkonde E192p32801

Utrecht, 1328

1330 OFFICIAL tusschen den lande beatrise balch

ende tusschen den lande margriete

herlebouds

CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: ieper_1330_1

1330 CHARTER tuschen hofstede niclaes horaers

[…] ende tuschen hofstede

herwiichs van damasche

CRM14: Oorkonde E192p33003

Utrecht, 1330

1330 CHARTER tuschen (hofstede der heren van

oudemu_st__ tutrecht) […] en_

tuschen hofstede hildegonden van

CRM14: Oorkonde E192p33002

Utrecht, 1330

87

hasenberch

1333 CHARTER tot wouters hofstede CRM14: Oorkonde E192p33301

Utrecht, 1333

1333 CHARTER tot wouters hofstede CRM14: Oorkonde E192p33301

Utrecht, 1333

1333 CHARTER tot wouters hofstede CRM14: Oorkonde E192p33301

Utrecht, 1333

1336 OFFICIAL tusschen clays spuuds lande […]

Ende den lande kanin lauwerins

CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: ieper_1336_1

1336 OFFICIAL tusschen jehan spuuds leene […]

Ende willems edewards land

CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: ieper_1336_1

1336 CHARTER tusschen hofstede bernds smeeds

[…] en_ tusschen hofstede

tydeman hasaerds

CRM14: Oorkonde E192p33601

Utrecht, 1336

1339 OFFICIAL tusschen jehans van oost lande

[…] En jehan pradels lande

CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: ieper_1339_1

1339 OFFICIAL tusschen wouters van den walle

lande […] Ende willems van den

hille kindre lande

CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: ieper_1339_1

1341 OFFICIAL tusschen simons lande van scoten

[…] Ende jehan plateels lande

CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: ieper_1341_1

1343 CHARTER tusschen wycheers hofstede de

iacob ? ? beti_mert heeft […]en_

tusschen der stat steghe

CRM14: Oorkonde E192p34302

Utrecht, 1343

1343 CHARTER (tusschen der stat strate ) en_

abraems hofstede van conpestelle

CRM14: Oorkonde E192p34302

Utrecht, 1343

1343 CHARTER tusschen hofstede wouters

voerseyt […]en_ tusschen

hofstede wouters voerseyt

CRM14: Oorkonde E192p34301

Utrecht, 1343

1344 CHARTER bi erve Jans quaden CRM14: Oorkonde P051p34401

Lummen, 1344

1344 CHARTER tuschen peeters mersche van

meerehoutte (En_ vte den

voerghenoemden mersche)

CRM14: Oorkonde O652r34401

Ninove of omgeving, 1344

1345 CHARTER tusschen hofstede mathies en_

auen voerseyt

CRM14: Oorkonde E192p34501

Utrecht, 1345

1349 OFFICIAL

(CHARTER)

tusschen claes hauics erue […]

ende peter leyts erue

CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: amsterdam_1349_1

and

CRM14: Oorkonde E109p34901

Amsterdam, 1349

1350 CHARTER tuschen h_en jans van machareus

goed

CRM14: Oorkonde P565r35001

Brussel of omgeving, 1350

1351 CHARTER (tusschen der hofstede daer peter

de haen op + te woenen plach)

[…]ende tusschen hofstede iohans

swerten erfnamen

CRM14: Oorkonde E192p35101

Utrecht, 1351

1351 OFFICIAL tusschen albrecht vechters soens

erue […] ende diric gherit soens

erue

CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: amsterdam_1351_1

1352 CHARTER bi heinrics erue van beerse van

eenre siden en_ ihans gheheyte_

lappers erue van der anderre siden

CRM14: Oorkonde L724r35201

Oerle of omgeving, 1352

1352 CHARTER bi johans lande hokels CRM14: Oorkonde Q020p35201

88

Sittard, 1352

1352 CHARTER tusschen . didderics lande van

ghelene (ende hams lande)

CRM14: Oorkonde Q020p35201

Sittard, 1352

1352 CHARTER bi johans lande hokels CRM14: Oorkonde Q020p35201

Sittard, 1352

1352 CHARTER tusschen didderics lande van

ghelene (ende hams lande)

CRM14: Oorkonde Q020p35201

Sittard, 1352

1353 CHARTER tuschen hughe slabbaerts huis en_

erue (en_ des proests steghe )

CRM14: Oorkonde E198p35301

Delft, 1353

1354 CHARTER tusschen hofstede Elyaes gans

kindere […] en_ tusschen

hofstede hughe mouwers

mengde heynen sone )

CRM14: Oorkonde E192p35401

Utrecht, 1354

1354 CHARTER tusschen ? peter mouwerkiins

kind_e […] (en_ ? der hofstede

daer dat steenhuys op staet)

CRM14: Oorkonde E192p35401

Utrecht, 1354

1354 CHARTER tusschen hofstede johan rychaerd

soens / ? ? ? […] tusschen

hofstede ghisebrechts backers

CRM14: Oorkonde E192p35401

Utrecht, 1354

1354 CHARTER tusscen iordaens erue van oerle CRM14: Oorkonde L724r35403

Oerle of omgeving, 1354

1354 CHARTER tusscen ihans sgr?ne_ erue en_

wreynse_ erue van oerle

CRM14: Oorkonde L724r35403

Oerle of omgeving, 1354

1356 CHARTER bi lant Johans soens beetsen van

waelhoven

CRM14: Oorkonde Q156a35602

Groot-Loon, 1356

1356 CHARTER tussche_ lant h_en merttijns van

loen Ridders […] end lant

sautaers sint_ cloes van velme

CRM14: Oorkonde Q156a35602

Groot-Loon, 1356

1356 CHARTER bi lant ghilis altb?eter CRM14: Oorkonde Q156a35602

Groot-Loon, 1356

1356 CHARTER bi lant sheylichs~ghees van lewe CRM14: Oorkonde Q156a35602

Groot-Loon, 1356

1356 CHARTER bi lant h_en mertijns van loen CRM14: Oorkonde Q156a35602

Groot-Loon, 1356

1356 CHARTER lant der kind_re welne lambrechs

van pa_brucge_

CRM14: Oorkonde Q156a35602

Groot-Loon, 1356

1356 CHARTER bi lant h_ mertijns van loen

vorgh_

CRM14: Oorkonde Q156a35602

Groot-Loon, 1356

1356 CHARTER an wouters coelen zoe_s la_t CRM14: Oorkonde L724r35601

Oerle of omgeving, 1356

1356 CHARTER by hey_rics Didden raeue_s zoe_s CRM14: Oorkonde L724r35601

Oerle of omgeving, 1356

1358 CHARTER tusschen hofstede haren peters

vten hamme […] ende onser stat

strate

CRM14: Oorkonde E192p35802

Utrecht, 1358

1358 CHARTER tusschen hofstede meyster

gheraerd dymbouts […] ende

tusschen hofstede mengde heynen

erfnamen

CRM14: Oorkonde E192p35802

Utrecht, 1358

1358 CHARTER tusschen hofstede stevens van

groenenwoude […] ende tusschen

hofstede johans pots ende

gheraerds pots

CRM14: Oorkonde E192p35802

Utrecht, 1358

1358 CHARTER tusschen hofstede stevens van CRM14: Oorkonde E192p35802

89

zulen wouters sone van coelen

[…] ende tusschen hofstede /

meyster aernouds voets

Utrecht, 1358

1358 CHARTER tusschen hofstede gherijts van

ameronghen […] ende onser stat

strate

CRM14: Oorkonde E192p35802

Utrecht, 1358

1359 OFFICIAL bi Heinrycs Maghermans huus CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: breda_1359_1

1359 CHARTER bi erve tshere_ van halbeke CRM14: Oorkonde P051p35901

Lummen, 1359

1359 CHARTER bi erve wouters hasen CRM14: Oorkonde P051p35901

Lummen, 1359

1360 CHARTER tuschen hughe slabbaerts huus

ende erue ende des proests steghe

CRM14: Oorkonde E198p36005

Delft, 1360

1362 OFFICIAL naesteN heynrix braderix huuse

wilen

CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: brugge_1362_2

1362 OFFICIAL tote philips Rijnvischs lande CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: brugge_1362_2

1362 CHARTER tusschen Scloesters land van

nieneue en_ des vorseids Jans

ysenbaerds meerssche

CRM14: Oorkonde O652r36201

Ninove of omgeving, 1362

1362 CHARTER tusschen h_en Gherarts kynder

lande van boycholt […] ende

metten lande henekens dochter

van lomme

CRM14: Oorkonde L771r36201

Venlo of omgeving, 1362

1365 CHARTER tusschen hofstede braems (vter

core_marct)

CRM14: Oorkonde E192p36501

Utrecht, 1365

1366 CHARTER bi arnots Symons hoef CRM14: Oorkonde Q599r36601

Meerssen of omgeving, 1366

1366 OFFICIAL tussen Jans huyse van Mechlen

des Vleyshouwers […] ende den

huse dat Jans van Woude Heynric

Smoutkens sone plach te siin

CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: breda_1366_1

1367 CHARTER bi erve willems va_ oesterhoven CRM14: Oorkonde P051p36701

Lummen, 1367

1367 CHARTER bi erve heyliven kindere Moens CRM14: Oorkonde P051p36701

Lummen, 1367

1367 CHARTER bi erve wouters eygrams CRM14: Oorkonde P051p36701

Lummen, 1367

1367 CHARTER tusschen de goede Jans van

zotteghem En_ de goede den

ghasthuse van sente goedelen

CRM14: Oorkonde P065p36703

Brussel, 1367

1367 OFFICIAL

(CHARTER)

tuschen den goede des selfs

Reyners […] en_ den goede joffr_

lijsbetten droeghboschs

CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: brussel_1367_3

and

CRM14: Oorkonde P065p36706

Brussel, 1367

1367 OFFICIAL

(CHARTER)

tusschen de goede willems van

aelst Ende de goede Jans

herdenacke

CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: brussel_1367_2

and

CRM14: Oorkonde P065p36704

Brussel, 1367

1367 OFFICIAL

(CHARTER)

tusschen de goede Gherats van

frazene tsloetmak_s […] En_ de

CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: brussel_1367_1

90

goede lijsbette_ van viluoerden

en_ Jans van Erpe ghehuuschen and

CRM14: Oorkonde P065p36702

Brussel, 1367

1368 CHARTER tuschen jan vems huys en_

aechten jan pieters zoens huys

CRM14: Oorkonde D002p36801

s-Gravenzande, 1368

1368 OFFICIAL tuschen peter byens erue […]

ende jonghe jan comans kinds

erue

CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: breda_1368_1

1369 CHARTER tuschen h_en willems huis van der

stripen (ende tuschen jden huis)

CRM14: Oorkonde Q020p36901

Sittard, 1369

1370 CHARTER bi Elsebeen hues Menoldes CRM14: Oorkonde C108p37002

Groningen, 1370

1370 CHARTER bi Metten hues Rotgers CRM14: Oorkonde C108p37002

Groningen, 1370

1370 CHARTER tusschen hofstede iohans erfnaem

van + den spieghel […] en_

tusschen hofstede roetaerds van +

der sterre en_ ? kiindere

CRM14: Oorkonde E192p37002

Utrecht, 1370

1370 CHARTER tusschen jan boysts huus ende

erue […] ende pieters van oeten

CRM14: Oorkonde O061p37001

Aalst, 1370

1372 CHARTER bi erve godevaerts va_

wymeri_ghe_

CRM14: Oorkonde P051p37201

Lummen, 1372

1372 CHARTER bi erve beateren colen CRM14: Oorkonde P051p37201

Lummen, 1372

1372 CHARTER bi erve johan coex CRM14: Oorkonde P051p37201

Lummen, 1372

1373 CHARTER tusschen andryes huys (end

heylwige_ tijswijf )

CRM14: Oorkonde Q601r37301

Valkenburg of omgeving, 1373

1374 CHARTER bi erve joha_s kinder va_ der

eyken va_ wuestherke

CRM14: Oorkonde P051p37401

Lummen, 1374

1374 CHARTER bi erve ghylis van westerhove CRM14: Oorkonde P051p37401

Lummen, 1374

1374 CHARTER tusschen willems van den

merssche huus ende erue […]

(en_ boudiin boyst an dander side

)

CRM14: Oorkonde O061p37401

Aalst, 1374

1375 CHARTER bi erve der joffrouwe_ va_ Mille CRM14: Oorkonde P051p37502

Lummen, 1375

1375 CHARTER bi erve johan coex CRM14: Oorkonde P051p37502

Lummen, 1375

1375 CHARTER bi erve johan claes CRM14: Oorkonde P051p37502

Lummen, 1375

1375 CHARTER bi erve clarissien va_ den venne CRM14: Oorkonde P051p37502

Lummen, 1375

1375 CHARTER bi erve vreedwiven zeelmekers CRM14: Oorkonde P051p37502

Lummen, 1375

1375 CHARTER bi erve reynken schuermans CRM14: Oorkonde P051p37502

Lummen, 1375

1375 CHARTER tusghen jans dobbelers huys […]

en_ Arnouts knoeps huys

CRM14: Oorkonde P051p37501

Lummen, 1375

1375 CHARTER tusschen h_en tydeman

blanckaerts husinghe […] (en_

fye voncken)

CRM14: Oorkonde E192p37502

Utrecht, 1375

1376 CHARTER bi erve godevaerts va_ herla CRM14: Oorkonde P051p37601

91

Lummen, 1376

1376 CHARTER bi erve katherinen va_ de_ leene CRM14: Oorkonde P051p37601

Lummen, 1376

1377 CHARTER bi sente mertens kerchoue CRM14: Oorkonde P065p37704

Brussel, 1377

1377 CHARTER bi sente mertens kerchoue CRM14: Oorkonde P065p37703

Brussel, 1377

1378 CHARTER bi Emelrikes steenhuze Willams

sone van Lyenden

CRM14: Oorkonde C108p37802

Groningen, 1378

1379 CHARTER bi erve arnouts voers CRM14: Oorkonde P051p37901

Lummen, 1379

1379 CHARTER bi erve johans boghaerts arnouts

brueder voers_

CRM14: Oorkonde P051p37901

Lummen, 1379

1379 CHARTER tusschen jans mersch voers_ (en_

tskloesters mersch voerghenoemt)

CRM14: Oorkonde O652r37901

Ninove of omgeving, 1379

1379 CHARTER tusschen Arnolts Paresijs h?is […]

(En_ Lynen br?nen)

CRM14: Oorkonde Q020p37901

Sittard, 1379

1380 CHARTER Tusschen lande des heren van

abcoude […] (ende der heren

stripe van oudemvnster)

CRM14: Oorkonde E692r38001

Utrecht of omgeving, 1380

1380 CHARTER tuschen des vurg_ ger_ borske_s

ho?e en_ henke_ moutz lande

ende muylkens lande

CRM14: Oorkonde Q613r38002

Heerlen of omgeving, 1380

1381 CHARTER after den hof . henric christians

van hendericke

CRM14: Oorkonde P557r38101

Kuringen of omgeving, 1381

1381 CHARTER tusschen erve poelmans van loen

[….] (en_ Convent van graet)

CRM14: Oorkonde P557r38101

Kuringen of omgeving, 1381

1381 CHARTER bij lant wout_ mersmans CRM14: Oorkonde P049p38101

Donk, 1381

1381 CHARTER tusschen lant wouters va_ + den

vynne en_ wout_s mersmans

CRM14: Oorkonde P049p38101

Donk, 1381

1381 CHARTER bi dat erve rigart van millen CRM14: Oorkonde P557r38101

Kuringen of omgeving, 1381

1381 CHARTER after den hof . henric christians

van hendericke

CRM14: Oorkonde P557r38101

Kuringen of omgeving, 1381

1381 CHARTER bi erve her ghijsbrecht van

brokem

CRM14: Oorkonde P557r38101

Kuringen of omgeving, 1381

1382 OFFICIAL tuschen Wouters erve van

Berghen […] ende Jan Tierloets

erve

CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: breda_1382_1

1382 CHARTER tuschen Dierick Gruters erve […]

(ende Met Foyen erve)

CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: breda_1382_1

1382 OFFICIAL tuschen Willem Heynen soens

erve […] ende Rutten Sniders

erve

CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: breda_1382_1

1382 CHARTER by dat vu?rg_ h_en willems lant CRM14: Oorkonde Q599r38201

Meerssen of omgeving, 1382

1383 CHARTER bi erve des h_en va_ lu_me_ CRM14: Oorkonde P051p38301

Lummen, 1383

1383 CHARTER bi erve jan smeets CRM14: Oorkonde P051p38301

Lummen, 1383

1383 CHARTER bi erve tsh_en va_ lu_me_ voers_ CRM14: Oorkonde P051p38301

Lummen, 1383

92

1383 CHARTER bi erve godevaerts kind_e va_

incslaer

CRM14: Oorkonde P051p38301

Lummen, 1383

1383 CHARTER aen di denkens haghe bi erve

tsh_en van dyest

CRM14: Oorkonde P051p38301

Lummen, 1383

1383 CHARTER bi erve heinric kelbers CRM14: Oorkonde P051p38301

Lummen, 1383

1383 CHARTER bi erve dyderics va_ zanthove_ CRM14: Oorkonde P051p38301

Lummen, 1383

1383 CHARTER bi erve spersoens va_ linckout CRM14: Oorkonde P051p38301

Lummen, 1383

1383 CHARTER tusschen andere lant des cloest_s

van orienten voers_ […] (en_ op

die straete daer men gheet ter

swertsmeren weert)

CRM14: Oorkonde P176p38301

Sint-Truiden, 1383

1383 CHARTER tuschschen gierkijn boerschijns

houe

CRM14: Oorkonde Q613r38301

Heerlen of omgeving, 1383

1383 CHARTER t?ssche_ g?ede of lant bas?ns van

wijc

CRM14: Oorkonde Q595r38301

Maastricht of omgeving, 1383

1383 CHARTER by g?et he_rics va_ Rode CRM14: Oorkonde Q595r38301

Maastricht of omgeving, 1383

1384 CHARTER tusschen jan ruuschen erue […]

en_ jan teten zoens erue

CRM14: Oorkonde E109p38403

Amsterdam, 1384

1384 CHARTER tusschen jan ruusschen erue op

die zuutzide en_ jan teten zoens

erue

CRM14: Oorkonde E109p38404

Amsterdam, 1384

1384 CHARTER by lande des he_en van duras […]

En_ lande der kindere van lille

CRM14: Oorkonde P176p38401

Sint-Truiden, 1384

1384 CHARTER tusschen lande johans van landen

[…] en_ des he_en van duras

voers_ en_ willems van meerhout

schepens sintruden

CRM14: Oorkonde P176p38401

Sint-Truiden, 1384

1384 CHARTER tusschen lande des goetsh?ys van

herkenroyde op […] en_ des

p_soens lande van wilre

CRM14: Oorkonde P176p38401

Sint-Truiden, 1384

1384 CHARTER tusschen lande godijns voers_

[…] en_ heyleven henrich godijns

wijf was

CRM14: Oorkonde P176p38401

Sint-Truiden, 1384

1384 CHARTER tusschen lande des Co_vents van

herkenroyde

CRM14: Oorkonde P176p38401

Sint-Truiden, 1384

1385 CHARTER bi henrikes steenhuze bygordele CRM14: Oorkonde C108p38501

Groningen, 1385

1385 CHARTER aen katheline_ van + d_ rijst huys

[…] en_ Jan costers hof

CRM14: Oorkonde P048p38501

Halen, 1385

1386 CHARTER in piet_ jacobs zoens steghe CRM14: Oorkonde E109p38605

Amsterdam, 1386

1386 CHARTER tot ? egbrechts erue CRM14: Oorkonde E109p38605

Amsterdam, 1386

1386 CHARTER bi ervenisse Renken thies CRM14: Oorkonde Q001p38601

Zonhoven, 1386

1386 CHARTER bi ervenisse johans van + der

warden

CRM14: Oorkonde Q001p38601

Zonhoven, 1386

1386 CHARTER bi ervenisse henric papen neve

[…] en_ ervenisse henric

haghedorne en_ Johan der hase

CRM14: Oorkonde Q001p38601

Zonhoven, 1386

93

1386 CHARTER by Johans heme CRM14: Oorkonde C108p38602

Groningen, 1386

1386 CHARTER by henric clokes hues CRM14: Oorkonde C108p38604

Groningen, 1386

1386 CHARTER in sente Meertens kerke CRM14: Oorkonde C108p38603

Groningen, 1386

1386 CHARTER by Jarich Coppiins zoens erve CRM14: Oorkonde C108p38603

Groningen, 1386

1386 CHARTER by Hanneken Ydens hues CRM14: Oorkonde C108p38603

Groningen, 1386

1386 CHARTER by Berneers steenhues Solleders CRM14: Oorkonde C108p38603

Groningen, 1386

1386 CHARTER in sente Meertens kerke CRM14: Oorkonde C108p38603

Groningen, 1386

1386 CHARTER in sente Meertens kerke CRM14: Oorkonde C108p38603

Groningen, 1386

1386 CHARTER in sente Meertens kerspele CRM14: Oorkonde C108p38603

Groningen, 1386

1387 OFFICIAL tusschen reynoud Jan minneboden

soene lande […] ende witte dirx

zoens lande

CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: dordrecht_1387_1

1387 CHARTER tusschen de goede Gielijs van

rode en_ waut_s quad_mans vloes

CRM14: Oorkonde P049p38701

Donk, 1387

1388 CHARTER tot after an ysebrant claes zoens

wal

CRM14): Oorkonde E579r38802

Beverwijk of omgeving, 1388

1388 CHARTER bi des spape_ lant van loen CRM14: Oorkonde P119p38801

Sint-Lambrechts-Herk, 1388

1388 CHARTER bi den land jans van miest CRM14: Oorkonde P119p38801

Sint-Lambrechts-Herk, 1388

1388 CHARTER bi den land jans van putsinghen CRM14: Oorkonde P119p38801

Sint-Lambrechts-Herk, 1388

1388 CHARTER _ bi den land Arts van den

drijsche

CRM14: Oorkonde P119p38801

Sint-Lambrechts-Herk, 1388

1388 CHARTER bi den land jan mietellers CRM14: Oorkonde P119p38801

Sint-Lambrechts-Herk, 1388

1388 OFFICIAL tusschen mergrieten huse ende

herue vorseid […] ende jacops

correelmakers huse ende herue

CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: oudenaarde_1388_1

1388 CHARTER by sanders hues des smedes CRM14: Oorkonde C108p38802

Groningen, 1388

1389 OFFICIAL tusschen die goide wilen Heinrics

vander meeren […] (ende een

strate aldair sijnde)

CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: brussel_1389_3

1389 OFFICIAL tusschen heeren Aernds Bynstroes

huysinghe was ende erve […]

ende Ghybe Fraays erve

CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: breda_1389_1

1389 CHARTER alre~naest her Jacobs houe CRM14: Oorkonde C108p38903

Groningen, 1389

1389 CHARTER by Weringhers hofstede vors_ CRM14: Oorkonde C108p38902

Groningen, 1389

1389 CHARTER Oesterstrate by Kerstiaen Gelies

zoens steenhues

CRM14: Oorkonde C108p38902

Groningen, 1389

1390 CHARTER neven bosch Amelijs van lassheit

en_ arnouds va_ haesbroech vloes

CRM14: Oorkonde P049p39001

Donk, 1390

94

1390 CHARTER tusschen guede philips va_

basyelisbu?r

CRM14: Oorkonde Q095p39001

Maastricht, 1390

1390 CHARTER tuschen florijs poels hu?s (en_ jan

maselants zoens (onleesbaar) )

CRM14: Oorkonde D002p39002

s-Gravenzande, 1390

1390 CHARTER by Wermer Hilleghen erve CRM14: Oorkonde C108p39003

Groningen, 1390

1390 CHARTER by Arolt bloten erfname_ erue CRM14: Oorkonde C108p39001

Groningen, 1390

1391 CHARTER tusschen husinghe en_ hofstede

johan bonten emmelrics soen […]

(ende herristeghe)

CRM14: Oorkonde E192p39103

Utrecht, 1391

1391 CHARTER tusschen husinghe en_ hofstede

mychiels voerscreuen […] (en_

wouter de ketellaer)

CRM14: Oorkonde E192p39103

Utrecht, 1391

1391 CHARTER by her Jacops hof , CRM14): Oorkonde C108p39101

Groningen, 1391

1392 CHARTER bij lant Johans van nyele vors_ CRM14: Oorkonde Q656r39202

Borgloon of omgeving, 1392

1392 CHARTER bij lant Johan vrancken van

voelen

CRM14: Oorkonde Q656r39202

Borgloon of omgeving, 1392

1392 CHARTER bij lant der Abdissen van

herkenRode

CRM14: Oorkonde Q156a39201

Groot-Loon, 1392

1392 CHARTER achter Roes hoef CRM14: Oorkonde Q156a39201

Groot-Loon, 1392

1392 CHARTER bij lant Joha_s van nyele CRM14: Oorkonde Q156a39201

Groot-Loon, 1392

1392 CHARTER bij lant Andries ver Penxten […]

en_ Robijn hoens lant va_

vrodelinghen

CRM14: Oorkonde Q156a39201

Groot-Loon, 1392

1392 CHARTER bij lant Govart melkartz CRM14: Oorkonde Q156a39201

Groot-Loon, 1392

1393 CHARTER tot pieter dirx zoens erue CRM14: Oorkonde E109p39301

Amsterdam, 1393

1393 CHARTER bi erve _ma_s CRM14: Oorkonde P051p39301

Lummen, 1393

1393 CHARTER bi erve reyners va_ Meensele CRM14: Oorkonde P051p39301

Lummen, 1393

1393 CHARTER bi erve h_en Michghiels kind_e

en_ joha_nes nubeckers

CRM14: Oorkonde P051p39301

Lummen, 1393

1393 CHARTER bi erve sroeden kind_e CRM14: Oorkonde P051p39301

Lummen, 1393

1393 CHARTER bi erve d_ kind_ va_ de_ vinne CRM14: Oorkonde P051p39301

Lummen, 1393

1393 CHARTER bi erve kerstinen enkens va_

attenrode

CRM14: Oorkonde P051p39301

Lummen, 1393

1393 CHARTER tusschen erve kenens droems en_

Johans cupers

CRM14: Oorkonde P057p39301

Kuringen, 1393

1393 CHARTER tusschen erve desselfs heynens

lem_ens en_ henrics wouters

CRM14: Oorkonde P057p39301

Kuringen, 1393

1393 CHARTER bi den lande willem loueneers CRM14: Oorkonde P112p39301

Zoutleeuw, 1393

1393 CHARTER by lant heinric bachuys CRM14: Oorkonde P112p39301

Zoutleeuw, 1393

1394 CHARTER alre~naist wouters dircx zoens CRM14: Oorkonde E198p39401

95

hws en_ erue Delft, 1394

1394 CHARTER bi hof Jan bogarts CRM14: Oorkonde P175p39401

Gingelom, 1394

1394 CHARTER bi lant Joh_es sprute CRM14: Oorkonde P175p39401

Gingelom, 1394

1394 CHARTER tusschen guede Goedards

haerewerck […] en_ guede dyerix

van haren

CRM14: Oorkonde Q595r39401

Maastricht of omgeving, 1394

1394 CHARTER tusschen huyse kenen vetters ende

henrics van tongren

CRM14: Oorkonde Q002p39401

Hasselt, 1394

1394 CHARTER tusschen huyse Johans

van~eelsrake ende willems van

vor~de

CRM14: Oorkonde Q002p39401

Hasselt, 1394

1394 CHARTER tusschen erve des~selfs Johans

(ende willems culsers wijf)

CRM14: Oorkonde Q002p39401

Hasselt, 1394

1394 CHARTER tusschen (erve der beghinen van

hasselt) ende Melis abraens

CRM14: Oorkonde Q002p39401

Hasselt, 1394

1394 CHARTER tusschen gu?ede Reyners walne

van herborch […] en_ guede

Geyelijs des scheres

CRM14: Oorkonde Q095p39404

Maastricht, 1394

1394 CHARTER tusschen dat steynen huys .

katherinen . en_ philips . van der

oyen

CRM14: Oorkonde P176p39402

Sint-Truiden, 1394

1394 CHARTER tusschen de goede Pet_ Jans

voirs_ henrics beetsen en_

henrics va_ lare tsIonxstes

CRM14: Oorkonde P049a39401 ,

1394

1394 CHARTER tusschen eerve meester Laureys

voers_ […] en_ jans kempeners

CRM14: Oorkonde P176p39401

Sint-Truiden, 1394

1394 CHARTER tusschen husinge des voers_

laureys en_ siinre geerve_ en_

jans kempeners

CRM14: Oorkonde P176p39401

Sint-Truiden, 1394

1394 CHARTER achter huys willems CRM14: Oorkonde P176p39401

Sint-Truiden, 1394

1395 CHARTER van baernt claes zoens tv?ne tot

heynric dirx zoens lande

CRM14: Oorkonde E109p39502

Amsterdam, 1395

1395 CHARTER tot an aernt dirx zoens lijnbane CRM14: Oorkonde E109p39505

Amsterdam, 1395

1395 CHARTER tot vrederic gherijts zoens

viuersloete toe

CRM14: Oorkonde E109p39501

Amsterdam, 1395

1395 CHARTER van baernt claes zoens tv?ne tot

heynric dirx zoens lande toe

CRM14: Oorkonde E109p39502

Amsterdam, 1395

1395 CHARTER bi der zuste_n houe CRM14: Oorkonde E109p39502

Amsterdam, 1395

1395 CHARTER tusschen guede Ger?iggen […]

en_ guede Metten suydeweynds

CRM14: Oorkonde Q095p39503

Maastricht, 1395

1395 CHARTER totter schueren h_en willems va_

Eyne_berch Ridders

CRM14: Oorkonde Q095p39502

Maastricht, 1395

1395 CHARTER /tusschen den gu?ede peter

ghewante des volres […] en_ den

gu?ede belen bu?sscops

CRM14: Oorkonde Q095p39502

Maastricht, 1395

1396 CHARTER by Ecberd Ketelhodes steenhues CRM14: Oorkonde C108p39602

Groningen, 1396

1397 CHARTER alre~naist willem harmans zoens

hws en_ erue

CRM14: Oorkonde E198p39701

Delft, 1397

96

1397 CHARTER tuschen guede jacobs des ckers

[…] en_ guede Arnolds des

(onleesbaar)

CRM14: Oorkonde Q095p39702

Maastricht, 1397

1397 CHARTER by Egberd wilghen steenhues CRM14: Oorkonde C108p39701

Groningen, 1397

1398 CHARTER tot an ludolf oedwijns soen CRM14: Oorkonde E579r39802

Beverwijk of omgeving, 1398

1398 CHARTER tuschen gu?ede Mathijs van

byecht des beckers […] en_

tpanhuys leonards walne van

lyechtenburch

CRM14: Oorkonde Q095p39801

Maastricht, 1398

1398 CHARTER tusschen den gueden Johans

stru?euers voers_ […] En_ den

gu?eden Gerarts van Coelen

CRM14: Oorkonde Q095p39802

Maastricht, 1398

1398 CHARTER tusschen erve margrieten

grauwerocs (ende keuens

kind_en)

CRM14: Oorkonde P120p39801

Alken, 1398

1398 CHARTER tusschen erve en_ houz willem

vleminx […] (en_ hueveners

steghe )

CRM14: Oorkonde Q165p39801

Hopmaal, 1398

1398 CHARTER by Egberd wilghen erue CRM14: Oorkonde C108p39801

Groningen, 1398

1398 CHARTER by wicboldes erue CRM14: Oorkonde C108p39802

Groningen, 1398

1398 CHARTER by senter Claes proffien kercken CRM14: Oorkonde Q095p39802

Maastricht, 1398

1398 CHARTER by senter Claes proffien kercken CRM14: Oorkonde Q095p39802

Maastricht, 1398

1399 CHARTER bi die lande henrix van willene CRM14: Oorkonde P225p39901

Korsworm, 1399

1399 CHARTER tusschen erve Costins van Ranst

[…] (en_ die ghemein beemde

va_ zelke)

CRM14: Oorkonde P048p39902

Halen, 1399

1399 CHARTER tusschen lant aelbrecht kiins […]

en_ lant henr_ van eltre

CRM14: Oorkonde P048p39901

Halen, 1399

1399 OFFICIAL tusschen jan jans soens lande […]

(ende den lande dat willem aernt

lycle soens sone daer legghende

hadde )

CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: dordrecht_1399_1

1399 CHARTER by berneer solleders steenhues CRM14: Oorkonde C108p39903

Groningen, 1399

1399 CHARTER by ghebbe smedes erue CRM14: Oorkonde C108p39901

Groningen, 1399

1400 CHARTER by Coppeken erue CRM14: Oorkonde C108p40003

Groningen, 1400

1408 OFFICIAL tusschen Monrijs Gheraetszoens

des marsmans huse […] ende

Gheraet Kemp Gheraetszoens

huse

CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: dordrecht_1408_2

1408 OFFICIAL tusschen Henric des sniders huse

[…] (ende der loeve die brueder

jan Boeye die Augustijn

toebehoert)

CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: dordrecht_1408_2

1410 OFFICIAL tusschen Dirc janszoens erue […] CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

97

ende Claes peter clenerts zoens

erue

1800: amsterdam_1410_1

1430 OFFICIAL tusschen wouter willems soens

erue […] ende dirc gherijts zoens

erue

CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: amsterdam_1430_1

1439 OFFICIAL tusschen Willem cuper die

wantsnyders erue […](ende sinte

Johansstrate voirnoemt)

CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: amsterdam_1439_1

1439 OFFICIAL tot an alijdt gherijt deymans

weduwe ende hoirre kinderen

steynen camer ende erue toe

CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: amsterdam_1439_1

1455 OFFICIAL tot an willem die cupers after erue

toe

CHN): ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: amsterdam_1455_3

1455 OFFICIAL tusschen godeuairt willems zoens

erue […] ende ruusche albert

diers zoens erue

CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: amsterdam_1455_1

1455 OFFICIAL tot an adam die sale jans zoens

erue

CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: amsterdam_1455_1

1472 OFFICIAL tuschen meester willem bouwijns

zoen […] (die heylige geest)

CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: haarlem_1472_1

1492 OFFICIAL naer Sente Jacops costerie CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: gent_1492_1

1492 OFFICIAL naer Sente Niclaus costerye CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: gent_1492_1

TABLE 3: Results intermediate stage following ‘tussen’

Date Genre Result Corpus File

1268 OFFICIAL tuschen heinrix lande van den

poele ende outfards van der mude

CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: brugge_1268_4

1307 OFFICIAL tusschen Pieters huus van der

Leye ende Claus van Ackendonc

CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: antwerpen_1307_2

1309 CHARTER tuschen vern alide lant vrouwe

van den bosche en_ egbrechts

hoers soens

CRM14: Oorkonde E692r30901

Utrecht of omgeving, 1309

1370 CHARTER tusschen jan boysts huus ende

erue […] ende pieters van oeten

CRM14: Oorkonde O061p37001

Aalst, 1370

1378 OFFICIAL tusschen jehan lauwerins […]

Ende den lande der voorseider

catelinen

CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

1800: ieper_1378_1

1381 CHARTER tusschen lant wouters va_ den

vynne en_ wout_s mersmans

CRM14: Oorkonde P049p38101

Donk, 1381

1384 CHARTER tusschen erve des g_ve_ va_ loen

van veghtmale en_ Johan hulkens

des Jonghen

CRM14: Oorkonde Q002p38401

Hasselt, 1384

1384 CHARTER tusschen lande der scholire van

leuwe […] en_ godijns van wilre

voerschreven

CRM14: Oorkonde P176p38401

Sint-Truiden, 1384

98

1384 CHARTER tusschen (lande des Co_vents van

herkenroyde) […] en_ johans

populers

CRM14: Oorkonde P176p38401

Sint-Truiden, 1384

1384 CHARTER tusschen (lande des co_vents van

herkenroyde) […] en_ henrich

borghers

CRM14: Oorkonde P176p38401

Sint-Truiden, 1384

1393 CHARTER tusschen erve kenens droems en_

Johans cupers

CRM14: Oorkonde P057p39301

Kuringen, 1393

1394 CHARTER tusschen huyse kenen vetters ende

henrics van tongren

CRM14: Oorkonde Q002p39401

Hasselt, 1394

1394 CHARTER tusschen huyse Johans

van~eelsrake ende willems van

vor~de

CRM14: Oorkonde Q002p39401

Hasselt, 1394

1394 CHARTER tusschen (erve der beghinen van

hasselt) ende Melis abraens

CRM14: Oorkonde Q002p39401

Hasselt, 1394

1394 CHARTER tusschen dat steynen huys .

katherinen . en_ philips . van der

oyen

CRM14: Oorkonde P176p39402

Sint-Truiden, 1394

1394 CHARTER tusschen de goede Pet_ Jans

voirs_ henrics beetsen en_

henrics va_ lare tsIonxstes

CRM14: Oorkonde P049a39401 ,

1394

1394 CHARTER tusschen eerve meester Laureys

voers_ […] en_ jans kempeners

CRM14: Oorkonde P176p39401

Sint-Truiden, 1394

1394 CHARTER tusschen husinge des voers_

laureys en_ siinre geerve_ en_

jans kempeners

CRM14: Oorkonde P176p39401

Sint-Truiden, 1394

99

APPENDIX 3

SURVEY: LOCATIVE POSSESSIVES IN WEST-FLEMISH

TABLE 1: Personal nouns

Occurrences Construction Occurrences Construction

11 k ga naar Rogers

11 k ben/zin bi Rogers

10 k ben/zin to Rogers

10 k ga naar Georges 0 k ga naar Georgens

9 k ben/zin bi Georges 1 k ben/zin bi Georgens

9 k ben/zin to Georges 1 k ben/zin to Georgens

10 k ga naar Frans 1 k ga naar Fransens

10 k ben/zin bi Frans 1 k ben/zin bi Fransens

7 k ben/zin to Frans 3 k ben/zin to Fransens

10 k ga naar Jeannes

10 k ben/zin bi Jeannes

10 k ben/zin to Jeannes

11 k ga naar Maries

11 k ben/zin bi Maries

11 k ben/zin to Maries

11 Hij woont daar aan Rogers

11 Hij woont daar aan Maries

TABLE 2: Nouns denoting kinship

Occurrences Construction

6 k ga naar min broers

6 k ben/zin bi min broers

100

5 k ben/zin to min broers

6 hij woont daar aan min broers

9 k ga naar min zusters

9 k ben/zin bi min zusters

8 k ben/zin to min zusters

9 hij woont daar aan min zusters

10 k ga naar memes

10 k ben/zin bi memes

9 k ben/zin to memes

10 k ga naar pepes

10 k ben/zin bi pepes

9 k ben/zin to pepes

9 k ga naar min cozins

9 k ben/zin bi min cozins

8 k ben/zin to min cozins

7 k ga naar min nunkels

7 k ben/zin bi min nunkels

7 k ben/zin to min nunkels

7 k ga naar min tantes

7 k ben/zin bi min tantes

7 k ben/zin to min tantes

TABLE 3: Nouns denoting professions

Occurrences Construction

0 k ga naar den coiffeurs

0 k ben/zin bi den coiffeurs

0 k ben/zin to den coiffeurs

6 hij woont daar aan den coiffeurs

0 k ga naar de coiffeuzes

1 k ben/zin bi de coiffeuzes

1 k ben/zin to de coiffeuzes

6 hij woont daar aan de coiffeuzes

101

1 k ga naar den kosters

0 ben/zin bi den kosters

0 k ben/zin to den kosters

6 hij woont daar aan den kosters

2 k ga naar den pasters

1 k ben/zin bi den pasters

1 k ben/zin to den pasters

6 hij woont daar aan den pasters

0 k ga naar den beenhouwers

0 k ben/zin bi den beenhouwers

0 k ben/zin to den beenhouwers

6 hij woont daar aan den beenhouwers

0 k ga naar den gendarms

0 k ben/zin bi den gendarms

0 k ben/zin to den gendarms

0 k ga naar de verpleegsters

0 k ben/zin bi de verpleegsters

0 k ben/zin to de verpleegsters

0 k ga naar de vroedvrouwes

0 k ben/zin bi de vroedvrouwes

0 k ben/zin to de vroedvrouwes

0 k ben/zin to den tantists

0 k è t to den tantists gehoord

0 k ben/zin to den doktoors

3 k è t to den doktoors gehoord

0 k ben/zin to den remplacants

0 k è t to den remplacants gehoord

1 k ben/zin to den boers

1 k è t to den boers gehoord

1 k ben/zin to den melkboers

1 k è t to den melkboers gehoord

0 k ben/zin to den bakkers

2 2 k è t to den bakkers gehoord

102

TABLE 4: Complex noun phrases

Occurrences Construction

2 k ga naar min odsten cozins

2 k ben/zin bi min odsten cozins

1 k ben/zin to min odsten cozins

4 k ga naar min jongste zusters

4 k ben/zin bi min jongste zusters

4 k ben/zin to min jongste zusters

1 k ga naar min groten broers

1 k ben/zin bi min groten broers

1 k ben/zin to min groten broers

0 k ga naar min zieke groovaders

0 k ben/zin bi min zieke groovaders

0 k ben/zin to min zieke groovaders

0 k ga naar den nieuwen melkboers

0 k ben/zin bi den nieuwen melkboers

0 k ben/zin to den nieuwen melkboers

0 k ga naar den rosten bakkers

0 k ben/zin bi den rosten bakkers

0 k ben/zin to den rosten bakkers

0 k ga naar den ouden pasters

0 k ben/zin bi den ouden pasters

0 k ben/zin to den ouden pasters

TABLE 5: Complex noun phrases with different types of possessives

Occurrences Construction

10 Meme ze kabaa

7 Meme eurne kabaa

2 Memes kabaa

103

10 Ma ze sjaal

7 Ma eurne sjaal

2 Mas sjal

10 Christine zen auto

8 Christine eurnen auto

1 Christines auto

0 Marie ze chacosse

10 Marie eur chacosse

1 Maries chacosse

3 k ben/zin to Rogers moeders

2 k ben/zin to Roger se moeders

3 k ben/zin to Roger zen moeders

0 k ben/zin to den doktoors remplacants

0 k ben/zin to den doktoor se remplacants

0 k ben/zin to den doktoor zenen remplacants

1 k ben/zin to de pasters zusters

0 k ben/zin to de paster se zusters

2 k ben/zin to de paster zen zusters

TABLE 6: Postmodification

Occurrences Construction

7 k ben/zin to min zusters in Gent

0 k ben/zin to min zuster in Gents

2 k ben/zin to men juffrouws

0 k ben/zin to men juffrouws van Frans

1 k ben/zin to men juffrouw van Fransens

4 k ben/zin to de meesters

0 k ben/zin to de meesters van Frans

1 k ben/zin to de meester van Fransens

104

TABLE 7: Pronouns

Occurrences Construction

1st person PL

8 hij komt naar toenzens

8 hij is toenzens

7 hij is to toenzens

8 hij is bi toenzens

2nd

person PL

8 k ga naar tjunders / tulders

8 k ben/zin tjunders / tulders

7 k ben/zin to tjunders /tulders

8 k ben/zin bi tjunders / tulders

3rd

person PL

8 k ga naar tunders

7 k ben/zin to tunders

8 k ben/zin bi tunders

1st person SG

0 k ga naar tminnes

0 k ben/zin to tminnes

0 k ben/zin bi tminnes

2nd

person SG

0 k ga naar tjonnes

0 k ben/zin to tjonnes

0 k ben/zin bi tjonnes

3rd

person SG

0 k ga naar de zins

0 k ben/zin to de zins

0 k ben/zin bi de zins

105

APPENDIX 4

BNC RESEARCH: LOCATIVE POSSESSIVES IN MODERN BRITISH ENGLISH

TABLE 1: Proper nouns

Query Nr. Result Corpus File

at John’s/

to John’s

6 At John’s KC0 921

I don't, cos he's naughty at John's. KCT 7000

Bleary-eyed, at the appointed hour I loaded the

car at John's with two large display cases,

posters, boxes of lead, a bag of pre-decimal

coinage, two folding chairs, a roll of velvet

material — and the kitchen sink!

G2Y 286

She'll be round on Friday afternoon or Saturday

some time I said we'd be here from four o'clock

on Friday so I'll take it down to John's today

then it's away to work I've got the rubbish in the

bins right?

KDN 12

See when I go down to John's now I'm out like a

light there.

KDN 5451

He realizes he left it behind because he doesn't

really want to go to John's.

HGU 441

at Mary’s/

to Mary’s

1 I could see Dad was worried so after a couple of

hours of hanging about I offered to return to

Mary's.

CDM 1843

at Ann’s/

to Ann’s

1 It's The Match on ITV, and Tommy and Iain

decide to watch it at Ann's.

FBM 3176

TABLE 2: Nouns denoting kinship

Query Nr. Result Corpus File

at my brother’s/ to

my brother’s

2 For instance when he visited Manchester in 1814

he wrote 9th September — an exceedingly

pleasant ride all the way from Leicester to

Manchester…we found my poor mother

(actually his step-mother) surprisingly well for a

person of 80 — dined at Brother's and drank tea

with my mother and Aunt Weston

B3H 228

‘Thomas, that night in the car, when you drove

me to my brother's, you showed me your…’

FNT 1109

106

at my sister’s/ to my

sister’s

5 At half-past twelve, Mum and Dad will be on

their way to my sister's in Ipswich.

AT3 227

I'd like just to pop round to my sister's — that

sort of thing…;

EBR 1498

My sister and me are very close, so this woman

gave me a giro to go to my sister's — they took

me to the station and put me on the train.

EG0 457

I went to the shop yesterday, I was at my sister's

but I, oh!

KDV 148

Oh I had really good time at my sister's KDY 1158

at my nan’s/ to my

nan’s

1 When I stayed overnight at my nan's, which I

often did, I actually slept in a room next to

where the old monastery used to be.

CHE 402

at my granddad’s/ to

my granddad’s

1 stay at granddad's for a little while, while daddy

watches that film and then go and see other

nanny for a little while, cos you've got no

playschool tomorrow so you haven't got to get

up early have you?

KD1 1606

at my cousin’s/ to my

cousin’s

2 No we're stopping at my cousin's. KBC 467

Erm er, no we're going to my cousin's. KBC 406

at my uncle’s/ to my

uncle’s

0

at my aunt’s/ to my

aunt’s

1 ‘I'm going to my aunt's for tea.’ HGN 581

TABLE 3: Nouns denoting professions

Query Nr. Result Corpus File

at the hairdresser’s/

to the hairdresser’s

11 Before leaving London that morning she had

spent time at the hairdresser's.

HNK 1608

I have even seen him at the hairdresser's,

supporting her head as her hair is washed.

G2V 2197

I should just about have finished at the

hairdresser's by then.

G1W 1034

The big dyeing job was done twice a year at the

hairdresser's, but every month or so in between,

Mrs Wormwood used to freshen it up by giving

it a rinse in the washbasin with something called

PLATINUM BLONDE HAIR-DYE EXTRA

STRONG.

CH4 626

Last night I dreamed I used a chair at the

hairdresser's as a toilet and Maggie Smith was in

the next chair.

H9Y 2566

Last time I went to the hairdresser's I was so

crippled with period pains I drank three instant g

& t's on the bus.

A0L 1050

107

‘The latest idea is to actually take them out to

the hairdresser's or shopping, so that happens

every month without fail, sometimes more often.

B32 2416

During a visit to the hairdresser's I realized that

we women are prepared to put ourselves through

the most extraordinary practices in order to

improve our image.

CCN 111

A double line of parked cars ran parallel to the

pavements from the paper shop to the pub and

the grocer's to the hairdresser's.

CDB 98

He did not resent her visit to the hairdresser's. G1W 1077

When I came back, cos I went in on the way to

the hairdresser's, to find out about it, and I

thought I'd buy him on the way back, when I

went back it was still sitting in the same place

with its tail hanging out

KBK 4243

at the priest’s/ to the

priest’s

0

at the vicar’s/ to the

vicar’s

0

at the butcher’s/ to

the butcher’s

4 ‘She leads him a right dance,’ the nans would

say, during their daily exchange of news and

analysis in the queue at the butcher's, until

finally she danced off for good and all and left

him with his mother and his clapped-out BSA

and his jars of Brylcreem and his collection of

78 records and a lifetime's cumulation of

unarticulated resentments.

F9C 3156

I saw her at the butcher's this morning. FRJ 788

At the butcher's. G0Y 1333

Across the road to the butcher's where they

looked in the window to see back at the

reflection of Hogan's Outfitters and realise that

Sean Walsh had gone back inside to the empire

that would one day be his.

CCM 1141

at the baker’s/ to the

baker’s

5 At the baker's I offered to exchange my leather

gloves for a small cake, but the baker's wife

looked at my dirty clothes and said, ‘I'm sorry,

but how do I know you haven't stolen them?

FR6 2117

I sent Peggy down to the village for yeast and

old Meg was at the baker's, first time in months,

and she says her master's back.

H8X 2878

Got these at the baker's for next to nothin', by

the by.’

H8Y 1578

That was next door next door to the baker's FYE 40

On Saturdays as a special treat Granpa would

allow me to go along with him to the early

morning market in Covent Garden, where he

would select the fruit and vegetables that we

would later sell from his pitch, just opposite Mr

Salmon's and Dunkley's, the fish and chippy that

stood next to the baker's.

K8T 32

108

at the fishmonger’s/

to the fishmonger’s

0

at the officer’s/ to the

officer’s

0

at the nurse’s/ to the

nurse’s

0

at the dentist’s/ to the

dentist’s

5 It was around this time that Seth began a new

romance, with Susan Schilling, a preacher's

daughter he met at the dentist's.

ABS 1215

Back at the dentist's the waiting-room was

packed.

ABX 1182

Where's the scruffy page I tore out of that

magazine at the dentist's?

BMS 112

MAX: She should be at the dentist's all day

tomorrow.

FRH 799

‘You don't go to the dentist's because you've got

toothache any more.’

A73 1427

at the doctor’s/ to the

doctor’s

20 at the doctor’s; CHR 196

So beware at the doctor's. CHR 205

Jokes not to tell at the doctor’s; CHR 432

Don't be worried if you have to have an injection

at the clinic or at the doctor's , because the

syringes they use are sterilised and used only

once.

CJ9 2252

This says I was good at the doctor's today? GYD 270

You probably felt it today because you were up

and about at the doctor's.

H9H 1611

I always cry at the doctor's, have done for years. H9Y 494

At the doctor's I generally last four minutes

before collapsing whilst trying to describe the

muscle pain which he knows is a muscle pain

but which I know he's only saying is a muscle

pain to disguise the seriousness of his true

diagnosis.

H9Y 1366

She's always at the doctor's with her leg. HH9 243

‘I'll pop in at the doctor's when I go down for

my shopping,’ Mrs Hellyer said.

HH9 249

‘I saw it at the doctor's on the board — an’ I

wrote it down after last week — I didn't know

what else to do.

HJH 1677

How did you get on at the doctor's? KC5 361

He collapsed at Debbie's on Wednesday night,

well he fell, bumped his head sort of fall down

so the doctor come yesterday, tt, and he had to

stop in bed two or three days and go at the

doctor's for ten minute appointment and he

bloody test and to see why he's lost so much

weight cos his legs are like that.

KRO 28

Many children don't look forward to a visit to

the doctor's — not surprising, as they may

associate it with illness or injections.

CB8 3288

109

But you couldn't go to the doctor's until surgery

time, that were six o'clock you see.

FY1 468

I took I went to the doctor's and he gave me

medicinal duty.

FYE 331

And er I remember going to the doctor's with me

Mother and where as we sat in the surgery which

was packed, eventually the old doctor come out

of the door

FY1 491

I never know what it was to,not do anything, go,

go to the doctor's and be bad or anything like

that.

G4R 136

Anyhow, my father's just taken her to the

doctor's, so I thought I'd give you a ring.

JY1 619

Claire said: ‘I had to take Rachel to the doctor's

because she was so poorly.

K54 2819

at the farmer’s/ to the

farmer’s

0

TABLE 4: Complex noun phrases

Query Nr. Result Corpus File

at my eldest

cousin’s/ to my

eldest cousin’s

0

at my little sister’s/

to my little sister’s

0

at my late

grandfather’s/ to my

late grandfather’s

0

at my sick

grandmother’s/ to my

sick grandmother’s

0

at the tall baker’s/ to

the tall baker’s

0

at the old priest’s/ to

the old priest’s

0

at John’s mother’s/

to John’s mother’s

0

at my friend’s sisters/

to my friend’s

sister’s

0

at my French

teacher’s/ to my

French teacher’s

0