LL-L "Morphology" 2004.03.04 (03) [A/E]
Lowlands-L
lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Thu Mar 4 17:05:30 UTC 2004
======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 04.MAR.2004 (03) * 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: Frédéric Baert <baert_frederic at CARAMAIL.COM>
Subject: LL-L "Morphology" 2004.03.03 (04) [E]
>From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
>Subject: Morphology
>
>Oops! Corrections:
>
>> Standard Afrikaans (which has -0 suffixes throughout):
>> Root: /sii-/
>> Infinitive: sien
>> 1st sg.: ek sien
>> 1st pl.: wy sien
>> Imperative: sien!
>
>This should have been:
>
>Root: (/sii-n-/ >) /siin-/ sien 'to see', sien! 'see!'
>
>As in the other cases:
>
>Root: (/gaa-n-/ >) /gaan-/ gaan 'to go', 'go!'
>Root: (/staa-n-/ >) /staan-/ staan 'to stand', 'stand!'
>Root: (/duu-n-/ >) /duun-/ doen 'to do', 'do!'
>
>Cf. Standard Dutch:
>
>Root: /zii- at n/ sien 'to see', /zii-0/ zie! 'see!'
>Root: /gaa- at n/ gaan 'to go', /gaa-0/ ga! 'go!'
>Root: /staa- at n/ staan 'to stand', /staa-0/ sta! 'stand!'
>Root: /duu- at n-/ doen 'to do', /duu-0/ doe! 'do!'
>
>What about Zeelandic (Zeeuws) and Western Flemish?
>
>Since Afrikaans has this trait, I wonder if the "seeds" for this were
>inherited from Zeelandic (Zeeuws). I further wonder if this can be
>corroborated by means of data from Dutch-, or rather Zeelandic-based
creoles
>like Skepi/Essequibo/Rupununi (Guayana), Berbice (Guayana), Petjoh/Pecok
>(Java, Indonesia) and Virgin Islands Creole
("Negerhollands," "Negerzeeuws,"
>U.S. Virgin Islands, formerly Danish West Indies).
>
>Regards,
>Reinhard/Ron
>
Hi Ron and everybody
I can answer you for french western flemish and i apologize if you find me
too long !
For the case of the verbs you mentionned, we have in french flemish:
root : /gae-/ ; /stae-/ ; /duu-/ ; /zie-/
infinitive : gaen ; staen ; duun ; zien
1st sing. : 'k gaen ; 'k staen ; 'k duun ; 'k zien
2nd sing. : gy gae(t) ; gy stae(t) ; gy duu(t) ; gy zie(t)
1st pl. : me gaen ; me staen ; me duun ; me zien
2nd pl. : gydder gae(t) ; gydder stae(t) ; gydder duu(t) ; gydder zie(t)
several notes :
1- To the present tense, the verb at the first person (singular or plural)
has a plural form ending "-n" and the verb at the second person (singular
or plural) has a singular form ending "-t".
2- I put the "-t" of the 2nd person into brackets because it is only
pronounced when preceeding a vowel.
3- "me" replaced the oldest "wy" which is not known any more.
4- perhaps the most important here ; a vowel followed by a "n" is often
nasalized in french flemish. So in gaen, staen, duun and zien, the "n" is
pronounced only before a vowel but under its influence the vowel before it
becomes a nasal one. This conducts me to talk about at least three other
verbs:
first : schlaen (dutch slaan i think, english slay, german schlagen i
think). German forms "stehen" and "gehen" seem to prove that we observe in
staen and gaen the disappearance of a "h" before the "-en" of the
infinitive form.
In contrast, German form "schlagen" seem to prove that we observe here the
disappearance of a "g". This leads me to a very interesting verb in french
flemish (i think):
zeggen (dutch zeggen, english say, german sagen). In french flemish at
least, its pronunciation is quite complex (especially for a french
speaking, i had observed it !): because of the final "-n", the "-gen" group
becomes sort of nasal group. This nasal group is able to induce the
first "e" of zeggen to become a nasal "e". As a result in "zeggen",
the "ggen" is reduced to kind of "nasal aspiration" and tends to disappear.
Its influence in this case is to make the first "e" a long nasal vowel.
This explains that with "zeggen" you can find at least in french french
flemish dictionaries the same verb under the form : "zen".
This phenomenon seems to have been in process in french flemish in all the
verbs ending with "-gen". As an example the third verb i thought about
was "klagen" whose pronounciation is controlled by the same rules
as "zeggen".
It must be noted that this phenomenon is not only relevant for verbs but
also for substantives whose endings are "-gen" like the word "dag ; pl.
dagen".
To finish about "zeggen" here is its conjugation :
Root : /zeg-/
infinitive : zeggen(sometimes zen)
1st sing : 'k zeggen (or sometimes 'k zen)
2nd sing : gy zegt
1st pl. : me zeggen (me zen)
To end, i will be curious to know your opinion : i observe that the flemish
and dutch "g" often transforms into a "y" in english :
"dag" becomes "day"
"zeggen" becomes "say"
But if "staan" comes from an old "stahn", so i don't think it's related to
english "stay". What do you think and know about this?
I have another question. You mentionned for the verb "doen" in dutch a
root "/duu-/". But in Dutch the verb has only forms "doen" or "doet" i
think. In french flemish the forms are (for my language) "duun" and "duut".
So i was interested and i asked myself why you used such "/duu-/" root for
the dutch.
I hope i have been clear ( I remain of course at disposal if not)and that
all this was of interest for you.
Cheers
Frederic Baert
----------
From: Liza du Plooy <lizaduplooy at yahoo.com>
Subject: LL-L "Morphology" 2004.03.03 (02) [E]
Ron, jy het geskryf:
"Standard Afrikaans (which has -0 suffixes throughout):
Root: /gaan-/ /staan-/ /duun-/
Infinitive: gaan staan doen
1st sg.: ek gaan ek staan ek doen
1st pl.: wy gaan wy staan wy doen"
Ek kan ongelukkig nie jou vraag antwoord nie, maar wou jou net laar weet dat
ons nie "wy" gebruik vir 1st pl in Afrikaans nie. Die woord is "ons", dus:
ons gaan, ons staan, ons doen.
Groete
Liza du Plooy
----------
From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: Morphology
Hi, Lowlanders!
Dankie, Liza. Ja, ja, dit was natuurlik my fout -- 'n "automatic
pilot"-ding. "What a drongo!" sou ek in australies Engels oor myself sê.
Verskoon my asseblief! My "breinskakelaar" tussen Nedersaksies, Nederlands
en Afrikaans is dikwels defekt ... ;-) Ek stel vertrou in en waardeer die
korreksies van my Afrikaanse vriende op die lys.
Thanks for the very interesting data (above), Frédéric.
You asked:
> I have another question. You mentionned for the verb "doen" in dutch a
> root "/duu-/". But in Dutch the verb has only forms "doen" or "doet" i
> think. In french flemish the forms are (for my language) "duun" and
"duut".
> So i was interested and i asked myself why you used such "/duu-/" root for
> the dutch.
/duu-/ is the underlying (linguistically written) representation of _doe-_.
The spelling <oe> for /uu/ [u:] and /u/ [u] is unique to the Low Franconian
group of language varieties, and using <uu> for /üü/ is also specific to the
Low Franconian group, borrowed from French. In linguistic analyses such
language-specific orthographic devices are disregarded and the true values
are written according to international conventions; thus:
Spelled | Phonemic | Phonetic
oe | /uu/ /u/ | [u:] [u]
uu | /üü/ | [y:]
Accordingly, what is spelled as _doen_ in Dutch is phonemically /duu-(@)n/ a
nd phonetically [du:n].
Did I make myself clear? In other words, try to forget about Dutch spelling
when we deal with phonology.
> But if "staan" comes from an old "stahn", so i don't think it's related to
> english "stay". What do you think and know about this?
Hmmm ... Yes and no ... "To stay" is suspected of being a loan, derived from
Old French _estayer_ (cf. Modern French _étayer_).
All the "weirder" that Afrikaans and Plautdietsch (Mennonite Lowlands Saxon)
have incorporated the /-n-/ into the root (_ek staan_, _ekj stohne_).
Here are some extras:
MODERN ENGLISH:
to do | go | see | stand
I do | go | see | stand
(thou do(e)st | goest | seest | standest)*
he does | goes | sees | stands
we do | go | see | stand
*(obsolete and replaced with plural "you" in most dialects)
OLD ENGLISH:
dōn | gān | sēon~sīon | standan
ic dō(e) | gā(e) | sē(i)a | stande
þū dō(e)st | gā(e)st | sē(i)ast | standest
he dō(e)þ | gā(e)þ | sē(i)aþ | standeþ
wē dōaþ | gāþ | sē(i)aþ | standaþ
W. FRISIAN:
dwaan* | gean | sjen | stean
ik doch | gean (!) | ik sjoch | stiest
do dochst | giest | sjochst | stiest
hy docht | giet | sjocht | stiet
wy dogge | geane (!) | sjogge | steane (!)
*("broken" form, probably from */duaa-n/ < Old Frisian _dua(a)-n_)
LOWLANDS SAXON (Low German, Northern, ANS):
dou(e)n | gaan | sey(e)n | staan
ik dou | ga | sey | sta
du days(t) | gays(t) | süys(t) | stays(t)*
hey dayt | gayt | süyt | stayt**
wy dout~dou(e)n | gaat~gaan | seyt~sey(e)n | staat~staan
*(< older /-est/, e.g. /gaa-est/ > gayst)
** (< older /-et/, e.g. /gaa-et/ > gayt)
(s- = [z], st- = [st])
LOWLANDS SAXON (Low German, Mennonite, orthographic):
doone | go(h)ne | seene~sehne | sto(h)ne
ekj/etj do | go(h) | see~se(h) | sto(h)
du/dü deist | gei(h)st | sitst | stei(h)st
hee deit | gei(h)t | sitt | stei(h)t
wie doone | go(h)ne | seene~sehne | sto(h)ne
LOWLANDS SAXON (Low German, Mennonite, phonemic (ANS):
doune | gane | seyne | stane
ek dou | ga | sey | sta
du/dü dayst | gayst | sitst | stayst*
hey dayt | gayt | sitt | stayt**
wy doune | gane | seyne | stane
*(< older /-est/, e.g. /gaa-est/ > gayst)
** (< older /-et/, e.g. /gaa-et/ > gayt)
(s- = [z], st- = [St])
DUTCH (orthographic):
doen | gaan | zien | staan
ik doe | ga | zie | sta
(jij doet | gaat | ziet | staat)*
hij doet | gaat | ziet | staat
wij doen | gaan | zien | staan
DUTCH (phonemic, ANS):
duun | gaan | syn | staan
ik du | ga | sy | sta
(jey duut | gaat | syt | staat)*
hey duut | gaat | syt | staat
wey duun | gaan | syn | staan
*(former plural replacing widely obsolete _doe /duu/ ...st_)
AFRIKAANS (orthographic):
doen | gaan | sien | staan
ek doen | gaan | sien | staan (!)
(jy doen | gaan | sien | staan (!))*
hy doen | gaan | sien | staan (!)
ons doen | gaan | sien | staan (!)
AFRIKAANS (phonemic, ANS):
duun | gaan | syn | staan
ek duun | gaan | syn | staan (!)
(jey duun | gaan | syn | staan (!))*
hey duun | gaan | syn | staan (!)
ons duun | gaan | syn | staan (!)
*(former plural replacing obsolete _doe /duu/ ...(e)st_)
MISSINGSCH (German on L. Saxon substrate, orthographic):
tun | gehn | sehn | stehn*
ich tu | geh | seh | steh*
du tus(t) | gehs(t) | siehs(t) | stehs(t)*
eä tut | geht | sieht | steht*
wiä tun | gehn | sehn | stehn*
MISSINGSCH (phonemic, ANS):
tuun | geen | seen | steen*
ich tu | ge | se | ste*
du tuus(t) | gees(t) | sys(t) | stees(t)*
er tuut | geet | syt | steet*
wir tuun | geen | seen | steen*
*(s- = [z], st- = [st])
STANDARD GERMAN (orthographic):
tun | gehen | sehen | stehen*
ich tue | gehe | sehe | stehe*
du tust | gehst | siehst | stehst*
er tut | geht | sieht | steht*
wir tun | gehen | sehen | stehen*
STANDARD GERMAN (phonemic, ANS):
tuun | ge(h)en | se(h)en | ste(h)en*
ich tue | ge(h)e | se(h)e | ste(h)e*
du tuust | geest | syst | steest*
er tuut | geet | syt | steet*
wir tuun | ge(h)en | se(h)en | ste(h)en*
*(s- = [z], st- = [St])
Note W. Frisian forms with "encroached" /-n/ marked by (!), also the Flemish
forms for the 1st p. sg., and check them against the Mennonite LS forms.
Considering that a high percentage of Mennonite ancestors went to Western
Prussia from W. Friesland and from various Low Franconian areas, I suspect
that they took /-n-/ with them eastward. I would suggest comparing their
dialects with those (now moribund and extinct) non-Mennonite dialects of
Western and Eastern Prussia. However, I am not sure if this would tell us
anything, since also many non-Mennonites from the farwestern Lowlands
emigrated to those regions, and Frisian and Low Franconian influences are
likely to be fairly wide-spread.
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.
=======================================================================
More information about the LOWLANDS-L
mailing list