{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0617828773168579, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00353045013239188, 'mean_word_length': 4.698492462311558, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Weak Man in Old English Poetry

To denote ‘man, human being,’ there are a great number of synonyms available in Beowulf, such as beorn, guma, haele(d), man(n), rinc, secg, and wer.1 Whereas other alternatives for ‘man’ would carry such connotations as ‘hero, prince, warrior, lord,’ man(n) is a relatively colorless word with lower alliterative frequency—thus, it has received little scholarly attention except with reference to its indefinite use.2 There are, however, some interesting peculiarities concerning the use of man(n) and its related form in Beowulf: besides the commonly used man(n), which is a masculine noun of a minor declension, the weak by-form manna appears six times exclusively in accusative singular (hereafter abbreviated as acc.sg.).3 Along with the weak mannan (acc.sg.), the Beowulf poet used the ‘strong’ man (acc.sg.) once as well.4 Was the choice between man (acc.sg.) and mannan (acc. sg.) systematically made in Beowulf? Why does the weak manna always appear in the acc.sg. rather than in other cases and number? Does the weak manna appear in other verse texts and, if so, mainly in the form of the