「君主の we」 (royal_we) について「#5284. 単数の we --- royal we, authorial we, editorial we」 ([2023-10-15-1]) や「#5692. royal we --- 君主は自身を I ではなく we と呼ぶ？」 ([2024-11-26-1]) の記事で取り上げてきた．
OED の記述によると，古英語に royal we の古い例とおぼしきものが散見されるが，いずれも真正な例かどうかの判断が難しいとされる．Mitchell の OES (§252) への参照があったので，そちらを当たってみた．
§252. There are also places where a single individual other than an author seems to use the first person plural. But in some of these at any rate the reference may be to more than one. Thus GK and OED take we in Beo 958 We þæt ellenweorc estum miclum, || feohtan fremedon as referring to Beowulf alone---the so-called 'plural of majesty'. But it is more probably a genuine plural; as Klaeber has it 'Beowulf generously includes his men.' Such examples as ÆCHom i. 418. 31 Witodlice we beorgað ðinre ylde: gehyrsuma urum bebodum . . . and ÆCHom i. 428. 20 Awurp ðone truwan ðines drycræftes, and gerece us ðine mægðe (where the Emperor Decius addresses Sixtus and St. Laurence respectively) may perhaps also have a plural reference; note that Decius uses the singular in ÆCHom i. 426. 4 Ic geseo . . . me . . . ic sweige . . . ic and that in § ii. 128. 6 Gehyrsumiað eadmodlice on eallum ðingum Augustine, þone ðe we eow to ealdre gesetton. . . . Se Ælmihtiga God þurh his gife eow gescylde and geunne me þæt ic mote eoweres geswinces wæstm on ðam ecan eðele geseon . . . , where Pope Gregory changes from we to ic, we may include his advisers. If any of these are accepted as examples of the 'plural of majesty', they pre-date that from the proclamation of Henry II (sic) quoted by Bøgholm (Jespersen Gram. Misc., p. 219). But in this too we may include advisers: þæt witen ge wel alle, þæt we willen and unnen þæt þæt ure ræadesmen alle, oþer þe moare dæl of heom þæt beoþ ichosen þurg us and þurg þæt loandes folk, on ure kyneriche, habbeþ idon . . . beo stedefæst.
ここでは royal we らしく解せる古英語の例がいくつか挙げられているが，確かにいずれも1人称複数の用例として解釈することも可能である．最後に付言されている初期中英語からの例にしても，royal we の用例だと確言できるわけではない．素直な1人称複数とも解釈し得るのだ．いつの間にか，文献学と社会歴史語用論の沼に誘われてしまった感がある．
ちなみに，上記引用中の "the proclamation of Henry II" は "the proclamation of Henry III" の誤りである．英語史上とても重要な「#2561. The Proclamation of Henry III」 ([2016-05-01-1]) を参照．
・ Mitchell, Bruce. Old English Syntax. 2 vols. New York: OUP, 1985.
以前に「#1511. 古英語期の sc の口蓋化・歯擦化」 ([2013-06-16-1]) で取り上げた話題．古英語の2重字 (digraph) である <sc> について，依拠する文献を Prins に変え，そこで何が述べられているかを確認し，理解を深めたい．Prins (203--04) より引用する．
7.16 PG sk
PG sk was palatalized:
1. In initial position before all vowels and consonants:
OE Du sčēap 'sheep' schaap WS sčield A scčeld 'shield' schild sčēawian 'to show' schouwen G schauen sčendan 'to damage' schenden sčrud 'shroud'
2. Medially between palatal vowels and especially when followed originally by i(:) or j:
þrysče 'thrush'
wysčean 'to wish'
3. Finally after palatal vowels:
æsč 'ash'
disč 'dish'
Englisč 'English'
古英語研究では通常，口蓋化した <sc> の音価は [ʃ] とされているが，Prins (204) の注によると，本当に [ʃ] だったかどうかはわからないという．むしろ [sx] だったのではないかと議論されている．
Note 2. In reading OE we generally read sc(e) as [ʃ], but there is no definite proof that this was the pronunciation before the ME period (when the French spelling s, ss is found, and the spelling sh is introduced).
In Ælfric sc alliterates with sp, and st. So s must have been the first element. The second element cannot have been k, since Scandinavian loanwords (which must have been adopted in lOE) still have sk: skin, skill.
The pronunciation in OE was probably [sx]. Cf. Dutch schoon [sxo:n], schip [sxip], which in the transition period to eME or in eME itself, must have become [ʃ].
・ Prins, A. A. A History of English Phonemes. 2nd ed. Leiden: Leiden UP, 1974.
Powered by WinChalow1.0rc4 based on chalow