LL-L "Morphology" 2003.03.10 (03) [D/E/German]

Tue Mar 11 04:03:28 UTC 2003

======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 10.MAR.2003 (04) * 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: James Ward <jamesward at earthlink.net>
Subject: Grammar

> From: Roger Thijs, Euro-Support, Inc. <roger.thijs at euro-support.be>
> Subject:  LL-L "Grammar" 2003.02.28 (13) [E]
>
>> From: James Ward <jamesward at earthlink.net>
>> Subject: Grammar
>>
>> Have any of you noticed that in some Old English texts the Latin names
>> are inflected in the Latin manner when used in Old English
>> case-specific constructions?  For example, if the word "amicus" were
>> to be included as an indirect object in an Old English construction,
>> it would be found as "amico."  Curious, eh?
>>
>> Has anyone noticed this kind of Latin usage in the context of any
>> other languages?  Well, okay, _Lowlands_ languages...   :)
>
> Yes, in Old Dutch:
> a sample
> "Ende __Ihesus__ antwerdde den ghenen weder ende seide aldus: Hebbic
> qualec gesegt, so ghef prufnesse van din quade, ende hebbic wale
> gesegt, waromme sleestu mi dan? Doe seinde Annas __Ihesum__ al gebonden
> tote Caypham den beschop."
> cf. my web page:
> http://home-13.tiscali-business.nl/%7Etpm09245/dutch/diates/diates.htm
>
> In Modern Dutch the latin nominative plural is often accepted as an
> alternative to the Dutch plural.
> Some samples from the "van Dale" CD Rom
> mu-se-um [...] .het; __-s__, __musea__; -pje [...]
> cy-clus [...] de (m.); _cycli_, _-sen_ [...]
>
> academicus [...] de (m.) vrouw: academica [...]
> Here "van Dale" lists a latin feminine but no plural; I would use
> "academici" for plural myself.
> Same holds for
> medicus [...] vrouw: medica [...]
>
> Regards,
> Roger

Thank you very much for your response!  I meant to answer your message
much sooner.

Yes, we still have the Latin plural in English sometimes, although it is
becoming more and more scarce.  I don't say "antennae" very often, but
it doesn't seem forced to me, although it probably would to most other
speakers these days.  (I just realized I'm a pedant.)

There are single phrases like "lapsus linguae," but I don't think I've
ever heard that in conversation.  In this case, the genitive "linguae"
has been taken into English as part of a larger borrowed phrase, rather
than as the use of a Latin case within an English grammatical context.

I think it's a losing battle to try to maintain "media" as the plural of
"medium," even though both are used.  "Media" only seems to refer
collectively refer to media of information these days, as in "news
media."

Still, the older uses are an interesting phenomenon.  I wonder if the
use of the Latin cases survived into Middle English or Dutch?  I suppose
it has to be a fundamentally clerical usage.  It seems to show that some
notion of comparative grammar existed among the clergy, and that Latin
and Lowlands grammars were regarded as somehow commensurate...?

(This is probably a nice thesis or dissertation project, if anyone has
the energy for it, or knows someone who has!)

Thanks again,

James Ward

----------

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

James,

I had meant to respond to your inquiry earlier but had also put it on the
backburner, mostly because it's about a non-Lowlands language: German.

In German, older and modern, too, the name Jesus (only of *the* Jesus, not
of males with the Spanish name Jesus) is morphologically treated as in
Latin; e.g., ...

   Und seine Jünger kamen herzu, hoben den Leib auf und begruben ihn.
   Und sie kamen und verkündeten es Jesu [dative]. (MAT 14:12)

   Dieser ging hin zu Pilatus und bat um den Leib Jesu [genitive].
   (MAT 27:58)

   Die Kriegsknechte nun nahmen, als sie Jesum [accusative] gekreuzigt
   hatten, seine Kleider (und machten vier Teile, einem jeden Kriegsknecht
   einen Teil) und den Leibrock. (JOH 19:23)

This also applies to _Christus_ 'Christ'; e.g.,

   ... daß die aus den Nationen Miterben seien und Miteinverleibte und
   Mitteilhaber [seiner] Verheißung in Christo Jesu [dative] durch das
   Evangelium, ... (EPH 3:6)

   Denn das Gesetz wurde durch Moses gegeben; die Gnade und die
   Wahrheit ist durch Jesum Christum [accusative] geworden. (JOH 1:17)

I am not sure if this applies to other biblical names as well, have a slight
hunch that it may apply to "Maria," at least in Roman Catholic texts.

I see this as an anomaly, applying only to select, sacred names (not to
"Moses," Abraham," etc.).  I consider it "more extreme" and "more isolated"
than the practice of using foreign plural forms for non-nativized loanwords.

> There are single phrases like "lapsus linguae," but I don't think I've
> ever heard that in conversation.  In this case, the genitive "linguae"
> has been taken into English as part of a larger borrowed phrase, rather
> than as the use of a Latin case within an English grammatical context.

There is also the somewhat controversial case of "lingua franca."  According
to more recent directives, it is not to be italicized (or underlined in
manuscripts), thus is not to be treated as non-nativized, i.e., not as
foreign.  However, its only acceptable plural form is foreign: "linguae
francae."  Writing "linguae francae" non-italicized "feels" strange to me
and, reportedly, others.  But if you italicize it you would have to
italicize "lingua franca" as well, for the sake of consistency.  I suppose
this word (sequence) is drifting toward the stage words like "lexicon" (>
pl. "lexica" ~ "lexicons") and "crocus" (> pl. "croci" ~ "crocuses") have
already reached.  If so, I suppose we should allow "linguas francas" as an
alternative form soon.  Or would this be unacceptable because it consists of
*two* parts each of which requires a suffix?  Is this why "lingua franca"
remains in limbo, so to speak, or, perhaps more eloquently put, is this why
it is hampered in its development to a fully nativized loan?

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