LL-L: "Grammar" LOWLANDS-L, 17.JAN.2001 (01) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

 ======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 17.JAN.2001 (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: john feather [johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk]
Subject: Grammar

Re vocative:

In Gothic the vocative form was usually identical with the nominative,
though sometimes the same as the accusative, suggesting that there was
earlier a distinct vocative.

In Modern Greek there is still a vocative. It has been pointed out to me
that this often confuses non-Greeks who, for example, they think that
someone whose name is "Yannis" is "Yanni", because that is how they hear him
addressed.

John Feather johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk

----------

From: Edwin Alexander [edsells at idirect.com]
Subject: LL-L: "Grammar" LOWLANDS-L, 16.JAN.2001 (01) [E]

At 09:13 AM 01/16/01 -0800, Stephan wrote:
>
>Oh Edwin, grammarians generally have no clue about language at
>all.  Linguistics hasn't really existed as a science since the
>1800's or really the early 1900's.  When I read what amateur
>"experts" write about "proper" language even today, it makes me
>cring-- people confuse what is socially inappropriate (in a
>given social context!) with linguistic difficiency, or try to
>derive old dialects from young standardized norms etc.

Well, I know were are ignorant people around then, just as I have heard
many teachers of English today claim that English is a Romance
language.  No doubt, you could probably get some of these teachers and
"grammarians" of today to agree with the "His Contraction Theory", too, if
you could find one that had ever seen the "Bob his car" construction.

Actually, I was more curious for a reference to the specific source
material where this theory was expressed, if known.

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