LL-L: "Morphophonology" LOWLANDS-L, 14.OCT.2000 (01) [E]

Sat Oct 14 23:21:55 UTC 2000

======================================================================
  L O W L A N D S - L * 14.OCT.2000 (01) * ISSN 189-5582 * 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>
  Archive: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html>
  =======================================================================
  A=Afrikaans, Ap=Appalachean, D=Dutch, E=English, F=Frisian, L=Limburgish
  LS=Low Saxon (Low German), S=Scots, Sh=Shetlandic, Z=Zeelandic (Zeeuws)
  =======================================================================

From: niels.winther at dfds.dk
Subject: LL-L: "Morphophonology"

I wrote:

>>..High German has a glottal stop like in _Verein_
  sampa[fE6"?aIn].
How does LS compare with HG and SJ in this aspect..<<

Ron wrote:

>>.. in German, English, etc.<..> there are no syllables
  that start with vowels; they *must* have an initial consonant.
  What people *perceive* as starting with a vowel actually
  has a glottal stop, thus is still a CV-type syllable...<<

In Danish we have _forene_ and _forening_ from LS _vorenen_
In Std.Danish the pronunciation splits the word _for-ening_
with a stop in front of the second stress-carrying syllable.
Southern Jutish avoids this stop by pronouncing _fo-rening_.
This is not an exclusive Southern Jutish phenomenon though.
But together with all the other characteristics it adds to
the singing quality of the language. Is the same phenomenon
apparent in NLS.

rgds
niels

----------

From: R. F. Hahn [sassisch at yahoo.com]
Subject: Morphophonology

Niels, you wrote:

> In Danish we have _forene_ and _forening_ from LS _vorenen_
> In Std.Danish the pronunciation splits the word _for-ening_
> with a stop in front of the second stress-carrying syllable.
> Southern Jutish avoids this stop by pronouncing _fo-rening_.
> This is not an exclusive Southern Jutish phenomenon though.
> But together with all the other characteristics it adds to
> the singing quality of the language. Is the same phenomenon
> apparent in NLS.

That's very interesting.  Now that you explained it in some more detail it
seems familiar to me.  I assume that it has affected the Danish dialects of
these areas (if we assume for a second that Southern Jutish is a separate
language).

It seems to indicate that these varieties permit syllables of the type
#V....  In other words, a syllable may actually begin with a vowel
(*actually*, not only as a matter of perception), as for instance in
Romance languages, and unlike for example in most dialects of German, Low
Saxon, English and Danish that only permit syllables of the type #CV...,
where a glottal stop is used where people think of a syllable beginning
with a vowel.

I suppose that languages that permit syllables of the type #V... are more
likely to develop liaison, at least word-internally after clitics, as in
_for#ening_; i.e., the last consonant of the previous morpheme becomes the
first consonant of the following morpheme that starts with a  #V...-type
syllable (e.g., /for#een+iN/ -> Standard Danish #for##?e':#nIN# vs SJ
#fo#re:#nIN#).  Liaison, especially between words (as in French and many
dialects of English), tends to be perceived as "soft", while use of glottal
stops tends to be perceived as "harsh" (as in German _Iss auch ein Ei_
[?Is?aUx?aIn?aI]).

I would be interested to find out if the far-northern Low Saxon (Low
German) dialects have this type of clitic-to-stem liason.  Unfortunately,
conventional dialect studies rarely indicate such things.

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron

----------

From: Andy Eagle [Andy.Eagle at t-online.de]
Subject: LL-L: "Morphophonology" LOWLANDS-L, 11.OCT.2000 (07) [E]

Ian wrote
> Subject: LL-L: "Morphophonology" LOWLANDS-L, 09.OCT.2000 (01) [E]
>
> With reference to the 'a-' prefix in Ulster dialect:
>
> Firstly, it is open to question whether this form exists at all. 'If
> he had a-done' may actually be a false rendering of 'If he would'a
> done' - the 'a' may actually be a shortened form of 'have', and this
> latter form will be perfectly familiar to American readers.
>
The reduced form of 'hae' is well known in colloquial Scots. I simply write
this as "a" on my website This usually occurs after coud, haed, micht,
shoud
and wad. i.e. He coud a duin it. A wad a haed tae dae't. A wad a coud a
duin
it etc.

I wouldn't use this in 'formal' writing. I would write. for example, He
coud
hae duin it. I think the "a" form is of course acceptable in dialogue etc.

> Secondly, if we agree it does exist, it does not appear in
> Ulster-Scots literature. It is therefore difficult to attribute its
> origin to Ulster-Scots. There appears little doubt to me this is an
> Ulster-English form, which has since possibly entered Ulster-Scots.
>
That's the reason why I questioned its being Ulster Scots. I haven't read
much Ulster Scots literature. But it didn't appear in any of it except for
writing that has appeared in the last five years or so. I am not aware of
any linquistic literature dealing with Ulster Scots mentioning it either.

> In writing, I use this prefix to distinguish between 'haed' used as a
> past form (in forming the pluperfect) and 'haed' used as the synthetic
> conditional form of 'have'. Thus, 'A haed driv' is 'I had driven', and
> 'A haed a-driv' is 'I would have driven'. With verbs that take 'be'
> (usually intransitive verbs and some copulatives), the synthetic
> conditional form ('wur') does not appear in modern speech or
> literature (thus 'A wus went' for 'I had gone' and 'A wud be went' for
> 'I would have gone'). However, in formal documents I do tend to retain
> it with the 'a-' prefix ('A wur a-went'). This is a questionable
> usage, however, and I may change it.

Once again, 'A haed a-driv' seems to be colloquial, though I find it almost
impossible to pronounce 'A haed HAE driv(en)'. In writing I would
distinguish between 'formal' and dialogue etc.

> This has no effect on the 'passive progressive' mentioned in a recent
> mail of mine (e.g. 'a-steeran' for 'being disturbed'), which is a very
> real feature of modern Ulster-Scots speech, although there is no doubt
> it is becoming limited to a closed set of verbs these days.

This usage is attributed to the Anglo-Saxon an, on.

"... and are gaun aguisarding." Scott, Guy Mannering (1815)

other examples: aback, abuin, agate, agley, aneath, asteid etc.

Andy Eagle

==================================END===================================
  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>.
  =======================================================================
  * 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
  =====================================================================