LL-L: "Grammar" LOWLANDS-L, 22.JAN.2001 (03) [E]

Tue Jan 23 03:36:38 UTC 2001

 ======================================================================
  L O W L A N D S - L * 22.JAN.2001 (03) * 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: Kevin Caldwell [kdcaldw at interserv.com]
Subject: Grammar

From: john feather [johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk]
Subject: Grammar

>This is a different point. But in any case, is it possible to argue
>convincingly that it is changes in morphology which have forced a
>restriction on the position of the verb? To take a very simple example, OE

>usually (but by no means always) put the verb in second place in a
sentence
>beginning "Tha" ("then). You find the same thing (and the same exceptions)

>in the King James Bible (early 17th century), the morphology of whose
>English is almost identical with that of the modern language. Today,
>however, we do not use the form *"Then said he ...".

But most English speakers would understand such a construction.  In fact, I

can think of several modern English examples, including children's songs,
that
use this word order (notably, all the examples I could think of involve
going
or coming, and are all from songs or rhymes):

1) [childrens' song]
Itsy bitsy spider climbed up the water spout.
Down came the rain and washed the spider out.
Out came the sun and dried up all the rain,
and the itsy bitsy spider climbed up the spout again.

2) [children's taunting rhyme]
[boy's name] and [girl's name] sitting in a tree,
K-I-S-S-I-N-G.
First comes love,
Then comes marriage,
Then comes a baby in a baby carriage.

3) a recent (early 80's) Christian song called "Then Came the Morning."

4) "The Trolley Song" (from a movie of the 40's or 50's)
Clang, clang, clang went the trolley...

5) [nursery rhyme]
Little Miss Muffet
Sat on a tuffet,
eating her curds and whey.
Along came a spider
And sat down beside her
And frightened Miss Muffet away.

These all seem to be a way of introducing new information at the end of a
statement.  Number 4 is more like a direct quote, and Modern English seems
to favor, or at least allow, inverted word order after direct quotes
("What's for dinner?" asked John.)

Kevin Caldwell
kdcaldw at interserv.com

----------

From: "Ian James Parsley" <parsleyij at yahoo.com>
Subject: LL-L: "Grammar" LOWLANDS-L, 21.JAN.2001 (01) [E/German]

Folk,

This discussion about morphology (or lack of it) is very interesting
on two counts:

1) It looks at the nature of language change
2) It looks at how language affects culture and vice-versa

I have studied 1) much more than 2) and should point out a few
generally accepted fundamentals of language change (though that does
not make them unchallengeable, of course!)

Language change is part of natural human development. It is not to be
feared (take note newspaper correspondents who regularly decry modern
English as 'worse' than a generation ago - no language has ever been
known to develop in such a way that it is no longer comprehensible!)
nor imposed (this applies equally to written and spoken varieties -
take note Rechtschreibreformer!).

Language change generally 'regularizes' the language, and occurs
because of the changed requirements of the users, as well as the
natural tendency to want to make things shorter. However, this is
never done at the expense of making things too short that they cannot
be understood. When a commonly used word shortens to one syllable,
there is a tendency to 'relengthen it' - thus 'heut' becomes 'am
heutigen Tag' and 'now' becomes 'at this point in time'. Such forms
appear impractical, but they are a natural part of language change,
and may eventually be accepted (e.g. Spanish 'hoy' but French
'aujourd'hui' - 'on the day of today').

Stefan Israel:

> Languages with intricate morphology work no better and no worse
> than languages with no morphology at all--  you'll find specific
> advantages and disadvantages to any and every language, but
> having or not having cases does not make a language inferior.

This is of interest to point 2). I find German a precise language, and
German speakers a precise people. Only in German-speaking countries
have I come across TV schedules with progs starting at *seven* past
the hour! Only in German-speaking countries have I come across an
answering machine message informing me that I have no longer than 25
seconds to leave a message! The issue is whether this is culture
influencing language (which I suspect is the case) or the other way
around. That's a good topic for a book, but maybe a few Lowlanders
would have a few ideas with reference to their own tongue.

> Would you build a language from scratch with complicated case
> endings?  No, Esperanto, pidgins, creoles all stick to simple or
> no morphology, but give them a few centuries and in the course
> of their development they'll add complexity, which may include
> case endings.  German has inherited case endings; there hasn't
> been any pressing reason for Germans to change that and
> fundamentally rework their language.

At first sight, this appears reasonable, but is it? Pidgins and
creoles are the product of rapid language change, but are usually
specific to a certain area of life (trade, more often than not). Most
pidgins disappear once the reason for their existence disappears -
usually you only find them surviving as linguae francae for commerce
or such like. So they never get the chance to 'add complexity'.

I have never come across a case of a language 'adding complexity'.
Languages do tend towards regularization (if not simplification). The
number of cases seldom increases, it generally reduces. Likewise,
regular verbs seldom become irregular, and even then only where they
become part of a 'regular' irregular group (e.g. American 'dive-dove'
by analogy with 'drive-drove').

Esperanto, of course, *does* mark the objective/accusative case. My
suggestion is that if Esperanto were to become a regular means of
communication, the first major change would be the loss of the
objective ending. However, I would also assert that artificial
languages, like pidgins, are limited in their use. All *natural*
languages are equal in the needs of their users precisely because they
have developed naturally, and that will continue to be the case.

Regards,
Ian James Parsley

-----------

From: "Ian James Parsley" <parsleyij at yahoo.com>
Subject: LL-L: "Grammar" LOWLANDS-L, 21.JAN.2001 (01) [E/German]

A Chriostoir,

You wrote:

> What is the significance of "I" and "me" and indeed
> the difference between their usages? And is this
> parallelism apparent in other Lowland languages or
> just English and Lallans?

"I" is used as the subject of the sentence in Standard English, and
"me" as the object (direct or indirect) and after prepositions.

Thus - "he and I get on the bus" BUT "The man saw him and me in the
street" and "It was between him and me".

This is a feature of English grammar people regularly get "wrong", and
it's difficult to work out why (for once, it seems a case of language
change without a shift towards regularization). In my view the worst
case is the ubiquitous hypercorrection "between you and I" - which can
sound a bit pretentious to some people AND is "wrong"!!

Of course, I put "wrong" in quotations because many dialects have
developed a tendency to use the so-called "direct" form (I, he, she,
we, they) only where it stands alone ("I got on the bus" but "me and
my friend got on the bus"). This is certainly the case in Scots.

Go raibh maith agat,
Ian.

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