3.1. The present participle and its combinations with existential verbs

In Germanic languages, the participle of the present tense expresses an active action or process that is initiated by the subject (cf. Kotin Reference Kotin2003:98). Furthermore, in contrast to the past participle, the present participle forces a nonmutative, atelic reading of all verbs, including telic verbs, as seen, for example, in modern German, present participles of telic verbs like sterbend ‘dying’, kommend ‘incoming’, einschlafend ‘falling asleep’ (cf. Kotin Reference Kotin2003:103–104).

In modern German, there are no constructions that combine verbs meaning ‘to be’, ‘to become’, and ‘to remain’ (sein, werden, bleiben) with a present participle (e.g. *Sie ist/wird/bleibt tanzend ‘She is/becomes/remains dancing’). In earlier stages of the development of German (cf. Winkler Reference Winkler1913, Kotin Reference Kotin2003:98–105), including Low German (cf. Lasch Reference Lasch1914/1974:222, paragraph 412, note 3, Lübben Reference Lübben1882:92–93, Sarauw Reference Sarauw1924:226–227, Ihden Reference Ihden2023) and other Germanic languages (cf. Mosse Reference Mosse1938), the combinations of this type are predicative constructions where the inflected verbs have the status of a copula, and the participle is a predicative adjective. The predicative use of present participles is, however, probably not a Proto-Germanic phenomenon (cf. Rosenthal Reference Rosenthal1984:104, Frotscher Reference Frotscher2014:3). As Kotin (Reference Kotin2003:101–103) points out, these constructions show traits of partial grammaticalization, where the inflected verb gradually shifts toward a copular function while the participle assumes a more fixed predicative role.

Several studies suggest that Latin influenced the predicative use of present participles in German dialects (see, among others, Glück Reference Glück, Thielemann and Welke2001:82, Fleischer Reference Fleischer2007:334–337, Ihden Reference Ihden2023:415–416). Additionally, as Clark (Reference Clark1914:16) has shown, the influence of the source language must be taken into account when analyzing translations of periphrastic constructions between Germanic dialects. Among other things, this applies to structures involving the present participle, as the source language plays a significant role in shaping their form and interpretation. Moreover, beyond external factors, internal linguistic factors also played a crucial role, such as the type of verb used in the present participle, which in turn determined the choice of the copula (cf. Winkler Reference Winkler1913:58, Betten Reference Betten1987:111).

The combinations of existential verbs with present participles in MLG have been partially described in the literature, with varying interpretations regarding their aspectual properties.Footnote ⁸ Lasch (Reference Lasch1914/1974:222, paragraph 412, note 3) states that wēsen ‘to be’ + present participle can express both an inchoative action and a durative action. In contrast, Sarauw (Reference Sarauw1924:226–227) and Lübben (Reference Lübben1882:92–93) interpret wēsen + present participle as clearly durative, and wērden ‘to become’ + present participle as inchoative. Lübben (Reference Lübben1882:92–93) also points out the special meaning of the combination of wērden in the past tense with the present participle. This combination is meant to express the beginning and the duration of an action at the same time. Sarauw (Reference Sarauw1924:226–227), on the other hand, notes that the use of wērden in the present tense with a present participle can be used to express the future. Ihden (Reference Ihden2023:421, 428), in turn, ascribes a purely futurative character to most combinations of wērden + present participle and, like Lübben and Sarauw, interprets combinations of wēsen + present participle as constructions of predominantly durative character.Footnote ⁹

No interpretations of the combinations of the verb blîven with the present participle are found in the grammars of MLG (cf. Lübben Reference Lübben1882, Lasch Reference Lasch1914, Sarauw Reference Sarauw1924). Rosenthal (Reference Rosenthal1984:103–105), in his study of the semantics and syntax of blîven, identifies a dual interpretation of these constructions: They can have either a durative meaning, indicating ‘to remain in some state/position’, or a context-dependent ingressive meaning, referring to ‘entering and remaining in a changed state/position’. However, Rosenthal does not find direct evidence for the latter meaning in Middle Low German (Sächsische Weltchronik), attesting it only in Middle Dutch (Eneide).

More recent research (Woźnicka Reference Woźnicka2024: 570–571, 573) confirms that both meanings of blîven + present participle are attested in Middle Low German. However, that study focused on the general semantics of blîven and the syntactic status of the verb, particularly in the context of its potential auxiliary function, and was restricted to texts up to the end of the fifteenth century. It did not examine which of the two meanings is predominant nor what determines the overall interpretation of the construction.

3.2. The infinitive and its combinations with existential verbs

Although the infinitive is commonly regarded as the base form of the verb, it is neither a primitive nor a neutral form from a diachronic perspective (Haspelmath Reference Haspelmath1989). One possible origin of infinitival forms is the phonological reduction of the present participle in constructions with existential verbs (Holmberg Reference Holmberg1916:32, Limmer Reference Limmer1944:17). A similar phenomenon has also been observed in Middle Low German, as noted by Lasch (Reference Lasch1914/1974:222, paragraph 412, footnote 3). As Saltveit (Reference Saltveit1957:213–214) points out with regard to werden constructions, the coexistence of two structurally similar constructions with different functions – werden + infinitive and werden + present participle – led to a gradual reduction of the participial endings. As a result, participial forms increasingly came to resemble infinitives and ultimately became formally indistinguishable from them. Saltveit (Reference Saltveit1957:226) further suggests that the destructive influence of the werden + infinitive construction may have affected not only its participial counterpart but also other predicative structures involving the present participle.

Another potential source of infinitives is proposed by Haspelmath (Reference Haspelmath1989), who suggests that they derive from nominal purposive forms. This perspective aligns with the broader grammaticalization pathways observed crosslinguistically, where purposive constructions develop into nonfinite verb forms over time.

Furthermore, recent research on the infinitive in werden constructions in modern German (Jäger Reference Jäger2024) suggests that the infinitive may have originated from a past participle that formally coincided with the infinitive. From this hypothesis, it follows that the infinitive did not develop solely through the phonological reduction of the participle or the transformation of purposive constructions but also as a result of the interplay between morphological syncretism and syntactic reanalysis.

Constructions involving existential verbs combined with infinitives are attested in both older High and Low German dialects and remain well documented in contemporary German. In the case of MLG, however, their description is limited.Footnote ¹⁰

Grammars of Middle Low German (Lübben Reference Lübben1882, Lasch Reference Lasch1914, Sarauw Reference Sarauw1924) do not provide information on blîven or wēsen + infinitive constructions. However, Lasch (Reference Lasch1914/1974:222, paragraph 412, footnote 6) notes that in wērden + present participle constructions, the participle gradually converged with the infinitive, which eventually became the dominant form. Elsewhere (Reference Lasch1914/Reference Lasch1974:222, paragraph 412, footnote 3), referring to Nissen (Reference Nissen1884: paragraph 92), Lasch provides examples of wēsen + present participle constructions, suggesting that a similar shift towards the infinitive occurred in this case as well. In contrast, no information is available on blîven, either in combination with a participle or an infinitive.

Regarding the semantic interpretation of infinitival constructions, Lasch (Reference Lasch1914/1974:222, paragraph 412, footnote 6) refers exclusively to the verbs wērden, willen ‘to want’, and schöllen ‘shall’. These constructions, like their counterparts with the present participle, function as periphrastic futurum. In contrast, recent research (Woźnicka Reference Woźnicka2024:569, 573) demonstrates that blîven in combination with the infinitive exhibits the same meanings as in constructions with the present participle. Both meanings – ‘to remain in a certain state/position’ and ‘to enter and remain in a changed state/position’ – are attested in blîven + infinitive constructions, further confirming the semantic parallels between blîven + present participle and blîven + infinitive. However, this confirmation is based on a small number of individual examples, as the analysis did not include texts from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

Compared to MLG, infinitival constructions with existential verbs are significantly better documented in High German dialects and modern German. The werden + infinitive construction is one of the most extensively studied structures in German and functions as a periphrastic futurum, though in modern German it also serves a modal function. The discussions concern both its interpretation (Fritz Reference Fritz2000, Diewald Reference Diewald2005, Krämer Reference Krämer2005) and its origins. Developmental hypotheses suggest that the werden + infinitive construction derives from werden + present participle through phonological reduction (Bech Reference Bech1901, challenged by many and ultimately refuted by Concu Reference Concu2022), by analogy with other periphrastic constructions (Wilmanns Reference Wilmanns1906, Diewald & Habermann Reference Diewald, Habermann, Leuschner, Mortelmans and De Groodt2005), or through evolution from werden + past participle (Jäger Reference Jäger2024).

The first attestations of sein + infinitive appear as early as the eleventh century, becoming more frequent from the fifteenth century onwards (Vogel Reference Vogel, Geist and Rothstein2007:273). This construction, originally progressive in nature, emerged through the loss of endings in the older sein + present participle structure, which it fully replaced in the fifteenth–sixteenth century (Holmberg Reference Holmberg1916:32, Limmer Reference Limmer1944:17). The sein + infinitive form itself disappeared after the seventeenth century (Limmer Reference Limmer1944:17), with its decline often linked to the expansion of werden + infinitive as a future periphrasis (Ebert et al. Reference Ebert, Reichmann, Solms and Wegera1993:392). In modern German, sein + infinitive occurs as the so-called absentive construction (Peter ist einkaufen ‘Peter is out shopping’), with no direct connection drawn to its earlier uses (Vogel Reference Vogel, Geist and Rothstein2007:274). Its origin has been variously explained, including as the result of ellipsis of the past participle gegangen ‘gone’ (e.g. ist einkaufen gegangen ‘has gone to buy’ → ist einkaufen ‘is out buying’; Grimm Reference Grimm1898:101, Wilmanns Reference Wilmanns1906:176–177, Holmberg Reference Holmberg1916:33, Limmer Reference Limmer1944:18, 95, 109f., 112, Krause Reference Krause2002, Abraham Reference Abraham2007), replacement of gehen ‘to go’ by the verb sein ‘to be’ in the infinitival construction (e.g. geht einkaufen ‘goes to buy’ → ist einkaufen ‘is out buying’; Vogel Reference Vogel, Geist and Rothstein2007), or a reduced purposive um … zu construction (e.g. ist (irgendwo) um einzukaufen ‘is (somewhere) to buy’ → ist (irgendwo) einkaufen ‘is (somewhere) out buying’; Wöllstein Reference Wöllstein and Härtl2013).

There are no detailed studies on the diachrony of bleiben + infinitive. In modern German, bleiben combined with positional verbs has two meanings: It either denotes remaining in a state (Peter blieb lange stehen ‘Peter remained standing for a long time’) or entering a state and staying in it (Peter blieb plötzlich stehen ‘Peter suddenly stopped’). The discussion centers on whether the concept of mutativity is inherently encoded in the verb itself or emerges solely from contextual factors (Steinitz Reference Steinitz1999, Krämer Reference Krämer2004, Schlücker Reference Schlücker, Geist and Rothstein2007, and section 2).

4.1. Data and methodology

The analysis of the MLG verb blîven in combination with the present participle and the infinitive is based on data from the Reference Corpus Middle Low German/Low Rhenish (1200–1650) (ReN), which is part of the Corpus of Historical German Texts. The language data provided in the corpus – whether transcribed or further annotated – allow for a linguistic analysis of Middle Low German/Low Rhenish that goes far beyond what was previously possible. The ReN is structured according to the parameters of space, time, and field of writing (Barteld et al. Reference Barteld, Becker, Hausmann, Ihden, Langknecht, Philipowski, Pickl, Peters, Peters, Schröder, Wich-Reif, Becker and Hausmann2017, Peters Reference Peters2017) and contains around 2.3 million tokens, of which approximately 1.5 million are grammatically annotated in terms of part of speech, inflectional morphology, and lemma.

This study uses a subcorpus of the ReN corpus containing all MLG texts with grammatical annotations (ren-anno), while Low Rhenish texts were excluded. The annotations allow for precise lemma-based searches and systematic identification of relevant verb constructions. Additionally, they provide essential morphological and syntactic information necessary for linguistic analysis. Conversely, the ren-trans subcorpus, which consists of transcribed but unannotated texts, was excluded from the analysis. While this inevitably limits the range of textual material considered and may affect the representation of linguistic diversity within MLG as documented in ReN, the lack of annotation would have made it significantly more challenging to systematically and reliably identify the constructions under investigation. Without morphological and syntactic tagging, ensuring consistency in data selection and interpretation would have been considerably more difficult, increasing the risk of misclassification and reducing the overall methodological rigor of the study. Despite this limitation, the selected subcorpus encompasses a broader range of material than Rosenthal’s (Reference Rosenthal1984) analysis, allowing for a more comprehensive examination of Middle Low German. It also includes texts from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, which have been excluded from the study by Woźnicka (Reference Woźnicka2024) due to its specific research focus. The restriction to ren-anno is therefore justified by the need for a structured and reliable approach to data extraction and interpretation.

The study examines blîven constructions with the present participle and the infinitive. In the absence of other clear criteria, a morphological approach was adopted to distinguish between these forms: verbs ending in -end(e) and -en(n)e are classified as present participles, while those ending in -(e)n are treated as infinitives. Consequently, forms that retain morphological features of the participle – such as those ending in -en(n)e – were also included in the category of present participles. In this context, a form-based approach appears to be the most transparent and consistent solution.

The origin of this formal ambiguity is historical in nature (see section 3.2). Saltveit (Reference Saltveit1957:213–214) notes that the coexistence of werden + infinitive and werden + present participle constructions in earlier stages of the language contributed to the phonological erosion of the participial ending. As a result, constructions with different meanings gradually converged in form, eventually becoming difficult to distinguish. Saltveit (Reference Saltveit1957:226) further suggests that the destructive influence of the werden + infinitive construction may have extended beyond werden itself, affecting other predicative structures involving the present participle – including blîven + present participle. In light of this formal convergence, the consistent application of a morphological criterion appears justified. The adopted approach provides a necessary foundation for the subsequent semantic analysis. Sections 4.2 and 4.3 explore the meanings of both constructions throughout the entire Middle Low German period, their potential consistency, the dominant interpretations, and whether the overall meaning of the construction is shaped primarily by the verb blîven, by the nonfinite verb form, or by the interaction between the two.

Using a lemma-based query (lemma_simple=/.*bliven.*/), all occurrences of the verb blîven were retrieved from the ren-anno corpus. The corpus significantly facilitated the analysis by enabling structured access to annotated forms and allowing for systematic lemma-based searches. The resulting data were then manually reviewed to identify all instances in which blîven appeared in combination with a present participle or an infinitive. Each hit was examined individually, and relevant constructions were extracted based on formal morphological criteria. During this verification process, inconsistencies in annotation were observed – either relative to the classification criteria applied in this study or due to annotation errors in the corpus itself. Ambiguous or incorrectly annotated forms were reassessed and either excluded or reclassified as needed.

Consider example (1) below.Footnote ¹¹

In example (1), the form liggene ‘lying’ was annotated as an infinitive in the corpus. Since forms following the development -end(e) > -en(n)e > -(e)n represent an intermediate stage in the morphological transition, their interpretation as infinitives was not entirely unjustified. However, as mentioned above, this study applies a clear operational distinction between present participles and infinitives. According to these criteria, forms ending in -end(e) and -en(n)e are classified as present participles, and therefore liggene is categorized as a present participle.

Additionally, cases of false annotation and instances of form overlap between the infinitive and past participle were identified and reassessed. Consider the following examples.

In example (2), the form vorswegen was annotated as an infinitive (‘hide’), yet its morphological structure aligns more closely with the past participle formation (‘hidden’) rather than with the infinitive, which is vorswīgen (Lübben & Walther Reference Lübben and Walther1888:949). Similarly, in example (3), the form beholden was annotated as an infinitive (‘retain’), yet it exhibits morphological ambiguity, as it can function as both an infinitive and a past participle. Unlike in example (2), where the incorrect annotation could be clearly determined based on the expected infinitive form, here the distinction is less straightforward. However, in the given sentence context, beholden is more plausibly interpreted as a past participle (‘retained’) rather than an infinitive. Given that both examples involve constructions where blîven combines with a past participle rather than a true infinitive, such instances were excluded from the analysis, as they do not represent genuine cases of blîven in combination with an infinitive, which is the focus of this study.

While the previous examples required reassessment due to inconsistencies in annotation, the following case (example (4)) aligns with the annotation in the ReN corpus. The annotation suggests that this is a single sentence in which blîven and the present participle form a cohesive construction.

However, an alternative interpretation is also possible, in which the passage consists of two separate syntactic units. In the first sentence, blîven would function as a full verb, while the second sentence would constitute an independent clause, with the participle interpreted as ‘and studied’.Footnote ¹³

Despite the possibility of an alternative interpretation, several factors support treating this example as a blîven + present participle construction.

First, blîven occurs not only with positional verbs but also with present participles of verbs with different semantics (see examples (12)–(15) in section 4.3), demonstrating the productivity of this construction. This suggests that the present participle stuͦderende can also form a predicative construction with blîven, rather than being limited to a specific verb class.

Second, the relative distance between blîven and the participle does not alter their structural relationship. While in many instances the participle does indeed follow blîven directly, corpus data indicate that these two elements can also be separated by sentence components such as temporal adverbials, complements, or prepositional phrases, without affecting their status as a unified construction (see examples (8), (15) in section 4.3). Thus, the distance between blîven and the participle in the analyzed example does not provide sufficient grounds for reinterpreting the sentence as a coordinate structure.

Third, the presence of a locative adverbial (dair ‘there’) does not necessarily imply that blîven functions only as a full lexical verb. In other corpus examples where blîven combines with a participle derived from a positional verb (see examples (6), (8), (10)–(13) in section 4.3), locative adverbials appear without affecting the classification of the construction. Therefore, their presence in the analyzed sentence does not constitute sufficient evidence for treating blîven exclusively as a full lexical verb, as the combination of a locative adverbial and a present participle suggests that blîven may simultaneously function both as a lexical verb and as a copula in a predicative construction. This dual function may indicate a transitional stage in the development of blîven from a full lexical verb to a copula or suggest that the boundary between lexical verbs and copulas is inherently fluid.

Fourth, although it is theoretically possible to paraphrase blîven + present participle constructions as coordinate structures, such reinterpretations could in principle be applied to almost all comparable cases (see example (1) above: vnde he bleeff dar liggene vp den zande ‘and he remained lying there on the sand’ ≈ vnde he bleeff dar, vnde he lach vp den zande ‘and he remained there and lay on the sand’). As a result, this would blur the boundary between periphrastic constructions with present participles and full lexical verb structures. From a methodological point of view, treating every such paraphrase as an equivalent analysis carries the risk of erasing the distinction between clause coordination and genuine predicative constructions involving nonfinite verb forms.

Given these considerations, this study classifies such cases as instances where blîven combines with a present participle, maintaining the integrity of the construction as a whole.

Out of a total of 1,397 occurrences of the verb blîven in the corpus, 68 cases were selected for analysis (48 in combination with a present participle and 20 with an infinitive). This represents a relatively small dataset compared to the corpus compiled by Ihden (Reference Ihden2023:416–418) for studying the combinations of wērden and wēsen with the present participle in MLG, which is nearly ten times larger. Nevertheless, the dataset used in this study is sufficiently representative to achieve the stated research objectives.

Despite its limited size, the dataset allows for a qualitative assessment of the dominant meanings in blîven constructions, the factors influencing their interpretation, and the potential semantic identity of blîven + present participle and blîven + infinitive constructions. Furthermore, the extracted examples come from a variety of sources and text types, ensuring that the conclusions are not restricted to a single linguistic register or text genre.

Therefore, although the number of analyzed cases is relatively small, it enables a detailed examination of blîven in its relevant syntactic and semantic contexts, contributing to a more comprehensive understanding of its function and meaning in MLG.

4.2. Overview of blîven constructions

Table 1 compiles the absolute number of occurrences of the verb blîven according to tense and mode. The table also takes into account the occurrences of the verb in infinitive form in combination with the modal verbs and the verb sên ‘to see’, as well as in past participle form in combination with wēsen ‘to be’, while still forming constructions with a present participle or an infinitive. The verb occurs most frequently in the present and past indicative (see values highlighted in table).

Table 1.

The tense and mode of the verb blîven

Table 2 lists all verbs (separately as present participles and infinitives) that appeared in combination with blîven. The difference between the number of occurrences of the verb blîven (see table 1) and the number of present participles/infinitives (68 vs. 70 occurrences) is due to the fact that in these two cases the participles/infinitives occurred as coordinated (see example (25), section 4.4).

Table 2.

Semantics of present participles and infinitives

The dataset includes 15 distinct lexemes, which appear a total of 70 times, taking various grammatical forms. Eleven lexemes occur in the present participle form, accounting for 49 instances, while 9 lexemes appear as infinitives, making up 21 instances. Notably, 5 lexemes occur in both forms.

These verbs exhibit a broad semantic range, covering different conceptual domains. The largest group consists of positional verbs, such as (be)sitten ‘to sit’, bestân ‘to remain standing’, stân ‘to stand’, liggen ‘to lie’, and hengen/hangen ‘to hang’. These verbs describe spatial configurations and occur in both the present participle and the infinitive form. Their high frequency of occurrence (41 instances, 58.57%, highlighted in table 2) suggests that blîven frequently co-occurs with verbs denoting postural static states.

The second most frequently occurring lexeme is (be)sitten in the sense of ‘to take part’, which appears 13 times (18.57%), in both present participle and infinitive forms.

The verbs lēven ‘to live’ and wōnen ‘to reside’ can be considered a common group of lexemes referring to long-term states related to existence in a particular space or conditions. In constructions with blîven, they appear exclusively in the present participle form, accounting for 10.00 percent of all occurrences.

The lexemes (be)stēken ‘to be stuck’ and besitten ‘to own, possess’ occur twice each – the first exclusively in the infinitive form, the second in both the present participle and infinitive forms.

The remaining lexemes appear only once: studēren ‘to study’ and sên ‘to see’ occur only in the present participle form, while sîren ‘to make beautiful’, ōlden ‘to grow old’, and beklēven ‘to stick, adhere’ appear only as infinitives.

4.3. Blîven + present participle

The combinations of the verb blîven with the present participle are attested from the second half of the thirteenth century to the first half of the sixteenth century. Of the 48 instances, the verb blîven occurs most often in the past indicative (20 occurrences), as in (5). The verb occurs in the present indicative 11 times (see example (6)). Several examples (4 occurrences) indicate the subjunctive of the verb (see example (7)), and in one example blîven is used in the imperative (see example (8)). In addition, blîven appears as a past participle in constructions with the finite form of the verb wēsen ‘to be’ (5 occurrences), as in (9). Likewise, blîven occurs as an infinitive in constructions with the finite modal verbs schȫlen ‘shall’, mȫgen ‘may, can’, mö̂ten ‘must’, or willen ‘will, want’ (7 occurrences), as in (10). Despite the differences in syntactic structure, both the past participle and infinitive usages of blîven consistently appear in contexts where they interact with a present participle.

Most of the present participles are positional verbs like stân ‘to stand’ (10 occurrences) as in (7), liggen ‘to lie’ (8 occurrences) as in (5), (be)sitten ‘to sit’ (5 occurrences) as in (6), bestân ‘to remain standing’ (4 occurrences) as in (8)–(9), and hangen/hengen ‘to hang’ (2 occurrences) as in (11).

A relatively frequent usage of the verb (be)sitten appears 11 times in the sense of ‘to take part’, as exemplified in (12).

A total of six participles were formed from the verbs wōnen ‘to live, reside’, as in example (10), and lēven ‘to live’, as in example (13), with both verbs being part of a common group of lexemes describing long-term states related to existence in a particular space or conditions.

The remaining participles are single occurrences from the infinitives studêren ‘to study’, as in example (4), besitten ‘to own’, and sên ‘to see’, as in examples (14)–(15) below.

All verbs that form present participles in this study are durative, as they describe states or ongoing processes. This durativity is either inherent to the verb’s meaning – such as in bestân ‘to remain standing’, (be)sitten ‘to sit’, (be)sitten ‘to take part’, besitten ‘to own, possess’, hangen/hengen ‘to hang’, liggen ‘to lie’, lēven ‘to live’, stân ‘to stand’, studêren ‘to study’, and wōnen ‘to live, reside’ – or contextually established, as in the case of sên ‘to see’ (see example (15)). While sên allows both durative and nondurative interpretations, the presence of the temporal adverbial bis yn syn oueralder und yn synen doit tho ‘until old age and death’ strongly favors a durative reading, indicating a sustained act of perception rather than an instantaneous recognition. Furthermore, these verbs are nonmutative, as the use of the present participle inherently reinforces a nonmutative, atelic interpretation, even in cases where the base verb may otherwise exhibit telicity (see Kotin Reference Kotin2003:103–104 and section 3.1).

As evidenced by its etymological meanings – ‘to be stuck’ and ‘to be stuck to something (by sticking)’ (see section 2) – blîven is inherently durative and exhibits a dual nature in terms of mutativity. This duality allows blîven to denote either a transition into a new state that persists ([+mutative, +durative]) or the sustained maintenance of an existing state ([−mutative, +durative]).

The interpretations of the blîven + present participle construction as a whole follow two possible patterns:

1. 1. [−mutative, +durative] – indicating the continuation of a state, process, or action,

2. 2. [+mutative, +durative] – denoting a transition into a new state that persists.

The first type of construction, in which blîven [−mutative, +durative] combines with a present participle [−mutative, +durative], results in a fully [−mutative, +durative] reading. This is the most common pattern (41 out of 49 occurrences), as seen in examples (4)–(10) and (12)–(15). In these examples, blîven and the verb in the present participle form both express a durative, nonmutative state, leading to the continuation of an existing condition rather than the initiation of a new one.

The second type of construction, in which blîven ([+mutative, +durative]) combines with a present participle ([−mutative, +durative]), results in a fully [+mutative, +durative] interpretation. The durativity of the construction is reinforced by both blîven and the present participle, while its mutativity is determined solely by blîven. This pattern is less frequent (8 out of 49 occurrences) and is attested only in combinations of blîven with positional verbs, such as hangen/hengen ‘to hang’ (see example (11)) and stân ‘to stand’ (see example (16)).

These combinations are mutative, meaning that the subject undergoes a state change from A to B. In example (11), the subject was not hanging, and in example (16), the subject was not standing but moving (A). The transition occurs when the subject enters the new state (B) and remains in it for some time.

4.4. Blîven + infinitive

Combinations of blîven with an infinitive appear from the second half of the fifteenth century and occur alongside constructions with a present participle until the first half of the sixteenth century, while in the seventeenth century, they are the only attested form. Of the 20 attestations, the verb blîven occurs most often in the present indicative (9 occurrences), as in (17). In five cases the verb is inflected in the past indicative, as in (18). There are also occurrences of its use in the imperative (2 occurrences), as in (19). The verb occurs twice as an infinitive in combination with the finite modal verbs schȫlen ‘shall’ and mö̂ten ‘must’ (see example (20)). Besides, blîven occurs once as an infinitive with the finite form of the verb sēn ‘to see’ (see example (21)), and once as a past participle with the finite form of the verb wēsen ‘to be’ (see example (22)). These cases, although featuring blîven in the form of an infinitive or a past participle, should also be considered part of the pattern in which blîven occurs in combination with an infinitive.

The verb blîven most frequently occurs with positional verbs, which account for 66.7 percent of its infinitival combinations. It is particularly common with stân ‘to stand’ (6 occurrences), as in (18) and (22), and bestân ‘to remain standing’ (4 occurrences), as in (19). It also appears twice with liggen ‘to lie’, as in (17). In addition, blîven also occurs twice with sitten in the sense of ‘taking part’, as in (23). The verb is also found in two instances with (be)stēken ‘to be stuck’, as in (20) and (21), and besitten ‘to own, possess’, as in (24). Less frequent combinations, each occurring only once, include sîren ‘to make beautiful’, ōlden ‘to grow old’ (25), and beklēven ‘to stick’ (26).

Most of the infinitives that occur with blîven are durative and nonmutative. This group includes several positional verbs, such as bestân ‘to remain standing’, liggen ‘to lie’, stân ‘to stand’, and beklēven ‘to stick’, as well as other durative verbs like besitten ‘to own, possess’, (be)sitten ‘to take part’, and (be)stēken ‘to be stuck’. Only two verbs, ōlden ‘to grow old’ and sîren ‘to make beautiful’, display a mutative character while remaining durative.

Like the blîven + present participle construction, the blîven + infinitive construction derives its durativity from both blîven and the infinitive, while its mutativity is determined solely by blîven. Two possible readings arise, identical to those found in the blîven + present participle construction:

1. 1. [−mutative, +durative], indicating the continuation of a state, process, or action, and

2. 2. [+mutative, +durative], denoting a transition into a new state that persists.

The first pattern is the most frequent, occurring in 17 out of 21 attestations, as seen in (17)–(18) and (20)–(25). In these cases, blîven is nonmutative, resulting in a reading of continuous state or process, regardless of the infinitive’s inherent properties. Notably, this holds even in cases like (25), where the infinitives ōlden ‘to grow old’ and sîren ‘to make beautiful’ are inherently mutative, yet their combination with blîven yields a durative reading without a clear transition into a new state.

Conversely, when blîven is mutative, it determines the mutativity of the entire construction, even if the infinitive itself is nonmutative. This pattern is much less frequent, with only four attestations, and appears exclusively with stân ‘to stand’ and bestân ‘to remain standing’, as in (19), where blîven introduces the notion of entering a new state that persists. In (19), the subject is instructed to Blif vor der doere bestahn ‘stop in front of the door’, marking a transition from movement (A) to standing (B), which endures over time.

4.5. Summary

The quantitative distribution of the two meanings of blîven in combination with the present participle and the infinitive is summarized in table 3.

Table 3.

Meanings of blîven + present participle/infinitive

Throughout the MLG period, the constructions blîven + present participle (attested until the first half of the sixteenth century) and blîven + infinitive (present from the second half of the fifteenth century) remain semantically equivalent, allowing for both the interpretation of ‘continuation of a state, process, or action’ ([−mutative, +durative]) and ‘entering a new state that lasts’ ([+mutative, +durative]).

The interpretation of the construction is shaped by both blîven and the present participle or infinitive. While durativity is reinforced by both elements, mutativity is determined solely by blîven. The analysis of blîven in combination with present participles and infinitives has shown that when blîven carries the [+mutative] value, the whole construction is interpreted as mutative, even if the nonfinite verb itself is nonmutative. Conversely, when blîven is nonmutative, the construction maintains a nonmutative reading, regardless of the inherent properties of the present participle or infinitive.

The dominant interpretation is durative and nonmutative, accounting for 83.7 percent of cases in constructions with the present participle (41 out of 49) and 81 percent in constructions with the infinitive (17 out of 21). The [+mutative, +durative] meaning occurs significantly less frequently – only in 16.3 percent of cases with the present participle (8 out of 49) and 19 percent of cases with the infinitive (4 out of 21). This meaning is restricted to combinations of blîven with positional verbs such as hangen/hengen ‘to hang’, stân ‘to stand’, and bestân ‘to remain standing’.