DIY History | Transcribe | Scholarship at Iowa | The Subjunctive in the Chanson de Roland by Frank Emil Lodeman, 1892 | The Subjunctive in the Chanson de Roland by Frank Emil Lodeman, 1892, Page 10

Transcribe
Translate

The Subjunctive in the Chanson de Roland by Frank Emil Lodeman, 1892

The Subjunctive in the Chanson de Roland by Frank Emil Lodeman, 1892, Page 10

3 pers. sing., imperfect tense.
1779. Pur ço le fist, ne fust aparissant

The imperfect subjunctive appears but seldom in this connection, the above instance being the only one noted in the Chanson de Roland. Even this may be [illegible] in two ways. The clause "ne fust aparissant" is independent in form, and, as such, the verb may be considered as being in the subjunctive of Desire. But perhaps the more logical way would be to consider it as a clause denoting purpose with the conjunction omitted. The Old French is partial  to such constructions, and many examples occur of dependent clauses in the form of independent sentences. They are frequent after verbs of commanding, wishing, &c.

In all the examples thus far given, the conjunction is omitted, but, in Line 1693, the clause is apparently introduced by que.

1693. Bels chiers cumpainz pur Deu que vus [enhaitet?].
1694. [Tanz?] [bous?] vassals [veez?] gesir par [tere?].

Saving...

3 pers. sing., imperfect tense. 1779. Pur ço le fist, ne fust aparissant The imperfect subjunctive appears but seldom in this connection, the above instance being the only one noted in the Chanson de Roland. Even this may be [illegible] in two ways. The clause "ne fust aparissant" is independent in form, and, as such, the verb may be considered as being in the subjunctive of Desire. But perhaps the more logical way would be to consider it as a clause denoting purpose with the conjunction omitted. The Old French is partial to such constructions, and many examples occur of dependent clauses in the form of independent sentences. They are frequent after verbs of commanding, wishing, &c. In all the examples thus far given, the conjunction is omitted, but, in Line 1693, the clause is apparently introduced by que. 1693. Bels chiers cumpainz pur Deu que vus [enhaitet?]. 1694. [Tanz?] [bous?] vassals [veez?] gesir par [tere?].