LL-L "Morphology" 2003.08.10 (07) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 10.AUG.2003 (07) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
http://www.lowlands-l.net * lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/index.php?page=rules
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
Encoding: Unicode (UTF-8) [Please switch your view mode to it.]
=======================================================================
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: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: Morphology

I responded to Gavin Falconer's posting:

> Ah, interesting!  In some American dialects, especially in African
American
> ones, you hear constructions like "I would have went" (for standard "I
would
> have gone") and "You should have took ..." (for standard "You should have
> taken ...").  Do you think these are separate developments or cases of
> preservation of British dialect features?
>
> But aren't there some restrictions here?  I don't recall hearing, say,
> "You've took my book."  Does the said type of construction only occur with
> "would have," "should have," and "could have"?  Or is my exposure merely
> limited.
>
> "You've took my book" ... Hmm ... Now that I said it several times in my
> head, I'm starting to think that in some dialects it might be grammatical
> after all.

Since I wrote this I have asked three African-Americans about this.  While
none of them actually speaks like this (at least not at this time in their
lives), they felt that the appropriate constructions would be as follows:

"I would have gone."
> "I would have went"
"I woulda went."

"You should have taken ..."
> "You should have took ..."
"You shoulda took ..."

"You've taken my book."
> "You've took my book"
"You done too my book."

So, plain past participial expression comes with "done {"preterite"}"
instead of standard "have/has {past.part.}"

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.
=======================================================================