LL-L: "Conjunctions" [E] LOWLANDS-L, 28.MAY.1999 (01)

[Lowlands-L Administrator]

 ==========================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 28.May.1999 (01) * ISSN 1089-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
 Posting Address: <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>
 Web Site: <http://www.geocities.com/~sassisch/rhahn/lowlands/>
 User’s Manual: <http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html>
 ==========================================================================
 You have received this because your account has been subscribed upon
 request. To unsubscribe, please send the command "signoff lowlands-l"
 as message text from the same account to
 <listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or sign off at
 <http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
 ==========================================================================

From: J.H. van de Pol
Subject: Conjunctions

Dear Lowlanders, beste Leeglaanders,

The questions of Alfred Brothers have elicited a number of interesting
reactions on the use of "dan", "dann",  "as", "als" and "wie".

He wrote (May 19, (2)):
> We've been having a discussion on another list regarding the use of the
> comparative particle 'than' in the Germanic languages (bigger/smaller
> than; groter/kleiner dan). The question has come up whether there are
> any Low German (Low Saxon) dialects which use some form of Engl. 'than',
> Du. 'dan', G. 'denn' instead of the more usual (?) variants of 'as, als,
> wie'?
> <snip>

Fred van Brederode wrote (May 21, (6)):
> Alfred says:
> >I've also read that the use of Dutch 'als' in these cases is becoming
> >increasingly more common, at least in colloquial Dutch. Can
> >anyone comment on this? Apparently Afrikaans and most dialects of
> >Frisian also use only some form of 'as', as well.]
>
> It seems all very true. 'Groter dan' instead of 'groter als', is the
> schoolteachers way. We were trained in school to pick the right solution. I
> would never say or write 'groter als' anymore. Perhaps this was also
> invented by 17th century grammarians. <snip>

Twents, a dialect from Nethersaxon, looks like 16th century Dutch in various
respects; this "observation" stems from my translation of a few poems.
Therefore I expected that Fred was right to find the use of "als" as the
comparative particle (in e.g. "beter als") in early Dutch, but according to
the WNT (ref. below) that is not true.

Although there is some influence of contemporary Nethersaxon on (colloquial)
Dutch I do not believe that the use of "als" instead of "dan" is due to the
migration of young people to the Randstad. It was eradicated in their Dutch
language lessons, for it is known to be one of the characteristic grammatical
differences between Dutch and Nethersaxon ("German").
In Twents "dan" is never used in this context; people say: "better as", in
which "as" is not simply a 'lazy' pronunciation of "als" ("als" means in
D.:"alles", E.:"all"").

Ruud Harmsen wrote (May 21, (6)):
> It is common (although I don't say "als" myself), but not or hardly
> increasingly so. Both "dan" and "als" have a very long history in
> Dutch, which is why "als" is now often considered a correct variant
> also in standard language.

I've got the same impression as Ruud that in Dutch the use of the "als" in
colloquial speech instead of the correct "dan" does not increase, with the
possible exception of the presently 'less hypercorrect' speech in the
broadcasting media. I even overheard "hun gaan", instead of "zij gaan" (see
next paragraph).

Fred van Brederode continued (May 21, (6)):
> <snip> The same is true for the (discussed
> earlier) matter of 'hun' versus 'zij'. The sentence 'hun gaan naar school'
> in stead of (the 'right') 'zij gaan naar school', seems to be more or less
> accepted, even among 'good speakers'. So why wouldn’t we get away with
> 'groter als' for that matter.
> <snip>
I do not agree with Fred that these phrases seem to be more or less accepted
by 'good speakers', even though the latter one might become acceptable.
Moreover, the following example may show that in case of less stringent
application of the rules ambiguity lurks.

If someone wants to appeal to his boss against the unfavorable judgment of
his letter by his colleagues, writing:
"Mijn schrijven is beter als hun zeggen"
so that he means neither:
"I am writing better while they are speaking" nor:
"My letter is better than what they say", but instead:
"My letter is better than they say (it is)".
Then the well-speaking boss would probably comment on: "beter als" saying:
"dat zeg je wel, maar schrijf je niet" (you could say that, but should not
write it down) and on: "hun zeggen" saying: "dat zeg je niet" (that is bad
grammar).

Alfred Brothers's last question of May 19, (2) was:
> And finally, are there any Low Saxon/English/Scots/other LL dialects
> which use exclusively (or predominantly) forms of 'than' or the
> conjunction 'that' without the 'th/d' phoneme at the beginning? For
> example, colloquial English "bigger 'n life" for "bigger than..." or "he
> says 'at he's coming" for "he says that...".

This question can probably not be answered affirmatively. But in Twents
there are examples that show the deletion of the "d"-phoneme from "dat".
An evident one was observed by Bezoen:
"Het vrös at 't kraakt".(D.: "Het vriest dat het kraakt"; E.: "There is a
sharp frost in the air").

Finally, there is an interjection "at", which can always remain untranslated,
occurring at fixed places in several Twents sentences. An example is:
"Ik weet nich woar at 't weurdken 'at' herkump" (D.: "Ik weet niet waar het
woordje 'at' vandaan komt"; E.: "I do not know where the little word 'at'
comes from"). If it should have a meaning then it might mean: "dat" (or:
"of", and sometimes "als"). I am interested, of course, in other meaningless
words (in the genetic language of DNA there are sequences that code for
'nothing').
It is quite natural that such a 'superfluous' little word gets lost in the
course of time, but at present there are still speakers that use it.
                     Kind regards, goodgoan! Jan van de Pol, Enschede.

WNT: De Vries, (...), Sterkenburg: Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal,
30 vols., 1860-1995 (words from ca. 1500-1921, partially until 1976).
GvD: Van Dale Groot Woordenboek der Nederlandse Taal, 11th ed. (1984).

==================================END=======================================
 * Please submit contributions to <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>.
 * Contributions will be displayed unedited in digest form.
 * Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
 * Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l") are to
   be sent to <listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or at
   <http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
 * Please use only Plain Text format, not Rich Text (HTML) or any other
   type of format, in your submissions
 ========================================================================