2. Most of the A.S. monosyllabic feminine nouns with a long stem-syllable take a final -e in Chaucer, in the nom., acc., and dative, doubtless because all the oblique cases were dissyllabic. And owing to this tendency, some A.S. monosyllabic nouns of the masculine and neuter genders do the same.
Ex. A.S. lār, lore, Ch. lore (never loor); A.S. borh, a pledge, Ch. borwe. Prof. Child remarks that 'two forms not unfrequently occur, one with, and the other without, the vowel.' Ex. carte, acc., B 4208; cart, acc., D 1539.
3. The monosyllabic sbs. in Chaucer (i.e. sbs. having no final -e) mostly correspond to A.S. masculine and neuter o-stems (Sievers, § 238). If a final -e appears, it is usually in the dative case; but even in this case, it is frequently dropped. Ex. arm (of the body), boor, a boar, breeth, breath, corn, deer, stoon. Datives: breeth, A 5; doom, F 928; day, A 19; ring, F 247; folk, A 25; gold, A 160. Datives in -e; horne, Book Duch. 376; londe, B 522; horse, T. v. 37.
Many of these dative forms may be explained as occurring in 'petrified' phrases, i.e. to phrases (involving datives) that were in common use. 'These,' says Mr. Manly, 'are the phrases which have given rise to the supposition that the regular ending of the dative in Chaucer is -e. An examination of the facts, however, will shew that this is not true. The dative ending was preserved in certain phrases which were transmitted and used as phrases, the force of the dative as such being no longer felt. This will appear from a comparison of such phrases as a bedde, to bedde, over borde, to dethe, for fere, a-fere (afire), to-hepe, a-lyve, a-slepe, to wyve, to the brimme.' So also to rede, T. iv. 679: in house, D 352. Nevertheless, a few true datives in -e occur, though they are certainly scarce. We can hardly explain the use of horne in Book Duch. 376 as occurring in a petrified phrase. Cf. also on a berne, C 397; of his lone, D 1861; and, in particular, the curious instances in which the A.S. nom. has disappeared. Thus the A.S. hīw is always hewe in Chaucer, in all cases; the A.S. grāf is always grove; the A.S. hol is hole; sore in A 2743 is a nom. case; and so on.
[§ 69]. Archaisms. The easiest way of understanding Chaucer's language is to remember that it is archaic; the use of the final -e was fast disappearing, and he probably was anxious to retain it for the sake of metrical effect. He could not but have remarked
its usefulness in Old French poetry; and his study of Italian must have led him to admire the frequency of the vowel-endings in that language. But the use of the English final -e had become extremely uncertain, owing to the complete fusion of the nom. and acc., and the loss (to a large extent) of the dative, except in old phrases which contained (usually) some common preposition.
[§ 70]. Three types of strong substantives. If I may beg leave to offer my own view of the forms of Chaucer's substantives of the strong declensions, I should be inclined to explain his usages in the following way.
Let us put aside the weak declension, and the etymology of the A.S. words, and let us look at the actual forms of the singular nouns. And, since the genitive case, in Chaucer, usually has a form of its own, let us consider the nom., acc., and dative only.
All the representative words given in Sievers (A.S. Gram. § 238, &c.) can be collected under a few general types, for the present purpose. The fem. sb. giefu had the accus. giefe; but as -u and -e both became -e at a later period, the nom. and acc. are, practically, alike.