Indeterminate pronouns in Old English: a compositional semantic analysis

Indeterminate pronouns in Old English (expressions like hwa ‘who/what’ and hwelc ‘which’) permit several interpretations in addition to their use as interrogative pronouns, for example readings as universal or existential quantifiers. They combine with morphological prefixes (ge- ‘and, also’ and a- ‘always, ever’), which change the range of possible interpretations. Old English indeterminate pronouns are shown to contribute a crosslinguistically hitherto unattested pattern of available interpretations. In particular, bare indeterminate pronouns have a universal interpretation and ge-indeterminate pronouns can be both universal and existential. This paper offers an alternative semantic analysis in the spirit of Hamblin (Found Lang 10:41–53, 1973) and Shimoyama (Nat Lang Semant 14:139–173, 2006). A compositional semantics is given for the pronouns and the prefixes, which derives the available readings. The paper ends with a proposal for compositional semantic change relating Old English indeterminate pronouns to their modern descendants.


Introduction
This paper offers a compositional semantic analysis of the interpretations of indeterminate pronouns in Old English (OE).
Indeterminate pronouns, a term I use here in the sense of Shimoyama (2001) and Kratzer and Shimoyama (2002) (going back to Kuroda 1965), are pronominal expressions with typical uses as interrogative wh-pronouns. Frequently they, or morphological derivations based on them, have other uses, e.g. as indefinites, NPIs or universals. I provide an example from Japanese in (1) (from Shimoyama 2001) and an example from Latvian in (2) (from Kratzer and Shimoyama 2002). The term indeterminate pronoun, as opposed to interrogative pronoun, highlights that the pronoun can participate in other interpretations besides question interpretations.
(1) a. Yoko-wa dono hon-o yomimasita ka? Yoko-Top which book-Acc read Q 'Which book did Yoko read?' b. Yoko-wa dono hon-mo yonda. Yoko-Top which book-MO read 'Yoko read every book.' (Shimoyama 2001) (2) a. kur 'where' b. kaut kur 'somewhere' c. ne-kur 'anywhere' (in the immediate scope of negation) d. jeb-kur 'anywhere' (NPI and FCI) (after Kratzer and Shimoyama 2002) Present Day English (PDE) wh-pronouns do not have uses as universal or existential expressions. But PDE's ancestor Old English (OE) 1 had proper indeterminate pronouns, with derived forms and several possible interpretations. These forms and interpretations make them interesting semantically. I illustrate in (3) the relevant forms of hwa 'who, what' 2 : in addition to the bare indeterminate pronoun (3a), there is a form with the prefix ge-'and, also' ge-hwa (3b) and a form with the additional prefix a-'always, ever' aeghwa (3c) (see, e.g., Bosworth andToller 1898/1921;Einenkel 1904;Kahlas-Tarkka 1987). (See Sect. 2 for a detailed explanation of the presentation of the examples.) Parallel forms exist for other indeterminate pronouns like hwelc 'which' and hwaer 'where'; I refer to them as the bare series, the ge-series, and the a-series of OE indeterminate pronouns.
(3) a.  EETS, 161, 1924) All three series participate in several different interpretations. For example, the bare series can, in addition to the interrogative interpretation (3a), lead to an existential and a universal interpretation (4a, b). The ge-series has a universal and an existential interpretation (5a, b). The a-series can, in addition to the universal reading in (3c), lead to an NPI interpretation (6a), but not, according to the available evidence, to a question meaning (6b) (see again the literature cited above).
(4) a. (Nellaþ hi gelyfan) ðeah hwa of deaþe arise though who of death arose '(they will not believe,) though one rose from death' Lot and Joshua, and GE-which others þe englas gesawon, (hi luton wið heora, and to him gebaedon,…) that angels saw '(But in the ancient law,) Lot, and Joshua, and certain others who saw angels, (bowed before them, and prayed to them,…) ( existential) (Thorpe 1844, 38) (6) a. And a. a. a.
to worulde buton aeghwilcum ende Amen and ever ever ever to world without A-GE-which end Amen 'And ever, to time without end.' ('…without any end…') (NPI) (K-T; AElfred's Boethius, Sedgefield 1899, 149 (final prayer)) b. unattested: a-series as interrogative pronouns: To aeghwam ga we to A-GE-whom go we # 'To whom do we go?' (*interrogative) The data raise interesting questions for semantic composition: What is the semantic contribution of the indeterminate pronoun? How does the sentence come to express a universal or existential statement or a question? What determines the range of possible sentence interpretations for a given indeterminate pronoun? These questions are the focus of the present paper.
The goal is to add to the existing literature on indeterminate pronouns a survey of the data from OE and their compositional semantic analysis, neither of which is available at present. We will see that OE provides an interesting case study, partially at odds with generalizations on indeterminate pronouns (see, e.g., Mitrovic 2014; Szabolcsi 2015 for recent discussion) and hence requires particular analytical tools.
My analysis is based on an alternative semantics for the indeterminate pronoun (e.g. Hamblin 1973;Shimoyama 2001;Kratzer and Shimoyama 2002)-indeterminate pronouns introduce alternatives into the semantics. Since each series of indeterminate pronouns participates in several different types of interpretation, the overt material doesn't unambiguously determine sentence meaning. Covert operators quantify over the alternatives introduced by the indeterminate pronoun, yielding an overall sentence interpretation as existential, universal, interrogative and so on. Thus the covert existential, universal etc. operators are held responsible for determining the sentence interpretation, potentially yielding sentence level ambiguity.
The paper is structured as follows: In Sect. 2 I provide a detailed empirical discussion of the OE data, based on a systematic corpus search I conducted. The results of this empirical study are the input to the semantic analysis presented in Sect. 3, the alternative semantic analysis anticipated above. Section 4 explores some consequences of the analysis: on the one hand, the case study of OE is compared to what we know about systems of quantification crosslinguistically. On the other hand, my proposal analyses quantification in OE as more similar to (present day) Japanese than PDE; this raises the question of how PDE quantifiers like each and every could develop diachronically from OE indeterminate pronouns. I conclude with a suggestion concerning the diachronic development of universal quantifiers, the Universal Semantic Cycle (Beck 2017(Beck , 2018. Section 5 provides a short summary of the paper.

OE indeterminate pronouns: an overview of the data
The following sections lay out the possible interpretations for the three series of indeterminate pronouns in OE. In very general terms, the information presented in this section can be found in classical sources such as Bosworth andToller (1898/ 1921), Einenkel (1904), Wülfing (1894Wülfing ( -1901, Kahlas-Tarkka (1987), and others. But the philological works do not use the concepts of modern linguistic theory or the standards of explicitness in compositional semantics. Hence I proceed in the following way: I put together a data set by systematically searching the YCOE corpus (Taylor et al. 2003) for occurrences of indeterminate pronouns. What I present in this section is mostly examples extracted by this search from OE1 or OE2 files (that is, early OE) in the YCOE corpus. The data I present below from that sample are presented with the YCOE reference (the file name, the text, and the identification of the token). (See the ''Appendix'' for more information on the relevant YCOE files.) I concentrate on the indeterminate pronouns hwa, hwelc, gehwa, gehwelc, aeghwa, aeghwelc, and aelc.
This sample is occasionally supplemented by other data which are particularly telling for the issue at hand. For example, I sometimes add data with the indeterminate pronouns hwaer 'where' and hwaeðer 'which of the two' from the same YCOE files. Also, Bosworth and Toller and Kahlas-Tarkka, for instance, present a lot of examples, though they are not glossed and often there is no translation. Where I take an example from Bosworth and Toller, I indicate this in the example, abbreviated as B&T, and include reference to the OE text which they provide as the source of the example, for the convenience of the reader. Similarly, examples from Kahlas-Tarkka, which I abbreviate as K-T in the examples, are also provided with her identification of the original source text. Occasional examples are from University of Texas OE online lessons by Jonathan Slocum and Winfried P. Lehmann, abbreviated UTexas, with reference to the original source text.
I classify the interpretations of the sentences with the indeterminate pronouns according to modern linguistic theory. The interpretations I distinguish are question, free choice relative clause (FCR), free choice item (FCI), negative polarity item (NPI), universal, and existential. 3 The classical works on OE tell us that these are interpretations to look out for. The question is which indeterminate pronouns participate in which interpretations.
For each prospective interpretation, I provide example sentences illustrating this use, as unambiguously as possible. In order to classify an interpretation, I infer the contribution of the indeterminate pronoun to the sentence meaning from the proposition expressed by the sentence. The composition of the propositional interpretation of the sentence, in turn, is inferred from the syntactic structure (here I am aided very significantly by the YCOE parse tree), the lexicon (here I rely specifically on the Bosworth and Toller dictionary), and the OE text, which provides a context.
Mostly, translations of the OE text passage with the indeterminate pronoun into modern English are available. Where the translation is sentence by sentence, they tell us which propositional interpretation the translator assigned to the sentence with the indeterminate pronoun. Since an adequate translation preserves propositional meaning (see, e.g., Kamp 1978 for an early explicit discussion), this can be an indication of the proposition expressed by the OE sentence. It is not necessarily the case, though, that the translation indicates how the occurrence of the indeterminate pronoun is to be classified semantically; to give a simple example, the indeterminate pronoun is sometimes not literally translated at all (e.g. when an expression contributing 'every year' is translated as 'annually'). In general terms, the existing translations provide a useful context for the example.
In my presentation, I use translations to help indicate to the reader the interpretive contribution of the indeterminate pronouns, i.e., to explain how the example is classified. The translations I provide for this purpose track the semantic analysis; that is, the translation of the pronoun matches the semantic classification. Where such a literal translation is available in the existing literature, I use the existing translation and cite its source. Often, this is the translation from YCOE's source edition (e.g., Liebermann 1903 for the Laws of Alfred, and Sweet 1958 for the Cura Pastoralis in (7) below). (See the ''Appendix'' for details on the YCOE files and their source texts.) Where existing translations do not track the semantic analysis, I add my own translation. Where no useful modern English translation is available to me, I provide my own. The glosses of the OE examples (also helpful indicators to the reader of the compositional ingredients of the sentence) are mine.
The collection of data in the following subsections represents all interpretations of the indeterminate pronouns investigated that I found in my sample, which is compatible with the interpretations identified in general terms by the existing descriptive literature.
Section 2.1 presents the data for the bare series, Sect. 2.2 for the ge-series, and Sect. 2.3 for the a-series including aelc. I summarize the empirical results in Sect. 2.4.

The bare series
Let us begin by examining the interpretive options of hwa 'who/what'. The literature mentions a range of interpretations for sentences in which this item occurs, which are reflected in my data sample and which (7) illustrates. In addition to the prominent interrogative (7a) and FCR (7b) uses, we find the existential (7c) and universal (7d) interpretations seen in Sect. 1. (of) ones whom the more unfirm, and also the more useless (cocura, CP:4.37.13.190) 'and when the mind is divided among many objects it is the less firm in each, and also less useful.' (Sweet) (universal) The interpretations in (7a) and (7b) as interrogative pronouns and wh-pronouns in FCR are well-known and fully expected. Similarly, the interpretation as an existential indefinite in (7c) is unsurprising and well-documented in OE (see also, e.g., Wülfing 1894Wülfing -1901 for the time period documented here). The universal interpretation in (7d) is rarer and less expected crosslinguistically (e.g., Note, though, that (7c) is an example of an existential interpretation in which the indeterminate expression is not in a downward entailing context, hence not in a context licensing NPIs (e.g., Ladusaw 1979). Similarly, (4b) is an example of a universal interpretation in an episodic sentence without a modal or a generic interpretation, hence not a context licensing an FCI (e.g., Menéndez-Benito 2010). Thus I take genuine existential and universal readings to be available for hwa, in addition to the obvious uses as interrogative and free relative pronoun.
But given that universal and existential interpretations outside of FCI and NPI contexts are possible, the data in (8a, b) (despite their translations as NPI and FCI anyone) do not as such establish the need for FCI and NPI analyses of hwa. A narrow scope existential is truth conditionally indistinguishable from a (weak) NPI, and so (8b) could simply be a plain narrow scope existential. Similarly, (8a) could be a universal interpretation. The fact that hwa is acceptable in contexts that license FCIs (a generic context in (8a)) and NPIs (an if-clause in (8b)) merely shows that the data are compatible with such analyses. We will come back to this point in Sect. 3.
Other bare indeterminate pronouns share the interpretive possibilities of hwa. I concentrate on hwelc 'which' and add the occasional example with other indeterminate pronouns (hwaer 'where' and hwaeðer 'which of the two' in the examples below). A note on terminology: the indeterminate pronoun is the lexical item, e.g., hwelc. Together with a noun or NP, hwelc forms an indeterminate phrase (which can, for instance, be a wh-phrase in a question). Both terms are used below, though the distinction doesn't much matter. (9) illustrates the same range of readings that we have seen for hwa for the other indeterminate pronouns. 'And yet it often happens to the patient man that, although he suffers some wrong or hears some shameful report of himself, he is not agitated at the time, but comports himself patiently, as if he had dismissed it altogether from his heart.' (Sweet) (existential) as now (to) God thanks almost where are 'And I command in God's name that no man take the clamp from the book or the book from the minster: It is uncertain how long there may be such learned bishops as now, thanks be to God, there are nearly everywhere;' (introduction CP; Sweet p. 8) (universal) Note that the combination of 'almost' with the indeterminate pronouns in (9d) identifies a universal interpretation (cf. I talked to almost every girl / *almost some girl). Another such example is given in (9 0 ).
(9 0 ) (Þa aet sumum cirre þaes ilcan geares comon þaer sex scipu to Wiht, ond þaer mycel yfel gedydon, aegðer ge on Defenum) ge wel hwaer be ðaem saeriman. and almost where by the seacoast (At a certain time of the same year there came six ships to (the Isle of) Wight, and did much mischief there, both in Devonshire) 'and almost everywhere near the seacoast.' (universal) (UTexas, Alfred's war with the Danes; in: Charles T. Onions, ed. 1959. Sweet's Anglo-Saxon Reader in Prose and Verse, 14th edition, Oxford: Clarendon, p. 37) The interesting ambiguity of the bare series in non-wh-contexts between existential and universal interpretation is documented in particular for hwaeðer 'which of the two' (e.g., Bosworth and Toller). In addition to interrogative and free relative uses, this indeterminate pronoun can contribute 'one of the two' or 'both of the two'. An example of the first interpretation is given in (10c), an example of the second in (10d). In both examples, only one of the two interpretations makes sense in the context. For completeness, (10a) and (10b) exemplify interrogative and FCR uses, respectively, of this indeterminate pronoun. (existential) 'And it is very necessary, when a man dreads either of these two more than the other, and strives against it, that he strive not so earnestly against it as to fall into the other, which he formerly dreaded less.' (Sweet)  Regarding potential FCI and NPI uses of indeterminate pronouns other than hwa, the same comment applies as in the case of (8a, b). Pertinent examples are given in (11) (also (8b) for hwaeðer). (11a) is a generic context, and the indeterminate phrase could plausibly also have been rendered as 'any evil'. In (11b) both indeterminate phrases occur in the antecedent of a conditional, an NPI licensing context; context and interpretation are compatible with a use comparable to plain indefinite 'a' and NPI 'any'. Observation cannot decide between the two analyses; see Sect. 3 for theoretical discussion. 'If a man seeks a church because of any of these crimes which was not revealed earlier, and confesses it there in God's name, it be half forgiven.' (NPI context) Wenn jemand eine Kirche aufsucht, wegen einer jener Verschuldigungen, die früher nicht offenbar war, und sie dort in Gottes Namen bekennt, sei es halb vergeben. (Liebermann,p. 53) To give the reader an impression of some uses of bare indeterminate pronouns in context, the short text in (12) and its translation illustrate that the bare series is compatible with several interpretations-in (12) first an FCI or universal interpretation and then an NPI or existential interpretation. The short text in (13) illustrates that indeterminate pronouns of different series are able to express the same meaning, here: universal quantification, expressed by an a-series expression and a bare indeterminate pronoun. ðeah hwa wene ðaet he on hiora anra hwylcum maege habban fulla gesaeltha, ne biþ hit no ðy hraeðor swa, ðeah hi his wilnigen, buton hi ða fif ealle habban.'' Ða andsworede ic and cwaeð: Hwaet sculon we þonne don nu ðu cwist ðat we ne maegen on ðara anra hwylcum ðat hehste good habban and fullan gesaeltha, ne we huru ne wenaþ ðat ure anra hwelc ða fif eall aetgaedre begite?'' though anyone FCI thinks that he can have perfect felicity in any one of them FCI , it is nonetheless not so, though they desire it, unless they have all five.'' Then I anwered and said: What then ought we to do, now that you say that we cannot have the highest good and the perfect felicity in any one of them NPI , and we certainly do not think that any one NPI of us may get all five together?'' (13) Boethius Meter 20 (Translation: The Old English Boethius, S. Irvine and M.Godden): Habbaþ ðea ða feower frumstol hiora, aeghwhilc hiora agenne stede, ðea anra hwilc wið oðer sie miclum gemenged and mid maegne eac faeder aelmihtiges faeste gebunden,… Yet each of the four have their birthplace, their own station, though each of them may be greatly mingled with the other and by the might of the father almighty also bound fast,… In sum, we see that bare indeterminate pronouns can be used as interrogatives in questions and in FCR, as existential and universal quantifiers, and that they occur in FCI and NPI contexts.

The ge-series
Next we turn to indeterminate pronouns of the ge-series. Etymologically, the geseries consists of a bare indeterminate pronoun with the morpheme ge-as a prefix. As a lexical item, ge is an additive particle meaning 'and, also' (e.g., Kahlas-Tarkka 1987). We want to know whether the ge-series has the same range of interpretive possibilities as the bare series or, if not, how it is different. Since the preceding subsection has provided an overview of the relevant interpretations, I sort the examples by interpretive options in this subsection. I look at the indeterminate pronouns ge-hwa and ge-hwelc, supplemented by ge-hwaer and ge-hwaeðer (glossed as 'GE-who/what', 'GE-which', 'GE-where', and 'GE-wh-either').
It is clear from the available literature (e.g., Kahlas-Tarkka 1987) that the geseries is one of OE's universal quantifiers and that it also supports existential interpretations. Universal interpretations are illustrated in (14) and existential interpretations in (15) and not him self separately ask but his niehstena god he sceal tellan him selfum. his neighbours' good he must consider him self (cocura,CP:13.77.22.515) 'Very rightly the priest's robe is called the account of judgment, because the priest was bound and still is ever to consider how he can discern good and evil, and then to consider carefully how and when he is to teach each one, and what is most profitable for them, and not desire to appropriate anything to himself only, but reckon the prosperity of his neighbours as his own.' (Sweet) 'We know that it is less that one knows something of a thing, than it is, that one knows of it and also declares it.' The existential interpretation is rarer than the universal interpretation. Since the geseries is infrequent to begin with, I include with (15b, c) two data points from Gregory's Dialogues, identified in YCOE as OE24, meaning that the text is from OE2 though the manuscript is from OE4. Example (15b) clearly shows an existential ge-pronoun in a non-NPI-context (while (15a) is an NPI licensing context, negation-see below).
I add the data points in (16) and (17). (16) with gehwaer, though from a period later than OE1/2, is an attractive example because it obviously only makes sense if the indeterminate pronoun is interpreted existentially. (16), like (15b), documents the possibility of existential ge-pronouns outside NPI licensing contexts. (17) illustrates both universal and existential interpretations of gehwaeðer.
(16) Gehwar hi syn hefige gehwar eac medeme GE.where they are heavy GE.where also moderate 'in some places they are heavy, in others moderate' (existential) an einem Ort sind sie schwer, anderswo auch mässig. (Liebermann p. 446  'If then the cheeks are swollen on either side, and the throat, and you see those signs, then immediately you bleed him on a vein,' (Doyle 2017) (existential) As we see in (15a) and (17b), the ge-series can be used in NPI contexts (here, a negated sentence and the antecedent of a conditional). In (15a), the domain widening component typical of a polarity sensitive item (e.g., Kadmon and Landman 1993;Chierchia 2006) is intuitively the focus of negation. That is, intuitively a translation as 'ANY day of the week' is appropriate (with focused any, a strong NPI (Krifka 1995)). Thus (15a) is indicative of a genuine NPI use. We return to the issue of possible NPI uses of the ge-series in Sect. 3. The ge-series, like the bare series, shows up in contexts appropriate for FCI, as seen, for example, in (14a) (a modal context). (18)  What we have not seen is uses of the ge-series as wh-expressions in questions and in FCR. The literature (e.g., Bosworth andToller 1898/1921;Kahlas-Tarkka 1987) does not describe such uses; an exception is Wülfing (1894Wülfing ( -1901, who notes one potential use of gehwelc and one potential use of aeghwelc in an interrogative function (for aeghwelc, see the next section). A global search of all YCOE files (i.e., including the files not from OE1 or OE2) for gehwa and gehwelc as wh-expressions in questions or relative clauses yielded (among 502 hits for the two pronouns combined) the two hits- (19) and (20) (Miller) Let's examine the three examples in turn. The first example (19) is simply mislabeled: the occurence of gehwelc is in a wh-construction (a relative clause), but the relative pronoun is ðara, and gehwelc is a universal, the combination amounting to 'each of which' (the occurrence was labeled as a wh-pronoun but should have been labeled as quantifier according to YCOE guidelines). The second example (20) contains an embedded question, and in the YCOE parse gehwa is the interrogative wh-pronoun. YCOE is based on Clemoes's (1997) edition of AElfric's Homilies I. In Thorpe's (1844) edition, the word boundaries are identified differently, as indicated in (22) Since the Thorpe parse allows us to maintain the otherwise uncontested generalization that gehwa is not an interrogative pronoun, it should be preferred.
The Wülfing example (21), finally, contains a coordinate structure with a bare indeterminate phrase hwylcum cyninga tidum and a ge-indeterminate phrase gehwylcum biscopum. Wülfing must have assumed a coordination of two interrogative wh-phrases, as in the syntactic structure sketched in (24a). The YCOE parse does not analyse the example in this way; according to their structure, sketched in (24b), the example is a coordination of a quantifier phrase and an embedded question. Finally, the Miller translation invites a third syntactic analysis, sketched in (24c): according to this possibility, both indeterminate phrases are universal quantifiers and the bare indeterminate phrase is modified by a zero relative clause. As for the Wülfing parse (24a), the status of the dative gehwylcum biscopum is not clear to me, in addition to violating the generalization that the ge-series is not interrogative. The YCOE parse (24b) needs to assume that the dative hwylcum cyninga tidum is an adverbial free dative. This option has been observed by van Kemenade (1987) and is attested, for example, by (25). The Miller parse (24c) relies on the possibility of relative clauses without relative pronoun or complementiser, so-called zero relatives. This possibility is attested for OE in Fischer et al. (2000) and Suarez-Gomez (2008); it is in fact anticipated in Wülfing ( §304 pp. 419-421). (9b) above provides an example as shown in (9b').
(Interestingly, (24c) adds another occurrence of a universal interpretation of a bare indeterminate phrase.) '… so it best be for those who obtained it.' Given these considerations, the parse in (24a) is the least preferred one, and example (21) doesn't amount to an interrogative interpretation of gehwelc either. Following common consensus, I conclude that the ge-series, in contrast to the bare series, cannot be used as an interrogative or FCR wh-expression.
In sum, the ge-series of indeterminate pronouns can be used as existential and universal quantifiers. They cannot be used as interrogative wh-pronouns in questions and FCR. Ge-indeterminate pronouns occur in NPI and FCI contexts.

The a-series and aelc
Finally, we turn to indeterminate pronouns of the a-series. Indeterminate pronouns like aeghwa, aeghwelc, aeghwaer are to be analysed etymologically as derived from the combination of a bare indeterminate pronoun (hwa, hwelc, hwaer) with the prefixes a 'always, ever' and ge 'and, also'. The indeterminate pronoun combines first with gethen with a-(see once more, for example, Einenkel (1904), Bosworth and Toller (1898/1921), and Kahlas-Tarkka (1987): [A- [GE-indeterminate]]. I gloss them as 'A-GE-who/what', 'A-GE-which', and 'A-GE-where'. I include the indeterminate pronoun aelc in the discussion in this subsection. The etymoloy of aelc is less clear. While Haspelmath (1995) analyses it as 'a-hwelc', Kahlas-Tarkka (1987) contemplates derivations from 'all ? body' and from 'ever alike', without clear conclusion.
We will see below that no matter its etymology, the interpretive options of aelc track those of the a-series. Thus Haspelmath's analysis is at least semantically a better fit. I gloss aelc as 'AELC' but assume that it behaves as an indeterminate pronoun of the aseries in terms of the semantic and formal properties investigated in this paper.
The question is once more to what extent the interpretive options of the aseries match those of the other indeterminate pronouns. I sort the data by interpretation in this subsection as well, and I include aelc under a given interpretation with the other a-series indeterminate pronouns, but provide separate examples.
A universal interpretation is, uncontroversially, the prominent reading of the age-series. The most common OE universal quantifier is aelc (Kahlas-Tarkka 1987), and conversely, the universal reading is the prominent interpretation of aelc, too. (26) and (27)  'If a man burns or fells another's woodland illegally, repay each big tree with 5 shillings, and then each one, as many as there were, with 5 pence; and 30 shillings fine.' Wenn jemand das Gehölz eines anderen ohne Erlaubnis abbrennt oder abhaut, so vergelte er jeden grossen Baum mit 5 Schill., und weiterhin jeden, sei es so viele als ihrer seien, mit 5 Pfennigen; und 30 Schill. zur Strafe. (Liebermann p. 57) c. Forðaem hit bið swiðe geswincful ðaet mon aelcne mon therefore it be very laborious that one AELC man scyle on sundrum laeran, should in separated teach (cocura,CP:60.453.10.3266) 'For while it is very laborious to have to teach each one separately, (it is still more difficult to teach them all together)' (Sweet) Similar to the ge-series, question and FCR uses are generally unavailable for the aseries. A global search for aeghwa, aeghwelc, and aelc as wh-expressions in all YCOE files yielded only one hit, (28) below (among 2314 hits total for the three pronouns). This is at the same time Wülfing's only prospective example of an interrogative use of aeghwelc. The interrogative analysis of the example is reflected in the translation from the literature offered.
(28) & hi witon eac on hwelcum waeterum & on and they know also in which waters and in aeghwelcra ea muþum hi sculon secan fiscas A.GE.which river mouths they should seek fish (coboeth,Bo:32.73.32.1370) 'and they also know in what waters and at what river-mouths to look for fish. ' (Kiernan et al. 2002: Alfred the Great's Boethius: An Electronic Edition; www.uky.edu) 'and they also know that they should seek fish in some waters and at all rivers' mouths.' I propose that an alternative analysis of this example is possible, which is reflected in my own translation. Two properties of OE go into this alternative understanding of (28): (i) the OE bare series is not necessarily interrogative, and (ii) OE allowed fronting of a constituent past the subject of an embedded clause. Property (i) is well known and illustrated in Sect. 2.1. Property (ii) is discussed in particular in Allen (1995), Heggelund (2007Heggelund ( , 2010 and Speyer (2010). Illustrating examples are given in (29). The syntactic structure of (28) with this non-interrogative fronting is sketched in (30). In this structure, the complement of witan 'know' has no overt complementiser 'that'. This option is explicitly noted, for example, in Bosworth and Toller and illustrated in (31 (30) is possible in terms of OE grammar. The context in the Boethius text is one in which no particular waters or rivers are relevant. Rather, the example occurs in a list with further statements to the effect that men know to look for precious stones in the sand, and to hunt for game in the woods and hills. Allen (1995) includes list contexts among the environments which favour this kind of fronting. This means that (30) is pragmatically plausible as well. Parallel to the point made regarding the ge-series, I argue that this analysis is to be preferred over an analysis according to which (28) is the one counterexample to the generalization that a-series pronouns are not interrogative.
In contrast to the ge-series, existential readings are not attested for the a-series (see e.g. Kahlas-Tarkka, Bosworth and Toller), and my search has not found any such examples either. The remaining interpretations to be investigated for a-ge-indeterminate pronouns and aelc, therefore, are potential NPI and FCI interpretations.
(32) illustrates uses of a-ge-indeterminate pronouns in NPI contexts (e.g. butan 'without', beorgan 'prevent'). Two issues need to be considered when we ask whether an NPI analysis of the a-series is called for. The first is the possibility of a plain existential reading instead of an NPI interpretation. Since the a-series does not have an existential interpretation in non-NPI-contexts, these examples cannot be analysed thus. The second issue is whether the examples in (32) could be analysed as wide scope universals instead of NPIs. This possibility is not immediately very intuitive: in examples like (32a) the translation 'and ever, to time without every end' is intuitively inappropriate. We can trace its oddness to the presuppositional nature of the universal quantifier: every would presuppose that there be an end (or perhaps more than one end) (cf. (33a)), which is not appropriate in this context. Despite the equivalence in (33b), then, wide scope every is distinguishable from narrow scope any in the context of negation, at least in PDE. However, it is hard to be sure whether OE universal quantification gives rise to the same presupposition. I return to the issue of (33b) and a wide scope universal interpretation below.
(32) NPI context: a. And a. a. a. to worulde buton aeghwilcum ende Amen and ever ever ever to world without A.GE.which end Amen 'And ever, to time without end.' ('…without any end…') (K-T; AElfred's Boethius, Sedgefield 1899, 149 (final prayer)) Note: 'time without every end' -PSP: there is at least one end -not intended.
The examples in (34)  but the broken foot always is (of) AELC motion deprived (cocura,CP:11.67.8.430) 'The broken hand and foot is when a man knows the path of God's commands and will not follow it, but is deprived of every good work and frustrated, not at all like a lame or diseased man, who is sometimes in motion, sometimes at rest, while the broken foot is always entirely deprived of motion.' (Sweet) ('… deprived of any good work… entirely deprived of any motion.') Example (35) is an illustration of NPI and universal interpretations of aelc simultaneously. We are particularly interested in the second, the putative NPI occurrence of aelc. Let's consider the simplified version (35 0 ) in detail. In (35 0 ) I have removed the first universal aelc, and then paraphrased the NPI licensing element 'wipe off'. The example allows us to distinguish a narrow scope existential NPI analysis from a wide scope universal analysis because another scope bearing element occurs between the potential NPI and its licenser, namely wenan 'supposition'. I take this word to have (roughly) the same semantics as believe. Semantic analyses of an existential NPI analysis and a wide scope universal analysis are given in (35 00 a) and (35 00 b) respectively. The more plausible paraphrase for (35) clearly follows (35 00 a). In the case of the a-series, we therefore take these indeterminate pronouns have an analysis as NPIs. , for every man to wipe away from the minds of others the unfavourable opinion of himself,' (Sweet) ('…the supposition of any evil in him…') (35 0 ) Voldemort wiped off their minds the supposition of aelc evil in him.
= V brought it about that it is not the case that they suppose that aelc evil is in V. 'Each actual evil is such that they don't suspect V of it.' (where @ is the actual world) Finally, let's ask whether the a-series can occur in FCI contexts. This is certainly the case, for example in (26d) (Liebermann p. 111) At the same time, uses like (26c), (27a) as 'every Sunday', 'every year' do not invite an interpretation as FCI, and (27c) with the adverbial 'separately' seems incompatible with it: The intended reading of (27c) is one in which the events described (teaching) are distributed over the individual members of the group described by aelc. This reading does not arise when a known FCI like any is placed in its position in the sentence (cf. (38)). Thus there are non-FCI universal uses of aseries indeterminate pronouns. For the moment, therefore, I note merely that the data are compatible with an FCI analysis, and postpone a detailed discussion to Sect. 3.5.
(38) # It is laborious to teach any one separately.
In sum: a-ge-indeterminate pronouns and aelc can be used as universal quantifiers and as NPIs. They cannot be used as interrogative pronouns in questions and FCR or as existentials. They occur in FCI contexts.

Section summary
The  '' for FCI and NPI uses in (39) indicates that the data are compatible with this interpretation but observation is not sufficient to prove it. To give the reader a preview of my final stance on these interpretations, I provide the table in (39 0 ) with the five question marks resolved. The theoretical discussion in Sect. 3 will lead us to the interpretation of the 'raw' data (39) that (39 0 ) summarises. That is, I will argue that OE indeterminate pronouns do have an analysis as FCI, and that the ge-series but not the bare series has an analysis as NPI. I also assume that the unattested uses are in fact unavailable.

Semantic analysis
In this section, I develop a compositional semantic analysis of the data from Sect. 2. The analysis answers the questions raised at the beginning of the paper: What is the semantic contribution of the indeterminate pronoun? How does the sentence come to express a universal or existential statement or a question? What determines the range of possible sentence interpretations for a given indeterminate pronoun?
Here is a preview of the answers that I will give: Indeterminate pronouns will be analysed as alternative triggers, in keeping with earlier analyses (e.g., Hamblin 1973;Shimoyama 2001;Kratzer and Shimoyama 2002). This is motivated by the types of sentence interpretations they participate in (e.g., questions and polarity items). The pronoun is linked to sentence interpretation indirectly because each series of indeterminate pronouns participates in different types of sentence interpretation. This motivates an analysis in which covert operators associate with the pronoun and those operators (e.g., the question operator or existential and universal quantifiers) fix the sentence meaning. Nonetheless, the indeterminate pronouns come with restrictions as to possible types of use. I will identify lexical properties of the three series (semantic or at the syntax/semantics interface) which constrain which operators a pronoun can associate with, thus restricting the sentence meanings it can participate in.
In Sect. 3.1. I present the semantic background with which I approach the issue. I introduce an alternative semantics for indeterminate pronouns and embed it in a theory of compositional interpretation with an alternative semantic tier. In Sect. 3.2, I extend and apply this semantics to the bare series of OE indeterminate pronouns and their possible interpretations. Sections 3.3 and 3.4 develop analyses of the ge-and the a-series, respectively. Section 3.5 is dedicated to FCIs in OE, and Sect. 3.6 summarises.

Background: alternatives and operators
At the core of the constructions discussed above is the bare indeterminate pronoun with an interrogative use. This is my analytical starting point, and hence I begin with an analysis of the semantics of questions. Here, I follow the tradition started by Hamblin (1973), who first proposed an alternative semantics of questions.
The basic idea of a Hamblin semantics for questions is that the denotation of a question is the set of its possible propositional answers. For example, the question in (40a) could, in a given context, have answers like (40b), or in more general terms, (40c). That is, the meaning of a question is a set of propositions. (40d) provides a more formal representation of (40c); the semantic type of a proposition is \s,t[, so this is a set of \s,t[ alternatives. The semantic contribution of the question is to raise the alternatives, and its pragmatic contribution is mostly a request to state which of these alternatives are true (e.g., Krifka 2011 for recent discussion). (In the semantic discussion, I print linguistic material of the object language in italics, while the metalanguage is in regular print.)  (Rooth 1985(Rooth , 1992. The example in (42a), with focus on the subject DP, introduces alternatives (42b). At the same time, the sentence expresses the proposition in (42c). The same two tiers of meaning need to be taken into account in a more detailed analysis of questions as well. Below I implement this in terms of Beck (2006Beck ( , 2016 (see also Kotek 2014Kotek , 2019. 4,5 The sole semantic role of the interrogative pronoun is to introduce alternatives. Accordingly, we define the lexical entry in (46): the whword introduces alternatives at the level of alternative semantic values (46b), while its ordinary semantic value is undefined (46a The resulting theoretical picture is this: natural language has expressions that trigger the introduction of alternatives into the semantic calculation. Among those expressions are indeterminate pronouns. In the composition, this necessitates calculation of an alternative semantic value in addition to the ordinary semantic value. In their use as interrogative pronouns, the alternatives that indeterminate pronouns trigger are evaluated at sentence level by the interrogative operator Q. The association of Q and indeterminate pronoun is depicted informally in (48c). The Q operator raises the alternatives to the level of the ordinary semantic value. The result is a question meaning in the sense of Hamblin (1973). The general properties of this theoretical picture are motivated by more than just questions. We have seen above that focus introduces alternatives as well. Alternatives are also the semantic tool used in the analysis of Free Choice Relative Clauses (FCRs) (e.g., Hirsch 2016), Negative Polarity Items (NPIs) (e.g., Krifka 1995;Lahiri 1998;Chierchia 2006) and Free Choice Items (FCIs) (e.g., Menéndez-Benito 2010; Chierchia 2013). They have been used in the analysis of universal and existential constructions with indeterminate pronouns in Japanese (Shimoyama 2001(Shimoyama , 2006Yatsushiro 2009;Uegaki 2018) and of indefinites in German (Kratzer and Shimoyama 2002). In each case, the alternatives triggered by the item in question (NPI, FCI, or indeterminate pronoun) are passed on compositionally until they encounter an evaluating operator (e.g., the operator EXH in the case of NPIs or a covert existential quantifier in the case of an indefinite interpretation-see below; the evaluating operator for focus is Rooth's (1992) famous * operator). At this point, the alternatives become operative in the ordinary semantics.
Looking back at the data set from OE, the set of interpretations under consideration (interrogative, FCR, FCI, NPI, universal, existential) invites an analysis in terms of an alternative semantics. The next subsection applies the basic theory introduced here to the OE bare series, and extends it to their non-interrogative uses.

OE bare indeterminate pronouns
In this subsection, the alternative semantics from Sect. 3.1 is applied to OE bare indeterminate pronouns. The core idea to be elaborated below is that the contribution of the indeterminate pronoun is the same throughout the possible sentence interpretations: it is an alternative trigger. The various sentence meanings-repeated in (49) from Sect. 2-come about by way of different operators that evaluate the alternatives triggered by the indeterminate pronoun. (50) indicates this association of operator and indeterminate pronoun. In (48) above, we have seen Q as one example of such an evaluating operator. Q derives the interrogative interpretation. Other operators will derive the other readings in (49) (52a) is an OE example (see also (7b), (9b), (10b)); once more I use the simplified prototype structure in (52b) in the semantic discussion. According to Hirsch's analysis, FCRs universally quantify over propositions, (53). The set of propositions quantified over is the meaning of the free choice relative clause, which contributes a question meaning. Thus the indeterminate pronoun has the same alternative semantics, and is evaluated in the same way as in the question above, (54), (55).  (2016) for their conditional interpretation and other properties. For our purposes, it is sufficient to note that the analysis of questions can be extended to FCRs. Thus their internal structure and analysis is identical to that of interrogatives. The evaluating operator for the indeterminate pronoun they contain is also Q.

Universal and existential quantification
Next, we turn to the two other interpretations of OE bare indeterminate pronouns that the data unequivocally support: universal and existential readings. It is natural to suppose that the semantic contribution of the indeterminate pronoun is the same across the various sentence interpretations. Hence, the analysis of the universal and existential interpretations is also an alternative semantics. Its most direct theoretical predecessor is Kratzer and Shimoyama (2002) (also Shimoyama 2001Shimoyama , 2006 for Japanese universal and existential quantification with -mo and -ka).
Beginning with universal readings, we have seen examples (4b), (7d), (9d), and (10d) in Sect. 2. I provide another example in (56a). For ease of exposition, I once more use an artificial structure (56b) in the semantic calculation. Following Kratzer and Shimoyama (2002), a covert universal propositional quantifier (58) is part of the structure in which the indeterminate pronoun occurs on the universal reading, (57a). The sister of this operator is interpreted in the same way as before, (57b). Combining this with the operator yields the interpretation in (57c), accounting for the intuitive truth conditions (cf. (59)). Appropriate evaluating operators for the bare series hence also include the covert propositional quantifiers ALL and EXIST defined in (58) and (62).

Polarity items
To complete the picture, we turn to the analysis of possible uses of OE indeterminate pronouns as polarity items.
We begin with FCI. Remember the difficulty that we face here: It is hard to establish that OE indeterminate pronouns have an analysis as FCIs because they have an analysis as universals. This is clear because they are acceptable and have a universal interpretation in contexts in which FCIs are not licensed (e.g., episodical sentences without a modal). This universal analysis could simply apply in FCI contexts as well. To illustrate, an example corresponding to the abstract structure in (63a) does not absolutely require us to assume an FCI analysis of hwelc 'which' akin to (63b (i)), because an analysis in terms of (63b (ii)) as a universal quantifier could apply. Both would yield truth conditions amounting to (63c). Hence, the clearest criterion for identifying an item as an FCI-its licensing conditions-does not give a clear result here.
(63) a. You can pick hwelc of these three cards.
b. (i) You can pick any of these three cards. (ii) You can pick each of these three cards. c. Vx[x is one of these three cards ? you can pick x] There is another intuition that may help to identify an FCI: the intuition of an exceptionally wide domain (Kadmon and Landman 1993), or that the universal quantification is over possible rather than actual entities of the description in the FCI (Dayal 1998; Alonso-Ovalle and Menéndez-Benito (forthcoming)) (my thanks to Paula Menéndez-Benito for drawing my attention to the importance of this intuition in the present context). (64) illustrates: (64a) intuitively entails (64b), hence seems to make a claim about possible rather than actual diplomats. Thus there seems to be an intensional component involved in FCI quantification. For the sake of concreteness, I represent this as a kind of generic quantification over possible individuals, as the paraphrase (64e) suggests. As far as I can tell, the intensional aspect of the semantics of FCIs is not an issue that semantic theory has resolved. It is my hope that whatever proves to be the right analysis of the phenomenon can be slotted into the sketch in (64c, d, e). How can we access this kind of intuition for OE? Here is how I will proceed: in this section, I will assume that OE bare indeterminate pronouns do have a use as FCIs, and present (the sketch of) an FCI compositional semantics. Since I do not present a knock-down argument, my assumption that there is an FCI analysis may be wrong. In that case, the FCI analysis suggested below simply doesn't apply. The uses in question then ought to be analysed instead as plain universal quantifiers, as discussed in the preceding subsection. But I present evidence that is strongly suggestive of an FCI analysis, based on (64), in Sect. 3.5. Since this evidence concerns all three series of OE indeterminate pronouns equally, the discussion is moved to its own section.
Concretely, I propose that the analysis of FCIs in Menéndez-Benito (2010) applies to OE indeterminate pronouns. As before, instead of an actual example of a (plausible) FCI use like (8a), (11a), or (65a, b), I use the simplified artificial example (65c) in the semantic calculation. An analysis based on Menéndez-Benito (2010) (though simplified and adapted to present concerns) is sketched below. The covert operator that evaluates the alternatives introduced by the FCI is called All-Alt. This operator needs to take scope over the licensor of the FCI (a modal or generic operator), and in (67)  for all w 0 such that R(w 0 )(w), p(w 0 ) = 1 R(w 0 )(w) iff w 0 follows the normal course of events in w (R is realistic).
Thus, FCIs introduce Hamblin alternatives which are evaluated by a covert propositional operator All-Alt. All-Alt is a covert universal quantifier over propositions taking scope over the licensor. Under the analysis of Menéndez-Benito (2010), no ordinary semantic value is required for FCIs. Her analysis can straightforwardly apply to OE indeterminate pronouns.
We turn to possible NPI uses next. Remember that we face a difficulty similar to the one that occurs with possible FCI uses: in view of the fact that existential interpretations of OE bare indeterminate pronouns are generally possible, the clearest criterion for NPI-hood-restricted distribution-cannot be observed. In contexts that permit NPIs, ordinary narrow scope existentials are also possible and (at least in the case of weak NPIs) yield indistinguishable truth conditions. (68) illustrates. I proceed as follows: I discuss a version of the standard semantic analysis of NPIs. It will become clear that the analysis of OE bare indeterminate pronouns from above cannot be reconciled with such a standard analysis. I suggest, therefore, that the bare series of OE indeterminate pronouns does not have an analysis as NPIs. The relevant occurrences are instead plain narrow scope indefinites (i.e., they are to be analysed like (68b (ii)) rather than (68b (i)). The semantic discussion will be useful, however, when we turn to the OE ge-series in Sect. 3.3 because I argue that the ge-series differs in an interesting way semantically from the bare series, and does have an analysis as NPIs.
Here is the by now classical analysis of NPIs: NPIs are assumed to have an alternative semantics (Krifka 1995;Lahiri 1998;Chierchia 2006). In ways that vary slightly between analyses, the alternatives are different from Hamblin alternatives; ultimately, they are alternative properties. Moreover-and this is the case for all the various versions of the analysis-the NPI analyses require an ordinary semantic value. I illustrate in (69)-(71). The structure of the acceptable example (69) is (70a). The NPI is an existential quantifier which introduces alternative properties, (70b). Both of its semantic values are combined with their sentence context in the composition (70c), in the familiar way. The evaluating operator EXH is defined in (71). It excludes all alternatives that are more informative than the ordinary semantics. In the case of the acceptable (69), this runs empty and we end up with a negated existential statement (70d).
(69) I didn't see anyone (70)  -contradiction Here's what is interesting for present purposes: the analysis of NPIs cannot be reconciled with the Hamblin semantics as defined in Sect. 3.1. The Hamblin alternatives are somewhat different than the property alternatives that the NPI theories would assume-we will return to this point in Sect. 3.3 and it will be revealed to be non-essential. But another crucial property of the analysis in Sect. 3.1 is that the bare indeterminate pronoun has no ordinary semantic value. This is incompatible with the EXH operator, which requires both an ordinary and an alternative semantic value for its sister, as seen in (71). Thus, the bare indeterminate pronoun cannot be evaluated by EXH, which implies that it cannot be analysed as an NPI. (73)  In consequence, I suggest that OE bare indeterminate pronouns are plain existentials, which may occur in NPI environments, taking narrow scope (e.g. in (8b), (11b) from Sect. 2). They are to be analysed with EXIST. We know that EXIST is an available evaluating operator because of existential readings in non-NPI contexts (e.g., (4a), (7c), (9c)). We come back to the NPI analysis and EXH when we analyse the ge-series in the next subsection.

Interim summary
I have applied a classical alternative semantics to OE bare indeterminate pronouns, taking their use in questions as the starting point for the analysis. Accordingly, they introduce Hamblin alternatives into the calculation. The alternatives are evaluated by an associated operator, OP in (50). Alternative evaluating operators OP for OE bare indeterminate phrases include Q, ALL, EXIST, and (as I will argue) All-Alt, but not EXH.
Bare indeterminates must be in the scope of one of these operators because of their undefined ordinary semantic value. This follows from the principle of interpretability: a sentence must have an ordinary semantics (Heim and Kratzer 1998, version in (74) from Beck 2006, (52)).
Next, we look at how the morphologically derived forms of the indeterminate pronouns fit into the picture.

The GE-series
The prefix ge-removes from the interpretive options of OE indeterminate pronouns the interrogative and FCR uses. The ge-series has universal and existential interpretations and potentially FCI and NPI uses (cf. Sect. 2, summary repeated below This semantic contribution of the prefix can be motivated by (though not directly derived from) the semantic contribution of the prefix's likely source, the lexical item ge. Let's take a look at the lexical item.
Translations offered for lexical ge (i.e. the free morpheme, not the prefix) in, for example, B&T are 'and, also'. (77)  you may see and know either GE good GE evil 'You will know both good and evil' (Thorpe 1844, 19) c. Ge swylce seo here-pad also such the war shirt 'and in like manner the war shirt (shall moulder after the warrior)' (B&T; Beo. Th. 4508; B. 2258. The Anglo-Saxon Poem of Beowulf, edited by Benjamin Thorpe, Oxford, 1855) Let's consider the conjunctive use. Following Mitrovic and Sauerland (2014), I call conjunctive markers marking both conjuncts polysyndetic conjunctions. According to Mitrovic and Sauerland (2014), the structure of a polysyndetic conjunction like 'ge A ge B' is as in (78). The morpheme ge marks each conjunct; it is not itself the logical conjunction 'and'. To indicate that 'and' is semantically present but not pronounced, I use strike-through 'and' in (78).

(78) [[ge A] and [ge B]]
It has been observed (Breindl 2008 Thus, the truth conditional impact of a polysyndetic conjunction is logical conjunction, and it makes available an alternative semantic value amounting to the corresponding (exclusive) disjunction. The disjunction has to be 'around' in the context. The question is how to derive the meaning and the context requirement. I consider the simplified prototype in (81) instead of actual examples like (77a, b) and (79), (80). We have seen that (82) is the desired interpretive result. We have also seen that appropriate contexts provide the alternatives sketched in (83). This can be understood as a mutual contrast requirement for the two conjuncts, (84)  In order to derive (82)-that is, in order to predict the right overall semantics and pragmatics of polysyndetic conjunction-the morpheme ge needs to negotiate the ordinary and alternative semantic values of the conjuncts. The semantics in (85) will accomplish this. The idea is that ge leaves the ordinary semantics unchanged (an identity function), but forms the union over the alternatives, which amounts to their disjunction. I further assume that an alternative to the disjunction is conjunction, and that a disjunction can be pragmatically strengthened to an exclusive disjunction (e.g., Sauerland 2004;Fox 2007 For present purposes, the core proposal is that ge performs the two semantic operations in (85), identity and union. With some plausibility, both are also at work in its other potential use as 'also' (77c). I illustrate informally in (87) Now, we turn to the prefix ge-as it occurs in indeterminate pronouns of the ge-series. We can assume that prefix ge-developed from the additive particle ge. The lexical entry in (85) cannot be used without modification, given the Hamblin semantics of the bare indeterminate pronoun, because the ordinary semantic value of the bare indeterminate pronoun is undefined. I propose (88) = (76) as the semantic contribution of prefix ge-: That is, the same two semantic operations are performed (identity and union), but they are distributed over alternative and ordinary semantics differently, using the alternative semantics twice and outputting two different values. This makes it possible for prefix ge-to combine with bare indeterminate phrases.
The operator in (88) has independently been suggested by Erlewine (2017) in the analysis of Toba Batak manang. This morpheme similarly negotiates between ordinary and alternative semantic values, although the specific data set to be accounted for is not the same, and hence manang's combination with other operators is not the same either. But the analytical parallels will come up in the discussion below; see especially Sect. 4.
In (89), we see prefix ge-in combination with the indeterminate pronoun hwa 'who'. The prefix does not affect the alternative semantic value; but it adds an ordinary semantic value, which is an existential quantifier/disjunction over the alternatives. Next, we examine how the ge-series combines with its compositional context to yield the sentence interpretations available for this type of indeterminate pronoun in OE.

Indeterminate pronouns of the ge-series in their sentence contexts
Below I repeat (75), the summary of the interpretive possibilities for the ge-series from Sect. 2: (75) question FCR FCI NPI Univ Exist ge-series H ? H ? H H The first observation that the analysis needs to capture is that interrogative and FCR uses are not possible for the ge-series. I propose to refine the definition of the Q operator as in (90), which I take from Erlewine (2017). (90) will yield a well-defined question semantics when its scope contains an indeterminate pronoun with an undefined ordinary semantic value, like the OE bare series, for example (51 0 b). (90) will yield undefinedness when the pronoun has the semantic properties of the geseries, for example (89). This is illustrated in (91). 8 Under the analysis of Hirsch 8 Here is an alternative proposal: It seems reasonable to suppose that if an expression makes available an ordinary meaning, this meaning cannot be ignored in the further semantic computation. This excludes composing a question semantics in a hypothetical structure like (91), without resorting to (90). While the alternatives would provide the necessary input for the Q operator, at the level of the ordinary semantics we would calculate 'someone' and 'someone left', which are never used. We can conjecture that this is inappropriate. (i) might be a principle of the semantic component of the grammar.
(i) Principle of Full Interpretive Use (PFIU): An ordinary semantic value must be used in the composition.
The PFIU is more general and, if correct, might make a stipulation like (90) unnecessary. I leave this issue to further research.
(2016), (90) also correctly predicts that the ge-series cannot be used in FCRs, whose internal composition is the same as that of questions. Basically I propose the same analysis as before, (94) and (95). 9 9 If we assume the PFIU from the preceding footnote, the question arises how the ordinary semantics of the sister of the operator is used. I suggest that it may go into an existential PSP of the quantifier. A version of ALL that is revised accordingly is given in (i), and an example in (ii). A similar proposal can be found in Uegaki (2018) for Japanese -ka indefinites. For OE, the existence and content of such a presupposition is unfortunately hard to check on the basis of corpus data, as noted in the discussion of NPI uses of the a-series. I will not pursue the matter in more detail. Lastly, we look at uses of ge-indeterminate pronouns as polarity items. In Sect. 3.5, I present evidence suggesting that the ge-series can be used as FCI. The analysis from Sect. 3.2. should thus apply to pronouns of the ge-series as well. Since they do not bring any new feature to the analysis of FCI, I will not repeat the analysis.
Instead, let's turn to uses of ge-indeterminate pronouns as NPIs. It is here that we see the second benefit of the specific interpretive contribution postulated for ge-in (88): the existential meaning ('someone left') is the right ordinary semantic value for the standard analysis of NPIs. I further propose to replace the Krifka/Lahiri/ Chierchia-alternatives by Hamblin alternatives, making the analysis of NPIs compatible with a Hamblin semantics of indeterminate phrases. The same step is taken in Erlewine and Kotek (2016) in a semantic analysis of Tibetan NPIs. I repeat an attested example in (96a) and analyse the hypothetical structure in (96b) in (97) (the semantics of the EXH operator (71) is repeated for convenience). (98) demonstrates that the revised analysis preserves the prediction of the original analysis that EXH cannot evaluate an NPI in a non-downward entailing context. By this semantic analysis, the ge-series can appropriately be evaluated by EXH. The analysis creates the possibility of genuine NPI uses of ge-indeterminate pronouns. The composition is parallel to Erlewine's (2017) analysis of Toba Batak manang, with parallel empirical motivation: the morpheme manang together with an indeterminate pronoun is an NPI, hence via association with EXH (for Erlewine: even) requires an existential ordinary semantic value and Hamblin alternatives as alternative semantic value. This motivates a semantics including (88). Example (96a) in particular is indicative of a use of the ge-series as (strong) NPIs (as discussed in Sect. 2). Remember that since the ge-series has an existential interpretation, the existential analysis (95) could apply in NPI environments as well (as in the case of the bare series), resulting in a semantics that, for weak NPIs, is indistinguishable. Although I do not provide a finely differentiated analysis of strong versus weak NPIs (see, e.g., Krifka 1995), I take (96a) to provide evidence that an NPI analysis for the ge-series is indeed called for. We will see in the next subsection that the basic semantics is inherited by the a-series, for which we have seen further evidence for an NPI analysis.

Subsection summary
According to the analysis developed in this subsection, the prefix ge-adds an ordinary semantic value to the meaning of an indeterminate phrase. A first consequence is that an interrogative interpretation and an FCR use become impossible. A second consequence is that an analysis as NPIs becomes possible, because the alternative evaluating operator for NPIs requires an ordinary semantic value. Other than that, the ge-series shares the interpretive possibilities of the bare series since ge-makes no difference for the alternative semantic value. The upshot is that alternative evaluating operators (50) for OE ge-indeterminate phrases include ALL and EXIST, All-Alt and EXH, but not Q. This accounts for their range of interpretive possibilities.

(50) [OP [… indeterminate pronoun…]] | ___________________ |
We may ask whether one of these operators must be in the structure. Note that without any alternative evaluating operator, we would end up with a semantics exemplified in (99). This is an existential interpretation which makes available Hamblin alternatives. Such a pair of ordinary and alternative semantics turns out to be problematic, for the following reason: We assume that alternative semantic values are used in the evaluation of focus. We further assume that at root level at the latest, focus must be evaluated (i.e. a connection to the sentence's context must be made). The operator responsible is Rooth's (1992)  But this means that sentence structures with a pronoun of the ge-series without an appropriate evaluating operator (ALL, EXIST, All-Alt or EXH) will not be wellformed. I follow Erlewine (2017) in suggesting that for this reason, the item in question (here: the indeterminate ge-pronoun) needs to be in the scope of one of the evaluating operators. Structures with one of the evaluating operators will be well-formed if we assume, standardly, that the operator resets the alternative semantic value to a singleton set containing the ordinary semantic value, for example: OE ge-offers a window into the role of operators negotiating the ordinary semantics/alternative semantics distinction. There is a set of items in language that seem to fluctuate between an alternative and an ordinary semantics (for example disjunction, indeterminate phrases, and possibly others like Toba Batak manang (see also the literature on so-called Q-particles, e.g., Hagstrom 1998;Cable 2010;Slade 2011;and Sect. 4); an early reference is Ramchand 1997). These items raise the question how their alternative semantic contribution and their ordinary semantics interact. (88) is my proposal for the issue at hand, and it is identical to Erlewine's (2017) proposal developed for a somewhat different data set. Thus (88) may be the (or one of the) operator(s) in language that allows an alternative trigger to also enter into ordinary semantic composition.
This issue only becomes apparent in a two-tier system with ordinary and alternative semantics, which is the kind of general theory that is needed. This requires transforming Alonso-Ovalle's (2006) analysis of disjunction, Shimoyama (2001), Kratzer and Shimoyama (2002), or other analyses in terms of an alternative semantic tier only, into a two-tier semantic system (see Uegaki 2018 for recent discussion). Let me also emphasize that the issue with ge-is about operators that negotiate the two tiers which are not the evaluating operators. This is clear because of the pervasive ambiguity of OE indeterminate ge-phrases and similarly the ambiguity in Toba Batak analysed by Erlewine.

The A-series
Remember from Sect. 2 that the interpretive possibilities of the a-series of indeterminate phrases are a proper subset of those of the ge-series: existential interpretations are not attested. Recall also that the a-series must have a genuine NPI use, because of the lack of existential interpretations outside of NPI licensing contexts, and the inappropriate interpretation a wide scope universal would yield. An NPI use in turn implies that the indeterminate phrase has an ordinary semantic value, adding to the motivation of the semantic step suggested in the analysis of ge-.
(101) question FCR FCI NPI Univ Exist a-series H ? H H Once more, it would be attractive to derive the reduction of readings we see in (101) from the presence of the prefix a-, which is added on top of ge-to the indeterminate pronoun morphologically. Thus we will take the analysis of the geseries from the preceding subsection as the starting point and ask how a-changes the picture. Interestingly, the surviving readings (FCI, NPI, universal) are all interpretations in which the alternative evaluating operator (All-Alt, EXH, ALL) is a universal quantifier. This corresponds to the meaning of OE lexical a, which is the universal quantifier 'always'. (102) sketches a semantics for always, a universal quantifier over times.
(102) [[always C ]] = kp \i,st[ .kw. for all t in C, p(t)(w) = 1 I suggest that the contribution of the prefix a-, which is derived from lexical a, is to impose the requirement that an evaluating operator should have universal quantificational force. I call this 'universal agreement' and illustrate with (104). (Here, as well, the structure interpreted in the semantics, (103b), is a sample structure used to simplify realistic data in which an a-indeterminate pronoun is interpreted universally, e.g., (103a) and the data from Sect. 2.) (103)  A model for universal agreement is negative concord. In the analysis of negative concord, I follow Penka (2011): the semantically interpreted element (negation), which may be silent, stands in an agreement relation to an element which does not contribute to the composition (i.e., does not express negation), but makes it morphologically visible. (105) from OE (a negative concord language) illustrates: the negative morphology on nan 'not-one' is not interpreted, but the element requires the presence of a sentence negation. This can be modelled in terms of syntactic Agreement (Penka 2011 We also have a predecessor for the proposed change from lexical a to prefix a-in the domain of negative concord: Gianollo (2017) argues that Latin nec changes from semantic [Neg] (negation) to formal [uNeg] in negative indefinites in negative concord (e.g. Italian nessuno). A parallel perspective is plausible here: lexical a expresses a universal quantifier, semantic V, and changes to the prefix a- [uV] looking for an appropriate evaluating operator.
(108) and (110) illustrate that the other evaluating operators All-Alt and EXH are also universal in nature (and I proceed in the same manner as above with the presentation of the examples). 10 (107)  | __________________________ | universal agreement 'They could accomplish anything.' b. All plausible propositions 'they can accomplish x (x a possible wish)' are true. 10 The agreement mechanism in (108) could provide us with the missing piece in the analysis of FCI in terms of All-Alt from Sect. 3.2.3, namely the modal interpretation of both All-Alt and the FCI. If that analysis is correct in assuming that the same accessibility relation R is at work in both the operator and the FCI, the agreement mechanism could be held responsible for this, as sketched in (i). The details are beyond the scope of the present paper. This, then, is the analysis that I suggest for the a-series: indeterminate phrases of the a-series have the semantics of the ge-series and in addition carry a feature [uV]. All three operators responsible for the interpretations available to OE a-indeterminate phrases have interpretable [V]; that is, they are universal quantifiers.
This predicts that alternative evaluating operators for OE a-(ge-) indeterminate phrases include ALL, EXH and probably All-Alt, but not EXIST or Q. This accounts for the range of available interpretations of the a-series.

OE indeterminate pronouns as FCI?
This section returns to the question of whether OE indeterminate pronouns have an analysis as FCIs. Remember that superficial observation doesn't allow us to decide because all three series of indeterminate pronouns permit a universal interpretation. At the same time, the descriptive literature reveals a clear intuition that an FCI use is available, as witnessed by frequent translations in terms of FCI any or who/whatever ((e.g., (12), (65a, b)).
In this section, I will concentrate on the intuition that FCIs, in contrast to plain universal quantifiers, have an intensional component. Remember from Sect. 3.2 the analysis in (111), (112), according to which quantification is over possible objects of the indeterminate phrase description. Plain universal quantifiers, on the other hand, make an assertion (and possibly have a presupposition) that holds in the actual world.  An interesting aspect of the analysis is the role attributed to the morphemes ge-and a-. Both reduce the available interpretations of indeterminate phrases, ge-removing question and FCR interpretations, and a-additionally removing existential readings. This has been interpreted as ge-mediating between alternative and ordinary semantic values, making the indeterminate phrase unable to act as interrogative (and therefore also unable to occur in FCR). This means that ge-pronouns cannot associate with Q, but in contrast to bare indeterminate pronouns, they can associate with EXH. The morpheme a-is transparently universal and removes non-universal interpretations from the range of possibilities. Therefore a-pronouns cannot associate with EXIST. Both morphemes find theoretical predecessors in the semantic and syntactic literature. Two properties of the analysis emerge directly which are of more general interest: (i) The connection between interrogative and FCR uses that OE exhibits supports analyses of FCR as underlyingly interrogative (Hirsch 2016). (ii) It is possible to bring together two strands of research working with alternatives: questions and NPIs, unifying Hamblin alternatives and NPI alternatives. This confirms Erlewine and Kotek's (2016) result (which is based on Tibetan data and a slightly different analysis of NPIs). In view of the fact that crosslinguistically, the make-up of NPIs frequently derives from indeterminate or interrogative expressions (e.g. Haspelmath 1997;Kratzer and Shimoyama 2002), this unification is highly desirable.

Consequences and outlook
In this final section, I consider the findings from OE under a wider perspective. In Sect. 4.1 I relate OE to indeterminate phrases in other languages. Universal quantification is discussed from a crosslinguistic perspective in Sect. 4.2 and from a diachronic perspective in Sect. 4.3.

Indeterminate phrases crosslinguistically
In recent years, the field has collected substantial evidence on indeterminate phrases in semantically underdescribed languages. We have begun to develop generalizations across languages and an analysis of those generalizations. I take Szabolcsi (2015) to be a culmination of a lot of interesting work in this area. OE indeterminate phrases offer an illuminating case study because there are two respects in which they do not match the generalizations reached on the basis of other languages, the properties (119(i)) and (119(ii)): (119) (i) Universal bare indeterminates: OE bare indeterminate phrases permit a universal interpretation. (ii) Existential/universal ambiguity: The OE ge-series, despite the additive nature of ge, permits an existential interpretation in addition to a universal interpretation.
The first empirical fact is to be emphasized in view of the generalization in (120). OE shows that a universal interpretation is not per se excluded for bare indeterminates.
(120) ''to my knowledge, bare indeterminate pronouns do not receive universally quantified interpretations, cross-linguistically.'' (Szabolcsi 2015, 188) The second empirical fact contradicts the generalization that indeterminate phrases with additive particles-MO-type quantificational particles in Szabolcsi's termslead to universal interpretations, not existential interpretations. Japanese (1b) is an example. (Existential interpretations, according to the existing generalizations, are derived by KA-type quantificational particles; see below.) Given the fact that geseries indeterminate phrases can have both existential and universal interpretations, my analysis of ge-does not lead to a disambiguation between the two. That is, OE ge-is neither a MO-type particle nor a KA-type particle. Its analysis is repeated below. The closest connection I am aware of is, as pointed out above, Erlewine's (2017) analysis of Toba Batak manang. This morpheme can be added to indeterminate pronouns and disjunctions. In order to capture the distribution and interpretation of phrases with manang, Erlewine decomposes manang into two operators J and A defined in (121a, b). (121b) is of course (88). Manang spells out one or both of these operators, depending on its sentence context. ( Erlewine's goal is to account for the fact that manang forms NPIs with an indeterminate phrase, and ordinary disjunctions or alternative questions with disjunctive phrases. (Manang has other possible uses in FCI and embedded questions.) The derivation of NPIs from indeterminate phrases via (88) = (121b), in particular, links his proposal to the present paper. Like ge-pronouns, manang ? XP permits several interpretations; hence manang is not the evaluating operator.
The semantic connection of ge-to so-called question particles or Q-particles (e.g., Hagstrom 1998;Shimoyama 2001Shimoyama , 2006Cable 2010;Slade 2011;Uegaki 2018) is less close than to manang. The term is applied to morphemes that may mark questions (wh and alternative), indefinites and NPIs, and disjunctions. (The details of the distribution and interpretive options vary from particle to particle.) (122) illustrates with Japanese -ka (examples after Uegaki 2018), a Q-particle, or (in Szabolcsi's (2015) terms) quantificational particle of the KA-type.
(122) a. Dare-ga hashitta-KA oshiete. who-Nom ran-KA tell 'Tell me who ran.' b. Dare-KA-ga hashitta. who-KA-Nom ran 'Someone ran.' c. Hanako-KA Jiro-KA-ga hashitta. Hanako-KA Jiro-KA-Nom ran 'Either Hanako or Jiro ran.' Q-particles also require a navigation of the two tiers of semantic interpretation (alternative and ordinary semantics). That is, somewhere in the interpretation we need to get from Hamblin alternatives to ordinary semantic values, and where and how this happens depends on the construction we analyse (question vs. NPI etc.) (e.g., Uegaki 2018; Kotek 2019). The range of interpretations considered in the Q-particle literature cited above is, however, different from the range of interpretations we find for OE indeterminate phrases. In particular, Japanese -ka and its crosslinguistic counterparts do not mark universal quantification, while this is a possible interpretation of the ge-series. Accordingly, the semantic analyses developed for Q-particles do not apply to OE indeterminate pronouns. For example, the difference between interrogative and non-interrogative interpretations in OE does not lie in the application of existential closure (e.g., Uegaki 2018), which determines an existential interpretation.
Instead, the semantics of ge-can go into both a universal and an existential interpretation. This morpheme is another piece of the puzzle in the derivation of non-interrogative readings of indeterminate phrases. I conjecture that the operator personified by ge-may play a role in the semantic decomposition of Q-particle constructions, as demonstrated in Erlewine (2017) for manang, perhaps more generally.

Universal quantification across languages
The composition of universal quantification that we have seen in OE is markedly different from how quantification works in PDE. Below, I contrast a minimal pair. The contrast invites examining the analysis of OE in the light of crosslinguistic variation in the domain of quantification. Semantically, universal quantification in OE seems more similar to languages like Japanese than to PDE. I provide a Japanese example below; following Shimoyama (2001Shimoyama ( , 2006, also Yatsushiro (2009) MO has a role similar to the covert operator ALL in OE in quantifying universally over alternatives. But while MO quantifies over the alternatives provided by its sister-in the example, individual alternatives-ALL according to the above analysis quantifies over propositional alternatives. Is this a point of crosslinguistic variation?
The analysis for Japanese MO is well-motivated because there is evidence that the place where we observe the morpheme is the place where universal quantification takes scope (Yatsushiro 2009). Interpreting MO in situ means, for data like (125), that the quantification is over individuals.
The situation is less clear in OE. I have not been able to come up with clear empirical criteria for deciding whether quantification is over alternative propositions, as in (124) above, or over alternative individuals, as in the alternative analysis in (127) Since with All-Alt and EXH, indeterminate phrases in OE are evaluated by operators that certainly are propositional (we know this because these two operators take scope over the licensor, a modal or negation), it seems more parsimoneous to define a propositional ALL (in the footsteps of Kratzer and Shimoyama 2002). If this is accurate, then OE contributes a slightly different pattern from Japanese in the domain of quantification crosslinguistically. The next subsection offers a diachronic perspective on this issue.

Diachronic development of universal quantifiers
OE aelc, via Middle English (ME) elk, elc, ylc,…, ech is the word from which (perhaps together with aeghwelc) PDE each developed (e.g., Einenkel 1904;Kahlas-Tarkka 1987;Haspelmath 1995). PDE every's source is the combination aefre aelc 'ever each' which became frequent during ME. Looking back at the two analyses in (123) and (124), it is clear that the semantic change involved is far from trivial. How did PDE each and every derive from aelc? In Beck (2017Beck ( , 2018 I propose that there is a universal semantic cycle, in analogy to Jespersen's (1917) cycle for negation. Following Beck (2017Beck ( , 2018, (128) sketches the major stages in the cycle.  Haspelmath (1995) argues that a common source of universal quantifiers across languages is free relative clauses, which develop into FCI. I spell this out in terms of formal semantics as stage 1: universal quantification over propositions, as we see it, for example, in FCRs. At stage 2, the structure and compositional environment is reduced. Quantification is still over alternatives, but individual alternatives, and the universal quantification may become associated with a morpheme. Japanese -mo is a crosslinguistic example of stage 2 (English wh-ever DP is provided merely for illustration). Stage 3 is the stage we are familiar with from the analysis of quantification in formal semantics (e.g., Barwise and Cooper 1981): a generalized quantifier analysis. Quantification happens in the ordinary semantics. In a final stage, I suggest that an element may leave the cycle and lose its property of being a universal quantifier. We are beginning to see this with collective readings of PDE every (Champollion 2010;Beck 2018). The diachronic development is parallel to what we see in Jespersen's cycle: In a first stage, there is an element which does not itself express a logical concept, but occurs in environments in which the concept is expressed (e.g., emphatic particles like French pas 'step' supporting negation). In a next stage, the element becomes tied to the logical concept but does not express it alone (e.g., the combination ne… pas). At a central stage, this lexical item expresses the logical concept (present day French pas). But the item may lose this semantics (which is what happened to French ne), making room for the cycle-or more accurately spiral (Gergel 2016)-to begin anew.
The logical concept in the present example is universal quantification in the place of negation. The division of labour that is negotiated is between indeterminate phrases, covert universal quantifiers, and lexical universal quantification, instead of NPIs, negative concord, and lexical negation in Jespersen's cycle. (Similar concepts plausibly apply to the diachronic development of various indefinite expressions, but I concentrate on universals here.) We can now look at the analysis in Sect. 3 as a window into the Universal Semantic Cycle. The analysis of universal readings of OE indeterminate phrases is located in between stages 1 and 2 of the cycle. This is because quantification is still over propositions, but the structure is reduced and we no longer have the conditional and other material from the FCR. The question raised at the end of the preceding subsection, whether quantification could be over individual alternatives instead of propositions, directly relates to the further diachronic development. I conjecture that at some point covert ALL must adjoin to DP and quantify over individuals, as in (127), since this is the stage 2 analysis that will allow us to eventually move on to stage 3 (the standard analysis in terms of generalized quantifier theory). I do not at this point have evidence to decide at what time English is to be analysed as stage 2, that is, whether the DP ALL analysis in (127) applies already in OE or only later, presumably in ME.
At any rate, from the stage 2 analysis, the following change has to occur to get us to stage 3: That is, we move from an alternative semantics to an ordinary semantics, and the determiner takes on the meaning of the universal quantifier while covert ALL is lost. These things have to happen all together to change the composition as indicated. I analyse this change in detail in Beck (2018). The sketch presented here suffices for us to see how the analysis of indeterminate phrases in OE fits into a bigger picture of crosslinguistic variation and diachronic development of universal quantification. It is interesting to see how an English generalized quantifier, the standard example of quantification in natural language, developed diachronically-from a very different origin.

Summary and conclusion
This paper has offered an investigation into the interpretive possibilities of indeterminate pronouns in Old English. I have presented a sample of positive evidence extracted by searching the YCOE corpora. The data indicate a surprisingly massive ambiguity of sentences with indeterminate pronouns. The bare series is shown to allow interrogative, existential, universal, and free choice interpretations. The universal interpretation of bare indeterminates is a novel phenomenon crosslinguistically. Evidence is presented that the ge-series can participate in universal, existential, free choice, and NPI interpretations. The simultaneous availability of both an existential and universal interpretation is again unexpected crosslinguistically. The a-series, finally, participates in universal, free choice, and NPI readings.
The analysis puts a Hamblin alternative semantics at the heart of the composition. This is the contribution of the indeterminate pronoun. Covert alternative evaluating operators determine sentence interpretation on the basis of the alternatives triggered by the indeterminate. Each series permits several evaluating operators, but not the same ones. The morphemes ge-and a-are semantically active, affecting which evaluating operators are appropriate. This system derives the range of available readings for each series.
In addition to providing a case study of the expression of quantification crosslinguistically, Old English indeterminate pronouns invite a diachronic perspective. Focusing on aelc, the ancestor of each, the study opens a window to the historical development of universal quantification. From an alternative semantics, the expression changes to a standard universal quantifier. This necessitates a series of changes in the grammar that the present paper has begun to explore. Further steps would be to pursue a more fine-grained study of other interpretations and of the different periods of the English language, and to consider the diachronic trajectory of other indeterminate pronouns. I must leave these followup questions as projects for future research.
The data collection reported here concentrates on the YCOE files identified as OE1 or OE2. In case the indeterminate pronoun under investigation is rare (as is the case in particular for the ge-series), I supplement the OE1 and OE2 files with files that identify the text as OE1 or OE2, though the manuscript source is later. This is the case for the Blickling Homilies described as OE23 (meaning the text is from OE2 but the manuscript from OE3) and Gregory's Dialogues, OE24 or OE23.

coblick
OE23 The Blickling Homilies Morris (1967) cogregdC OE24 Gregory's Dialogues Hecht (1965) cogregdH OE23 Gregory's Dialogues Hecht (1965) Mentioned in the discussion (in particular in the context of the global searches of YCOE) are additional data points collected from the following files: cocathom1 OE3 Alfric's Catholic Homilies I Clemoes (1997) cocathom2 OE3 Alfric's Catholic Homilies II Godden (1979) Some editions (e.g., Miller, Harmer and Sweet) include a translation of the OE text into modern English. This is generally the translation I cite. Liebermann (1903) includes a translation of the OE text into German, which I provide along with my translation into English. The edition of e.g. Sedgefield does not include translations into modern English. Here, Alfred the Great's electronic Boethius (under www.uky. edu), which is based on YCOE's source Sedgefield (1899), was helpful. In some cases (e.g., Bately's (1980) edition of Orosius), I did not have access to the YCOE source edition. In such cases, the sources of the translations are as indicated in the individual examples.