LL-L "Morphology" 2003.10.01 (01) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 01.OCT.2003 (01) * 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: Luc Hellinckx <luc.hellinckx at pandora.be>
Subject: Morphology


Beste Jan en Alfred,

First please consider that in medieval Brabantish the third person singular
(both accusative and genitive) was often _en_ (~ihn (G)?) in an enclitic
position, e.g. "Men neempten gevangen..." ("Men neemt hem gevangen..." (D)).
Today we will still say:

"Pakt en vast!" ("Pakt hem vast!" (D))
"Eit en da ni gezeid?" ("Heeft hij dat niet gezegd?" (D))
"En eit da ni gezeid." ("Hij heeft dat niet gezegd." (D))

which shows both proclitic and enclitic usage (no longer restricted to the
acccusative and genitive case but also in the nominative case).

Something similar might have happened to "me" (B), "we" (D), "wir" (G),
because in medieval Dutch, the first person singular (only accusative and
genitive) was _mi_ (now "me, mij") and it seems as if the function of this
pronoun shifted likewise:

"Spele me(n) toës 't noste kië?" ("Spelen we thuis de volgende keer?" (D))
"Me spele (waëlen) toës 't noste kië." ("We spelen (wij) thuis de volgende
keer" (D))

The only difference is that "me" shifted from singular to plural (both first
person). So maybe this plural "me" is the same as the singular personal
pronoun "me, mij". Comparing the situation with South German dialects might
(dis)prove this argument. Has the Bavarian "miâ" for example ever meant "me"
(E)?

Another difference between standard Dutch on the one hand and Brabantish or
Flemish on the other hand is the fact that verbs are inflected on _t_ in the
2nd person plural, hence:

Dutch: "Jullie spelen"
= Brabantish: "Gaale spelt", "Ge spelt" (as is if it would be singular...no
doubt this is due to the old pronoun "ghi")
= German: "Ihr spielt"

Kind greetings,

Luc Hellinckx

----------

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

Luc (above):

> Another difference between standard Dutch on the one hand and Brabantish
or
> Flemish on the other hand is the fact that verbs are inflected on _t_ in
the 2nd
> person plural, hence:
>
> Dutch: "Jullie spelen"
> = Brabantish: "Gaale spelt", "Ge spelt" (as is if it would be
singular...no doubt this
> is due to the old pronoun "ghi")
> = German: "Ihr spielt"

In many Lowlands Saxon (Low German) dialects, especially in those of the
North Saxon group and of the Mecklenburg region, this _-t_ is applied to all
plural cases:

Wy speelt
Jy speelt
Sey speelt

Other dialects have _-en_:

Wy spelen
Jy spelen
Sey spelen

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron

----------

From: Andy (Scots-Online) <andy at scots-online.org>
Subject: LL-L "Morphology" 2003.09.30 (04) [E]

Sandy Fleming wrote:
>
> > From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
> > Subject: Morphology
> >
> > Críostóir (above):
> >
> > > In Nottingham English we say _us_ to mean _me_ in some situations,
e.g.,
> > > _Gie us tha_ ('Give me that'). Semantic shifts or something older?
> >
> > It may be fairly old if you consider its spread.  As far as I know, this
> > feature is quite widespread in Scots, apparently also in
> > Northumbrian and in
> > various North English dialects.  You will also encounter it in
Australian
> > English.
>
> Although it may seem like it, "us" is never used for "me" in Scots.
>
> Rather, there is a pronoun "iz" which is the unemphatic form of me. In
most
> Scots dialects, "me" is used nearly all the time,  with "iz" used only in
> some idiomatic contractions, eg "gie'z", "see'z", both meaning "give me".
>
> In many dialects of the Lothians and the Borders (such as my own) "iz" is
> used strictly as the unemphatic form of me:
>
> "It's nae guid askin me, but tell iz what ye'r wantin an I'll ask yer
> faither."
> /ɪts ne: gɪd 'ɑskin mi: bɪʔ tɜ:l ɪz ʍɒʔ ir 'wɒnʔɪn ən ɑl ɑsk ir 'fe:ðər/
>
> This is strictly distinguished from the plural form:
>
> "It's nae guid askin us, but tell us what ye'r wantin an oo'll ask yer
> faither."
> /ɪts ne: gɪd 'ɑskin ʌs bɪʔ tɜ:l ʌs ʍɒʔ ir 'wɒnʔɪn ən ul ɑsk ir 'fe:ðər/
>
> (in dialects which make full use of "iz", "we" is usually pronounced
"oo").
>
> I imagine the Scots and English usages are historically related, but in
> Scots the two pronouns are pronounced differently and never confused.
>
> However, in areas where the usage is restricted to contractions, it's
> possible that speakers do think of it as a contracted form of "us", but
when
> you look at the usage throughout the dialects, it makes more sense to
think
> of it as a contracted form of "me" that's no longer used uncontracted in
> some dialects.

A can't see 'iz' being an unemphatic form of me (unless you simply mean it
functions as such). Surely its a form of 'us' that has taken on some of the
semantics of 'me' as a non-emphatic substitute for it.

The 'oo' is a Southern Scots pronunciation of 'we' which has taken on some
of the semantics of
us when used as an object.

Is differentiating 'iz' and 'us' in writing really necessary unless a
deliberate attempt at indicating all the nuances of pronunciation is
intended?

Interestingly the CSD has the (IPA) pronunciations for 'us'
[ʌs, ʌz, ɪs, ɪz] unstressed [(ə)s, (ə)z] and stressed [hɪz, hʌz]

Which would indicate spelling us 'iz' is perhaps as arbitary as using 'us'.

Andy Eagle

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