Old English Universal Dependencies: Categories, Functions and
Specific Fields
Javier Martín Arista
a
Department of Modern Languages, University of La Rioja, E26004, Spain
Keywords: Universal Dependencies, Old English.
Abstract: The aim of this paper is to lay the foundations of the application of the framework of Universal Dependencies
to Old English. Such application will result in the morphological and syntactic annotation of a large data set
of Old English with Universal Dependencies categories and relations. The aim of this paper involves two
tasks. Firstly, it is necessary to select the relevant categories from the set of universal part-of-speech tags and
to identify the Old English exponents of the universal set of morphological features. Secondly, the dependency
relations holding in Old English should be listed. The main conclusion of this paper is that two specific fields
should be added to the standard Universal Dependencies annotation scheme in order to account to two central
aspects of Old English, namely, a gloss field, given the historical character of the language; and a
morphological relatedness field, in order to account for its associative lexicon.
1 INTRODUCTION
The aim of this paper is to lay the foundations of the
application of the framework of Universal
Dependencies (hereafter UD) to Old English. The
research reported here is the point of departure of the
morphological and syntactic annotation with UD of
ParCorOEv2 (henceforth ParCor), an open access
annotated parallel corpus Old English-English
(Martín Arista et al., 2021). Ultimately, the digitised
annotation of ParCor with structured data in a
relational database will allow for the computational
processing of Old English, including the specific
tools and techniques for low-resource languages
(Anastasopoulos 2019).
Universal Dependencies (de Marneffe et al.,
2021) is a model of morphological and syntactic
annotation devised for the compilation of
computerised data sets that facilitate cross-linguistic
comparison (de Marneffe et al., 2014) aimed to
natural language processing (Nivre, 2015) and to
areas of applied linguistics like language acquisition
and translation (MacDonald et al., 2013; Nivre,
2016). The annotation includes UPOS (universal part-
of-speech tags; Petrov et al., 2012), XPOS (language-
specific part-of-speech tags), Feats (universal
a
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9900-0104
morphological features), lemmas, and dependency
heads and labels (Nivre et al., 2016). The 2015 release
of the UD dataset consisted of ten treebanks
representing ten languages, whereas the 2021 release
comprises 183 treebanks over 104 languages (Nivre
et al., 2020).
Old English is the historical stage of the English
language spoken in England between approximately
the 5
th
and the 11
th
centuries (CE). Written records,
which can be traced back to the 8
th
century onwards,
comprise approximately 3 million words in around
3,000 texts. The main lexicographical sources of Old
English include the dictionaries by Bosworth-Toller
(1973), Sweet (1976) and Clark-Hall (1996), as well
as the Dictionary of Old English (Healey, 2018). The
main textual sources of Old English are The
Dictionary of Old English web corpus (3,000,000
words; Healey et al., 2004) and The York-Toronto-
Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Old English Prose (Taylor
et al., 2003).
The paper is organised as follows. Section 2 and
Section 3 focus on the categorial part, while Section
4 deals with relational aspects. Section 5 presents the
extra fields required by Old English. Section 6 draws
the main conclusions.
Arista, J.
Old English Universal Dependencies: Categories, Functions and Specific Fields.
DOI: 10.5220/0010977300003116
In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence (ICAART 2022) - Volume 3, pages 945-951
ISBN: 978-989-758-547-0; ISSN: 2184-433X
Copyright
c
2022 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
945
2 PART-OF-SPEECH TAGS
UD annotation consists of categories and relations.
Beginning with categories, two types are considered:
lexical category and inflectional category. This is
called XPOS (language-specific Part-of-speech tags)
and Feats (universal morphological features). The
annotation also includes lemmas, dependency heads
and dependency labels (Nivre et al., 2016).
Table 1 compares the traditional set of parts of
speech and the universal part-of-speech set of UD
(Petrov et al., 2012). As can be seen in Table 1, the
set of UPOS is larger than the traditional inventory in
order to qualify as typologically valid. Notice that, in
Table 1, X stands for ‘foreign word’, sym is a non-
punctuation symbol and punct marks `punctuation’,
which is not used consistently in Old English but
rather added by text editors.
Table 1: Traditional parts of speech vs. universal part-of-
speech tags.
Traditional
POS
UPOS
Noun noun
propn
Verb verb
aux
Adjective adj
det
num
Adverb adv
Pronoun pron
Preposition adp
Conjunction cconj
sconj
Interjection intj
part*
x
sym**
punct***
Table 2 lists the specific categorial tags of Old
English. The right column in Table 2 provides
instances by category.
Table 2: Old English exponents and realisations of
Universal part-of-speech tags.
OE XPOS
t
OE
realisations
common noun hlāfweard ‘steward’, mūða
‘mouth (of a river)’, sǣcol ‘jet’
proper noun Egipte ‘the Egyptians’,
Iringes weg ‘Milky Way’,
Legaceaster ‘Chester’
main verb sleacian ‘to slow’, ðoterian ‘to
cry’, twengan ‘to pinch’
auxiliary verb bēon ‘to be’, habban ‘to
have’, weorðan ‘to become’
adjective gnēað ‘frugal’, inwit ‘thick’,
meagol ‘mighty’
demonstrative-article se ‘the’
numeral (cardinal and
ordinal)
ðrīe ‘three’, fēowertīene
‘fourteen’, hundseofontigoða
‘seventieth’
adverb grundlinga ‘horribly’,
hedendlīce ‘strictly’,
pronoun sumhwilc ‘some’, ðu ‘you’,
ðīn ‘your’
adposition betweox ‘between’, gēan
‘against’,
coordinating
conjunction
and ‘and’, ge ‘and also’, oððe
‘or’
subordinating
conjunction
hwǣr ‘where’, ðēah
‘although’, ðȳ ‘because’
interjection ǣ ‘oh!’, ēuwā ‘wow!’, nū
‘lo!’
foreign word silua ‘forest’, torre ‘tower’
punctuation . , ; : ? !
3 MORPHOLOGICAL
FEATURES
In UD, morphological features have different values,
which are sorted alphabetically. The Old English
relevant features include pronominal type
ICAART 2022 - 14th International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence
946
(demonstrative-article, indefinite pronoun,
interrogative pronoun, personal pronoun and relative
pronoun); numeral type (cardinal, ordinal);
possessive; foreign word; abbreviation; wrong
spelling; gender (feminine, masculine, neuter);
number (dual, plural, singular); case (accusative,
dative, genitive, instrumental, nominative); reflexive;
comparison (comparative, positive, superlative);
person (1, 2, 3); verbal form (finite, infinitive,
participe); mood (imperative, indicative,
subjunctive); tense (past, present); voice (active,
middle, passive); and polarity (affirmative, negative).
Nominal features like gender, number and case are
relevant to Old English verbs because present and
past participles are often inflected according to the
adjectival declension. On the features listed above, it
is also worth mentioning that wrong spellings are
supressed or normalised by editors, who frequently
provide alternative readings rather than ‘correct’ or
‘incorrect’ renderings. UD features and types as
applied to Old English are presented in Table 3.
Table 3: Features and values of Old English morphological
features.
Feature Values
p
ronominal t
yp
e Dem-Art Ind Int Prs Rel
numeral t
yp
e Card Or
d
p
ossessive Yes
foreign wor
d
Yes
abbreviation Yes
wrong spelling Yes
g
ende
r
Fem Masc Neut
numbe
r
Dual Plur Sin
case Acc Dat Gen In Nom
reflexive Yes
comparison Cmp Pos Sup
p
erson 1 2 3
verbal for
m
Fin Inf Part
moo
d
Im
p
Ind Sub
tense Past Pres
voice Act Mid Pass
p
olarit
y
Aff, Neg
p
erson 1 2 3
g
ende
r
Fem Masc Neut
numbe
r
Dual Plur Sin
case Acc Dat Gen In Nom
invariable for
m
Yes
4 DEPENDENCY RELATIONS
The basic dependency relations distinguished in the
UD framework (de Marneffe et al., 2021) can be
broken down into nominal phrase dependencies,
simple clause dependencies and complex clause
dependencies. Dependency relations are defined by
means of dependency heads and labels. Dependency
heads are content words, while function words do not
usually show dependents of their own. The basic
opposition holds between core arguments (subjects,
objects and clausal complements) and oblique
modifiers (adjuncts and oblique arguments).
The following universal dependency relations are
found in Old English. acl (clausal modifier of noun),
acl:relcl (relative clause modifier), advcl (adverbial
clause modifier), advmod (adverbial modifier),
advmod:emph (emphasizing word, intensifier),
advmod:lmod (locative adverbial modifier), amod
(adjectival modifier); appos (appositional modifier),
case (case marking), cc (coordinating conjunction),
cc:preconj (preconjunct), ccomp (clausal
complement), csubj:pass (clausal passive subject),
conj (conjunct), cop (copula), csubj (clausal subject),
det (determiner), det:poss (possessive determiner),
discourse (discourse element), dislocated (dislocated
elements), fixed (fixed multiword expression), flat
(flat multiword expression), flat:foreign (foreign
words), flat:name (names), goeswith (goes with), iobj
(indirect object), list (list), mark (marker), nmod
(nominal modifier), nmod:poss (possessive nominal
modifier), nmod:tmod (temporal modifier), nsubj
(nominal subject), nummod (numeric modifier), obj
(object), obl (oblique nominal), obl:agent (agent
modifier), obl:arg (oblique argument), obl:lmod
(locative modifier), obl:tmod (temporal modifier),
orphan (orphan), parataxis (parataxis), punct
(punctuation), root (root) and vocative (vocative).
Although the dependency relations aux
(auxiliary), aux:pass (passive auxiliary), nsubj:pass
(passive nominal subject), expl (expletive) and
expl:impers (impersonal expletive) are relevant for
the syntactic annotation of Old English, it must be
borne in mind that they make reference to phenomena
that are on the grammaticalisation cline in Old
English (Denison 1993; Ringe and Taylor 2014; Petré
2014; Martín Arista and Ojanguren López 2018). For
instance, the Old English counterpart of the modal
auxiliary will can be used both as a general verb, in
instances like oððe hu he wolde ðæt hio wære…or
how he would that it should be’
(BOET.005.046.013); and as a pre-auxiliary, as in
Forðam ic nu wille geornlice to Gode cleopian
‘Wherefore I will now earnestly call upon God
(BOET.003.019.004). The passive has not been fully
grammaticalised in Old English yet, given that the
past participle frequently shows adjectival inflection
that expresses agreement with the subject, as is the
case in hi næron for nanum cræfte gecorenethey
were chosen for no virtue’, in which the masculine
Old English Universal Dependencies: Categories, Functions and Specific Fields
947
plural nominative gecorene agrees in gender, number
and case with the subject hie. There is still fluctuation
between bēonto be and weorðan to become as
passive auxiliaries in Old English. As for the passive
subject, it is still possible for the agent to preserve the
dative case in the corresponding passive, thus And
him wæs gedemed fram unrihtwisum demum ‘And he
was judged by folly judges’ (ÆAdmon 1 006000
(4.31)). Regarding expletives, they are not
compulsory in Old English yet, as happens in Wæs
eac micel wundor þæt an wulf wearð asend ‘It was
also a great miracle that a wolf was sent’ LS
(Edmund) 003900 (145)), in which there is no
anticipatory subject to wæs. Finally, the formal
subject of impersonal verbs is often left unexpressed,
as in norþan sniwdeit rained from the north (Sea
000800 (31)). To summarise, the dependency
relations aux (auxiliary), aux:pass (passive auxiliary),
nsubj:pass (passive nominal subject), expl (expletive)
and expl:impers (impersonal expletive) are
distinguished in the annotation of Old English for
descriptive reasons, even though they have not been
fully grammaticalised yet.
5 OLD ENGLISH SPECIFIC
FIELDS
Once all the relevant categories and functions have
been identified or specified for Old English, the next
step is to decide whether additional tags (coded in
specific fields) are necessary to annotate this
historical stage of the language or not. The standard
CoNLL-U annotation format distinguishes ten fields,
listed and defined in Table 4.
Table 4: Fields in CoNLL-U annotation (from
https://universaldependencies.org/docs/format.htm).
ID Word index, integer starting at 1 for each
new sentence; may be a range for tokens
with multi
p
le words.
FORM Word form or
p
unctuation s
y
mbol.
LEMMA Lemma or stem of word form.
UPOSTAG Universal part-of-speech tag.
XPOSTAG Lan
g
ua
g
e-s
p
ecific
p
art-of-s
p
eech ta
g
.
FEATS List of morphological features from the
universal feature inventory or from a
defined lan
g
ua
g
e-s
p
ecific extension.
HEAD Head of the current token, which is either
a value of ID or zero (0).
DEPREL Universal Stanford dependency relation
to the HEAD (root iff HEAD = 0).
DEPS List of secondary dependencies (head-
de
p
rel
p
airs
)
.
MISC An
y
other annotation.
The tokenisation as well as the fields FORM and
LEMMA are imported automatically from ParCor.
Units smaller than a word (tokens) are presented in
the Appendix. They can also be imported from
ParCor. The fields UPOSTAG and XPOS are adapted
from the morphological tags of ParCor (see Appendix
on grammatical classes). At this stage, HEAD and
DEPREL are inserted manually.
Two extra specific fields are required to
adequately annotate the morphology and syntax of
Old English. The first is GLOSS. As we are
annotating a historical language, a translation into
Contemporary English facilitates the annotator´s task.
Inflectional forms, lemmas and glosses are
automatically imported from ParCor.
Table 5: Inflectional forms and glosses from ParCor.
Inflectional form Gloss
Ðu you
ðe who
ðam the
winterdagum winter days
selest givest
scorte short
tida times
and and
ðæs the
sumeres Summer´s
The second specific field proposed in this paper is
MORPHREL (morphological relatedness). In a
language characterised by the existence of large
derivational families with transparent morphological
relations (Kastovsky 1992) and generalised
inflectional inheritance of the prefix ge- (Martín
Arista 2012), a paradigmatic field specifying short-
distance and long-distance morphological relatedness
constitutes a remarkable explanatory resource. For
instance, the derived adjective unābrecendlic
‘inextricable’ is morphologically related (short-
distance) to the adjective *ābrecendlic as well as to
the primitive strong verb BRECAN ‘to break, tear,
crush, shatter, burst, break up, destroy, demolish
(long-distance morphological relatedness). These
facts are indicated in the MORPHREL field as
*ābrecendlic / BRECAN.
6 CONCLUSION
This paper is the point of departure of the application
of the UD framework to the morphological and
ICAART 2022 - 14th International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence
948
syntactic annotation of Old English. The relevant
categories and functions have been presented, while
some specific characteristics of the language have
been dealt with in terms of extra fields in the
annotation format. It remains for further research to
decide whether or not enhanced dependencies are
necessary to account for Old English null subjects and
objects, shared constituents in control and raising
constructions and antecedents of relative clauses.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Grant IPID2020-119200GB-100, funded by MCIN/
AEI/10.13039/501100011033/.
REFERENCES
Anastasopoulos, A. (2019). Computational Tools for
Endangered Language Documentation. Doctoral
dissertation, University of Notre Dame du Lac, Notre
Dame, Indiana, January.
Bosworth, J., Toller, T. N. (1973). An Anglo-Saxon
dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Clark Hall, J. R. (1996). A concise Anglo-Saxon dictionary.
Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
de Marneffe, M., Manning, C., Nivre, J., & Zeman, D.
(2021). Universal Dependencies. Computational
Linguistics, 47 (2), 255–308.
de Marneffe, M., Dozat, T., Silveira, N., Haverinen, K.,
Ginter, F., Nivre, J., & Manning, C. (2014). Universal
Stanford Dependencies: a cross-linguistic typology.
Proceedings of LREC 2014 (pp. 4585–4592).
Denison, D. (1993). English Historical Syntax: Verbal
Constructions. London: Longman.
Healey, A. (Ed.) (2018). The Dictionary of Old English in
electronic form A-I. Toronto: Dictionary of Old English
Project, Centre for Medieval Studies, University of
Toronto.
Healey, A. (Ed.), Price Wilkin, J., & Xiang, X. (2004). The
Dictionary of Old English web corpus. Toronto:
Dictionary of Old English Project, Centre for Medieval
Studies, University of Toronto.]
Kastovsky, D. (1992). Semantics and vocabulary. In R.
Hogg (Ed.) The Cambridge history of the English
language I: The beginnings to 1066 (pp. 290–408).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Martín Arista, J. & Ojanguren López, A. E. (2018).
Grammaticalization and deflexion in progress. The past
participle in the Old English passive. Studia
Neophilologica 90(2): 155-175.
Martín Arista, J., Domínguez Barragán, S., García
Fernández, L., Ruíz Narbona, E., Torre Alonso, R., &
Vea Escarza, R. (comp.). 2021. ParCorOEv2. An open
access annotated parallel corpus Old English-English.
Nerthus Project, Universidad de La Rioja,
www.nerthusproject.com.
Martín Arista, J. (2012). The Old English prefix ge-: A
panchronic reappraisal. Australian Journal of
Linguistics, 32(4), 411–433.
McDonald, R., Nivre, J., Quirmbach-Brundage, Y.,
Goldberg, Y., Das, D., Ganchev, K., Hall, K., Petrov,
S., Zhang, H., Täckström, O., Bedini, C., Bertomeu, N.
& Lee, J. (2013). Universal Dependency Annotation for
Multilingual Parsing. Proceedings of the 51st Annual
Meeting of the Association for Computational
Linguistics (pp. 92–97).
Nivre, J., de Marneffe, M., Ginter, F., Hajiˇc, J., Manning,
C., Pyysalo, S., Schuster, S., Tyers, F., & Zeman, D.
(2020). Universal Dependencies v2: An evergrowing
multilingual treebank collection. Proceedings of the
Twelfth International Conference on Language
Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2020) (pp. 4027–
4036).
Nivre, J., de Marneffe, M., Ginter, F., Goldberg, Y., Hajiˇc,
J., Manning, C., McDonald, R., Petrov, S., Pyysalo, S.,
Silveira, N., Tsarfaty, R., & Zeman, D. (2016).
Universal Dependencies v1: a multilingual treebank
collection. Proceedings of the 10th International
Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation
(pp. 1659-1666).
Nivre, J. (2015). Towards a universal grammar for natural
language processing. In A. Gelbukh (Ed.),
Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text
Processing (pp. 3–16). New York: Springer.
Nivre, J. (2016). Universal Dependencies: A Cross-
Linguistic Perspective on Grammar and Lexicon.
Proceedings of the Workshop on Grammar and
Lexicon: Interactions and Interfaces (pp. 38-40).
Petré, P. 2014. Constructions and environments: Copular,
passive, and related constructions in Old and Middle
English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Petrov, S., Das, D., & McDonald, R. (2012). A Universal
Part-of-Speech Tagset. Proceedings of the Eighth
International Conference on Language Resources and
Evaluation (LREC’12) (pp. 2089-2096).
Ringe, D., & Taylor, A. (2014). The development of Old
English. A linguistic history of English, vol. 2. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Sweet, H. (1976). The Student’s Dictionary of Anglo-
Saxon. Oxford: The Clarendon Press.
Taylor, A., Warner, A., Pintzuk, S., & Beths, F. (2003). The
York-Toronto-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Old English
Prose [https://www-users.york.ac.uk/~lang22/Ycoe
Home1.htm].
APPENDIX
This appendix provides the full inventory of Old
English grammatical categories as well as a sample of
the abbreviations and compounds required for UD
token indexing.
Old English Universal Dependencies: Categories, Functions and Specific Fields
949
Demonstrative-Article
se ‘the’; þes ‘this’;
Relative pronouns
ðe ‘that, who, which
Interrogative pronouns
hūlic ‘of what sort’; hwā ‘who; what; any one, some
one, anything, something; each’; hwæðer ‘which of
two, whether.’; hwæðer...ðe each of two, both; one of
two, either’; hwæðer...or each of two, both; one of
two, either; hwǣmwhere; hwætwhat; hwæt
‘who; what; any one, some one, anything, something;
each’; hwilc ‘which, what; whosoever, whichever;
any (one), some (one)’; swā hwā ‘whosoever’; swā
hwā s‘whosoever’; swā hwæðer swā ‘whichever’;
swā hwǣr swā ‘wherever’; swā hwæt swā
‘whatsoever’; swā hwilc swā ‘whosoever’; swā...swā
‘whether...or; either...or’; swæðer ‘whichever,
whosoever’; tō hwǣm ‘wherefore
Indefinite pronouns
ǣghwā ‘each one, every one, everything, who or
whatever’; ǣghwæðer ‘everyone, either, both; each’;
ǣghwæt ‘each one, every one, everything, who or
whatever’; ǣghwǣt ‘anything’; ǣlc ‘each; any’; ǣnig
‘any, any one’; āhwa ‘any one’; āhwæðer ‘some one,
something; any one; anything; either, each, one or
other’; ānrageh ‘everyone’; edwihte ‘anything,
something’; gehwā ‘each one, every one, any one,
whoever’; gehwæðer ‘both, either, each’; gehwilc
‘each, any, every (one), all, some, many, whoever,
whatever’; anra gehwilc ‘each one’; hwilcwega
‘some, any, someone; little, some, not much or great;
alone, anything, something’; ilca ‘the same’;
nāhthwæt ‘something unknown’; nāhwæðer
‘neither’; samhwylc ‘some’; sum ‘a certain one,
someone, something, one’; sumhwilc ‘a certain’; swā
so, the same, such, that; swilcsuch a one, he, the
same; such; (as a relative) which’; swilc...hwilc
‘such...as; so...as’; swilc...swilc ‘so much (many)...as;
as much (many)...as’; ðullic ‘such, such a’; welhwā
‘every one, every thing’; welhwilc ‘each, any, nearly
every
Personal pronouns
‘you’; git ‘you two’; he ‘he, she, it; (pl.) they;
(reflex. pron.) himself, herself, itself’; hēo ‘she, they’;
hīe ‘they’; hit ‘it’; ic ‘I’;‘thou’; ðæge they, these’;
ðu ‘thou’; uncer ‘of us two, our (of two persons)’; we
‘we’; wit ‘we two
Coordinating conjunctions
ac ‘but; but also, moreover, nevertheless, however;
because, for’; ǣghwæðer ge...ge ‘both...and, as well
as’; ǣghwæðer...and ‘both...and, as well as’; and
‘and; but; or’; būtan ‘except, except that, but, only’;
būtan ðæt ‘except; unless, save that; except, but,
besides, if only, provided that’; eornostlīce ‘therefore,
but’; ge ‘and, also’; ge...ge ‘both... and; not only... but
also; whether... or’; nāhwǣðer ‘neither’; ne ‘neither,
nor’; oððe ‘or; and’; oððe...oððe ‘either...or’; ofðe
‘or’; sam ‘whether, or’; sam ðe...sam ðe
‘whether...or’; sam ge...sam ge ‘whether...or’;
sam...sam ‘whether...or’; samðe...samðe ‘as well...as
Subordinating conjunctions
ǣr ‘before that’; for ‘for, because’; for ðȳ ðe
‘because’; forðǣm ‘for (the reason) that, owing to
(the fact) that, for, because, on that account, therefore,
seeing that’; forðȳ ‘for that, because, therefore’;
forūton ‘without, besides, except’; gif ‘if; whether,
though’; hwǣðer ðe...ðe whether...or’; hwǣr ‘where,
whither, somewhere, anywhere, everywhere’; hweðer
‘whether’; hwȳ ‘why’; mid ðȳ ‘while, when’; nemne
unless, except, save, only; nūnow that, inasmuch
as, because, since, when’; ‘until ‘; oððæt ‘until’;
sīð ‘after, afterwards’; siððan ‘as soon as, when,
since, after that, inasmuch as’; siððan...siððan
when...then’; sōðhwæðere ‘however, yet,
nevertheless’; swā ‘so as, consequently, just as, so far
as, in such wise, in this or that way, thus, so that,
provided that’; swā ðēah ‘nevertheless, yet.’; swilce
‘as if, as though’; ðȳ ðæt ‘for the purpose that, in
order that’; ðā ‘then, at that time; after that time,
thereupon; when, at the time that, whilst, during;
there, where; seeing that, inasmuch as, if, when,
since, as, because’; ðā ðā ‘when’; ðā hwīle ðe ‘while,
whilst, so long as’; ðā...ðā ‘then...when’; ðǣr ‘there,
thither, yonder; where, whither; then; when; though,
if, so far as, whilst, provided that; in that respect’; ðǣr
ðǣr ‘where, wherever’; ðǣr wið ‘in regard to that’;
ðǣr...of ‘therefrom’; ðǣrforan ‘before that’; ðæt ‘that,
so that, in order that, after that, then, thence’; ðæt ðe
‘that’; ðætte that, so that, in order that. ðon ðætte
so that’; ðe ‘when; or; then; where. (with
comparatives) than’; ðe...ðe the...or, either...or’; ðēah
‘though, although, even if, that, however,
nevertheless, yet, still; whether’; ðēah ðe although’;
ðēah... ðēah ‘although, still, yet’; ðenden ‘meanwhile,
while, as long as, until’; ðonne ‘then; therefore,
wherefore; yet; while, when; thereafter, henceforth;
rather than; since; although; (with comparatives)
than’; ðonne...ðonne ‘when...then’; ðonne...ðe
‘since’; ðonne...gȳt ‘ ‘as yet, even’; ðonne...hwæðere
‘yet, nevertheless’; ðȳ ‘because, since, on that
account; therefore; then; (with comparatives) the’; ðȳ
lǣs ðe ‘lest’; ðȳ...ðȳ ‘the...the’; ðȳlǣs ‘lest’; weald ‘in
case’; weald ‘ðeah perhaps, possibly’; wið ‘until.
ICAART 2022 - 14th International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence
950
Contractions by token (sample)
nage [ne+āgan], nagan [ne+āgan], nah [ne+āgan],
nanen [ne+ān], nanon [ne+ān], nanre [ne+ān], ]nænge
[ne+ǣnig], nænige [ne+ǣnig], nænigre [ne+ǣnig],
nære [ne+bēon], aron [ne+bēon], næaron
[ne+bēon], nabban [ne+habban], næfden
[ne+habban], næfdon [ne+habban], nyllan
[ne+willan], nolde [ne+willan], nelt [ne+willan],
nitendum [ne+wītan], nyte [ne+wītan], nyten
[ne+wītan], naðer [nā+hwæðer], naðere
[nā+hwæðer], naðor [nā+hwæðer], nauht [nā+wiht],
nawht [nā+wiht], nawiht [nā+with], nanuht
[nān+wiht], nanwiht [nān+wiht], nanwit [nān+wiht],
nanwith [nān+wiht], nalæs [nā+lǣs], nallas [nā+lǣs],
nalles [nā+lǣs], nateshwan [nātes+hwōn], nateshwon
[nātes+hwōn], nahwider [nā+hwider], nahwanen
[nā+hwanon], næfre [ne+ǣfre], nahwider
[nā+hwider], nahwanen [nā+hwanon], næfre
[ne+ǣfre].
Compounds by token (sample)
ǣfenglōm / ǣfenglōma (noun) ǣfen + glōm
ilphlæden (adjective) gielp + hlæden
āncorlīf / āncerlīf (noun) āncor + līf
hringfāg / hringfāh (adjective) hring + fāg
hūhwega / hūhugu (adverb) hū + hwega
bedrēaf / beddrēaf (noun) bedd + rēaf
burgtūn / burhtūn (noun) burg + tūn
forelēoran / forlēoran (verb) fore + lēoran(ge)
hrǣwīc / hrēawīc (noun) hrǣw + wīc
ropwærc / hropwærc (noun) ropp + wærc
Old English Universal Dependencies: Categories, Functions and Specific Fields
951