LL-L "Grammar" 2002.05.30 (01) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 30.MAY.2002 (01) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
 Web Site: <http://www.sassisch.net/rhahn/lowlands/>
 Rules: <http://www.sassisch.net/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=Appalachian D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian L=Limburgish
 LS=Low Saxon (Low German) S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic Z=Zeelandic (Zeeuws)
=======================================================================

From: Alfred Brothers <alfredb at erols.com>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2002.05.29 (01) [E]

Ron wrote:

>I would like to invite you to help me explore the Lowlandic uses of 'to
>do' as an auxiliary verb.  I am interested in finding out what its
>development, spread and permutations are, but I would be interested in
>other aspects as well.  Approaching it from the angles of Modern Low
>Saxon (LS, "Low German"), Missingsch (M, i.e., German dialects on Low
>Saxon substrates) and Modern English, and noticing considerable
>similarities, I cannot help wondering if we are dealing with a Saxon
>feature or if the feature is more widely spread than that.
>
Hi, Ron,

This topic sounded familiar to me, so I checked my own archives of LL-L
mail. There was a discussion of the subject started on February 9, 1999.
At that time, I pointed out that most, if not all, southern (High)
German dialects also use some form of the _do_ auxiliary in essentially
the same way you describe its use in Low Saxon. Another member pointed
out that it is also used in Yiddish. So, it seems that it's not a Saxon
feature but possibly a West Germanic one. A review of the earlier
submissions may of interest to you in your current query. If you can't
locate the messages, I'd be happy to forward them to you.

Back then, I did ask a question that I don't see an answer to. It seems
to have got lost in the discussion -- or I've missed it. Maybe you can
(re-)address it here:  A large number of southern German dialects form
the conditional tense by using the past subjunctive of some form of
_tun_. E.g., er däät kumme = er würde kommen = he would come. (It's even
brought into StdHG by some dialect speakers as _Er tät' kommen._) Do any
Low Saxon dialects use a form of _doon/daun_ in this manner?

Thanks.

Regards,
Alfred Brothers

----------

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

Thanks, Alfred.  I did check the archive
(http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html) but
evidently not well enough.  Sorry.

> Another member pointed
> out that it is also used in Yiddish.

That's interesting, because I am not aware of this exact same device in
Yiddish, only of repetition of the main verb; e.g.,

(1)
Zey FORN keyn Varshe, nor keyn Vilne FORN zey nit.
("They TRAVEL to Warsaw, but to Vilnius TRAVEL they not.")
They will travel to Warsaw, but they won't travel to Vilnius.

(2)
Keyn Varshe FORN FORN zey, nor keyn Vilne FORN (FORN) zey nit.
("To Warsaw TRAVEL TRAVEL they, but to Vilnius TRAVEL (TRAVEL) they
not.")
They do intend to travel to *Warsaw*, just not to *Vilnius*.

> A large number of southern German dialects form
> the conditional tense by using the past subjunctive of some form of
> _tun_. E.g., er däät kumme = er würde kommen = he would come. (It's
> even > brought into StdHG by some dialect speakers as _Er tät'
> kommen._) Do any Low Saxon dialects use a form of _doon/daun_ in
> this manner?

As far as I know, they do.  The past subjunctive forms are identical to
the preterite forms (see below*), thus _He de(ed') kamen_ ("He did
come") 'He would come', nowadays, probably under Standard German
influence more and more commonly _He wöör(d') kamen_ (cf. Standard
German _Er würde kommen_).  I perceive the former as authentic and the
latter as introduced, but this may be incorrect.

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron
__________
*   Present:                     Preterite/Past Subjunctive:
ik  do ~ dau.....................de ~ dä ~ deed' ~ dääd'** < dede
du  deist***.....................deest ~ dääst ~ deedt ~ däädst**
he  deit***......................de ~ dä ~ deed' ~ dääd'** < dede
se  deit***......................de ~ dä ~ deed' ~ dääd'** < dede
dat deit***......................de ~ dä ~ deed' ~ dääd'** < dede
wi  doot ~ doon ~ daut ~ daun....deen ~ dään**
ji  doot ~ doon ~ daut ~ daun....deen ~ dään**
se  doot ~ doon ~ daut ~ daun....deen ~ dään**

Past Participle: /daan/ _daan_

**  _de..._ ~ _dä..._ [de:] ~ [dE:]
*** _dei..._ [da.I]

==================================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 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>.
 * Please use only Plain Text format, not Rich Text (HTML) or any other
   type of format, in your submissions
=======================================================================