LL-L: "Pronouns" LOWLANDS-L, 26.JUN.2001 (01) [D/E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 26.JUN.2001 (01) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
 Web Site: <http://www.geocities.com/sassisch/rhahn/lowlands/>
 Rules: <http://www.geocities.com/sassisch/rhahn/lowlands/rules.html>
 Posting Address: <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>
 Server 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: "Richard Dury" <richard at interac.it>
Subject: Pronouns

Thanks to Ron, Sandy & Edwin for their help.
The subject of personal pronouns is a bit like the Rhine/Meuse delta:
complicated, interconnected and constantly shifting! The points made so far
are the following:
1) There is the following common development of 2nd-person pronouns
(pronouns of address) in many languages: (i) sing vs pl (thou - you), (ii)
pl becomes polite sing (you), (iii) new pl forms emerge (you-all),  (iv)
originally polite sing becomes unmarked singular (you; thou falls out of
use), (v) new polite sing form evolves (the mystery of English: this didn't
happen). The full cycle is clearly illustrated in standard Dutch.

2) There are some languages with no familiar vs polite pronoun of address:
(i) Icelandic, (ii) Irish Gaelic, (iii) Low Saxon - these are all isolated,
non-metropolitan, close-knit communities. They are also geographically
peripheral and look on the map like "relic" dialectal areas - which they
obviously are, since the older European languages all seem to have been
without this distinction (Classical Greek and Classical Latin, Old English
etc.)

3) Object forms of personal pronouns tend (for some mysterious reason) to
spread to subject uses: e.g. _you_ takes over from subj. _ye_, and in an
exactly parallel way _thee_ takes over from subj. _thou_ (in Southern and
Western dialects and in Quaker language); in Dutch 3 psn pl obj. _hun_ is
often used instead of subj _ze_; a similar story in Swedish, _dem_ or _dom_
used instead of subj. _de_; and a whole constellation of other examples
from various dialects and in various uses ('us Anglos', 'ons Zeeuwen'  etc.
etc.).

But before the debate takes me by branching river-paths far from my
intended destination, my point was based on some observations in Wals'
_Geschiedenis_ (pp. 407-8; I give my shaky English translations after the
Dutch - please let me know of any mistakes: perhaps I've misundertood
everything because of a faulty translation of mine):

(i) "In een groot deel van Valaanderen...is het dialectische systeem
_gai/ge_ voor het subject enkelvoud...en een vorm als bijvoorbeeld Antwerps
_golle_...voor het meervoud" (In a large part of Flanders the dialect
system [of personal pronouns] is _gai/ge_ for the subjective singular and,
for example, the Antwerp _golle_ for the plural"

(ii) "Een aparte beleefdheidsvorm ontbreekt" (A separate polite form is
lacking - so English is not unique: in Flemish dialects too an original
plural form became the only singular form (_ye_, _ge_) and no new polite
form evolved)

(iii) "het noordelijke _u_...wordt dan ook het eerst, al vòòr de Tweede
Wereldoorlog, overgenomen...Later volgt _jij/je/jou_ en nog later _jullie_"
(The Northern [polite] _u_ was then first borrowed already before the
Second World War...Later on  _jij/je/jou_ followed and even later _jullie_
- I'm not sure of the exact meaning of 'ook het eerst' - ?for the very
first time?)

(iv) "De moeilijkheden zijn groot. Men moet leren wanneer men de ene en
wanneer men de andere vorm moet gebruiken; so doet het de noordling
bijvoorbeeld vreemd aan wanneer hij een Vlaamse moeder, hypercorrect, tegen
haar kind _u_ hoort zegen" (The difficulties are great. Speakers have to
learn when they must use one or the other form [the new polite form and the
new familiar form, the latter similar to the old universal form]; so it
seems strange to the Northerner, for example, when he hears a Flemish
mother uses [polite] _u_  (in a hypercorrect way) to address her child).

At a certain point English mothers must have started using _you_ to their
children too: though it's not clear if this was a conscious 'elegancy', or
a confusion (as in the Flemish example): hearing mainly the polite form in
the standard language, they may have assumed that this was the only pronoun
of address. I would be interested to know more about the Flemish case and
also other confusions of polite and familiar pronouns where dialect
speakers are learning the standard language.

Richard Dury
Univ. Bergamo

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