LL-L "Syntax" 2003.04.13 (02) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 13.APR.2003 (02) * 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
 Archives: 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) N=Northumbrian
 S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic V=(West)Flemish Z=Zeelandic (Zeêuws)
=======================================================================

From: jari at delphisexpress.com <jari at delphisexpress.com>
Subject: Syntax

I have a theory about the double negation in Afrikaans.

Everybody knows the "trennbare Verben", so characteristic of Dutch and
German.
For instance, "opgaan" is the infinitive. In the indicative it becomes "ga
...
op". The little word "op" gets tossed to the end of the sentence.

This is what happens in Afrikaans with "nie". It is possible that the
negated
verbs were mistaken for "trennbare Verben", which is why the "nie" gets
thrown
to the end of the sentence too.

Such a mix-up would be perfectly undestandable, because many of the personal
forms of the verbs in Afrikaans look like the infinitive. The phenomenon is
particularly confusing in the subordinate clauses, where most "trennbare
Verben" look just like the infinitive even in their personal form. This is

when "nie" precedes the verb too.

There are plenty of examples of reduplication in Afrikaans, so it shouldn't
be
suprising to see the prefix of the "trennbare Verben" reduplicated as well.
As
any student of Dutch, Afrikaans or German knows, this can happen, even if
not
intended.

I read "Anderkant die Stilte" by André Brink yesterday, and then I realized
that the word "nie" is normally put in the same place after the verb as in
other Germanic languages. "Sy steur haar nie". "Jy bloei nie". No
reduplication
is needed.

So I think what must have got the ancient learners of Afrikaans mixed up,
when
dealing with the negative, was the combined effect of the "strange" position
of
the verb at the end of the subordinate clause and the phenomenon of
the "trennbare Verben".

At least, this must be why the double negation got reinforced. There may be
some truth to the "nie-nie" being derived from the Aarschot dialect, but did
Afrikaans really borrow so much from Flemish?

Besides, we shouldn't ignore the parallel with English. A sort of
reduplication
occurs also in the English negative sentences. Only, it isn't - normally -
the
negation itself that gets reduplicated but the verb, albeit in the form of
the
blanket verb "do": "I know not" has become "I do not know."

Jari Nousiainen

----------

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

Jari,

This is certainly a very interesting hypothesis you are proposing above.
However, I cannot say that I find it entirely convincing, for the following
reasons.

(1)
In the so-called "divisible verbs" (German _trennbare Verben_) -- which are
really verbs with preposed (perhaps not even cliticized) and movable
prepositions -- the prepositional component receives primary stress; e.g.
German (with accent marks showing primary stress for this particular
purpose) ...
vorkochen (= vórkochen "fórecook") 'precook':
   Man muss das Fleisch vórkochen.
   'You're supposed to precook the meat'
   Ich koche das Fleisch lieber vór.
   'I'd better precook the meat.'
eintreten (= éintreten "ínstep") 'step in(side)', 'enter', 'join (an
organization)'
   Wollen Sie nicht éintreten?
   'Won't you come inside?', 'Won't you join?'
   Sie trat letztes Jahr in die Árbeiterpartei ein.'
   'Last year she joined the Workers' Party.'
   Sie trat letztes Jahr éin.
   'Last year she joined.' ("Workers' Party" implied, and "year" not
emphasized)
You will find the same pattern with emphasis on "not" in the Sorbian example
I had given:
   Nichtó z Hilžu nihdy njereci.
   (“Nobody (~ no one) with Elizabeth never not-talks.”)
   (“Nobody doesn’t never not talk with Elizabeth.” = ungrammatical)
   (“Nobody never talks with Elizabeth.” = marginally substandard)
   ‘Nobody ever talks with Elizabeth.’
   Primary stress is on preposed _nje-_ 'not', thus _njéreci_ 'does not
talk'.
As far as I can tell, this stress pattern does not apply in Afrikaans _nie
... nie_.

(2)
Afrikaans double negation is not limited to _nie ... nie_.  The first slot
can be occupied by any negation word; e.g., _niemand ... nie_ 'nobody',
_nêrens ... nie_ 'nowhere', _niks ... nie_ 'nothing', _nooit ... nie_
'never'.  Are you proposing that all of those words are cliticized as well?

(3)
Double negation is a widespread feature among the world's languages,
including many Indo-European languages (e.g., Slavic).  In many language
varieties, including Lowlands ones, double negation is common, though
typically not in standard varieties.  It tends to occur in non-standard
varieties and tends to be viewed as a sign of lack of refinement and
education, such as in American English dialects, in many of which it is
mandatory (e.g., _There ain't nobody inside_ 'There isn't anybody inside',
_I never pay him no nevermind_ 'I never pay any attention to him', _I ain't
givin' you no money_ 'I won't give you any money' ).  In the Germanic group
it is only Afrikaans and Yiddish that incorporated double negation into
their standard varieties (in Yiddish everywhere except "not ... not").  What
these two languages have in common is that they asserted themselves after
having been considered "jargons" or other types of substandard varieties
(Afrikaans of Dutch, and Yiddish of German).  They attained this status
pretty much without being "cleaned up" according to the standards of the
supposed parent languages.  This would account for the survival and
standardization of double negation.  As others have already mentioned
(myself with regard to Lowlands Saxon [Low German]), double negation is
common in Lowlands varieties.  However, under pressure from the dominant
language varieties (in the case of LS under pressure from Dutch and German),
double negation is often avoided, thus tends to be optional, except where it
performs a certain function, such as emphasis on negation.

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>.
 =======================================================================