LL-L "Semantics" 2003.04.15 (05) [E]
Lowlands-L
admin at lowlands-l.net
Tue Apr 15 18:17:47 UTC 2003
======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 15.APR.2003 (05) * 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: Jan Strunk <strunk at linguistics.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
Subject: LL-L "Semantics" 2003.04.15 (03) [E]
Hello,
in our local speech in the Ruhr District (Westphalia), we use several
different forms of the affirmative particle.
We use:
ja just like Standard German
jau like Westphalian Low Saxon
jou which seems to be used all over (at least Northern) Germany.
As children we used to play a kind of game, when we had a fight.
One would say something and when the other one disagreed with
"nee" (which is the normally used form for Standard German "nein"),
the first one could reply with "jee", which had the function of German
"doch"
or French "si". Probably the second one would keep saying "nee", and so
on...
The usage as "jawohl" in the same function (Standard German "doch")
described by Reinhard for Low Saxon is (not surprising) also known in Ruhr
German, but "doch" is used more often.
Adschüs!
Jan Strunk
strunk at linguistics.ruhr-uni-bochum.de
----------
From: Frédéric Baert <baert_frederic at CARAMAIL.COM>
Subject: LL-L "Syntax" 2003.04.12 (02) [E]
Good day
I may first introduce myself :
I'm french and I live in the north of France. My maternal language is
french but my parent's one is west flemish and I understand it well (which
made me one of the last since I'm 26 years old).
About the question of double negative in french. It is quite complex and I
will tell you what my french teacher said me when I was 14.
Here is an exemple of a negative sentence in french :
"Je n'entend pas" in english "I do not hear"
But if you say "je ne vois pas" you can also say "je ne vois goutte" which
both means "I do not see".
In fact "je n'entend pas" literally means "I do not hear any footstep", "je
ne vois pas" means "I do not see any footstep" and "Je ne vois goutte"
means "I do not see any drop". So the second negative word in the french
double negative sentence may be in fact an ancient direct object.
In oral language we can say "je ne vois pas", but also "je vois pas" and
also very used :"je n'vois pas" or "j'ne vois pas". But in written
french, "je ne vois pas" is obligatory.
I can also tell you that double negative is very used in west flemish in
France in the form "en/e ... nee/nie".
for exemple "'k e weetn nie" (I don't know). I read that omission of
the "en" is possible but in my family it is quite rare.
F. Baert
----------
From: Frédéric Baert <baert_frederic at CARAMAIL.COM>
Subject: LL-L "Semantics" 2003.04.15 (03) [E]
Hello,
French Flemish also has two forms for yes. The locutor can use "ja" to
answer to a simple question but to a negative question, he will
answer "toet" (in French "si".I'm not sure about orthograph). I read in a
book about french flemish that the origin of "toet" was " 't doet" ("it
does"). I don't know any more.
Another question interests me about "yes" and "no". I think the complete
answer in English is "yes I am", "yes you are" or "yes I do" etc... In west
Flemish, the precision of the personnal pronoun is often present too. To
the question "Zyt'j gy daer?" ("Are you there?"), the west fleming will
answer "Jaek" (literally "yes I"). To the question "Is hen daer?" (Is he
there?", he will answer "Jaen" ("Yes he") etc...
In which other lowlands languages does this type of answer also exist and
does anyone know from what it comes?
Amically
F. Baert.
P.S. Excuse me for errors in my English.
----------
From: R. F. Hahn <admin at yahoo.com>
Subject: Semantics
Welkom op Lowlands-L, Frédéric! It's great to have you join us actively.
It's certainly useful to have someone from French Flanders enter the
discussion, though some of our friends in Belgium and the Netherlands know a
lot about Western Flemish of France.
Your English seems just fine. Don't worry too much about that. Besides,
you are always welcome to write in your own language(s).
We have discussed the contraction issue before (the one you mentioned last),
but of course further discussion is welcome. (our archives:
http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html)
Regards,
Reinhard/Ron
P.S.:
This is what I found in the archives (under "Morphology"):
22.MAY.2002 (04)
From: <burgdal32 at mac.com>
Subject: language varieties
Dear Lowlanders
There is a very special particularity in Flemish about the words' yes
'and'no'. We decline those words!
Does this exist in other languages also?
Examples:
Ga jij naar de stad? Jaak (nink) (E=Yes I do, no I don't)
Gaat hij? jaaj (Nij) (E= yes he does, no he doesn't)
Gaat zij? jaas (nins) (E=yes sche does, no sche doesn't)
Gaan wij? Jaam, jaauw(nim, niw) (E= yes we do, no we don't)
Gaan jullie? Jaam,jaauw (nim,niw)
Gaan zij? Jaas (E = yes they do, no they don't)
Is het al laat? Jaat (nint) (E = yes it is, no it isn't)
I am very much interested in some reactions about that item!
Groetjes
Luc Vanbrabant
Oekene
----------
From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: Morphology
Thanks for the explanation (above), Luc. That's a very interesting case
of cliticization, if not outright suffixization, by way of contraction;
e.g., ...
ja, ik ... > jaak ...
ja, hij ... > jaaj ...
ja, zij ... > jaaz ... > jaas ...
In the case of "no," there seems to be nasalization, hence _Nee, ik ..._
> _Nink ..._.
Things of this type happen a lot, albeit often sporadically, such as in
this case (when compared with related variaties). The gradual process
of cliticization can be observed very nicely in the Altaic languages
(which are well known for being agglutinative), where a separate word in
one variety has become an enclitic in another variety (where it is
phonologically fused without obeying vowel harmony) and a suffix in yet
another variety (where it is fully integrated into the phonology of the
word to which it has been "glued"). Things of this nature happen(ed)
also in Indo-European languages (e.g., your case and English "'s").
Thanks again.
Regards,
Reinhard/Ron
*** Thu, 23 May 2002
From: "Marco Evenhuis" <evenhuis at zeelandnet.nl>
Subject: LL-L "Morphology" 2002.05.22 (04) [E]
Luc Vanbrabant wrote:
> There is a very special particularity in Flemish about the words' yes
> 'and'no'. We decline those words!
> Does this exist in other languages also?
> Examples:
>
> Ga jij naar de stad? Jaak (nink) (E=Yes I do, no I don't)
> Gaat hij? jaaj (Nij) (E= yes he does, no he doesn't)
> Gaat zij? jaas (nins) (E=yes sche does, no sche doesn't)
> Gaan wij? Jaam, jaauw(nim, niw) (E= yes we do, no we don't)
> Gaan jullie? Jaam,jaauw (nim,niw)
> Gaan zij? Jaas (E = yes they do, no they don't)
> Is het al laat? Jaat (nint) (E = yes it is, no it isn't)
As one would expect, these forms are exactly the same
in Zeeuws (_jae't_, _jae'k_, _jae'me_, etc.), although
only _jae't_ and _neênt_ (and to a lesser extent _jae'k_
and _neên'k_) are still very commonly used amongst
old as well as young people. The other formsare
becoming archaic. Or is that only on my own isle of
Walcheren, where almost 50% of the population moved
in from other parts of the Netherlands and the language
is therefore changing towards Standard Dutch more
rapidly than in other parts of Zeeland?
Regards,
Marco
----------
From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject Morphology
Luc, Marco,
Can these contraction actually stand alone, i.e., with the verb implied
rather than mentioned, as in (2) below?
(1)
A: Ga jij naar de stad?
B: Jaak ga (naar de stad).
(2)
A: Ga jij naar de stad?
B: Jaak.
Thanks.
Regards,
Reinhard/Ron***
Thu, 23 May 2002
From: "Marco Evenhuis" <evenhuis at zeelandnet.nl>
Subject: LL-L "Morphology" 2002.05.23 (02) [E]
Ron asked:
> Can these contraction actually stand alone, i.e., with the verb implied
> rather than mentioned, as in (2) below?
>
> (1)
> A: Ga jij naar de stad?
> B: Jaak ga (naar de stad).
>
> (2)
> A: Ga jij naar de stad?
> B: Jaak.
The way these forms are used (at least in Zeelandic)
are as you mentioned under (2) rather then under (1).
So these contractions can ONLY stand alone. The
form with the verb actually being mentioned in a
sentence, is never used. In such a case, there wouldn't
be a contraction, but two separate words:
(1)
B: Jae, 'k gae (naè Stad)
In general, the personal pronoun as a suffix with
_jae_ and _neê_, is used to explicitly confirm or
deny something.
With _jaet_ or _jae't_ and _neênt_ or _neên't_,
the suffix -t ('it') refers to the whole question.
Some examples (in Zeelandic from Walcheren)
in which the contraction always stands alone and
the sentence between brackets is only put there
for clarity's sake:
a: Is 't geld van 't 'uus noe a gesturt?
b: Jae't. ('t Stoeng op 't afschriftje van deze weeke)
a: Gae jie mee nae de feêste?
b: Jae'k. (Ik dienke da'k wè tied è)
a: È me noe nog wat gewonne mee de lôterie of nie?
b: Jae'me. (Een kilo verse woste van de slachter op durp)
a: 'Ebbe 'k nog vee raore diengen gezeid toen a 'k gister
droenkig was?
b: Neê'je. ('t Viel nog a mee)
Regards,
Marco
----------
From: <burgdal32 at mac.com>
Subject: LL-L "Morphology" 2002.05.23 (02) [E]
> Luc Vanbrabant wrote:
>
>> There is a very special particularity in Flemish about the words' yes
>> 'and'no'. We decline those words!
>> Does this exist in other languages also?
>> Examples:
>>
>> Ga jij naar de stad? Jaak (nink) (E=Yes I do, no I don't)
>> Gaat hij? jaaj (Nij) (E= yes he does, no he doesn't)
>> Gaat zij? jaas (nins) (E=yes sche does, no sche doesn't)
>> Gaan wij? Jaam, jaauw(nim, niw) (E= yes we do, no we don't)
>> Gaan jullie? Jaam,jaauw (nim,niw)
>> Gaan zij? Jaas (E = yes they do, no they don't)
>> Is het al laat? Jaat (nint) (E = yes it is, no it isn't)
>
> As one would expect, these forms are exactly the same
> in Zeeuws (_jae't_, _jae'k_, _jae'me_, etc.), although
> only _jae't_ and _neênt_ (and to a lesser extent _jae'k_
> and _neên'k_) are still very commonly used amongst
> old as well as young people. The other formsare
> becoming archaic. Or is that only on my own isle of
> Walcheren, where almost 50% of the population moved
> in from other parts of the Netherlands and the language
> is therefore changing towards Standard Dutch more
> rapidly than in other parts of Zeeland?
>
> Regards,
>
> Marco
>
> ----------
>
> From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
> Subject Morphology
>
> Luc, Marco,
>
> Can these contraction actually stand alone, i.e., with the verb implied
> rather than mentioned, as in (2) below?
>
> (1)
> A: Ga jij naar de stad?
> B: Jaak ga (naar de stad).
>
> (2)
> A: Ga jij naar de stad?
> B: Jaak.
Hi Ron
Indeed it is in both ways used like this.
Number (1) nevertheless is slihtly different in it's pronounciation.
We would say
A: Ga'j naar de stad?
B: Ja'kga (which is slightly different)
Hi Marco
Indeed Zeeus and Flemish are quiet the same language,but...
This year and last year I spend some weekendholidays in Zeeland. You
have
some very pleasant isles .
One day I went to the local bucher in Renesse and asked (without
thinking)
for 'drie schellen hespe'. The girl in the chop didn't understand it at
all.
Then I asked for 'drie schellen ham' It didn't work either. Only when I
asked her 'drie plakken ham' it was ok.
During my stay there I did not here Zeeuws, just common Dutch. Things
are
changing overthere.
Groetjes
Luc Vanbrabant
Oekene
----------
From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: Morphology
Thanks, Marco and Luc!
So, if I understood you correctly, your two language varieties (Marco =
Zeelandic, Luc = Flemish) represent two stages of cliticization
development (2 and 3 below):
(1) Ja, ik ga naar de stad.
Jae, 'k gae (naè Stad) [Marco]
(2) Ja'kga. [Luc]
(3) Jae'k. [Marco]
I find (3) rather remarkable, certainly noteworthy.
Imagine that in a few hundred years time all or most of the language
varieties of the types (1) and (2) are extinct or have all moved to
stage (3), and atomic blasts have destroyed all written and electronic
data about the linguistic ancestors, and further imagine that some
linguists of that future time (speakers of, say, a future form of
Mandarin) stumble across the remainder variety (or varieties) (of type
(3)). I am pretty sure that, in the absence of comparative data, they
would be convinced that this "discovered" language variety has
personalized forms of "yes" and "no." Would that conclusion be valid?
Regards,
Reinhard/Ron*** Fri, 24 May 2002
From: "Marco Evenhuis" <evenhuis at zeelandnet.nl>
Subject: LL-L "Morphology" 2002.05.23 (03) [E/Z]
Luc wrote:
> Indeed it is in both ways used like this.
> Number (1) nevertheless is slihtly different in it's pronounciation.
> We would say
> A: Ga'j naar de stad?
> B: Ja'kga (which is slightly different)
and then Ron concluded:
> So, if I understood you correctly, your two language varieties (Marco =
> Zeelandic, Luc = Flemish) represent two stages of cliticization
> development (2 and 3 below):
>
> (1) Ja, ik ga naar de stad.
> Jae, 'k gae (naè Stad) [Marco]
>
> (2) Ja'kga. [Luc]
>
> (3) Jae'k. [Marco]
I think we're talking about exactly the same forms here.
Luc's (2) is the same as my (1) and has little to do with
the 'personalized forms of yes and no' as Ron calls it.
The emphasis in my (1) and Luc's (2) is on the verb
(_ga_). In Luc's example, there is a slight pause be-
tween _ja_ and _'k_ and there is almost no pause
between _'k_ and _ga_.
In these examples, the personal pronoun is used in
exactly the same way as in English (Yes, I'm going)
or Dutch (ja, ik ga).
I think (3) really shows the phenomenon both Luc
and I were originally talking about. It is indeed a per-
sonalized form of yes and no. The _jae_ and _'k_ in
(3) are pronounced as one word, _jaek_ (the apostro-
phe is only there to make clear with what personal
pronoun we're dealing with here). And it can indeed
be used without a verb.
Ron:
> I am pretty sure that, in the absence of comparative data, they
> would be convinced that this "discovered" language variety has
> personalized forms of "yes" and "no." Would that conclusion be valid?
See above. This conclusion would be valid indeed.
Regards,
Marco
----------
From: <burgdal32 at mac.com>
Subject: LL-L "Morphology" 2002.05.23 (03) [E/Z]
> Some examples (in Zeelandic from Walcheren)
> in which the contraction always stands alone and
> the sentence between brackets is only put there
> for clarity's sake:
>
> a: Is 't geld van 't 'uus noe a gesturt?
> b: Jae't. ('t Stoeng op 't afschriftje van deze weeke)
Those are the Flemish versions:
F: a:Is 't geld van thus nu ol gestort?
b:Jaet ('t stond up 't ofschriftje van van de weke)
> a: Gae jie mee nae de feêste?
> b: Jae'k. (Ik dienke da'k wè tied è)
F:a:Gae'j mee nao de feêste?
b:Jaek ( 'k peize da'k wel tied gaon èn)
> a: È me noe nog wat gewonne mee de lôterie of nie?
> b: Jae'me. (Een kilo verse woste van de slachter op durp)
F:a:è me nu nog entwadde gewon' met de lotterie of niet'n,
b:Jaem (jaew) (Ne kilo vesche wost van den beenhouwer in't dorp)
> a: 'Ebbe 'k nog vee raore diengen gezeid toen a 'k gister
> droenkig was?
> b: Neê'je. ('t Viel nog a mee)
F:a:è'k nog veel raore ding' gezeid ao'k daor dronke waere?
b: Neie (neêg - nej) (neêg= neen gij) ('t Viel nogol mee)
> Regards,
>
> Marco From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Morphology
>
> Thanks, Marco and Luc!
>
> So, if I understood you correctly, your two language varieties (Marco =
> Zeelandic, Luc = Flemish) represent two stages of cliticization
> development (2 and 3 below):
>
> (1) Ja, ik ga naar de stad.
> Jae, 'k gae (naè Stad) [Marco]
>
> (2) Ja'kga. [Luc]
>
> (3) Jae'k. [Marco](Luc)
>
> I find (3) rather remarkable, certainly noteworthy.
>
> Imagine that in a few hundred years time all or most of the language
> varieties of the types (1) and (2) are extinct or have all moved to
> stage (3), and atomic blasts have destroyed all written and electronic
> data about the linguistic ancestors, and further imagine that some
> linguists of that future time (speakers of, say, a future form of
> Mandarin) stumble across the remainder variety (or varieties) (of type
> (3)). I am pretty sure that, in the absence of comparative data, they
> would be convinced that this "discovered" language variety has
> personalized forms of "yes" and "no." Would that conclusion be valid?
>
> Regards,
> Reinhard/Ron
The conclusion is that it feels already like this. In Belgium the people
of
the other regions don't use this at all. They would certainly say these
are
personalised forms of "yes" and" no".
P.S.: In French-Flanders it is used also!
Groetjes
Luc Vanbrabant
Oekene
================================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.====================
====================================================
More information about the LOWLANDS-L
mailing list