LL-L: "Etymology" LOWLANDS-L, 15.SEP.2000 (01) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

 ======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 15.SEP.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
 =======================================================================

From: Pepijn Hendriks [pepijnh at bigfoot.com]
Subject: LL-L: "Etymology" LOWLANDS-L, 13.SEP.2000 (01) [E]

John Feather wrote:

>>The s(z)/r switch in verbs is preserved in English (only?) in the
>>word "forlorn". ".

[...]

>Yes, because I meant "it is preserved only in the word 'forlorn' in
>English but I am not sure that someone isn't going to find another
>example". I thought that we had already established the existence of
>the phenomenon in Dutch, German, etc.

The alternation also occurs in the form _was_ vs. _were_ as
singular and plural form respectively of the past tense of _to be_.
Interestingly, Dutch has retained the same alternation _was_ vs.
_waren_ whereas German has generalised the _r_ to which the
forms _war_ vs. _waren_ testify.

There are other relics to be found in Dutch, such as _uitverkoren_
'chosen', which is related to the verb _uitverkiezen_ 'to choose'.
These are cognate to forms of the archaic German _erküren_ 'to
choose, elect' (past tense _erkor_, past participle _erkoren_)

Please note that I have just re-subscribed to the list after a three-
week holiday, so I haven't read much of the earlier messages in this
thread. If I'm stating something already said, I apologise for that.

-Pepijn

--
 pepijnh at bigfoot.com -- http://www.bigfoot.com/~pepijnh -- ICQ - 6033220

----------

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

Pepijn wrote:

> Interestingly, Dutch has retained the same alternation _was_ vs.
> _waren_ whereas German has generalised the _r_ to which the
> forms _war_ vs. _waren_ testify.

Modern Low Saxon (Low German) also:

ick weer ~ was {I was}
du weerst {you were [thou werest]}
he weer ~ was {he was}
se weer ~ was {she was}
dat~et~it weer ~ was {it was}
wie weren (~ weern) {we were}
jie weren (~ weern) {you were}
se weren (~ weern) {they were}

(In some dialects, such as those of the Low Elbe region, _weer_ [vEIA] and
_weren_ ~ _weern_ [vEIAn] are _wier_ [vi:A] and _wiern_ [vi:An] respectively.
The rule in these dialects: EI -> i: / __r$)

Please note the pattern:
Low Saxon has free alternation between /veir/ _weer_ [vEIA]~[vi:A] and /vas/
_was_ [vas] wherever English has 'was', and it has /veir/ _weer_ only wherever
English has 'were'.  Some sort of Saxon pattern perhaps?

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron

==================================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
 =======================================================================