1 8 Arthur Garfield Kennedy 



done very frequently even in the Beozvulf. On the contrary 

 very few examples are found of the other uses of adjective sub- 

 stantives, so common in later English. 



Judging from conditions as we find them in Chaucer, we can 

 not say that the process of substantivation in the fourteenth cen- 

 tury was much different from that of the twentieth century. A 

 large per cent of the examples which have 'been given can be 

 paralleled in modern English. We substantivize as many of our 

 adjectives as Chaucer did. In fact almost every adjective can 

 be so used. 



The narrowing in is in the manner of substantivation. We 

 can not substantivize in as many ways as did earlier speakers of 

 English. This is doubtless what Franz means when he says,^ 

 "Die Grenze, innerhalb deren die Substantivirung des Adjectivs 

 moglich ist, sind in Shakespeare's Zeit noch wesentlich weitere 

 als in der modernen Sprache."' This is true especially with re- 

 gard to the definite article. As a general rule we never think of 

 omitting the article when we make personal substantives of ad- 

 jectives. Where Chaucer said, "The way of blynde" we must 

 write, "The way of the blind." 



One exception to this rule is found in such couplets as young 

 and old, good and bad, 7vise and foolish, living and dead. This 

 is apparently an isolated survival of a use common in the time 

 of Chaucer. 



We find the personal adjective substantives in the plural, 

 (with -s) , at about the same stage of substantivation in Chaucer 

 as in modern English. This seems also true of the adverbial 

 expressions. At last appears, with Chaucer, to mean finally, just 

 as it does to-day. 



In the case of partially substantivized adjectives we find a 

 complete change since the fourteenth century. Chaucer used 

 the adjective with one very seldom ; to-day it is our most com- 

 mon method of substantivizing. , On the other hand, the ad- 

 jective referring to a preceding noun as a good man and a true, 

 was quite common in Chaucer's day and became even more so in 

 Shakespeare's time ; to-day we find few instances of such usage. 



^Shakespeare Grammatik, p. 60. 



268 



