Chapter 8

Shakespearean Grammar
If we want to ‘make sense’ of Shakespeare, we have to look to his grammar. Much like vocabulary, the
grammatical rules of English have changed very little over the past 400 years. And the parts that have changed
are because of the way grammar operates within discourse especially in verse with metre complicated word order.
Grammar reflects the way we think – more precisely, the way we process our thoughts – and the main unit in
which we organize our thoughts is the sentence.
There are two branches to the study of grammar:
1. Syntax: is the study of sentence structure and the analysis of word order.
2. Morphology: is the study of word structure (think thinks, thinking) and of the way they build up complex
units out of simple elements (e.g. witch> bewitch > bewitchment).
Traditional accounts of Shakespeare’s grammar presented detailed accounts of morphology, listing all the
irregular verbs, adjectives, and so on that differed from Modern English, and paid relatively little attention to
word order. But keep in mind that this complex grammar is only a small section of Shakespeare’s overall
grammar. Crystal recommends familiarizing ourselves with them to prevent any distractions. ( Example: common
old pronoun he uses: thou, thee, thy, thine, thyself. )
even a small, strange part of a word can change the way something is said. Using odd grammar or vocabulary, no
matter how small, gives an alien appearance to a speech which in all other respects is grammatically identical
with Modern English

Similarities and Differences

Just like a glossary, a grammatical reference book is needed to fully understand the grammar. There are always
three perspectives to take into account when studying Shakespearean grammar:
1. forms or constructions used by him that we still use today
2. forms or constructions used by him that are not used today
3. forms or constructions we use today which are not used by him at all
We need to be careful not to judge Shakespeare's writing by the grammar rules that came later, especially the
made-up rules that English experts in the 1700s and later times created. We have to take into account that during
his time, the rules were not as tightly constrained as in later centuries. The following instances were considerd
grammatically correct:
1. Plural subject with singular verb requires
 “My old bones akes”
2. A singular verb following a coordinated subject
 Our Master and Mistresse seekes you
3. Double negatives
 I haven’t got none neither
 Nouns
Nouns are a perfect example of differences between usage today and early Modern English. Like before, almost
all variation of nouns (singular, plural, irregular, etc). Examples of some noticeable differences are:
a. the lack of apostrophe marking possession
b. Capitalization used for some of the common nouns
c. Uncountable nouns that were countable then (example: musics, informations)

Adjectives
The below system had been established by Shakespeare’s time.

But some of Shakespeare’s plays prove that the system had not finished developing.
 more great, more long, more near instead of greater, longer and nearer
 the use of double comparatives (more larger, most bravest)
 Having different ways to arrange words rhythmically can really help a poet, especially when they're trying
to follow a specific beat or pattern in their writing.

 Word order: “a good Lady, and a wise, and Vertuous” instead of “good, wise, and virtuous lady”
 Verbs
The general form of present tense and past tense ( I walk / I walked ) had already formed by Shakespeare’s time.
There are still some differences:
 Two verb endings. -est for the second-person singular following thou (thou goest, thou know’st); and -th
or -eth for the third-person singular (she goeth, she hath).
 The forms of the verb to be also included four older items: art, beest, wert, wast.
We can actually see the change in the language taking place if we order the plays chronologically and look at the
distribution of verbs with a -th ending. There are 300 instances of –th; which is not a large number compared to
all the third-person forms in his plays. The -s ending is the dominant one throughout the whole period. But why
did he use –th if it was dying out anyways?
1. Metrical constraints are the usual explanation. The -eth ending adds an extra unstressed syllable to a word.
2. Folk songs where the usage is fixed.
3. When a character in a play is more old fashioned with a traditional vocabulary.

PAST TENSE
Most past regular and irregular forms have not changed much. Some differences are:
1. some verbs are irregular in Shakespeare which have become regular today. Example: holp (helped)
2. some verbs are regular in Shakespeare which have become irregular today. Example: digged (dug)
3. some irregular Shakespeare verbs stay irregular, but in a different way. Example: spake (spoke)
4. The co-existence of changes in grammar. Example: “None are so surely caught, when they are catcht”.
Other than the rhythmic help, catcht here also seems to convey a more dynamic sense than caught

Pronouns
Because of their frequency, the use of thou-forms and you-forms dominates any discussion of Shakespearean
pronouns. The thou-forms are thou, thee, thy, thine, and thyselfe. The you-forms are you, ye, your, yours, and
your selfe.
Compositors were having trouble with spacing reflexive nouns: itselfe and themselves are always printed solid;
my selfe is usually spaced.
You-forms are more frequent than thou-forms. The forms for thou and you have attracted especial attention in the
linguistics literature because they are important markers of social and attitudinal differences between people. In
Old English, thou was singular and you was plural. But during the thirteenth century, you began to be used as a
polite form of the singular – probably because people copied the French manner of talking, where vous was used
in that way. English then became like French, which has tu and vous both possible for singulars. So now there
was a choice. The usual thing was for you to be used by inferiors to superiors – such as children to parents, or
servants to masters; and thou to be used in return. But people would also use thou when they wanted special
intimacy, such as when addressing God; and thou was also normal when the lower classes talked to each other.
The upper classes used you to each other, as a rule, even when they were closely related.
So when someone changes from thou to you (or vice versa) in a conversation, it must mean something. The
change will convey a different emotion or mood. The new meaning could be virtually anything – affection, anger,
distance, sarcasm, playfulness ...To say thou to someone could be an insult or indicate anger.
The old grammatical distinction between ye (as the subject of a clause) and you (as the object) had long gone by
Shakespeare’s time, as had any trace of a distinction between singular and plural. The hugely dominant form was
you – over 13,000 instances in the plays, compared with just 342 of ye. And the two forms at times seem
interchangeable.
With such dominance of you, why was any use still made of ye at all? When it comes to meter, both words are
just one syllable, so that's not a factor. Also, unlike the "-eth" forms, which changed over time, there's no clear
chronological progression with "ye." The reason is
a. Here it is simply a matter of style.
b. ye was not a poetic form. It was used in situational informality.
c. Grammar: it is likely to be used in vocatives (ye people, ye citizens, ye Gods) and certain fixed attention-
getting phrases (hark ye, beseech ye)
the system of relative pronouns (as in the table which was broken ...) was in a somewhat unstable state – as indeed
it still is, for the choice between which and that is not entirely systematic today. But at least today there is no
uncertainty over animateness: a human noun is followed by a human pronoun (the man who ...); an inanimate
noun is followed by an inanimate pronoun (the book which ...). This distinction was not entirely systematic in
Early Modern English either. It operates most of the time, but there are exceptions.
But there is one type of pronoun usage that is so far removed from Modern English norms that, without special
study, we are likely to miss the meaning of the sentence altogether. This is the so-called ethical dative. Early
Modern English allowed a personal pronoun after a verb to express such notions as ‘to’, ‘for’, ‘by’, ‘with’ or
‘from’.
 “ But hear me this” = But hear this from me”
 John layes you plots” = John lays plots for you to fall into”

Word Order
Most of the really unfamiliar deviations from Modern English grammatical norms which we encounter in
Shakespeare arise in his verse. The more a metre forces grammatical deviations within a line, the more difficult
the line will be to understand.
DEVIATIONS:
1. Some deviant word orders do not cause a problem for comprehension. Such as:
 2. The verb/subject reversal of order is a little different (he dreames > dreames he), as is the reversal between
the verb and its following verblike adjective (are tainted > tainted are). These are word-orders which have
long disappeared from standard English. They can cause problems for comprehension. Example:
 The girl saw the boy / the boy saw the girl.
Because of the modern English grammar (subject + verb + object) the meaning in both sentences is clear. But
 The boy the girl saw
It is no longer clear who saw whom. An example from Shakespeare is:
 ’Tis but an houre agoe, since it was nine’ = It was nine but an hour ago