LL-L "Morphology" 2002.12.29 (03) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 29.DEC.2002 (03) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
 http://www.lowlands-l.net  * admin at lowlands-l.net * Encoding: Unicode UTF-8
 Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/rules.htm
 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
=======================================================================
 You have received this because you have 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>.
=======================================================================
 A=Afrikaans Ap=Appalachian B=Brabantish D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian
 L=Limburgish LS=Lowlands Saxon (Low German) S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic
               V=(West)Flemish Z=Zeelandic (Zeêuws)
=======================================================================

From: burgdal32admin <burgdal32 at pandora.be>
Subject: LL-L "Morphology" 2002.12.27 (08) [E]

> From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Morphology
>
> Hi, Ole Stig, Lowlanders!
>
>> Why do some lgs (e.g. Lowlands) require a plural ending on the noun in
> cases
>> where the plurality is already given, say, by a number? This must
>> surely
> be
>> unnecessary doubling, and is not used in logical lgs like Turkish ;-)
>
> The first example that came to mind as a possible case of true double
> plural
> is Dutch _schoen_ 'shoe' > _schoenen_ 'shoes'; cf. German _Schuh_ >
> _Schuhe_, Lowlands Saxon (Low German) /Sou/ _Schoh_ ~ _Schauh_ >
> /Söü(e)/
> _Schöh_ ~
> _Schäuh_; cf. Scots _shae_ > _shuin_.  However, I am not sure if this
> is
> true double pluralizing.

Dear Ole and Ron,

Hello again (been away for a week to see the snow in the Alps)

In my V we still say shoe (or skoe) for one shoe, and shoen (or skoen
or shoes) in plural. So it is really a double pluralizing.
I wonder if  kind-kinder-kinderen ( or kinders) is not another example.
And also : rund-runder-runderen.
In my V dictionary(De Bo) i found the same item:
De s, teeken van't mv, hangt somwijlen aan -en, een ander teeken van 't
mv. Dus:
bard(=E plank)-barden-bardens
bed-bedden-beddens
hemd(=E shirt)-hemden-hemdens
mes-messen-messens
dilt (=E half)-dilten-diltens
knie(= E knee)-knien-kniens-
schoe-schoen-schoens
kous(= E  stocking)-kousen-kousens
vest (=E fortress, D vesting)-vesten-vestens
tee(= E toe)-teen-teens

And there is also(amongst a lot of other words):

bijkan (=E almost)-bijkans-bijkanst-bijkansten
bin (=E while) bins-binst-binsten
misschien(=E maybe)-misschiens-misschienst
niever (=E nowhere)-nievers-nieverst
nogtan(=E nevertheless)-nogtans-nogtanst-nogtansten
schier (=E almost)-schiers-schierst-schiersten
waneer (=E when)-waneers-waneerst-waneersten
zeker(=E sure)-zekers-zekerst-zekersten
But I think that this is a combination of plurals and strengthenings.

greetings
Luc Vanbrabant
Oekene

----------

From: burgdal32admin <burgdal32 at pandora.be>
Subject: LL-L "Morphology" 2002.12.27 (08) [E]

> From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Morphology

> The first example that came to mind as a possible case of true double
> plural
> is Dutch _schoen_ 'shoe' > _schoenen_ 'shoes'; cf. German _Schuh_ >
> _Schuhe_, Lowlands Saxon (Low German) /Sou/ _Schoh_ ~ _Schauh_ >
> /Söü(e)/
> _Schöh_ ~
> _Schäuh_; cf. Scots _shae_ > _shuin_.  However, I am not sure if this
> is
> true double pluralizing.
>
Hello Ron,

Isn't  this the same for  double diminutives?
In V, we have
e kleên huseke
e kleên vertellingske...
It is used every day, also when we speak Dutch:
een klein huisje
een klein verhaaltje.

We even say: e groat kindje!(=E a tall little child)

Greetings
Luc Vanbrabant
Oekene

----------

From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: Morphology

Hi, Luc!

Thanks for the response, and good to see you got back home to the Lowlands
safe and sound.

Some of the double plurals occur in some Lowlands Saxon (Low German)
dialects as well, such as _Kind_ 'child' > _Kinner_ ~ _Kinners_, also in
Missingsch (German dialects on LS substrates): _Kind_ 'child' > _Kinner_
'children' > _Kinners_ 'Kids!' (vocative).

As for double diminutives, this occurs less frequently in most modern
Northern LS dialects of Germany, because diminutive forms are used much less
there than in most German dialects and certainly far less than in Low
Frankish varieties.

Looking at your examples, I wonder if you could argue that for instance
_kind_ and (originally diminutive) _kindje_ aren't lexicialized separately.
The fact that you can say both _e kleên kindje_ ("a small/little kiddie")
and _e groat kindje_ ("a big/tall kiddie") seems to point in that direction.
Cannot _kindje_ also denote an adult as seen by a parent or by another
elder, used as a term of endearment where physical size is not relevant?  In
that case _e kleên kindje_ may no longer be a case of genuine double
diminutive.

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron

==================================END===================================
* Please submit postings to <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>.
* Postings 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>.
=======================================================================